What is Literature?

[Quark]

Maybe if people spent less time yelling at Harry Potter, Twilight and other books they don't consider worthy of reading the discussion on texts in other threads might take off. We are all different and what is Literature or worth reading and discussing to some of us will not suit everyone.

I agree that's there way too much outrage over Harry Potter and Twilight (do you italicize that?) series, but are you saying that whatever writing is liked and interesting is also Literature? If so, then bestsellers on weight loss, or trashy romance novels are more literary than Hardy's Mayor of Casterbridge or the poetry of Pope--which are hardly ever read, let alone talked about. People often buy and talk about books that they think apply directly to some situation they are in or some problem they're having, and are all those concerns literary. Self-help books abound to coach people out of depression, or diatribes against religion excite lots of interest. I suppose Literature is there to be appreciated and readers should get something from the effort; but, if the measure is their circulation and the attention they receive, then I think what we would consider Literature would change almost monthly. Yet, at the same time, schools and library seem to hang on to the same books. Pope and Hardy--let's stick with those examples--are read and considered literary there. Are they working with a different idea of Literature, or are they just behind the times?

The quote just say the same that I did with more words, but nothing else about quality. Also, definition of Art does not means quality either. There is art that are not good at all.

Okay, there's two points here. One, is the question: "What is Literature?" The other is the question: "Is there a connection between the definition of Literature and literary value?" Obviously, I care more about the first, but let's argue both.

To answer the first question you originally said that:

Literature is what is writen with a message. That is all.

I think this definition misses a change in the term "Literature" that happened a couple centuries ago when the term split between two usages. Many people believe that a woman called Madame de Stael was the first to make this split in a book called On Literature Consider in its Relations with Social Institutions published in 1800 (the date is just added incentive to claim that this book is the one that made this split). After this, the word literature grew to have two definitions. One meant, as you say, whatever messages are in writing, or the entire body of writings on a given subject. The other definition regards Literature as particularly exemplary writings. People have changed their minds on what Literature exemplifies, and so I'm re-asking the much considered question "What is Literature." Or, I suppose to be accurate, I should have said "What is This Seconds Definition of Literature?" The Frye quote above does try to answer this question. It divides written works between those which are merely messages and those which are literary. He says:

Whenever we have an autonomous verbal structure of this kind, we have literature. Whenever this autonomous verbal structure is lacking, we have language.

Now, I've quoted a very small part of Frye's book here, so it's probably unclear what he means exactly. But, he does make a distinction between written messages and literature.


Now, the second question is "Does the definition of Literature affect what we consider literary quality?" You're arguing that, no, it does not:

Also, definition of Art does not means quality either. There is art that are not good at all.

Agreed, there is such a thing as bad art--just as there are bad trains, bad accountants, and bad farmers. But, I think the definitions of the words art, train, accountant, and even farmer help us understand why they are bad. A bad farmer might be one who doesn't grow many crops, or someone who uses too many chemicals and produces unsafe, deformed food. The reason those things make him or her a bad farmer is that they prevent him from doing what he's supposed to be doing: giving us healthy, delicious food. That's the definition of a farmer: one who grows and gives us eatable food. That definition determines whether he's a good or bad farmer. Now, he or she can do plenty of other things we might consider "not good" like, I don't know, cheat on their spouse or be stingy with their change when the Salvation army person is ringing their bell. These things don't make them a bad farmer, though. It would make them a bad husband, wife, or philanthropist. The quality of these things depends upon them fulfilling their duties as defined by what they are. Similarly, a "not good" piece of art fails to what art is supposed to do. A definition of the term art or Literature helps us, then, determine what is good literature and bad literature.

[JCamilo]

I think this definition misses a change in the term "Literature" that happened a couple centuries ago when the term split between two usages. Many people believe that a woman called Madame de Stael was the first to make this split in a book called On Literature Consider in its Relations with Social Institutions published in 1800 (the date is just added incentive to claim that this book is the one that made this split). After this, the word literature grew to have two definitions. One meant, as you say, whatever messages are in writing, or the entire body of writings on a given subject. The other definition regards Literature as particularly exemplary writings. People have changed their minds on what Literature exemplifies, and so I'm re-asking the much considered question "What is Literature." Or, I suppose to be accurate, I should have said "What is This Seconds Definition of Literature?" The Frye quote above does try to answer this question. It divides written works between those which are merely messages and those which are literary. He says:

Literature have always been defined by branches, not since Stael.

Now, I've quoted a very small part of Frye's book here, so it's probably unclear what he means exactly. But, he does make a distinction between written messages and literature.

No, he does not. He does a distinction between random written words without any meaning and a message, who to convey significance, must have some logical structure. Using the word "verbal" already makes his explanation limited (you can imagine poems using less verbs to convey an emotion, etc) but his definition does not distinguish Medical Literature from James Joyce.

