Just Literature discussion

Hello,

I would like to discuss what distinguishes a work of Literature from simply a book.

Clearly, an instruction manual for a DVD player is not Literature. But at which point does a book become Literature?

Great question. I would think a time test must be employed, in whatever definition one uses, as I believe Literature stands the test of time. How much time is needed, I am not clear, but I would say at least one generation.

So, then, I would propose that there might also be a distinction between literary fiction (contemporary) and Literature (timeless).

Daniel and Clive,

What great definitions. Combine the two and I think you've nailed it.

Rick

Oh, boy. Art. That's certainly subjective. It's sort of like the difference between a weed and a plant.

Definitely intractable. Something's require RoundUp others fertilizer. The best only need admiration.

[I would like to discuss what distinguishes a work of Literature from simply a book.]
For me. the moment I start reading, it becomes literature.
The moment I put it down or switch my computer off, it becomes a book.
Who are we to build a fence and place the author's work on one side or another?
Otherwise we're back to 1984 and big brother...
A.S.

1984. A great piece of literature. :)

Amelia wrote: "[I would like to discuss what distinguishes a work of Literature from simply a book.]
For me. the moment I start reading, it becomes literature.
The moment I put it down or switch my computer off, ..."

I understand what you're saying. One person's weed is another's flower.

For instance, I thought 1984 was okay. I found the ending of Uncle Tom's Cabin to be contrived—and it ruined everything I liked about it prior to.

I love Faustus, Frankenstein and, quite honestly, one of my all time favorite books is Charlotte's Web. I run the gamut. It's all subjective.

Clive wrote: "That's interesting, Amelia, but are you proposing that we deny our critical faculty, or am I misinterpreting you?"
Maybe. My point would be that no one has the right to describe a piece of literature as good or bad. They only have the right to say whether they enjoyed it or not and give their reasons.

Wow!!! So many ideas, agreements and disagreements about Literature. I'm sure learning a lot from you guys.

Well, in my little understanding, I think Literature is a work of Arts by a creative writer who has dedicated time and energy to research, brood, think, compare, analyse and assemble for the purpose of affecting lives, either positively or negatively. Not just some potboiler aimed at making quick cash.

Writing from the Classics are perfect examples of Literary works - you can feel enthusiasm in their words, passion in their sentences. These folks were committed. That's why we still read and cite them.

That's not to say we're not trying in this age, of course we are. It's just that there is a big boom now in the literary market - just like oil. And charlatans outnumber the committed ones.

Kenny wrote: "I think the rewards of reading literature, or classics in this case, are similar to those found in reading other realistic/historical fiction. I think they give you a tiny, yet intimate glimpse of ..."

Very well said.

Great thoughts by all.

Honestly, I think this forum should be sub-designated Literati Corner.

Literature went by the name of Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

Adios, Gabo. Gracias por todo y nos vemos en el otro lado.

Daniel wrote: "Literature went by the name of Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

Adios, Gabo. Gracias por todo y nos vemos en el otro lado."

Great revelation, though am yet to understand or speak Spanish.

Kenny, that is my all-time favorite novel. I buy extra copies to give away.

Collin: Goodbye, Gabo. Thank you for everything, we'll see each other on the other side.

Daniel wrote: "Kenny, that is my all-time favorite novel. I buy extra copies to give away.

Collin: Goodbye, Gabo. Thank you for everything, we'll see each other on the other side."

Is that so? In that case am checking the book out.

Great topics and great answers. My answer? There is no difference. The goal for me in literature or anything to just 'read' (to me there is no difference), is to feel an emotion. If a book/piece of literature can make me laugh, cry, make me mad, happy, or sad (preferably all at the same time), that is literature.

Clive wrote: "Agree wholeheartedly with you both, Kenny and Collins. Have we perhaps hit upon the definition of Art itself? Is any art the manifestation of someone's thoughtful, considered and, I'd say, genuine ..."

Clive, you are a genius.

The two points I would also think about in the way they interact are genuine expression and craftsmanship. I apologise if a Classicist like myself brings the conversation into the recent times, yet I have the feeling that a number of books appear to be not genuine, by which I mean that they were written to present a theme not because the author has any real passion for it, but because that theme is popular. I would not know from experience (as I seldom read contemporary texts, I'm stuck in the times of yore) but have read excerpts, articles and comments. Now, these books sometimes display fairly good technical/stylistic skills, some times with moments that can be described as uncommon. In my opinion if either of the two qualities is lacking, that text cannot be classed as Literature.

I was reading a comment Christoph Fischer was making on a book, and he too was pointing out how that text didn't come from a genuine experience, which has started me thinking on this topic.

The corollary of this would be that Art for Art's Sake is innately flawed, which I would tend to agree with.

