Actually, no. I was being playful when mentioning Google. No need to be so defensive about this.
And I agree with your definition. Completely. Literature is written work of value. Yup.
Though what I don't think you understand is the definition of "value". Since you seem to have something against Google (which shows relative results, just for the record), let's look at what the "American definition" states.
Value (noun): importance, worth, or benefit
All three synonyms above are utterly subjective when in regard to literature. I assure you some teenage fan-girl out there VALUES the IMPORTANCE, WORTH, and personal BENEFIT of Harry Potter much more than Anna Karenina.
Do I? Not at all.
Do most? Nope.
But do some? Definitely.
For this topic, there is no explicitly universal answer to what is more precious than something else. Yes, the mass majority would opt for Macbeth over The Fault In Our Stars - but that in no way changes the fact that somewhere in this world, there is boy in his room tossing aside your so-called literature for his so-called literature.
What's considered valuable varies from person to person. It is blatant opinion - and last time I checked (on Yahoo this time, god forbid not Google), your opinion isn't fact.
Sorry if I sounded defensive, I did mean that remark it to be in jest, but every definition I have looked up is similar to the one in the link i.e literature is something very meaningful, not just any book.
Ok, so the teenage girl and the boy in his room...Their opinions are not of value in deciding what is and isn't literature. Their opinions may be interesting and insightful to how teenage minds think I suppose, but they do not understand enough and appreciate high art enough to be relied on for an intelligent answer. Harry Potter books etc. do not reach any significant levels of depth regarding far reaching ideas in the fields of sociology, philosophy, politics, human character study etc. There is no originality or striking beauty in the language. Therefore we can't learn anything significant about human nature and life from these books and no university therefore will ask you to write an analysis on such a book as there is nothing much to say. Yes, it's subjective to a point, but if you cant see that Macbeth contains a striking use of language, if you don't feel moved by Shakes' poetic language, and see a deep and fascinating character portrait in the main character...then you (not you personally), can't appreciate it and the literary world wont be asking or listening very hard to your so-called opinion.
If it's all blatant opinion and nothing at all like fact...then why would a university never ask you to do a deep analysis of a chick lit book like fifty shaded of grey? It would be impossible to do a deep analysis! It's not just someone being opinionated.
For something to be deemed literature or classical music, or just 'art' it has to reach a certain level of sophistication, depth, individuality and beauty. There will be disagreements to some extent, and yes its subjective. But generally for it to be published with a certain publisher and to do well in literary competitions and be taken seriously by the literary community (academics, writers, students, artists, thinkers) it would have to be of a certain standard - the community would have to be intrigued by it and it would make them think and want to analyse it further, and they would want to discuss it and compare it to other highly regarded literary works. It's sort of organic.
It's alright. But again, all I'm reading is opinion.
"...they do not understand enough and appreciate high art enough to be relied on for an intelligent answer."
Who defines what "high art" is? Is there this big congregation in which everyone comes together and chooses what literature to actually call "literature"?
Whether they be teenagers or grown men and women, their opinion should be taken into account.
A university wouldn't ask me to submit a deep analysis of Fifty Shades of Grey because in their eyes, along with yours, there is no meaning. But there was meaning to E. L. James when she was writing the novel. And there was meaning to the thousands of fans drooling while they read the series.
Let me just show you how easy it is to bullshit your way through an analysis:
"Fifty Shades of Grey enlightens its readers to the wonders of erotic touch. The mere title showcases the gradual growth of endearment between two sexual beings. E. L. James sheds light on the otherwise controversial topic of BDSM while enlightening her readers to the complex idea of venereal sensuality and the parallel bond of intimacy through pain."
...And I haven't even read the book.
What universities ask you to analyze doesn't prove "factual value" - if there even is such a thing.
"The Cat In The Hat" could be the epitome of sophistication, depth, individuality, and beauty to someone. And I agree - publishers have certain standards. But who defines those standards? Them. And they are human beings with opinions - this is why if you ask one publisher to read you work, they might publish it in a heartbeat. But ask another publisher? They might call the work utter shit.
Literature isn't math. You can't validly argue that 2 + 2 = 6, but you can argue that Macbeth + William Shakespeare doesn't necessarily = value. Depending who you're asking, of course.
We are all individuals. We can't just pick and choose what opinions to take into consideration. Anyone who reads has a say in what they regard as "organic".