Now, the second question is "Does the definition of Literature affect what we consider literary quality?" You're arguing that, no, it does not:

Of course it does not. For you to qualify an object you must first determine what the object is. You may find people arguing that only what is good is the object, but that is a mistake. So, you can have good poetry and bad poetry, but both are poetry.

Agreed, there is such a thing as bad art--just as there are bad trains, bad accountants, and bad farmers. But, I think the definitions of the words art, train, accountant, and even farmer help us understand why they are bad.

Not really. Get the definition of train. It does not tell me if uses too much oil (or watever) to move, and that can be something we may qualify as good or bad train. It does not tell us if it is secure. If it is confortable. If it is fast. So, Japan trains and the old traditional trains are all train, to distuinguish them we must add: Bullet Train (or however), to classify his speed.

A bad farmer might be one who doesn't grow many crops, or someone who uses too many chemicals and produces unsafe, deformed food. The reason those things make him or her a bad farmer is that they prevent him from doing what he's supposed to be doing: giving us healthy, delicious food. That's the definition of a farmer: one who grows and gives us eatable food.

Illogical, the definition of farmer is one who does farming, which is plantation, etc. Not good, because to my health, beans are unhealthy and to you it is not (I hope so). And the guy still a farmer.

That definition determines whether he's a good or bad farmer. Now, he or she can do plenty of other things we might consider "not good" like, I don't know, cheat on their spouse or be stingy with their change when the Salvation army person is ringing their bell. These things don't make them a bad farmer, though. It would make them a bad husband, wife, or philanthropist. The quality of these things depends upon them fulfilling their duties as defined by what they are. Similarly, a "not good" piece of art fails to what art is supposed to do. A definition of the term art or Literature helps us, then, determine what is good literature and bad literature.

A bad piece of art is the one which less quality, that is all. Less intensity, not the absence of effect. There is people that do like Paulo Coelho.

[Quark]

Joreads, I reponded to your post above. I missed itt before, and just saw it this morning.

Literature have always been defined by branches, not since Stael.

Okay, what are the branches? Do you mean like the different shelves in a bookstore: Current Affairs, Humor, Gardening, etc? Do you mean to say that Literature is branch? Or, is Literature referring to all the branches?

No, he does not. He does a distinction between random written words without any meaning and a message, who to convey significance, must have some logical structure. Using the word "verbal" already makes his explanation limited (you can imagine poems using less verbs to convey an emotion, etc) but his definition does not distinguish Medical Literature from James Joyce.

There may have been some confusion since I quoted so small a section. Here's more of that page:

In literature, questions of fact or truth are subordinated to the primary literary aims of producing a structure of words for its own sake, and the sign-values of symbols are subordinated to their importance as a structure of interconnected motifs. Whenever we have an autonomous verbal structure of this kind, we have literature. Whenever this autonomous verbal structure is lacking, we have language, words used instrumentally to help human consciousness do or understand something else. Literature is a specialized form of language, as language is of communication.

The reason for producing the literary structure is apparently that the inward meaning, the self-contained verbal pattern, is the field of the responses connected with pleasure, beauty, and interest... The fact that interest is most easily aroused by such a pattern is familiar to every handler of words, from the poet to the after-diner speaker who digresses from an assertive harangue to present the self-contained structure of verbal interrelationships known as a joke.

Frye isn't saying that Literature is meaningful language and everything else is nonsense. He's proposing that Literature is a special kind of "inward" meaning which is separated from the more descriptive "outward" meaning--he loves these spacial analogies. To combine your example with Frye's, we might say a Joyce novel, like the after-diner joke, is more interested in its own structure and interlocking motifs while the medical textbook resembles the assertive harangue which is more descriptive.

Get the definition of train. It does not tell me if uses too much oil (or watever) to move, and that can be something we may qualify as good or bad train. It does not tell us if it is secure. If it is confortable. If it is fast. So, Japan trains and the old traditional trains are all train, to distuinguish them we must add: Bullet Train (or however), to classify his speed.

What I'm saying is that every thing has its own virtues. To say something is good really is meaningless unless its attached to something. A good train, for example, is not good in the same sense as a good farmer. To say a farmer is good because he's scrupulous is meaningful because a farmer is a person, and it's part of his definition; but, to say the same of train would be ridiculous. A train is neither scrupulous nor unscrupulous. Now, some virtues may overlap. You point to efficiency and speed which are good examples. These are good for many things. An efficient train is nice in the same way an efficient farmer is nice. I would argue, though, that efficiency and speed are not good objectively and universally. They, too, have to be attached to something to know how much we should value them. A columnist for a newspaper needs to be efficient because he or she has a small space to make a large point. Yet, we wouldn't value speed and efficiency to the same degree in a scholar who has much more space and who we look toward for rigor, detail, and support. Careful consideration is a virtue for that position, whereas it would hurt the columnist. Now, we could say that a rigorous, careful person writing a column is still a columnist, but really it would be better to say "That's a scholar writing a column." Similarly, Literature has its own virtues which might overlap with those of other things.

