Quote:
Originally Posted by jenneology  I do want to point out with the dictionary definition. Denotation provides a literal definition of word but rarely takes into account connotation. While the definition may be any book or work of writing (because poetry and theatrical works ought to be included), the connotation of the word literature is much more subjective. The connotation will be subjective and there will be disagreement because of that subjectivity.
|
Oh, I guess I misunderstood the question in the original post. It is a very different thing to ask "what is literature", vs. asking "what is literature
to you".
Some don't consider "Harry Potter" literature, yet I'm convinced that book will withstand the test of times, and our grandchildren will be reading it with their kids. So where does one draw the line?
*
The book must touch on a universal theme. Well, I think every book does it in its own way, as well as allows the insight into the social standing it was written in.
*
The book must be scholarly. What does it mean? There is not a book I read that didn't open up a new perspective to me, or didn't engage my mind. Granted, some books do it to a greater degree than others, but they all do it, kwim? Look at all the discussion about feminism, relationships, the effect of religion on the author, and debate about one character vs. another "a non literary" Twilight has evoke. The talk went on for 10 pages! The debate was deep enough, and it was inspired by the book, so is it qualified to be literature now?
* Of course Twilight is no Pride and Prejudice, and Southern Vampire Chronicles are no Sherlock Holmes, but they reflect our time much more so than Pride and Prejudice or Sherlock Holmes. They are about us, our society, and our good and bad. Does that make more "literary" since they inspired intellectual dialogue?
* What if the book draws attention of millions of readers, does it make it any more or less deserving of the title "literature"? I know I never produced a book that millions wanted to read, so I would find hard to judge any author as not "literary enough", if that author had such power over the imagination of millions of readers.
* I think distinguishing between the literary genres helps to settle a lot of questions. For example: Pride and Pejudice, Jane Eyre, Sherlock Holmes, etc. have earned the title of "classic literature". Twilight, Harry Potter, Stephen King's novels could be labeled as either modern literature, or fantasy literature, but still nothing less but literature. They are books, they engage imagination, they might not have demanding vocabulary, yet they make one think enough to want to read, discuss, and recommend the material to another.
* If we are to begin to make two shelves and sort books into literature vs. non literature... What books are we to put onto the "non literature" shelves, and who decides that my point of viewing a certain book as a work of literature is incorrect? What examples of fictional "non literature" can one give me?
:
I have often pondered this question as well as mulled over it with my students. I think it is sometimes very difficult to sort texts into neat little piles labeled “literature” and “not literature.” Anytime we create a “canon of greats” we risk excluding texts that may be valuable. (Example: for centuries, women and non-white authors were excluded from the Western literary canon.) That being said, I think there are some qualities that set “really good” literature apart from other popular texts:
Burger King can, of course, be tasty and enjoyable. But, compared to the gourmet it's very low in quality.
