/lit/ - Literature

>>6374760
>directly based on literary sources

So you do, ontologically, only attribute literariness to literature, at least by proxy.

I mean that's cool. I guess I just have a more...humanist? sense of literature. Like, 3 thousand years ago people used to tell stories over a campfire and that was (unless my education got it wrong)- literature. So I guess I don't see why animators telling stories using computers could not, in today's world, be at least considered "literary". I mean, literature isn't "the great American novel." Literature includes the epic, the generic, the pop, the folklore...That doesn't mean there are no standards. It doesn't mean a 13 year old can make up a story and scholars should be forced to define it as "literature". There are standards- that's literary theory. I just think this theory can be applied to a much broader field- and I think this can give us more insight rather than limit it.

But I guess our differences then are in notion and not in taste, value or style. Which is good because, as >>6374763 said: we should learn to appreciate mediums for what they are. Judging by your beer and pizza- you CAN do that. So really...no point arguing over definitions.