A bad piece of art is the one which less quality, that is all. Less intensity, not the absence of effect. There is people that do like Paulo Coelho.

Getting punched in the face is intense and it creates an effect. Most likely, this doesn't qualify as art. I don't know what the verbal equivalent of a punch in the face is, but I'm guessing it isn't Literature, either. Words like quality, effect, intensity are really just modifiers filling in for nouns. They don't say much of anything. A well-written letter telling me how much of a jerk I am in really intense phrases probably would have more effect on me than Shakespeare's Othello, but I'm guessing Othello is more literary.

[JCamilo]

Joreads,
Okay, what are the branches? Do you mean like the different shelves in a bookstore: Current Affairs, Humor, Gardening, etc? Do you mean to say that Literature is branch? Or, is Literature referring to all the branches?

Oh, medical literature, scientific literature, legal literature, etc.

Frye isn't saying that Literature is meaningful language and everything else is nonsense. He's proposing that Literature is a special kind of "inward" meaning which is separated from the more descriptive "outward" meaning--he loves these spacial analogies. To combine your example with Frye's, we might say a Joyce novel, like the after-diner joke, is more interested in its own structure and interlocking motifs while the medical textbook resembles the assertive harangue which is more descriptive.

Now, as I said the use of verbal make his definition limited. Anyways, he does that, just that he then conclude the verbal construction he give us a bad example. A Map is producing a structure of words for its own sake, and the sign-values of symbols are subordinated to their importance as a structure of interconnected motifs. What Frye does not perceive is that his definition does not exclude what he proposes to excluse. For example: There is a form of Haikai that combine the 3 veses parterns with travel diaries, who are mostly descriptive. They are meant to complete each other, but by Frye he would have to set them apart and conclude one is literature and the other not. Unless you get what he defined and conclude: Even a 10 years old boy when writing a birthday card to his mommy is trying to build a autonomous verbal stucture. The problem of Frye is the use of facts and truth, any self-respected critical would know by know that Facts and truth are neither factual or truthful - they should read borges.

What I'm saying is that every thing has its own virtues. To say something is good really is meaningless unless its attached to something.

There is things that lack virtues, but what I am poiting is that you do not define something for how good they perform, but for what they perform. Of course, at the momment you are saying "It is a good music", it carries on that it does what a Music is.

A good train, for example, is not good in the same sense as a good farmer. To say a farmer is good because he's scrupulous is meaningful because a farmer is a person, and it's part of his definition; but, to say the same of train would be ridiculous. A train is neither scrupulous nor unscrupulous.

The same is too classify a farmer by his speed. However, the definition of farmer is not someone that is scrupulous neither the definition of train is something that is fast.

Now, some virtues may overlap. You point to efficiency and speed which are good examples. These are good for many things. An efficient train is nice in the same way an efficient farmer is nice. I would argue, though, that efficiency and speed are not good objectively and universally.

Then you agree with me. The definition of Train is not basead on subjective criteria - Some may like an old and slow train because of his past, while others will thing it is bad because they less efficient and you need to get to your destination quickly. But both individuals would agree they are talking about trains.

Getting punched in the face is intense and it creates an effect. Most likely, this doesn't qualify as art.

I didnt gave any defintion of art. I said the difference between good and bad art is the intensity of the effect they provoke, not the absence of the effect.

I don't know what the verbal equivalent of a punch in the face is, but I'm guessing it isn't Literature, either. Words like quality, effect, intensity are really just modifiers filling in for nouns.

Agree, hence we do not use qualitatives to define anything.

They don't say much of anything. A well-written letter telling me how much of a jerk I am in really intense phrases probably would have more effect on me than Shakespeare's Othello, but I'm guessing Othello is more literary.

It will only have more literary merit which means the aesthetical vallue of it. But both would still be literature.

[*Classic*Charm*]

I think a lot of the "definition"s being proposed, as well as the discussion surrounding the characteristics of "literature" thus far has been in reference to the more mechanical aspects writing- sentence structure, expressive phrasing, etc. This is obviously something to be considered, but at the same time there is a quality to what we consider "literature" that makes it stand apart from, say, romance novels.

This quality has to do with the work's ability to speak to its reader. Many novels that are considered literature are so because their message has and continues to transcend generations and the economic change, war, scientific discovery, etc. that goes along with it.

I do not mean to say, of course, that love transcends time and therefore any novel written with love as it's thematic focus is literature. This is where the examination of mechanical language is necessary. It is an author's ability to use mechanical language to pass along a message in a manner that does not require an understanding of the reader's current society (for lack of a better word) to apply. A work's ability to transcend time and reach readers worldwide is what I think makes a work Literature.

