What is Literature?

[Zee.]

Most literature presents an idea or an exploration of some kind.

Books such as say, Harry Potter and Twilight are books to be read, I believe, simply as a story. People are going to argue this and say that there is underlining messages in Twilight and there's this and there's that.. but I disagree. She had a dream, thought it would make an interesting story and wrote about it. That's the difference between exploring an idea, a concept, an understanding - and presenting it, and then simply writing for entertainment.

Twilight and Harry Potter do not come under the title literature. Never will. Even the authors themselves agree with this.

I think people are getting overly defensive over books such as the above because they think it's a direct attack when someone makes the comment that they're not literature.

Children's picture books aren't literature - it doesn't make them any less valuable. Same goes with such books as Harry Potter. However, Harry Potter fueled the imaginations of millions of people, so maybe Harry Potter offered more to the world than Tolstoy ever could. The only people who regard literature as being more important than such books as Harry Potter are the ones who defend it so and think that anyone who regards a book as anything but literature, is making an attack. Like I said before, people get defensive and it's really quite stupid..

They're just, different.

[JCamilo]

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.

The medium still the same. I think you have good intentions and see literature with good eyes, but if a editor does not put effort is because he does think it is good for his sales. That is all.
Shakespeare didnt even bothered to publish a final version of his plays, guys like Emily Dickinson and Kafka published too little during their lives, Poe last work, Eureka, was published only because he was a friend of the editor, even so, he did not put much effort on it. Publishing is just a small part of the process - Dan Brown gets quality editions after all...
Besides, if you what you said is true, no editor should put any effort in any book, since he will only know if it is literature years ahead..

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. e]

Of course, the highlights and such have the same vallue as titles of books. Alone they are meaningless, but the news are often just informative.

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

During the Comedy Dante places in hell several individuals that only are know to people around his time. The divine comedy itself does not explain who they are, at all. So, your society have no idea about it...

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.

Here lies it, interpretation can lead not many things, but not exactly the message. There is still authors who we have no idea about their message as well.

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.

I am sure Shakespeare specialists still study the crap plays and people read it. So, you see, quality does not define literature, and it can not be the author as well, since Shakespeare may write in a napkin several words without meaning and because he wrote, it will be literature. Of course not. They are literature because they are written text with the same objective of Hamlet, which of course, is not crap.

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.

But this could tell you something : Definitions appeal to universality. If it needs to be judged by what one person may eat or not, it ceases to be creadible as definition.

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!

In literature style is substance. Sometimes a text will survive despite the message being lost (in fact, we do not think the Roman Empire is great like Virgil did) but the aesthetic vallue is there. The message is relevant if you think of Herodotos, who is writing history.
More, your definition of literature does not consider that in 1800 Lyrical Ballads was not literature, since it was not read yet by the generations to come, and now, the same object is literature?

[Quark]

Hi, limajean. Welcome to the discussion. It's good to get another perspective on this literary "message" we've been talking about. Tonight I've run out of time to respond to everyone (Wednesdays are really hard for me--I teach two classes and take two more myself), but tomorrow I'll post a good response. Also, I want to put forward some ideas of my own. So far It's been hard just keeping up with everyone else, but hopefully tomorrow I can post something original myself.