High Literature

[wideyedwanderer]

What do you consider high literature?

[JEELEN]

I'd say that something is either literature or it's not; there's no particular need to introduce the term "high literature".

[wideyedwanderer]

You may use the term literature if you wish. I used high literature because it is frequently used.

What do you consider literature?

[Glassfan]

Great Literature:
1) Fiction.
2) Hero contends with his destiny, gets the chick.
3) Some reference to contemporary issues.
4) Not forgotten after 10 years.

High Literature:
5) English teachers like it.

[JEELEN]

Originally Posted by wideyedwanderer

You may use the term literature if you wish. I used high literature because it is frequently used.

What do you consider literature?

Great writers are able to employ different styles for different occasions; most writers do not manage to master even one.

Example: Stieg Larrson's thriller trilogy is both well written and entertaining - for which reason it might be considered literature. By contrast, Dan Brown's books aren't particularly well written or researched, but may be considered entertaining anyway - but it isn't quite literature: what he does is called formula writing, using specific ingredients (see previous post, but including 'the conspiracy theory', which seems to be a trademark of his). Generally speaking however the thriller genre isn't considered to be literature - save exceptions such as The Maltese Falcon or the Sherlock Holmes series. Again, horror stories aren't generally considered literature either - but again there are exceptions, such as Edgar Allen Poe's stories. So basically it depends on the author (not the subject), more precisely his mastery of style.

[wideyedwanderer]

Originally Posted by JEELEN

Great writers are able to employ different styles for different occasions; most writers do not manage to master even one.

Example: Stieg Larrson's thriller trilogy is both well written and entertaining - for which reason it might be considered literature. By contrast, Dan Brown's books aren't particularly well written or researched, but may be considered entertaining anyway - but it isn't quite literature: what he does is called formula writing, using specific ingredients (see previous post, but including 'the conspiracy theory', which seems to be a trademark of his). Generally speaking however the thriller genre isn't considered to be literature - save exceptions such as The Maltese Falcon or the Sherlock Holmes series. Again, horror stories aren't generally considered literature either - but again there are exceptions, such as Edgar Allen Poe's stories. So basically it depends on the author (not the subject), more precisely his mastery of style.

What else would you consider literature? Would you say Huckleberry Fin is literature? What about War and Peace? Lord of the Flies? Harry Potter? Anything by Charles Dickens?

I would say Huck Finn is literature, as it is both entertaining and well written. I would say no to War and Peace. Whether it's well written or not I would never know it, for I find it too uninteresting to read. Lord of the Flies I would say no, for it is not entertaining. Harry Potter I would say no, because while it may be entertaining, it is not well written. (i.e. Rowling's poor use of adjectives, Harry never chooses his outcome, everything is chosen for him.) Charles Dickens I find to be poorly written and uninteresting. (One dimensional characters, incredible coincidences.)

Yet at the same time, Harry Potter might arguably be the most entertaining of the books I listed. Does that make up for it's faults? Is that enough to be considered literature? Though I called Dickens' characters one dimensional, they were also iconic, and he was highly influential in his time, and is well respected to this day. Should he be considered a literary master?

[Lone Wolf]

"Lord of the Flies" I found gripping in a sordid sort of way.

I'd say that something is either literature or it's not; there's no particular need to introduce the term "high literature".

Is it possible, under your definition, for a work to be bad and still be "literature", and vise versa?

[CivCube]

Literature is literature, but some works can be more noteworthy. There are several ways to go about this.

High concept - The work deals with a very abstract concept and how it interacts with society/individuals, or just the concept by itself.

High quality writing - The writing style is masterfully developed, and the writer takes advantage of the medium and genre. Sentence structure and wording are used to provide content as well as support it.

High awareness - The work is either popular or infamous for its time, perhaps influencing popular culture.

[JEELEN]

Originally Posted by Lone Wolf

"Lord of the Flies" I found gripping in a sordid sort of way.

Is it possible, under your definition, for a work to be bad and still be "literature", and vise versa?

Would you consider De Sade's writings bad? (They are considered literature.) And yes, there is bad literature - if you, for instance, agree with Dickens' characters being one-dimensional.

