|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 7, 2011 23:43:37 GMT -5
"Literature is the written word which uses language to translate meaning, exists for non-practical purposes, and is open to interpretation." "Exists for non-practical purposes"? I believe that literature serves entirely practical purposes. What isn't practical about a gained understanding of the human psyche? If you need "harder" evidence, here's this poem by William Carlos Williams, alerting the reader as to the status of hir missing plums: If I were the person whose plums WCW ate, I'd consider this a fairly practical poem. And to anyone who argues that the form is impractical, I disagree -- it probably did more to diffuse the plum-owner's anger than any prose note could. I took "practical" to mean, in this sense, "something which does not instruct in a mundane activity." Also, WCW is awesome for that poem. I always did enjoy it. |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 7, 2011 23:45:07 GMT -5
I like literature just as much as the next Armadillo, but I certainy wouldn't say it serves any practical purposes (although some critics have disagreed).
|
|
|
|
Post by Eternal Lobster on Jun 7, 2011 23:45:41 GMT -5
"Literature is the written word which uses language to translate meaning, exists for non-practical purposes, and is open to interpretation." "Exists for non-practical purposes"? I believe that literature serves entirely practical purposes. What isn't practical about a gained understanding of the human psyche? If you need "harder" evidence, here's this poem by William Carlos Williams, alerting the reader as to the status of hir missing plums: If I were the person whose plums WCW ate, I'd consider this a fairly practical poem. And to anyone who argues that the form is impractical, I disagree -- it probably did more to diffuse the plum-owner's anger than any prose note could. I am saying this not knowing the context of the poem. But who is to say that this actually happened? Or that he is actually writing to a real person? |
|
|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on Jun 8, 2011 0:01:44 GMT -5
"Exists for non-practical purposes"? I believe that literature serves entirely practical purposes. What isn't practical about a gained understanding of the human psyche? If you need "harder" evidence, here's this poem by William Carlos Williams, alerting the reader as to the status of hir missing plums: If I were the person whose plums WCW ate, I'd consider this a fairly practical poem. And to anyone who argues that the form is impractical, I disagree -- it probably did more to diffuse the plum-owner's anger than any prose note could. I am saying this not knowing the context of the poem. But who is to say that this actually happened? Or that he is actually writing to a real person? Does it make a difference either way? If I were to eat someone else's plums out of the icebox, I'd print this poem out for them. |
|
|
|
Post by Olive on Jun 8, 2011 7:47:14 GMT -5
HOLY CRAP GUYS, I STAY AWAY FOR ONE NIGHT AND-- I'm about to spend every free minute at work catching up in this thread. Also, I love all of you Armadillos for doing this. Literature is: written, speeches, sung, electronic, poetic, and tomatoes. This is my new favorite thing. And, after reading through all fifteen pages, I'm going to be the stubborn one who says that there is no one, all-encompassing definition of "literature," but that it can be defined. And the idea that it is language which conveys meaning and provokes thought resonates the most with me. /0.02 |
|
|
|
Post by cyanea on Jun 8, 2011 11:43:31 GMT -5
To me, literature is written word with merit, whether it be personal or artistic, so it really is a "beauty in the eye of the beholder" thing. I consider my David Eddings books to be literature because they've had more of an effect on me (they were the books that really captured my imagination and got me interested in reading when I was young) than Hamlet. I see the artistic merit in Hamlet, but I place much more value on Belgarath and Polgara.
TL;DR: I think the definition of literature depends on who you talk to and what they value.
|
|
|
|
Post by cmthecla on Jun 8, 2011 17:07:25 GMT -5
I swear I read through this whole thing, but I'm completely lost on where people stand. All I know is that tomatoes are literature now!
My own view is that literature is anything written that relays information and conveys meaning.
And yes, that even includes phonebooks!
|
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 8, 2011 17:16:14 GMT -5
See, all these kind of "literature is what you make of it" assertions make me uncomfortable. As I've said before, if the definition of literature is wholely arbitrary, then how do we know it exists?
|
|
|
|
Post by Olive on Jun 8, 2011 17:50:04 GMT -5
See, all these kind of "literature is what you make of it" assertions make me uncomfortable. As I've said before, if the definition of literature is wholely arbitrary, then how do we know it exists? It exists if your definition allows it to.  |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 8, 2011 17:51:55 GMT -5
See, all these kind of "literature is what you make of it" assertions make me uncomfortable. As I've said before, if the definition of literature is wholely arbitrary, then how do we know it exists? It exists if your definition allows it to. I guess that would depend on all of our definitions of "exist," but then we'd be arguing the semantics of semantics again. |
|
|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on Jun 8, 2011 18:27:29 GMT -5
It exists if your definition allows it to. I guess that would depend on all of our definitions of "exist," but then we'd be arguing the semantics of semantics again. Isn't that the point of being an English major? |
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 8, 2011 18:28:04 GMT -5
I thought we agreed on tomatoes.
|
|
|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on Jun 8, 2011 18:31:06 GMT -5
I thought we agreed on tomatoes. Well, we can't all agree on anything. The forum would implode. |
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 8, 2011 18:34:14 GMT -5
I thought we agreed on tomatoes. Well, we can't all agree on anything. The forum would implode. That's true enough. Well, everyone rejected my canon idea. I feel like we're going to going around in circles. Until at least two people agree on something. |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 8, 2011 19:03:10 GMT -5
I guess that would depend on all of our definitions of "exist," but then we'd be arguing the semantics of semantics again. Isn't that the point of being an English major? I do it for the girls, mostly. |
|