This is where we can distinguish between Austen and a crappy romance novel: not the structure of her prose alone, but the fact that despite the obviously different time in which we live from that in which she wrote, Jane's novels still teach us about many things, not just love, in a manner which manages to be relevant and personal for readers everywhere, of all ages.

This is why the author list for this website is limited based on a time period, as well as why there is not as much modern fiction being discussed here. I think this also plays into why it seems that many readers only seem to read "the classics"- perhaps if one reads enough of what is universally considered "good" and "worth reading", eventually said person will turn to modern fiction and be better able to evaluate it's merit.

[Joreads]

People read for different reasons we need to remember that not everyone that picks up a book to read wants to analysis it six ways to Sunday and is there anything wrong with that? I personally don’t think that simply because something is popular it should be dismissed out of hand as not being Literature. If you choose not to read it then so be it but don’t rubbish others if that is what they select to read. If people want to read HP and Twilight (I will own up here I am a fan) then why shouldn’t they be able to without being labeled a reader of “trash” something I have to admit I find offensive.
I guess the point I am trying to make is Does there have to one set definition of Literature when there are so many different types of readers? Surely my literature and yours can be different? I personally would not call self help books literature but if that is all that someone reads is that then not their brand of literature? Likewise does it matter if what is considered literature changes over time?
Let’s not forget that people talk about what they enjoy is that part of the reason that Pope is not talked about – I cannot answer that one as I don’t read Poetry. What I can tell you is that just because I read books like HP and Twilight it does not mean that I don’t appreciate authors like Hardy and recently Shakespeare.
I think schools are teaching what they think is literature and what they think has to be taught. If we say that only classics can be considered literature is there any point in another book being published?

[JCamilo]

I think a lot of the "definition"s being proposed, as well as the discussion surrounding the characteristics of "literature" thus far has been in reference to the more mechanical aspects writing- sentence structure, expressive phrasing, etc. This is obviously something to be considered, but at the same time there is a quality to what we consider "literature" that makes it stand apart from, say, romance novels.

Romance novels you mean Novels with romantic aspect? Do you mean Wuthering Heights or Madame Bovary? So those two works stand apart from what we consider literature?
Ok, in this universe Flaubert and Emily Bronte didnt produce literary works...

This quality has to do with the work's ability to speak to its reader. Many novels that are considered literature are so because their message has and continues to transcend generations and the economic change, war, scientific discovery, etc. that goes along with it.

Do you understand that newspapers sell a lot because lots of readers can get messages from it? They do have a capacity to speak to its reader and have no intention to transcend generation.

I do not mean to say, of course, that love transcends time and therefore any novel written with love as it's thematic focus is literature. This is where the examination of mechanical language is necessary. It is an author's ability to use mechanical language to pass along a message in a manner that does not require an understanding of the reader's current society (for lack of a better word) to apply. A work's ability to transcend time and reach readers worldwide is what I think makes a work Literature.

Do you mean that everytime Dante sent to hell people he knew or contemporary to him, he was no longer writing literature, despite we are talking about the Divine Comedy?

This is where we can distinguish between Austen and a crappy romance novel: not the structure of her prose alone, but the fact that despite the obviously different time in which we live from that in which she wrote, Jane's novels still teach us about many things, not just love, in a manner which manages to be relevant and personal for readers everywhere, of all ages.

No sense. This is the difference between a great writer and a bad writer, not about the object itself.

This is why the author list for this website is limited based on a time period, as well as why there is not as much modern fiction being discussed here.

I may be mistaken, but I am think the author list does not include the modern writers because the owners have no intention to pay authoral rights. Even because they give a lot of space for member's own works, so claims that there is no space for today writers seems a bit off of the mark.

I think this also plays into why it seems that many readers only seem to read "the classics"- perhaps if one reads enough of what is universally considered "good" and "worth reading", eventually said person will turn to modern fiction and be better able to evaluate it's merit.

Ok, I think most people who can defend well their cheese read classics because they represent 5000 years of literature, and modern writings only 10,20,30 years. It is quite obvious there is more works in 5000 years than 30, it is quite obvious the chance to find quality and variety is bigger and that classics have been tested by time, so they often represent the best of what was written during that past and not the only material written.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Romance novels you mean Novels with romantic aspect? Do you mean Wuthering Heights or Madame Bovary? So those two works stand apart from what we consider literature?
Ok, in this universe Flaubert and Emily Bronte didnt produce literary works...

Clearly that's not what I mean. Keep reading, J, my post said more about this already. I'm going to go so far as to say that my idea of Literature is more than likely the same as yours. When I say "romance novels", I mean the two-dollar pink paperback porn-in-written-form novels.

Let's not be too sarcastic, shall we?

Do you understand that newspapers sell a lot because lots of readers can get messages from it? They do have a capacity to speak to its reader and have no intention to transcend generation.

