|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 7, 2011 22:03:55 GMT -5
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. I would be OK with this definition, but it would exclude a lot of cultures from the canon. |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 7, 2011 22:04:35 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." 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. So literature can't change? Edit: And sorry for the grammar mistake haha. |
|
|
|
Post by Eternal Lobster on Jun 7, 2011 22:05:17 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. Ahhh, I think you ladies/guys are getting carried away with your analogies and metaphors. It seems to me that one is arguing for a definition covering everyone's tastes while the other acknowledges that literature changes based on the individual's interpretation. I think that we are still arguing over all vs. one. Damn, I could get my Emerson on right now if I were feeling particularly scholarly. |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 7, 2011 22:07:00 GMT -5
I just feel like if we're going to have a definition of literature, it should be a little more complex than "whatever you want it to be."
Edit: Is it really any more complex than thought?
|
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 7, 2011 22:07:10 GMT -5
I agree with Lobster, this is becoming a dead-end argument!
|
|
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 22:07:22 GMT -5
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. Ah, but tomatoes are (and have been) defined as both. Botanically, tomatoes are fruits. However, tomatoes are considered vegetables for culinary purposes. Do tomatoes not exist because they have two different definitions? |
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 7, 2011 22:07:38 GMT -5
Yes. Also, I absolutely love being called "Dodger." 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). So literature can't change?[/quote] I'm going to say yes because the edition of one book does not vary...very... much from a previous edition, unless the author deems it so (or whoever publishes it does). The thing about oral traditions is that they are passed on via word of mouth and, thus, are subject to immense change(s), sometimes overhauling the entire work (dependent upon the speaker). Once written down, the initial work becomes the basis for all subsequent editions and they are changed very little (excluding, of course, translation). |
|
|
|
Post by Eternal Lobster on Jun 7, 2011 22:08:08 GMT -5
I just feel like if we're going to have a definition of literature, it should be a little more complex than "whatever you want it to be." Edit: Is it really any more complex than thought? Then perhaps your personal definition will be more detailed than everyone else's. But that doesn't mean that everyone has to accept it or that you must accept theirs. |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 7, 2011 22:08:17 GMT -5
But tomatoes actually have a definition. They're fruits. There's a difference between varying definitions and some people being wrong. Ah, but tomatoes are (and have been) defined as both. Botanically, tomatoes are fruits. However, tomatoes are considered vegetables for culinary purposes. Do tomatoes no exist because they have two different definitions? That's a poor example, since tomatoes are fruits. |
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 7, 2011 22:09:34 GMT -5
Can there be different types of literature? Like different kinds of tomatoes?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 7, 2011 22:09:50 GMT -5
I just feel like if we're going to have a definition of literature, it should be a little more complex than "whatever you want it to be." Edit: Is it really any more complex than thought? Then perhaps your personal definition will be more detailed than everyone else's. But that doesn't mean that everyone has to accept it or that you must accept theirs. Then literature has no definition? |
|
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 22:10:48 GMT -5
Ah, but tomatoes are (and have been) defined as both. Botanically, tomatoes are fruits. However, tomatoes are considered vegetables for culinary purposes. Do tomatoes no exist because they have two different definitions? That's a poor example, since tomatoes are fruits. Again, it depends who you are talking to. In 1893, the US Supreme Court ruled that tomatoes are vegetables. However, in 2001, the Council of the European Union declared that tomatoes are fruits. See? Things can exist can be defined arbitrarily. |
|
|
|
Post by Eternal Lobster on Jun 7, 2011 22:11:01 GMT -5
Can there be different types of literature? Like different kinds of tomatoes? This is opening a completely different and new can of worms. And I would say that there are and that they are called genres. |
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 7, 2011 22:12:24 GMT -5
I am simultaneously giggling and bouncing in my chair with utter glee and I can't decide if it's because this thread is so entertaining, or because I like fucking with people....
|
|
|
|
Post by Eternal Lobster on Jun 7, 2011 22:12:29 GMT -5
Then perhaps your personal definition will be more detailed than everyone else's. But that doesn't mean that everyone has to accept it or that you must accept theirs. Then literature has no definition? If you want an "official" definition, and it seems that you do, then just read the OED's interpretation of it. |
|