I've only just hit on this thread, but am already astounded to find so many like minds, asking the questions. 'What is literature?' is a big question and perhaps like the bigger one 'What is Art?' it has as many answers as there are readers. As in the smaller but to me teasing question 'What is a Literary Novel?' I become less and less sure of my ground as I think about other people's provoking questions.

Now, I have this year begun promoting a prize, called The Quagga Prize for Literary Fiction, see my website www.quaggabooks.net, so you'd think I knew what I was after. Answer: I haven't a clear notion, though I have tried to define the term elsewhere on Good Reads. I probably mean by 'literary,' works that are not genre, that are character-based, that are not 'formula' and that are written not for cash but because the writer had a personal vision (or discovered one while writing). I probably simply mean novels that are mainstream and that I would likely read again. What could be more subjective than that?

Someone made the analogy between books and plants, weeds and flowers. A weed is a flower you don't want or don't like in its present position. For me, neither Rushdie nor Marquez are prize blooms, though I know I'm in a minority here.

David wrote: "I've only just hit on this thread, but am already astounded to find so many like minds, asking the questions. 'What is literature?' is a big question and perhaps like the bigger one 'What is Art?' ..."

Stephan wrote: "What an interesting conversation. I am sorry I'm not as eloquent as all of you. I think literature is quite hard to define for me. As a simple reader, I think a book is just a book when it does not..."

Well said, Stephan, and your 'eloquence' is not in question here. The terms 'literature, 'art' and 'the literary novel' have often acquired an honorific quality that they don't deserve. (Thus 'Is it art?' of graffiti or , once upon a time, even abstract art.) Are we when using these terms defining anything - or merely giving our personal feelings about what is 'good' or 'worthy.'?

David wrote: "I've only just hit on this thread, but am already astounded to find so many like minds, asking the questions. 'What is literature?' is a big question and perhaps like the bigger one 'What is Art?' ..."

Hello David,

I'll butt in tangentially, I apologise, but my mind is tangential. I used to teach both Literature and Philosophy of Art, and on the subject of what is Art, I think the fault lies with the question: there are different theories on what is Art, from Expressionism, to Representationalism to Formalism etc, yet none seems to be able to apply to all the works of Art we know of.

For those who approach Literature without a theoretical background, and I have an issue here, with the ethics of such approach, which I will explain in a second, I will put it like this: you know that there is no unified theory of Physics (though Physicists are trying hard), the same applies to Art and Literature.

My ethical issue to approaching Literature and Art in general without a theoretical background is with those people who read a lot and do not bother to 'read about the very thing they claim they love', yet call thenselves experts. I wonder how many people would dare call themselves experts in Physics or Mathematics without bothering to read about these subjects, so why should one do it for the Arts? This undermines the very perception, the collective appreciation of the importance the Arts and Literature have for Human Knowledge. That is a dangerous shift in our mindset: in fact, we are in a world where Art is widely 'consumed' (one of the reasons I object to Marxist Criticism fundamentally), but is run by the sciences. This diminishes the very cognitive abilities of our species.

Let us look at it with a look from a historical perspective into the recent past: the Romantic sensibility placed reason as part of the Imagination, now we see reason as almost diametrically opposed to the Imagination. The shift is huge, and it only took a bit more than one hundred years to occur: we have out a barrier between the two hemispheres of our brain. The greatest scientists nowadays are working in a totally different direction though, and I welcome that. Professor Michio Kaku, whom I, along with many others, regard as one of the greatest minds of our time, and who is working on that very unified theory I mentioned above, believes, hear, hear, that the Cosmos is fundamentally...Music! How impressive and interesting that String Theory leads us back to a belief (a theory, let us be honest) that we regard as a Medieval idiocy: the Music of the Spheres.

Now, these people who consume Art and Literature are welcome to do so, and if they wish, they can do it without informing themselves about the deeper meanings of books, yet, they cannot, on ethical bases say they love Literature and the Arts, as there is no love without not just knowledge, but the very urge to push this knowledge deeper and deeper. You would not say you love a man or a woman but are not interested in her or his (I inverted the gender on purpose, the chiasmus is not random) without wanting to know more about the person you love. The thirst for knowledge is the very prerequisite of love.

Great stuff, Adriano! We are forever in the debt to the philosophers, and especially, on matters aesthetic, to such as Plato, Wittgenstein and Suzanne Langer, people who help to straighten out our thinking.

I agree with Amelia. I don't think that anyone has the right to just dismiss a book and say 'this was a bad book' or 'this is not literature'. I love reading and I've read quite a lot of books and I don't think that books can be evaluated objectively and put into categories like 'literature' and 'not literature.' I think they can only be put into genres or into categories such as 'classics' and 'not classics'. I think that books that stand the test of time and that have lasted or will last a long time are classics. And every other book is not a classic. But that doesn't mean it isn't literature. In my opinion, every book is literature (yes, even Fifty Shades of Grey--and I hate that book) because every book was written by an author who believed in the story and characters and read by people who loved the story and characters.