You're taking everything I say extremely literally. I think you're misinterpreting my use of "message". Again, I thought it was pretty obvious I meant a moral, life-lesson-type message, not "your local politician is dishonest" or "a car crashed on the highway".

And as I said, my entire point is that Literature transcends generations. You have proved my point in arguing that newspapers do not transcend and are therefore not Literature. Am I missing something?

Do you mean that everytime Dante sent to hell people he knew or contemporary to him, he was no longer writing literature, despite we are talking about the Divine Comedy?

Of course not. Again, I don't see your argument. Dante used expressive language and teaches us about the nature of evil: something transcendent, and his work continues to be read and applicable and is therefore, by my definition, Literature.

No sense. This is the difference between a great writer and a bad writer, not about the object itself.

No sense? What does that mean? If you mean "You are making no sense", then that I'll answer.

In that case, no, I'm not distinguishing between a good author and a bad one, specifically. If an author happens to have several works that fit the criteria so be it. Here I am saying that Jane Austen's use of good language and the messages contained in her work allow the work itself to continue to be relevant and enjoyed. Pick any fluff romance novel (please keep in mind my description in my answer to your first question), and you'll find that no such novel will be considered Literature, except in the case of Jo's definition which is a completely different situation altogether. Of course it is the author's techniques that are the determining factor here. I don't see how one could possibly attempt to define Literature without distinguishing the author as a "great" one.

I may be mistaken, but I am think the author list does not include the modern writers because the owners have no intention to pay authoral rights. Even because they give a lot of space for member's own works, so claims that there is no space for today writers seems a bit off of the mark.

At no point did I infer that there is no space for today's writers! Please read more closely. All I said was that the website is geared to "Literature", and my definition backs up the list of authors this site provides as being Literary.

Ok, I think most people who can defend well their cheese read classics because they represent 5000 years of literature, and modern writings only 10,20,30 years. It is quite obvious there is more works in 5000 years than 30, it is quite obvious the chance to find quality and variety is bigger and that classics have been tested by time, so they often represent the best of what was written during that past and not the only material written.

Again, it appears that you're agreeing with me! My argument is that people read classics because they have proven the tests of time and relevance. I simply further that thought by suggesting that perhaps once one is well-acquainted with the type of literature that is able to transcend time, one will be able to see similar qualities in some new literature and perhaps gain a sense of which new works may someday join the list we find published on this site.

No need to be short, J. I'm only stating my opinion.

[JCamilo]

Clearly that's not what I mean. Keep reading, J, my post said more about this already. I'm going to go so far as to say that my idea of Literature is more than likely the same as yours. When I say "romance novels", I mean the two-dollar pink paperback porn-in-written-form novels.

But those are just the place where the work is printed. It does not tell me anything about the work itself. If I print and sell Shakespeare in cheap and popular editions he ceases to be?

Let's not be too sarcastic, shall we?

Ironic, isnt Ironic better?

You're taking everything I say extremely literally. I think you're misinterpreting my use of "message". Again, I thought it was pretty obvious I meant a moral, life-lesson-type message, not "your local politician is dishonest" or "a car crashed on the highway".

Why not? I mean, Daniel Dafoe was a journalist and wrote a piece about a plague (that he never saw, but anyways) and it is literature. We have some arguments for great masterworks who are absolutelly banal - Tchekhov have a short story about puppies who are born and how happy the kids were. He do have a short piece about a guy who was arrested by stealing stuff from trainlines... Some great writers just wrote journey diaries...

And as I said, my entire point is that Literature transcends generations. You have proved my point in arguing that newspapers do not transcend and are therefore not Literature. Am I missing something?

Good literature transcends generation. You will find that among Dante peers there were poets who we forgot. And who said newspapers have no such effect? That is like saying History does not do the same, since Journalism is pretty much the diary register of History. Wouldn't Truman Capote be transcendetal ? Or the guys who discovered Nixon?

Of course not. Again, I don't see your argument. Dante used expressive language and teaches us about the nature of evil: something transcendent, and his work continues to be read and applicable and is therefore, by my definition, Literature.

Several meetings that Dante had were among people who, without knowing the life of Dante, we have no idea who they were. Our current society cannt understand it at all, so parts of Divine Comedy would cease to be literature?
Plus there is a mistake, understandment does not define literature. People still do not understand Kafka, Joyce, Dante, etc that well. Some forms of literature, such alegories, are meant to be hard to understand.

No sense? What does that mean? If you mean "You are making no sense", then that I'll answer.

In that case, no, I'm not distinguishing between a good author and a bad one, specifically. If an author happens to have several works that fit the criteria so be it. Here I am saying that Jane Austen's use of good language and the messages contained in her work allow the work itself to continue to be relevant and enjoyed. Pick any fluff romance novel (please keep in mind my description in my answer to your first question), and you'll find that no such novel will be considered Literature, except in the case of Jo's definition which is a completely different situation altogether. Of course it is the author's techniques that are the determining factor here. I don't see how one could possibly attempt to define Literature without distinguishing the author as a "great" one.