Originally Posted by wideyedwanderer

What else would you consider literature? Would you say Huckleberry Fin is literature? What about War and Peace? Lord of the Flies? Harry Potter? Anything by Charles Dickens?

I would say Huck Finn is literature, as it is both entertaining and well written. I would say no to War and Peace. Whether it's well written or not I would never know it, for I find it too uninteresting to read. Lord of the Flies I would say no, for it is not entertaining. Harry Potter I would say no, because while it may be entertaining, it is not well written. (i.e. Rowling's poor use of adjectives, Harry never chooses his outcome, everything is chosen for him.) Charles Dickens I find to be poorly written and uninteresting. (One dimensional characters, incredible coincidences.)

Yet at the same time, Harry Potter might arguably be the most entertaining of the books I listed. Does that make up for it's faults? Is that enough to be considered literature? Though I called Dickens' characters one dimensional, they were also iconic, and he was highly influential in his time, and is well respected to this day. Should he be considered a literary master?

It is not a matter of what I consider literature: I merely attempted to give a definition of what is considered literature.

As to your examples: I've read War and Peace; it's well-written (I had a good translation), just like Anna Karenina. Whether one finds a particular writer or subject boring has little bearing on if something is considered literature. (For instance I don't care much for Dickens either: an opening sentence that starts "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..." fails to capture me. That however is not a comment on whether Dickens constitutes literature. Even in literature there are better and worse writers.)

[Earthling]

Any subset of literature that excludes Joyce and Austen, for starters.

[wideyedwanderer]

Literature is literature, but some works can be more noteworthy. There are several ways to go about this.

High concept - The work deals with a very abstract concept and how it interacts with society/individuals, or just the concept by itself.

High quality writing - The writing style is masterfully developed, and the writer takes advantage of the medium and genre. Sentence structure and wording are used to provide content as well as support it.

High awareness - The work is either popular or infamous for its time, perhaps influencing popular culture.

Interesting. Care to elaborate? Examples?

"Lord of the Flies" I found gripping in a sordid sort of way.

I found it interesting, yet after I finished it, I could not honestly say I enjoyed it.

It is not a matter of what I consider literature: I merely attempted to give a definition of what is considered literature.

Thank you, and that is fine. But the question I asked was what do you consider literature? Is your personal opinion different from the definition you gave? I don't mean this in any facetious way, I am genuinely interested to hear peoples views on the subject.

And yes, there is bad literature - if you, for instance, agree with Dickens' characters being one-dimensional.

Do you disagree with my opinion of Dickens' characters? If so, I would like to hear why.

Just to be clear, I am not here to debate, but to discuss. I started this thread because I am searching for my 'literary soul,' if you will. There are not many books I find enjoyable, including many so-called classics. I am trying to figure out why. How much of it is due to an under-developed literary palette on my part, how much is due to some highly regarded writers being overrated, and how much is due to the changing of the times?

While you are free to discuss works that are generally considered literature (and provide reasons as to why they should or should not be considered so), please keep in mind that the question was what do you, personally, consider quality literature.

[JEELEN]

Originally Posted by wideyedwanderer

Thank you, and that is fine. But the question I asked was what do you consider literature? Is your personal opinion different from the definition you gave? I don't mean this in any facetious way, I am genuinely interested to hear peoples views on the subject.

I see. Well, I consider personal views on what constitutes literature irrelevant, as they do not have any impact on what constitutes literature. But to answer your question more explicitly: my personal view of what is literature generally conforms to what is considered literature.

Originally Posted by wideyedwanderer

Do you disagree with my opinion of Dickens' characters? If so, I would like to hear why.

I neither agree nor disagree: I've never read a book of Dickens and my knowledge of his work is limited to filmizations. But I found your criticism incisive.

Originally Posted by wideyedwanderer

Just to be clear, I am not here to debate, but to discuss. I started this thread because I am searching for my 'literary soul,' if you will. There are not many books I find enjoyable, including many so-called classics. I am trying to figure out why. How much of it is due to an under-developed literary palette on my part, how much is due to some highly regarded writers being overrated, and how much is due to the changing of the times?

While you are free to discuss works that are generally considered literature (and provide reasons as to why they should or should not be considered so), please keep in mind that the question was what do you, personally, consider quality literature.

