|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on Jun 7, 2011 21:41:07 GMT -5
"Literature is the written word" also limits our definition -- does the Odyssey, then, not count? Or Beowulf? Did they only begin to count as "literature" when they were first committed to parchment/vellum?
And, arguing the other way (just for shits and giggles): Twilight. Go.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 7, 2011 21:41:32 GMT -5
Hahah we've got a six page thread on the definition of literature, when most people in their right mind would just look it up. English major bullshit. Indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 7, 2011 21:41:37 GMT -5
Yes, and it was delicious. *purrs and curls atop pile of books you need for class* |
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 7, 2011 21:42:46 GMT -5
Literature, n. (from the OED)
1. Acquaintance with ‘letters’ or books; polite or humane learning; literary culture. Now rare and obs. (The only sense in Johnson and in Todd 1818.)
2. Literary work or production; the activity or profession of a man of letters; the realm of letters.
3.
a. Literary productions as a whole; the body of writings produced in a particular country or period, or in the world in general. Now also in a more restricted sense, applied to writing which has claim to consideration on the ground of beauty of form or emotional effect. light literature: see light adj.2 19a.
b. The body of books and writings that treat of a particular subject.
c. colloq. Printed matter of any kind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 7, 2011 21:43:00 GMT -5
Does something need an actual definition in order to exist? Does "actual" always mean "one"? If you look nearly any word up in the dictionary, you will find more than one definition. On top of that, there are many concepts that have arbitrary definitions, yet we do not question their existence. I would disagree. I think most things that can't be readily defined are often the subject of scrutiny. |
|
rayyychul
Armadillo
On ne voit bien qu'avec le c?ur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.
Posts: 159
|
Post by rayyychul on Jun 7, 2011 21:43:08 GMT -5
Twilight may be literature, but it does't have to be good literature.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 7, 2011 21:44:07 GMT -5
"Literature is the written word" also limits our definition -- does the Odyssey, then, not count? Or Beowulf? Did they only begin to count as "literature" when they were first committed to parchment/vellum? Considering it is now written, yes. Originally, it was simply an oral tradition that has since been canonized as "literature" because it portrays aspects of an ancient culture that we would have no other way of knowing about because there is little literature from that time period due to the oral tradition. |
|
rayyychul
Armadillo
On ne voit bien qu'avec le c?ur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.
Posts: 159
|
Post by rayyychul on Jun 7, 2011 21:45:09 GMT -5
Does something need an actual definition in order to exist? Does "actual" always mean "one"? If you look nearly any word up in the dictionary, you will find more than one definition. On top of that, there are many concepts that have arbitrary definitions, yet we do not question their existence. I would disagree. I think most things that can't be readily defined are often the subject of scrutiny. What are you thinking of? I'm not saying that they can't be "readily defined," but their definitions are arbitrary - your definition may be different than my definition. Love and hate come to mind, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 7, 2011 21:45:12 GMT -5
"Literature is the written word" also limits our definition -- does the Odyssey, then, not count? Or Beowulf? Did they only begin to count as "literature" when they were first committed to parchment/vellum? And, arguing the other way (just for shits and giggles): Twilight. Go. I know you're just playing devil's advocate here, but if literature exists, Twilight is certainly a part of it. Just for fun, anyone who doesn't think Twilight is literature should post a definition of literature that would exclude it. Or better yet, I'd like to go back to that discussion on what's the difference between literature and trash/pulp. |
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 7, 2011 21:45:22 GMT -5
On top of that, there are many concepts that have arbitrary definitions, yet we do not question their existence. I refuse to accept that, and I also object to being included in your generalized use of "we"; I question everything. |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 7, 2011 21:46:04 GMT -5
I would disagree. I think most things that can't be readily defined are often the subject of scrutiny. What are you thinking of? I'm not saying that they can't be "readily defined," but their definitions are arbitrary - your definition may be different than my definition. Love and hate come to mind, of course. I was specifically thinking of love. Lots of people claim love doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
Post by Eternal Lobster on Jun 7, 2011 21:46:06 GMT -5
Can we please leave Twilight out of this? It is everywhere on the forum; I would like to have a discussion where people do not end up bitching about it. You want to discuss the literary nature of Twilight, go to its thread. This is coming from someone who doesn't care for the series at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 7, 2011 21:46:06 GMT -5
Or better yet, I'd like to go back to that discussion on what's the difference between literature and trash/pulp. By all means, do so. |
|
rayyychul
Armadillo
On ne voit bien qu'avec le c?ur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.
Posts: 159
|
Post by rayyychul on Jun 7, 2011 21:47:08 GMT -5
What are you thinking of? I'm not saying that they can't be "readily defined," but their definitions are arbitrary - your definition may be different than my definition. Love and hate come to mind, of course. I was specifically thinking of love. Lots of people claim love doesn't exist. Yet others claim it does exist. So in that case, who is right? It cannot exist and not exist at the same time. |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 7, 2011 21:47:25 GMT -5
I think any definition would have to account for the fact that some cultures never developed written language. Otherwise, our definition would be discriminative against aboriginal cultures, some Native American and African cultures, etc.
|
|