Because Shakespeare wrote some crap plays. They still literature, as they are a product of the same techniques, will (no pun) and techniques of Hamlet. He just failed in input quality here. And when you classify romance novels, you forgot that once Madame Bovary was such pink girly low class romance novel. That Moby Dick was mumble jumble, Poe vulgarity cheap tales, Lolita could be porn... Some people may consider that as not literature, but I can just imagine: If you think there is good literature, you must remember something to be good must be superior to something worst. Otherwise we are all plainly leveled. You may say: They are superior of the almost good like Dumas or Stoker. And why not to Stephen King and Tolkien as well ? Why not Clive Baker or Margaret Weiss? Because you determine them to be bad... bad what? Books? Then....

At no point did I infer that there is no space for today's writers! Please read more closely. All I said was that the website is geared to "Literature", and my definition backs up the list of authors this site provides as being Literary.

As I said I am sure they would love to have J.K.Rowling here, but their lawyer probally told them to be a bad idea. As I understand, when an author is in public domain and they have english material, they add the author. It was not a judgment of merit but a pratical one.

Again, it appears that you're agreeing with me! My argument is that people read classics because they have proven the tests of time and relevance. I simply further that thought by suggesting that perhaps once one is well-acquainted with the type of literature that is able to transcend time, one will be able to see similar qualities in some new literature and perhaps gain a sense of which new works may someday join the list we find published on this site.

I am sure everyone does, altough the hard thing is to demand to find the quality basead on popularity. I would say Neil Gaiman have qualities that classic authors do have, but he does not spawn controversial threads here. It is crime labeling a few popular authors as bad...

No need to be short, J. I'm only stating my opinion.

Ok, opinions are meant to be argued... that is I am being Ironic? Anyways CC, J is short (pun now!)

[stellaf]

Hello everyone,

I think this is a very useful article on Literature. I found a lot of useful information here. I think; Literature, questions of fact or truth are subordinated to the primary literary aims of producing a structure of words for its own sake, and the sign-values of symbols are subordinated to their importance as a structure of interconnected motifs.


Stella

Adult Dating

[Quark]

It will only have more literary merit which means the aesthetical vallue of it. But both would still be literature.

Now we're back to where we started, JCamilo. I'm trying to show that many people use the word "Literature" the way I did in my first post. Literature, in this sense, means works with--as you put it--"literary merit." I quoted two prominent writers in my previous posts who use the word this way, and it doesn't seem like others responding to the thread are having difficulty understanding the topic. You might use the word more broadly--and I think that is a valid use of the word--but I'm referring to the more selective definition. The questions, then, is: "What is Literature (works with 'literary merit')?"

I personally don’t think that simply because something is popular it should be dismissed out of hand as not being Literature.

I think that's true, but at the same time I think that popularity isn't the only measure of literary achievement. In fact, mass appeal seems to have only an incidental relation to what gets called Literature. Some works are instantly greeted with praise and continue to be enjoyed well after publication, but are scarcely ever confused with literature. Dickens' A Christmas Carrol is probably one of his best-known and liked works, yet most people would consider Great Expectations or A Tale of Two Cities greater literary accomplishments. Books can be both popular and literary, but it doesn't seem like they have to be.

If people want to read HP and Twilight (I will own up here I am a fan) then why shouldn’t they be able to without being labeled a reader of “trash” something I have to admit I find offensive.

For clarity, maybe I should start a second thread: "What is Trash?" I don't want anyone to assume that whatever isn't literary is immediately trash, and I certainly don't mean to incriminate HP and Twilight readers. I'm just suggesting there might be a different experience reading a literary work as opposed to a non-literary work, and that we might work to define what that difference is.

I guess the point I am trying to make is Does there have to one set definition of Literature when there are so many different types of readers? Surely my literature and yours can be different?

You could be on to something, but do you think that there are similar reasons that causes people to consider something literary? Even if two readers pick different books as their examples of Literature, do you think that perhaps their justification for doing so might be similar?

What I can tell you is that just because I read books like HP and Twilight it does not mean that I don’t appreciate authors like Hardy and recently Shakespeare.

True, and I think you might be a better reader for being able to appreciate both. Do you see a difference, though, between reading Shakespeare and reading HP? Do you approach both the same way? Do you have the same expectations of each?

I think you're misinterpreting my use of "message". Again, I thought it was pretty obvious I meant a moral, life-lesson-type message, not "your local politician is dishonest" or "a car crashed on the highway".

Classic, although JCamillo is being a little difficult here, he may have a point. How do you distinguish between the message you might get from a newspaper and those that come from Literature? What is a literary message? Is it merely a moral, or is it something more abstract?

my entire point is that Literature transcends generations.