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. "Factual value" isn't really what I mean to say but just the generally agreed worth within the literary community. Who defines high art is an organic phenomenon is what I'm saying. It comes about out of literary publishers being interested, being shortlisted or long listed for prizes, and academics and writers being interested in discussing your work. The same happens with classical music, paintings...
It's one thing to have a personal opinion that literature is only that which is classic or renowned, but it's criminal to try and force that personal connotation as a "universal standard."
Where does it ever say art has to reach a certain level of sophistication/depth etc besides it being your own opinion? I thought art was freedom of expression, or freedom itself, with no limitations, nor "certain level requirements?" What's more respectable, a person who possesses the freedom to find beauty/appeal in any literature, any art, or someone who only finds beauty in just "highest forms of art" and "how many prizes" it has won or how many "qualified literary pples" like it too?
And did you know there are actual university literature courses out there that are entirely based on Harry Potter, LOTR, maybe even stuff like Twilight, though Twilight, I confess, is a calculated assumption. And guess what they call it? Literature. Though probably a sub-genre like fantasy literature, just like rock is further categorized into hard rock, alt rock, post rock etc. In the end you still can't say, "hard rock isn't rock!" without sounding silly.
You think there would be no place for 50 shades of grey in a literature course? Of course there would be. Heck, I'm wacky enough to go to one. coughnotpayingthoughcough. It would be interesting to dissect/analyze the literary elements, strategies, the ideals/themes portrayed, the sexual psyche that the author toys with to successfully emotionally appeal to such a huge audience. That is art. I don't hate 5SOG/twilight/justin bieber, I cringe at the religious obsession that people have with them. I've never read Harry Potter but I've heard people say that it is such an easy read, so well written, captivating etc etc. There is beauty in writing in such a way that appeals to millions around the world. I'm a sucker for profound things just like you, but I still know there is beauty and elegance in simplicity. That is still art, still literature. It's like my a friend of mine who's so obsessed with watching just the best movies ever (he actually uses the imdb top 250 as a guide, and watches movies just from there). So much that he's now incapable of appreciating/enjoying them simply/silly movies like, oh idk, pineapple express? Step brothers? Black Dynamite? Now, there is something very sad about that.
IIN I love books? What are some of your favourite books?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Actually, no. I was being playful when mentioning Google. No need to be so defensive about this.
And I agree with your definition. Completely. Literature is written work of value. Yup.
Though what I don't think you understand is the definition of "value". Since you seem to have something against Google (which shows relative results, just for the record), let's look at what the "American definition" states.
Value (noun): importance, worth, or benefit
All three synonyms above are utterly subjective when in regard to literature. I assure you some teenage fan-girl out there VALUES the IMPORTANCE, WORTH, and personal BENEFIT of Harry Potter much more than Anna Karenina.
Do I? Not at all.
Do most? Nope.
But do some? Definitely.
For this topic, there is no explicitly universal answer to what is more precious than something else. Yes, the mass majority would opt for Macbeth over The Fault In Our Stars - but that in no way changes the fact that somewhere in this world, there is boy in his room tossing aside your so-called literature for his so-called literature.
What's considered valuable varies from person to person. It is blatant opinion - and last time I checked (on Yahoo this time, god forbid not Google), your opinion isn't fact.
--
slings_and_arrows
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Sorry if I sounded defensive, I did mean that remark it to be in jest, but every definition I have looked up is similar to the one in the link i.e literature is something very meaningful, not just any book.
Ok, so the teenage girl and the boy in his room...Their opinions are not of value in deciding what is and isn't literature. Their opinions may be interesting and insightful to how teenage minds think I suppose, but they do not understand enough and appreciate high art enough to be relied on for an intelligent answer. Harry Potter books etc. do not reach any significant levels of depth regarding far reaching ideas in the fields of sociology, philosophy, politics, human character study etc. There is no originality or striking beauty in the language. Therefore we can't learn anything significant about human nature and life from these books and no university therefore will ask you to write an analysis on such a book as there is nothing much to say. Yes, it's subjective to a point, but if you cant see that Macbeth contains a striking use of language, if you don't feel moved by Shakes' poetic language, and see a deep and fascinating character portrait in the main character...then you (not you personally), can't appreciate it and the literary world wont be asking or listening very hard to your so-called opinion.
If it's all blatant opinion and nothing at all like fact...then why would a university never ask you to do a deep analysis of a chick lit book like fifty shaded of grey? It would be impossible to do a deep analysis! It's not just someone being opinionated.