I also think that reading is fundamentally subjective. A lot of the books I read are YA fiction, a genre that some people would say is 'not literature' yet I enjoy those books and they make me feel for the characters and they have good, relatable messages and often they teach me lessons and sometimes make me think. So are those books not literature? I don't think so. I've also read a few classics. And some I've loved and some I've hated. For example, I don't like Great Expectations. I found the story boring and unrealistic. Yet it's a classic. Why is Great Expectations 'literature' when I didn't even enjoy it and The Hunger Games isn't when I really enjoyed it? That's why I think every book is literature. Because just because I didn't like Great Expectations doesn't mean there aren't people out there who did and it doesn't mean that the author didn't love the story and believe in it. I don't think that anyone should say what is and isn't literature because that's saying to the authors who wrote those books that their books aren't worth anything, that their books are nothing. And it's saying to the readers of those books that they're not real readers, that the books they are reading are not worth anything.

Basically, all books are literature because in my opinion no one has the right to say they aren't. We're all different and we all appreciate different books for different reasons.

I really don't want to offend anyone but I just feel really strongly about this. :)

Angelo wrote: "Great topics and great answers. My answer? There is no difference. The goal for me in literature or anything to just 'read' (to me there is no difference), is to feel an emotion. If a book/piec..."

I agree. :)

Annie wrote: "I agree with Amelia. I don't think that anyone has the right to just dismiss a book and say 'this was a bad book' or 'this is not literature'. I love reading and I've read quite a lot of books and ..."

Hello Annie,

I politely disagree. By the same logic, any text could be Literature, even a shopping list. Aesthetics apply to all the Arts, whether it be Music or Literature, but this does not translate into popular consensus. Let us look at a scribble, imagine the worst picture you can think of; the consensus would be that that is not Art. The worry I have is that by accepting everything as Literature, please note the capital, we end up corroding standards. Literature is, for me and for many, a form of Art, and not a 'market'. The subjectivity argument is, in my opinion, also flawed, saying that something is subjective does not mean that that cannot be explored rationally. This is not to mean that people do not have a right to like or not like a book or a painting, de gustibus non disputandum (tastes are not open to discussion), but there is a distinction between taste and Literary Theory. While I will fight for you to have the freedom to dislike Great Expectations, I can easily say why it is a colossal literary work, a seminal novel, its achievement was to create a new form, merging the two greatest and contrasting genres of prose, realism and the gothic. It opened new ways of writing to posterity, it moved the very expressive medium of writing into a yet unexplored direction. And here comes my point: if Literature stops exploring, it stops developing, if it stops developing it becomes fossilised: it dies. I think at the heart of Literature there is the need to create new styles, structures and forms. Whether that is successful, both in terms of result, readership or critical approval, is another matter: lots of people can say that Ulysses is an unsuccessful novel, yet it remains the biggest source of all novels ever since, the most influential, the one that invented and created so much that we still feel its influence in virtually every novel written since. It remains a colossus of Literature, whether people and critics like it or not. Art is innately progressive, meaning that Art has, as it's very reason to exist, the search of new languages, new patterns, the need to 'create', Art is a continuous process of reflection and creation, without creation, whether what is created is successful or not, that is another matter, but in the same way in which not everything done with a brush is a painting, so, not everything that is written is Literature, or the wall in my living room should be regarded with the same standards as a Leonardo. Whether one prefers my wall to a Leonardo is a matter of freedom, but that does not affect the definition of Art. The very search for what is Literature is necessary for Literature to develop, this saying that there cannot be a definition is detrimental to Literature itself: the beauty of it is that if someone disagrees with how Literature is defined, then one can create a new aesthetic principle and create innovative and new forms, yet if you start from the premise that there is no discussion, then there cannot be disagreement, thus advancement, on the discussion.

What Literature needs to exist is not a definition of what it means, but the very question, and the search for the definition such question sets in motion.

Post scriptum, why does its always self-correct into it's? It's driving me insane...

I think I've got the idea: we should respect the canons of art, even when we don't especially like the works themselves. No two people will have identical opinions - on art, literature, philosophy or anything else. Thus I happen to like Great Expectations and Ulysees (both mentioned). I also love Proust. Many find Proust a bore, unapproachable, stuffy, old-fashioned, snobbish, out-moded etc. Fair enough, that's their opinion, maybe a short-sighted one or a prejudiced one, but then we all have our preferences even among accepted 'great' works. (I don't much care for Leonardo's Mona Lisa and shy away from the hundreds of Madonnas and Christs that occupy our galleries.

