|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 13, 2011 21:53:39 GMT -5
By that I meant that Dickens is not going to be held up to the same standards as an IM conversation between two friends. Nor can a speech by the president and a conversation one has over breakfast.
Of course, that is very shaky and I think mostly relies on opinion.... which is the whole problem in the first place. But if someone holds what's written on the back of a cereal box above Shakespeare I will question your reason for becoming an English major.
And with the fact, that not everyone who reads literature is an English or Literature major, in mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 13, 2011 22:43:40 GMT -5
By that I meant that Dickens is not going to be held up to the same standards as an IM conversation between two friends. Nor can a speech by the president and a conversation one has over breakfast. Of course, that is very shaky and I think mostly relies on opinion.... which is the whole problem in the first place. But if someone holds what's written on the back of a cereal box above Shakespeare I will question your reason for becoming an English major. And with the fact, that not everyone who reads literature is an English or Literature major, in mind. See, I can agree with the basic premise of something like this. No, an IM conversation should not be considered amongst the same class as Dickens' work, and that's a really easy example, but knowing how blurred the line gets closer to the middle is what worries me. |
|
|
|
Post by djcarter on Jun 13, 2011 22:55:07 GMT -5
...but knowing how blurred the line gets closer to the middle is what worries me. Saying that, how would you feel about a definition of literature that states that the author of the work must intend for that work to be literature? E.g. differentiation of a great work of abstract expressionism with my own aimless throwing of paint onto a canvas. One is art, one is not. |
|
|
|
Post by iamahexagon on Jun 13, 2011 23:57:17 GMT -5
A Book. What if we make the definition of literature any story that is in the format of a book or has an ability to be put down in a book.
This would change depending on how narrowly or vague we make the definition.
If only written word:
Anything that is a book with a majority of the space being words.
If only written word with the 'sphere' of oral literature:
Any story that has the ability to be written down in a book.
If anything, as long as it can be analyzed:
Anything that can be put into a book.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 13, 2011 23:59:34 GMT -5
But then, what is a book?
|
|
|
|
Post by iamahexagon on Jun 14, 2011 0:23:23 GMT -5
In my opinion, a book is sheets of paper with protective covers on each side.
|
|
|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on Jun 14, 2011 0:54:53 GMT -5
In my opinion, a book is sheets of paper with protective covers on each side. Technically, that's a codex -- a variety of book -- as opposed to accordions, scrolls, venetian blinds, and many other binding styles. This question becomes much more complex when approaching it as a book artist -- it's like "literature" in that everyone defines the "book" differently. The most commonly accepted definition is that "it's a book if the artist says it's a book," but then you come across jackasses who say that their left toe is a book, and it gets complicated again. Also, I go away for two days and this thread doubles in size! I am proud but intimidated. |
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 14, 2011 1:07:13 GMT -5
Trust Dodger to come back and make a perfectly good discussion of italian food and booze get back on track (kidding. n.n). I'm a moderator on a few other boards, so I tend to steer threads into going back "on track". I'm all for tangents, but threads that get derailed irritate me like none other. Also, Italian food is delicious and I will likely be straight-edge soon-ish. I'm still deciding if it's a lifestyle I want. |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 14, 2011 2:30:20 GMT -5
...but knowing how blurred the line gets closer to the middle is what worries me. Saying that, how would you feel about a definition of literature that states that the author of the work must intend for that work to be literature? E.g. differentiation of a great work of abstract expressionism with my own aimless throwing of paint onto a canvas. One is art, one is not. I'm not much concerned with the author's intention, so I personally wouldn't be interested in that definition. |
|
|
|
Post by djcarter on Jun 14, 2011 4:16:58 GMT -5
I'm not much concerned with the author's intention, so I personally wouldn't be interested in that definition. Not at all? I would say that a work of literature is a collection of words deliberately chosen by the author to produce a work of art. If there's no organisation to the words - or otherwise no intent by the author - what's to stop an IM conversation being literature? As for the backs of cereal boxes, I feel they do not produce a work of art. The author intends for them to be practical, not aesthetic. If not the author's intention, then whose? The interpretation of the reader? If this is the case, we arrive at many different definitions of what is literature and what isn't. Which is acceptable, but we're looking for commonalities in a definition. Then the task is looking for what's similar in the many interpretations, if that makes sense... |
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 14, 2011 10:11:33 GMT -5
djcarter : You should check out the "Is the author dead?" thread. The same argument is being fought there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eternal Lobster on Jun 14, 2011 10:16:28 GMT -5
Trust Dodger to come back and make a perfectly good discussion of italian food and booze get back on track (kidding. n.n). I'm a moderator on a few other boards, so I tend to steer threads into going back "on track". I'm all for tangents, but threads that get derailed irritate me like none other. I feel that ~10 pages of tangent related material could be removed from this thread. It is a freaking monster. I still don't see how everyone is going to come up with a universal definition. It just isn't going to work. |
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 14, 2011 10:40:08 GMT -5
I'm a moderator on a few other boards, so I tend to steer threads into going back "on track". I'm all for tangents, but threads that get derailed irritate me like none other. I feel that ~10 pages of tangent related material could be removed from this thread. It is a freaking monster. I still don't see how everyone is going to come up with a universal definition. It just isn't going to work. Nothing worth an actual effort ever comes easily. |
|
|
|
Post by Olive on Jun 14, 2011 13:54:19 GMT -5
Um, I think red wine is literature. Just putting that out there. This. I believe that this is the most perfect thing said. At the very least, red wine is an awesome contributor to literature/the analysis of it. I still don't see how everyone is going to come up with a universal definition. It just isn't going to work. A universal definition shall never exist. No matter how broad-yet-refined a definition you come up with, someone will always point at something included and say "that's not literature." Because it is a personal opinion based (very loosely) within the broadest definition. This entire thread is fruitless, honestly, but entertaining/a good place to develop argumentative skills. |
|
|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on Jun 14, 2011 13:56:55 GMT -5
I feel that ~10 pages of tangent related material could be removed from this thread. It is a freaking monster. I still don't see how everyone is going to come up with a universal definition. It just isn't going to work. Nothing worth an actual effort ever comes easily. The point isn't to come up with a universal definition, but to discuss the possibilities of any one person's definition. |
|