Well, as I implied, whether a work is a literary classic need have little impact on its enjoyability. (So you may not enjoy Shakespeare, for example.) Again, peronal ideas on what is quality literature should conform to certain standards. If for example I'd say Superman graphic novels are quality literature, that'd be not to be taken serious. (As graphic novels simply aren't literature, no matter their graphic qualities.) As for searching for your literary soul, have you ever considered writing something yourself? That would make you appreciate the difficulty of writing literature as well as, possibly, giving you an insight into what quality literature is.

[Traitorfish]

Originally Posted by JEELEN

(As graphic novels simply aren't literature, no matter their graphic qualities.)

Depending on your particular definition of "literature", some may contend this. Certainly, sequential art is no less inherently virtuous than prose.

[JEELEN]

Sequential art does not fit into the definition of literature. And graphic novels aren't writing, so they're by definition not literature. While they may be termed graphic novels, they're also known as comic books and basically present pictures with text. I am aware that there are artists that stretch the definition, but consider these an exception to the rule.

[Dachs]

Neil Gaiman is an exception to more or less every rule.

[Traitorfish]

Originally Posted by JEELEN

Sequential art does not fit into the definition of literature. And graphic novels aren't writing, so they're by definition not literature. While they may be termed graphic novels, they're also known as comic books and basically present pictures with text. I am aware that there are artists that stretch the definition, but consider these an exception to the rule.

I'm quite willing to accept exclusion on purely technical grounds, of course. "Graphical novel" is, stereotypes aside, primarily used to refer to a format, rather than to denote any particular association with prose. I simply mean to point out that it would be simplistic to assume that the medium consists of mere genre fiction, as so many do.

[CivCube]

Originally Posted by JEELEN

Sequential art does not fit into the definition of literature. And graphic novels aren't writing, so they're by definition not literature. While they may be termed graphic novels, they're also known as comic books and basically present pictures with text. I am aware that there are artists that stretch the definition, but consider these an exception to the rule.

You're confusing form with content. As they are separate media, prose is no more the rule than comics. Comics, like film, are writing. You don't need to have pages of prose to demonstrate writer's skills of plot, character, scene, setting, theme, etc. You can also do some things with juxtaposing images that you can't do in prose.

Really, just read Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud.

[JEELEN]

Originally Posted by Traitorfish

I'm quite willing to accept exclusion on purely technical grounds, of course. "Graphical novel" is, stereotypes aside, primarily used to refer to a format, rather than to denote any particular association with prose. I simply mean to point out that it would be simplistic to assume that the medium consists of mere genre fiction, as so many do.

Point taken.

Originally Posted by CivCube

You're confusing form with content. As they are separate media, prose is no more the rule than comics. Comics, like film, are writing. You don't need to have pages of prose to demonstrate writer's skills of plot, character, scene, setting, theme, etc. You can also do some things with juxtaposing images that you can't do in prose.

Really, just read Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud.

Film is not writing (in fact it is often based on literature and/or writing) and writing film is different from writing literature (in this case because it is a different medium). As I already indicated, there are comics writers that stretch the definition of comic book to graphic novel, but that doesn't make the genre literature. Obviously writing is involved - as with film -, but that is not the point. (One might also point out that there are writers who employ filmic techniques and even writers that seem to write specifically with a filmization in mind. So you might say the genres/media are mutually influencing one another.)

[CivCube]

I think we both said the same thing.

[duckduckswan]

I just saw this posted on neatorama.com and thought it appropriate for the OP:

In 1931, a schoolboy wrote a fan letter to his favorite author, Edgar Rice Burroughs. It said, in part:

I am a fourteen year old boy and am a low Junior in High School. Today at school our teacher was discussing “good literature.” I asked if Edgar Rice Burroughs was all right for a book report. I knew she’d say “no” (teachers always do) but I didn’t expect her to lecture to the class for the whole period about how terrible your books were!

The author of the Tarzan novels wrote back, in part:

My stories will do you no harm. If they have helped to inculcate in you a love of books, they have done you much good. No fiction is worth reading except for entertainment. If it entertains and is clean, it is good literature, or its kind. If it forms the habit of reading, in people who might not read otherwise, it is the best literature.

I'd have to disagree in the case of Dan Brown. Man I hate him.