m-w.com's 1st definition makes sense to me: "writings in
prose or verse; * especially* *:* writings having excellence
of form or expression and expressing ideas of permanent or
universal interest". Personally I prefer to use the broader
definition, without the qualifications following the
"especially:". But others differ.
Stephen
On 10/31/07, Michael Robison <
miker_zspider@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> James Reasoner quibbles:
>
> Why can't this sort of novel be literature like
any
> other kind of novel that's good enough to merit
that
> distinction (which is pretty much subjective
anyway)?
>
> ************
> Well, it kinda depends on what your definition
of
> literature is. I define literature as works
that
> retain popularity beyond the time period they
were
> written in. So according to what Jim Doherty has
said
> about Spillane's work, at least some of it could
quite
> possibly be literature.
>
> miker
>
>
__________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 31 Oct 2007 EDT