|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 14, 2011 19:09:51 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... Counter-example: While recording Kid A, Radiohead's Thom Yorke would often pull words and phrases out of a hat to determine lyrics. Since he didn't deliberately choose those words, would that mean the lyrics aren't literature? Another counter-example: it is my intention to create literature, but I ended up making a bowl. Is my bowl then literature based on my intention? Further counter-example: I'm speaking and someone transcribes what I'm saying. Later, they record the conversation in a book they've written called "Conversations." Is my conversation not literature just because I didn't intend to create literature when I spoke? With this definition, we'd have to define both intention and art. |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 14, 2011 19:11:23 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. You're disrupting my willful suspension of disbelief. |
|
|
|
Post by Eternal Lobster on Jun 14, 2011 19:15:09 GMT -5
I seem to recall that I proposed the personal definition idea earrrrrlly on in the thread and it did not fly very well with some people who wanted a universal one. I think y'all are just feeding a troll  I'm gonna flee the Failboat before there is a climax of crisis. I honestly think that everyone is just beating a dead horse. You define "literature" in your own way, and while sharing that idea with others is neat, you arguing for it against others over and over again is not cool. Just move on. It shouldn't matter what other people think of your idea, too. Sorry, it has been a really long day for me, and if this comes out bitchy I am not sorry hahahaha. |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 14, 2011 21:37:18 GMT -5
I seem to recall that I proposed the personal definition idea earrrrrlly on in the thread and it did not fly very well with some people who wanted a universal one. I think y'all are just feeding a troll I'm gonna flee the Failboat before there is a climax of crisis. I honestly think that everyone is just beating a dead horse. You define "literature" in your own way, and while sharing that idea with others is neat, you arguing for it against others over and over again is not cool. Just move on. It shouldn't matter what other people think of your idea, too. Sorry, it has been a really long day for me, and if this comes out bitchy I am not sorry hahahaha. Again, no one is pretending as if we're going to stumble upon a perfect definition of literature. If we settled on the "it's what you make of it!" definition, we wouldn't have gotten any of the engaging, entertaining discussion we've gotten for the last twenty pages. As an English major (at least I think you are), you should certainly understand that not all discussions are meant to yield an answer, and the ones that can't are certainly not useless. I think you're taking this a bit too seriously, what with the "failboat" and "climax of crisis" stuff (isn't "climax of crisis" a bit redundant anyway?). |
|
|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on Jun 14, 2011 21:43:24 GMT -5
I seem to recall that I proposed the personal definition idea earrrrrlly on in the thread and it did not fly very well with some people who wanted a universal one. I think y'all are just feeding a troll I'm gonna flee the Failboat before there is a climax of crisis. I honestly think that everyone is just beating a dead horse. You define "literature" in your own way, and while sharing that idea with others is neat, you arguing for it against others over and over again is not cool. Just move on. It shouldn't matter what other people think of your idea, too. Sorry, it has been a really long day for me, and if this comes out bitchy I am not sorry hahahaha. Again, no one is pretending as if we're going to stumble upon a perfect definition of literature. If we settled on the "it's what you make of it!" definition, we wouldn't have gotten any of the engaging, entertaining discussion we've gotten for the last twenty pages. As an English major (at least I think you are), you should certainly understand that not all discussions are meant to yield an answer, and the ones that can't are certainly not useless. I think you're taking this a bit too seriously, what with the "failboat" and "climax of crisis" stuff (isn't "climax of crisis" a bit redundant anyway?). Seconding this opinion (which I feel is worth celebrating in and of itself -- two English majors agreeing on anything is worth a hearty "huzzah"). |
|
|
|
Post by Eternal Lobster on Jun 14, 2011 21:45:21 GMT -5
Again, no one is pretending as if we're going to stumble upon a perfect definition of literature. If we settled on the "it's what you make of it!" definition, we wouldn't have gotten any of the engaging, entertaining discussion we've gotten for the last twenty pages. As an English major (at least I think you are), you should certainly understand that not all discussions are meant to yield an answer, and the ones that can't are certainly not useless. I think you're taking this a bit too seriously, what with the "failboat" and "climax of crisis" stuff (isn't "climax of crisis" a bit redundant anyway?). I are being ridiculous, loosen up :P |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 16, 2011 0:41:18 GMT -5
Again, no one is pretending as if we're going to stumble upon a perfect definition of literature. If we settled on the "it's what you make of it!" definition, we wouldn't have gotten any of the engaging, entertaining discussion we've gotten for the last twenty pages. As an English major (at least I think you are), you should certainly understand that not all discussions are meant to yield an answer, and the ones that can't are certainly not useless. I think you're taking this a bit too seriously, what with the "failboat" and "climax of crisis" stuff (isn't "climax of crisis" a bit redundant anyway?). I are being ridiculous, loosen up :P Fair enough. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by andreaisabbbw on Jun 18, 2011 13:35:28 GMT -5
I honestly think that everyone is just beating a dead horse. This totally made me think of Raskolnikov's crazy dream in Crime and Punishment. |
|
I'm gonna flee the Failboat before there is a climax of crisis.
