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 21:47:27 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. Yes, mom. |
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 7, 2011 21:48:21 GMT -5
It's not the sex, because some good literature has sex in it. More modern literature though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 7, 2011 21:49:26 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. I argue against this, in part because I want to see you defend it, and in part because I strongly believe that the oral tradition(s) and literature are two different concepts. /history major meets English major |
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 7, 2011 21:51:01 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. I argue against this, in part because I want to see you defend it, and in part because I strongly believe that the oral tradition(s) and literature are two different concepts. /history major meets English major I agree. |
|
|
|
Post by Eternal Lobster on Jun 7, 2011 21:51:01 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. I argue against this, in part because I want to see you defend it, and in part because I strongly believe that the oral tradition(s) and literature are two different concepts. /history major meets English major I agree that they are two different things. Or are they just different formats of the same thing? |
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 7, 2011 21:51:35 GMT -5
I argue against this, in part because I want to see you defend it, and in part because I strongly believe that the oral tradition(s) and literature are two different concepts. /history major meets English major I agree that they are two different things. Or are they just different formats of the same thing? O SNAP You: here Box: here. |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 7, 2011 21:51:40 GMT -5
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. Exactly, which where definitions come in. I believe nuts exist because someone can show me a nut, a nut can be defined to the extent that there is no longer a question of it's nuttiness. No one will argue against walnuts being nuts. But literature is different. It's a cheeky, devil's advocate position to take, but I seriously haven't believed literature exists for about a year now, all because I've never seen it defined in a way that can't be ripped apart a little bit haha. |
|
|
|
Post by Eternal Lobster on Jun 7, 2011 21:53:18 GMT -5
Oh my god, are we arguing the semantics of semantics now?
And Dodger, does that mean I am thinking outside the box? Because it has been a long day and I am not sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 7, 2011 21:54:54 GMT -5
I argue against this, in part because I want to see you defend it, and in part because I strongly believe that the oral tradition(s) and literature are two different concepts. /history major meets English major I agree that they are two different things. Or are they just different formats of the same thing? Mind blown. But to defend my point a little bit, I have to go with the aforementioned Beowulf, The Odyssey, etc. I wouldn't see how writing something down would make a difference one way or other as to what it's meant to do. By that definition, speech's aren't literature, since the people experiencing the speech don't read it and it is not written for them. |
|
|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on Jun 7, 2011 21:56:38 GMT -5
Oh my god, are we arguing the semantics of semantics now? PFAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh goodness, my sides. Also: yes. |
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 7, 2011 21:56:57 GMT -5
Oral stories were the literature of their day?
|
|
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 21:57:21 GMT -5
Yet others claim it does exist. So in that case, who is right? It cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Exactly, which where definitions come in. I believe nuts exist because someone can show me a nut, a nut can be defined to the extent that there is no longer a question of it's nuttiness. No one will argue against walnuts being nuts. But literature is different. It's a cheeky, devil's advocate position to take, but I seriously haven't believed literature exists for about a year now, all because I've never seen it defined in a way that can't be ripped apart a little bit haha. Okay, what about a tomato? You can argue the definition of "tomato," depending on the situation. In one, a tomato may be a fruit; in another, it may be a vegetable. All the same, you cannot deny the existence of a tomato. The same can be said for literature: in one situation, a novel can be literature; in another, it may not be. |
|
|
|
Post by Eternal Lobster on Jun 7, 2011 21:58:01 GMT -5
I agree that they are two different things. Or are they just different formats of the same thing? Mind blown. But to defend my point a little bit, I have to go with the aforementioned Beowulf, The Odyssey, etc. I wouldn't see how writing something down would make a difference one way or other as to what it's meant to do. By that definition, speech's aren't literature, since the people experiencing the speech don't read it and it is not written for them. But if they are the same thing in different formats, that would mean that you have to interpret them using different methods. For written word, you would study that word, like we do in English class. For speeches, you would study how they were given, their audience, content, and context etc. EDIT: I think that this is very similar to the film vs. book argument. Two different formats of the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 7, 2011 21:58:22 GMT -5
And Dodger, does that mean I am thinking outside the box? Because it has been a long day and I am not sure. Yes. Also, I absolutely love being called "Dodger." I agree that they are two different things. Or are they just different formats of the same thing? Mind blown. But to defend my point a little bit, I have to go with the aforementioned Beowulf, The Odyssey, etc. I wouldn't see how writing something down would make a difference one way or other as to what it's meant to do. By that definition, speech's aren't literature, since the people experiencing the speech don't read it and it is not written for them. speeches* Sorry, it was bugging me. ANYWAY! But writing it down canonizes it, which means that it is, from that point on, less likely to change in structure, plot, etc. than it would if it remained oral. The Beowulf and Odyssey we study today is not the same as the original tale(s). |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 7, 2011 22:02:45 GMT -5
Exactly, which where definitions come in. I believe nuts exist because someone can show me a nut, a nut can be defined to the extent that there is no longer a question of it's nuttiness. No one will argue against walnuts being nuts. But literature is different. It's a cheeky, devil's advocate position to take, but I seriously haven't believed literature exists for about a year now, all because I've never seen it defined in a way that can't be ripped apart a little bit haha. Okay, what about a tomato? You can argue the definition of "tomato," depending on the situation. In one, a tomato may be a fruit; in another, it may be a vegetable. All the same, you cannot deny the existence of a tomato. The same can be said for literature: in one situation, a novel can be literature; in another, it may not be. But tomatoes actually have a definition. They're fruits. There's a difference between varying definitions and some people being wrong. |
|