Literature does seem to have some permanence. Let me just clarify, though, you attribute that to its use of language?

[Joreads]

(I think that's true, but at the same time I think that popularity isn't the only measure of literary achievement. In fact, mass appeal seems have only an incidental relation to what get called Literature. Some works are instantly greeted with praise and continued to be enjoyed after publication, but are scarcely ever confused with literature. Dickens' A Christmas Carrol is probably one of his best-known and liked works, yet most people would consider Great Expectations or A Tale of Two Cities greater literary accomplishments. Books can be both popular and literary, but it doesn't seem like they have to be.)

I agree totally with this part of the post and I am by no means saying that popularity is the means by the literary merit of a book should be judged. It just seems that because something does become popular some people are willing to dismiss it out of hand and I don’t feel that does the reader the novel or the author justice. So if something is unpopular can it still be literary? If the answer is yes than what value would it be if no one wanted to read it?

(For clarity, maybe I should start a second thread: "What is Trash?" I don't want anyone to assume that whatever isn't literary is immediately trash, and I certainly don't mean to incriminate HP and Twilight readers. I'm just suggesting there might be a different experience reading a literary work as opposed to a non-literary work, and that we might work to define what that difference is.)

That was me venting I guess and I really don’t like the term trash –one man’s trash is another man’s treasure after all. Maybe we can use that term “non Literary” rather than trash I kind of like that. As to the experience that you gain from reading either type of novel wouldn’t that depend on why you are reading them? I read HP and Twilight for enjoyment but I am sure that you can find people that read Dickens for enjoyment. I read “literary novels” to broaden my outlook and take me beyond myself and yes sometimes I enjoy them. – Not really helping you with this one am I sorry. Maybe that is something we need to consider why do people read books that are considered literary – just throwing that one in there.

(You could be on to something, but do you think that there are similar reasons that causes people to consider something literary? Even if two readers pick different books as their examples of Literature, do you think that perhaps their justification for doing so might be similar? )

Preconceived notions and what they have been told is literary I would hazard a guess are the main reason people label books as literary. Does anyone ever make up their own minds on something like this or are they reading it from a list that someone else created?

(True, and I think you might be a better reader for being able to appreciate both. Do you see a difference, though, between reading Shakespeare and reading HP? Do you approach both the same way? Do you have the same expectations of each?)

Yes I see the difference in reading Shakespeare and HP and my reasons for doing so are very different you are right. I had to think about how I approach them both for a while and you are right I do approach them differently. Books like HP I simply find somewhere comfortable to read and off I go. Shakespeare I usually read sitting at my desk (funny I never realized that until now). I see them more as a chore than I do enjoyment – (that is my bias there and my math mind kicking and screaming at the prospect and I am not suggesting that is the same for every reader). I see Shakespeare (and others) as something that I should and do take very seriously when reading. When I read HP and the like I want to be dragged into another world where I can forget myself and everything else for awhile. Books like Shakespeare keep me very grounded in the present as I read them and try to understand them.

[JCamilo]

Now we're back to where we started, JCamilo. I'm trying to show that many people use the word "Literature" the way I did in my first post. Literature, in this sense, means works with--as you put it--"literary merit." I quoted two prominent writers in my previous posts who use the word this way, and it doesn't seem like others responding to the thread are having difficulty understanding the topic. You might use the word more broadly--and I think that is a valid use of the word--but I'm referring to the more selective definition. The questions, then, is: "What is Literature (works with 'literary merit')?"

Once you define literature, then you can talk about the merits. The Merits of Edward Gibbons and the Merits of Dante are different. Even Dante "Convivio" is different from the Divine Comedy. Plus, a good definition must resist to tests, we must have a definition that can have Plato, Shakespeare, Bacon...
Now, Charmed Classic is right that you can identify the literary merit by its permanency. And yes, it is about how the language was used, because the language is used to build plot, characters, rythim, ideas, information...
I believe J.K.Rowling will be just one more with time because she does not excell at plot, characters, there is no relevant poetry in her work, no sense of novelty... It can provoke enjoyment, but I am glad to tell that time is a grump dude, he is not so easily pleased. But I may be wrong, I am just human and flawed, and if I am wrong, I will be the one erased and people will remember her.

[*Classic*Charm*]

But those are just the place where the work is printed. It does not tell me anything about the work itself. If I print and sell Shakespeare in cheap and popular editions he ceases to be?

Of course it says something about the work! To quote Marshall McLuhan, "The medium is the message". If a publisher isn't going to put any effort into the appearance of his or her product, because a book is after all a product), obviously it's not worth it. Despite the cliche, there is something to be said for judging a book by its cover. Having "Harlequin Romance" on the cover definitely tells me something.

Ironic, isnt Ironic better?