Sometimes, it seems to me, the words 'art' and 'literature' are used honorifically - as if some creative work didn't make the grade. That's wrong in my opinion. Art is something made, be it graffiti on a toilet wall or an arrangement of stones on a beach.

I am a novelist and the promoter of The Quagga Prize for Literary Fiction (June 30, closing date if you've a worthy novel awaiting recognition). But what the hell is 'literary fiction'? you ask. I'm still trying to define or refine the term that many find vague, misleading or pretentious - but I'm sticking to it and posting further thoughts on my author blog on Good Reads. Mention Joyce or Henry James and many reach for their Kindle or Nook for an ebook giveaway. But what I'm trying to define is the nature of a muti-layered non-genre book and how it differs - and the author's aims differ - from the popular books that crowd the market.

Adriano wrote: "Hello,

I would like to discuss what distinguishes a work of Literature from simply a book.


Depends on how we define the term "literature"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictio...

For the purpose of this discussion I would say:

"written works (such as poems, plays, and novels) that are considered to be very good and to have lasting importance"

It is hard to know how current writings will have a lasting impression. Many popular works may be easily forgotten with time. My preference is to read works that have stood the test of time, and see how they still relate to our current situation.

Having said that, it is still important to keep up with current trends in literature. It's just hard to sort out the quality works from all the garbage that is out there.

A very useful definition of literature, if restrictively high-minded. An equally good one would be 'any communication that is written.'

Literature is a way of life - enjoy it.
Literature is a cult - abide by her ethos.
Literature is passion - give your mind a thrust into her breathless ecstacy.

Hello Rosa,

What a beautiful idea! Yes, I have done it too... I have a few books (I far prefer paperback, so my kindle is limited) that I downloaded and the covers stare at me in desperation in the virtual bookcase...

I was talking to a fellow writer, Alex Parker, recently at my place, and he mentioned how his book's sales peaked when he did a giveaway. My reaction was to say that I hate this 'giveaway' culture: it's a bit as if books were seen primarily as commodities. And it's not like an author (nor a publisher) walks away with a lot of money from a book. Reduce the prize to a minimum, and you really take home, if you are conventionally published, less than 10 pence (5p?) per copy. It goes in the coppers jar... And does the book get read, as you point out? Seldom, in my experience. The focus has shifted from readers reading books to buyers buying them. We are not impressed... I know of authors (one being Brandon Shire) who give part of the copyrights to charity, rather than doing lots of giveaways, so readers buy it, read it, and help others in need, rather than fostering a market and commercial culture which I strongly believe is negatively affecting the overall quality of books...simply put, most authors would need to write a couple of novels a week to be able to have a significant income from them, and writing in a hurry is not really conducive to good texts...

Ade

I forgot, having said this... I have been contacted by a charity that builds wells in dry countries... I don't have enough material for a new book (I only write when I feel the urge, and slowly), but I was trying to get people to write short stories, poems etc to put one together... Not a penny for us in it, just pure charity work... Any takers?

Ade

Without answering the question, here's a quote that says a lot about good literature:

“When I look back, I am so impressed again with the life-giving power of literature. If I were a young person today, trying to gain a sense of myself in the world, I would do that again by reading, just as I did when I was young.”


― Maya Angelou

To me, literature is a written work that has depth. It is something that will require someone to be an active reader in order to understand the book, and it will have them thinking. Furthermore, it will show that the author put a lot of work into it and was trying to convey a message, rather than simply writing to entertain for popular consumption.

Greetings Giuseppina,

I think an active reader looks for the meaning and intent behind what they're reading, whereas a passive reader just reads something without seeking to understand it.

For example, take the following sentence: "The man walked across the street." A passive reader will read that and move on. However, an active reader will have the following questions, and seek to answer them: Who was the man? Where was he walking to? Where was he coming from?

I think 'passive reading' is currently promoted by syllabi in the UK, which is something I don't agree with.

Obviously, there is no fixed definition for literary fiction (I combine classic literature and contemporary literature for the purposes of this discussion). However, here is what I have picked up along the way (and this is by no means a complete list or attempt at a concise definition, just some thoughts):

- In literary fiction, anything goes, the author can freely experiment with voice and style;
- Character (or voice) usually comes before plot;
- Deeper social meaning tends to emerge;
- The words and style tend to make it a pleasure to read (as opposed to, say, an action driven page turner, where the action makes it a pleasure to read).

I think there is a well worn list of established literature from times past. But there is a lively effort to produce contemporary literary fiction today (here contemporary means utilizing current styles and techniques and not necessarily the time setting). How do we know it? Well, I use the bullet points above to help me decide for both new and old.