There is a question that has puzzled man since the dawn of books. Maybe even longer. What is literature? After much study and many trials, I have come to a dual definition of the word literature.
The first (when compared to the second) is by far the easiest to understand and wield in your vocabulary. It is also the easiest to use without earning scorn from listeners. Definition one is: Literature, being any kind of printed material. The second is: Literature, being writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays. I did warn you. How in the world can I use the word literature safely in a conversation, when I am referring to a book that I consider to be a beneficial. Well my objective in this post is to put forward what I consider to be a tool (not infallible) to determine whether a book classifies as literature (NOTE: the book does not necessarily have to pass all of the points) .
1. Worth. Does the book contain any apparent attributes, whether spoken or implied, that reflect importance in subjects that are of notice, such subjects exampled are (but not limited to): objects of permanent public interest, philosophies, worldviews, political opinions, and the psychology of various natures.
2. Quality. Is the writing content not only sufficient, but also above the norm? NOTE: quality is not the same as whether you ENJOYED the book. A lot of people like comic books, but is the writing exceedingly good in them? I would not think so.
3. Lasting. An oft overlooked requisite for true literature. Will the book be looked at as a good book twenty years from now? Or fifty? Or even in centuries? The topic/theme of the book should be one that lasts beyond the immediate decade after its printing.
4. Engaging. There many books that posses all of the above qualities, yet are not at all enjoyable to read, in any circumstance. The writing may be good, the subject of import, and the work it self stood the test of a number of years. However, a real piece literature must also be in some way captivating in nature. If the book does not in some way compel the reader to some emotion or thought process, has the author really accomplished anything? Literature should reach out to you, grasp your mind, and either entertain or en-knowledge you (If the later, then it must do so in an enjoyable way). If you have to pull your own teeth to get yourself to read the book, then either the book is NOT literature or you are are at fault, being an impatient judge of books (this is often the case with some of the older classics).
NOTE: There are many other things that people say effect whether or not a book should be classified as literature. This quick check list is NOT meant to be completely comprehensive, and should be treated as such.
I may edit this further at a future time....
Enjoy!
Thursday, July 17, 2008
What is literature?
Posted by Big-Dog at 6:11 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hmmm, literature, a subject I dislike almost as much as "Art." Your definition of literature was not bad, but is not the one they used for my British Literature class, the did not actually give us a definition of what literature is, but I know that most of the stuff I read in that class would not pass half of the marks of literature you listed. Almost none of it was really interesting, and that is in the most general sense, less of it had any real value or worth, and the fact that some of it had survived since the 1730's is a sign of how desperate the English speaking world is for true literature. Also, I am not a big fan of psychology, that could just be because the psychologists that are brought up the most were all humanistic, evolutionists, who said some of the dumbest things I have ever heard because they would not acknowledge God. Anyhow, I am not against literature, I simply believe that most of what is called literature today is far more suitable for use as fuel for a fire, than as reading material, if you ever read the "The Picture of Dorian Grey" you will know what I mean, but I recommend that you avoid reading it, if at all possible.
John Calvin.
Hmm.... Some good points Calvin. By psychology I mean more like... Thoughts on man's mind and nature, like the dichotomy of good and evil. Stuff like that. Dorian Grey? yeah I read about him, Faustian tale right? HE was in a movie called The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen. His picture was too, it being his source of life and cause of death. In the movie he is killed when he turns traitor, Mina Harker (a vampire) shows him his picture. IT was a dumb movie, its only redeeming factor being that it had Sean Connery in it as Allen Quartermain. It was the last live action movie he acted in. The movie also had Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, The Invisible man, Captain Nemo (20,000 leagues under the sea) Ishmael (from Moby Dick), and some others that I cant remember. Basically a collaboration of Victorian heroes/anti heroes. Very dumb. My sisters saw it first, so it must be their fault. Avoid watching it, if at all possible.
Very interesting topic... I remember having this discussed in my english class also, and I had to write a paper on it. Now that I'm past the "classroom student mode" and I can actually speak my mind freely, I'll share what I've discovered about the word literature (though both of you raise very mind-provoking points):
I've only heard this word used by book critics and teachers. Yes, they do seem to use it as a word that suggests that the book has worth. But the very word "worth" brings up other questions: of value to who? John Calvin, you know exactly what I mean (from what I gather from your comment). A lot of those old books may seem very meaningless to us "modern" people. Even after we've heard someone else's view on a book, often the fact remains: it has no use in our lives.
So really what the word "literature" seems to come down to is subjectivity. It seems to me that worth, quality, lasting, and engaging are all based on subjectivity themselves (though those four points are pretty much perfect): worth what to who?; different books are of different quality to different people; books last because more people like them than people who don't (subjective); and engaging, as Calvin pointed out, is very subjective.
Really, books in themselves are subjective, so we can't get away from that. Do we have to generalize people and the majority liking a book for it to truly be classified as literature? It appears so.
And yet it seems to me that teachers and professors use this word to make us have a more favorable viewpoint toward a particular book, when sometimes, the book is a load of junk. That needs to be thrown away. That I wish I had never wasted my time reading.
But there is something to every book (hopefully) that needs to be said. That we can learn from. But because books take commitment to read, they had darn well better be good. And most classics are, in my opinion. They have opened me up to the old worlds that the writers lived in.
KJ
Post a Comment