Maybe just this once

Why not? I mean, Daniel Dafoe was a journalist and wrote a piece about a plague (that he never saw, but anyways) and it is literature. We have some arguments for great masterworks who are absolutelly banal - Tchekhov have a short story about puppies who are born and how happy the kids were. He do have a short piece about a guy who was arrested by stealing stuff from trainlines... Some great writers just wrote journey diaries...

This point is harder for me to contest because I'm not familiar with the pieces you mention, as far as I know. I feel like these are something I'd have to read before I can discredit them or your theory behind them.

Good literature transcends generation. You will find that among Dante peers there were poets who we forgot. And who said newspapers have no such effect? That is like saying History does not do the same, since Journalism is pretty much the diary register of History. Wouldn't Truman Capote be transcendetal ? Or the guys who discovered Nixon?

I think there's a difference between Journalism and newspaper headings. Within one section of a newspaper one can easily distinguish between:
An informative story
-a car crashed here
-4 cars were involved
-it was the blue car's fault
-the highway will be closed until tuesday
-one person was killed and

A jounalistic piece
-something along the lines of Capote's work, where perspective plays a huge role, amongst other things

This is where we document history, not in the shock value goings on of most headlines. So yes, I can agree with you that Literature can be found here.

Several meetings that Dante had were among people who, without knowing the life of Dante, we have no idea who they were. Our current society cannt understand it at all, so parts of Divine Comedy would cease to be literature?

I don't understand you, here. I'm not sure how this is relevant. Please clarify

Plus there is a mistake, understandment does not define literature. People still do not understand Kafka, Joyce, Dante, etc that well. Some forms of literature, such alegories, are meant to be hard to understand.

I never said that understanding defines literature. I said that interpretation of and connection to a message defines literature, as well as its transcendental nature.

Because Shakespeare wrote some crap plays. They still literature, as they are a product of the same techniques, will (no pun) and techniques of Hamlet. He just failed in input quality here. And when you classify romance novels, you forgot that once Madame Bovary was such pink girly low class romance novel. That Moby Dick was mumble jumble, Poe vulgarity cheap tales, Lolita could be porn... Some people may consider that as not literature, but I can just imagine: If you think there is good literature, you must remember something to be good must be superior to something worst. Otherwise we are all plainly leveled. You may say: They are superior of the almost good like Dumas or Stoker. And why not to Stephen King and Tolkien as well ? Why not Clive Baker or Margaret Weiss? Because you determine them to be bad... bad what? Books? Then....

I'll agree with you on that! Shakespeare did write some crap plays, and yes, I concede that they are considered literature. I suppose they have been grouped in because their author wrote so many works that are worth reading. Are those plays still being studied? If so, there must be something there! But- are you saying that Hamlet is crap? Of that I can't agree! I was thinking more of some of the minor plays that have not been read by a single person I've come across.

As for your argument about Madame Bovary, I suppose those who considered it pink and fluffy were missing something that further generations found useful- her ability to transcend time won out. If a Harlequin romance novel ever comes to be considered Literature universally, I'll eat my words.

And of course, as for the other authors you mentioned, personal opinion is going to play into it. There may be people who consider Lolita pornographic (in a negative sense- I don't want to get into arguments about porn), but the majority has seen value and merit in it, and therefore its status stands. As for the other authors you mention- I do not say that there is literature, and what does not fall into this category is not worth reading. There is an in between, I suppose, and into that falls a good quality story that we may carry on for generations that doesn't carry a message? I don't know, you've got me thinking on this one!

As I said I am sure they would love to have J.K.Rowling here, but their lawyer probally told them to be a bad idea. As I understand, when an author is in public domain and they have english material, they add the author. It was not a judgment of merit but a pratical one.

Of this, I have no idea, J.

I am sure everyone does, altough the hard thing is to demand to find the quality basead on popularity. I would say Neil Gaiman have qualities that classic authors do have, but he does not spawn controversial threads here. It is crime labeling a few popular authors as bad...

I'm not familiar with Neil Gaiman either. I'm thinking now that I'm not well-enough read for this argument.

No, quality is not solely based on popularity. It's a bunch of things that I'm tired of typing haha. Yes, I agree with you that instantly labeling popular authors is bad is a crime. They have more important tests to endure before one can label them as bad or not literary.

Ok, opinions are meant to be argued... that is I am being Ironic? Anyways CC, J is short (pun now!)

Yes, they are indeed. Haha, well J, I do love a good pun.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Classic, although JCamillo is being a little difficult here, he may have a point. How do you distinguish between the message you might get from a newspaper and those that come from Literature? What is a literary message? Is it merely a moral, or is it something more abstract?



Literature does seem to have some permanence. Let me just clarify, though, you attribute that to its use of language?

See my above reply to J for your answer, Quark I'll go into more detail if you'd like.

Use of language is only a part of what makes Literature permanent. Language is important in that the manner in which a message is conveyed results in it's transcendental nature. Does that make sense as a sort of summary?