I agree with much of what Jim says, though of course I would
have said it differently.
I would quibble with Jim's own definition, "All writing
written to be read by the general public...", which seems to
exclude diaries, letters, writing intended for small
exclusive readerships, etc. The intended readership doesn't
seem to be essential to the definition. I think the key point
is that it's prose or verse, i.e. text, which to my mind
includes plays but not theatrical performances, screenplays
but not movies. I don't know about comics; I suppose they
qualify. (They don't interest me.)
A definition this broad may be inadequate; it might be
necessary to write in clauses excluding instruction manuals
and other kinds of strictly functional prose. I wouldn't want
to get involved in any such exercise.
I have no real problem with anyone who wants to reserve
"literature" for writing they consider superior, though I may
disagree. This does seem to lead naturally to the whole can
of worms around "genre writing that's so good it's actually
almost like literature", which many on this list would feel
strongly about. I use categories like "literary" and "genre"
to describe different kinds of writing all the time, possibly
without fully understanding all their implications. Fiction
can provide a lot of different kinds of satisfactions. I'm
open to some and not to others. I'm no authority. And I'm not
a literary elitist, though I don't have much patience with
literature I consider stupid and cynical.
Sorry, this kind of got away from me.
Stephen
On 11/1/07, JIM DOHERTY <
jimdohertyjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Miker,
>
> Reyour reactions to Stephen's point
below:
>
> "m-w.com's 1st definition makes sense to me:
"writings
> in prose or verse;
>
> ************ ***
> "Yup. I'm familiar with the definition that
includes
> everything."
>
> I could be wrong, but I suspect that was
Stephen's
> point.
>
> All writing written to be read by the general
public,
> whether or not it actually turns out to be
readable,
> whether or not it is actually published,
is
> literature.
>
> Some of it is bad. Most of it is probably average.
A
> bit of it is good. A tiny bit falls into the
category
> of "classic." And no one can tell what will
be
> classic until, in the course of time, it turns out
to
> be classic in retrospect.
>
> People who use "literature" when they mean
"classic,"
> or at least "good," are being deliberately
dismissive
> of that which they don't like or don't agree
with,
> much like fundamentalist, evangelical protestants
who,
> when they use "Christian," really mean
only
> fundamentalist, evengelical protestants.
>
> The purpose of such usage is to diminish "the
others"
> by making the broad category much more exclusive
than
> it's meant to be. "This" isn't "real"
literature.
> "They" aren't "real" Christians. This isn't
"really"
> hard-boiled. That isn't "really" noir.
>
> MORAL: Don't say "literature" when you
mean
> "classic."
>
> JIM DOHERTY
>
>
__________________________________________________
> 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 : 01 Nov 2007 EDT