For something to be deemed literature or classical music, or just 'art' it has to reach a certain level of sophistication, depth, individuality and beauty. There will be disagreements to some extent, and yes its subjective. But generally for it to be published with a certain publisher and to do well in literary competitions and be taken seriously by the literary community (academics, writers, students, artists, thinkers) it would have to be of a certain standard - the community would have to be intrigued by it and it would make them think and want to analyse it further, and they would want to discuss it and compare it to other highly regarded literary works. It's sort of organic.
--
modernism
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It's alright. But again, all I'm reading is opinion.
"...they do not understand enough and appreciate high art enough to be relied on for an intelligent answer."
Who defines what "high art" is? Is there this big congregation in which everyone comes together and chooses what literature to actually call "literature"?
Whether they be teenagers or grown men and women, their opinion should be taken into account.
A university wouldn't ask me to submit a deep analysis of Fifty Shades of Grey because in their eyes, along with yours, there is no meaning. But there was meaning to E. L. James when she was writing the novel. And there was meaning to the thousands of fans drooling while they read the series.
Let me just show you how easy it is to bullshit your way through an analysis:
"Fifty Shades of Grey enlightens its readers to the wonders of erotic touch. The mere title showcases the gradual growth of endearment between two sexual beings. E. L. James sheds light on the otherwise controversial topic of BDSM while enlightening her readers to the complex idea of venereal sensuality and the parallel bond of intimacy through pain."
...And I haven't even read the book.
What universities ask you to analyze doesn't prove "factual value" - if there even is such a thing.
"The Cat In The Hat" could be the epitome of sophistication, depth, individuality, and beauty to someone. And I agree - publishers have certain standards. But who defines those standards? Them. And they are human beings with opinions - this is why if you ask one publisher to read you work, they might publish it in a heartbeat. But ask another publisher? They might call the work utter shit.
Literature isn't math. You can't validly argue that 2 + 2 = 6, but you can argue that Macbeth + William Shakespeare doesn't necessarily = value. Depending who you're asking, of course.
We are all individuals. We can't just pick and choose what opinions to take into consideration. Anyone who reads has a say in what they regard as "organic".
--
slings_and_arrows
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. "Factual value" isn't really what I mean to say but just the generally agreed worth within the literary community. Who defines high art is an organic phenomenon is what I'm saying. It comes about out of literary publishers being interested, being shortlisted or long listed for prizes, and academics and writers being interested in discussing your work. The same happens with classical music, paintings...
--
TrustMeImLying
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
modernism
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
It's one thing to have a personal opinion that literature is only that which is classic or renowned, but it's criminal to try and force that personal connotation as a "universal standard."
Where does it ever say art has to reach a certain level of sophistication/depth etc besides it being your own opinion? I thought art was freedom of expression, or freedom itself, with no limitations, nor "certain level requirements?" What's more respectable, a person who possesses the freedom to find beauty/appeal in any literature, any art, or someone who only finds beauty in just "highest forms of art" and "how many prizes" it has won or how many "qualified literary pples" like it too?
And did you know there are actual university literature courses out there that are entirely based on Harry Potter, LOTR, maybe even stuff like Twilight, though Twilight, I confess, is a calculated assumption. And guess what they call it? Literature. Though probably a sub-genre like fantasy literature, just like rock is further categorized into hard rock, alt rock, post rock etc. In the end you still can't say, "hard rock isn't rock!" without sounding silly.
You think there would be no place for 50 shades of grey in a literature course? Of course there would be. Heck, I'm wacky enough to go to one. coughnotpayingthoughcough. It would be interesting to dissect/analyze the literary elements, strategies, the ideals/themes portrayed, the sexual psyche that the author toys with to successfully emotionally appeal to such a huge audience. That is art. I don't hate 5SOG/twilight/justin bieber, I cringe at the religious obsession that people have with them. I've never read Harry Potter but I've heard people say that it is such an easy read, so well written, captivating etc etc. There is beauty in writing in such a way that appeals to millions around the world. I'm a sucker for profound things just like you, but I still know there is beauty and elegance in simplicity. That is still art, still literature. It's like my a friend of mine who's so obsessed with watching just the best movies ever (he actually uses the imdb top 250 as a guide, and watches movies just from there). So much that he's now incapable of appreciating/enjoying them simply/silly movies like, oh idk, pineapple express? Step brothers? Black Dynamite? Now, there is something very sad about that.
I'm not ignoring what the majority thinks - I'm simply acknowledging those who think otherwise.
But okay - agreed to disagree.