[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 96 KB, 400x300, lit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3049648 No.3049648[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

What is literature?

What isn't literature?

>> No.3049652

a literature is a book but a book isn't a literature

understand?

>> No.3049664

But how do you tell which books are literature and which are not?
And what if I were to create a work and not write it in a book at all? Is it still literature?

>> No.3049679

>>3049648
literature is artistic

as opposed to stuff like game of thrones, 50 shades of grey which is made for proles to be entertained, not to create art

>> No.3049691

It's kind of vague and it depends on who you ask. Some people will go as far as to say that shit like penal codes and books that teach little kids how to do magic tricks should be considered literature.

>> No.3049696

Apparently it's ( almost ) everything except fan-fics.

So if you're creating it on the fly, as you go, no.

And if there's a better home for it elsewhere, it's not. In this case it's not what, rather it's who says so.

>> No.3049700
File: 5 KB, 250x149, ligature.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3049700

What is a ligature?

What isn't a ligature?

pic related: you tell me

>> No.3049705

>>3049696
There's plenty of fan-fic literature. Dante's Inferno is an author instert fan-fic. Sir Lancelot was a fan-fic creation.

>> No.3049714

CHESS IS NOT LITERATURE

>> No.3049738

>>3049714
Nor is writing

>> No.3049741

all written word including user manuals and road signs is literature. but sometimes it isn't very deep.

>> No.3049751

>>3049741
4chan is literature.

>> No.3049802

Literature (from Latin litterae (plural); letter) is the art of written work and can, in some circumstances, refer exclusively to published sources. The word literature literally means "things made from letters" and the pars pro toto term "letters" is sometimes used to signify "literature," as in the figures of speech "arts and letters" and "man of letters." The two major classifications of literature are poetry and prose (which can be further sub-divided into fiction and non-fiction)

/thread

>> No.3049824

>>3049714
yes it is
fuck you

>> No.3049829

>>3049802
>Art
>1) The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination.
>2) Works produced by such skill and imagination.

So, what you're saying is that the definitions of 'art' and 'literature' don't exclude chess and the recording of it? Interdasting.

>> No.3049861

>>3049829
what i'm saying is that you should check wikipedia before posting silly questions

writing is literature. that's safe, that's comfortable. art on the other hand is a bit more complicated. i don't much care for the term.

>> No.3049865

I suggest everyone reads Sartre's book on this before commenting any further.

>> No.3049869
File: 91 KB, 570x358, 1257813073303.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3049869

>>3049829

It has been established that chess and literature are mutualy exclusive terms.
Thus I claim that literature is everything that is not chess.

(pic related)

>> No.3049940
File: 41 KB, 376x490, 1284689168430.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3049940

>>3049865
>2012
>Sartre

>> No.3049950

>What is literature?

A term that, very much like "art", has been stretched way beyond meaninglessness.

>> No.3049959

>>3049679
Prole isn't catching on. Just start saying pleb again and admit you're from /mu/ already.

But I agree with everyone this sad /mu/tant has said.

>> No.3049990

>>3049959
prole

>> No.3050006

>>3049950
>implying the term 'art' isn't narrower today than it's original meaning

>> No.3050011

>>3049940
Uh, what? Have you even read any of Sartre's philosophy?

>> No.3050014

>>3050011
sartre is a fucking busta

>> No.3050026

>>3050011
Sartre's philosophy states that we exist and have the ability to choose, as if its some kind of amazing piece of wisdom.

Even a cow knows it exists, and it has the choice between hay or grass. This isn't any amazing discovery, it's just bullshit. A pathetic attempt by a googly eyed atheist communist to derive meaning from a meaningless life, which amounts to him doing little more than deluding himself, or trying to come up with a philosophical justification for his own prejudices and opinions, like nearly all philosophy these days.

>> No.3050028

>>3050026
>Even a cow knows it exists
lel. nope

>> No.3050031

>>3050026
0/10

>> No.3050039

>>3050026
>hasn't read the Critique of Dialectical Reason, or What is Literature?, the book initially referred to.

Whatever man.

>> No.3050045

>>3049959
.>>3049990
Philistines.

>> No.3050056

>>3050039
Isn't that some 900 page crazy attempt at justifying stalinism or something?

>> No.3050151

>>3050026
>A pathetic attempt by a googly eyed atheist communist to derive meaning from a meaningless life

I want to marry you.

>> No.3051570

>>3050151

Lol why are you so angry about him attempting to derive meaning from his life?

You sound threatened.. (By hope which is weird)

>> No.3051969

Bump.
So where does one draw the line between writings which have literary merit and those that don't?
It's clear that some things, like most fanfic, technical documents, road signs etc., fall below the line.
But how do we know, unless we know where the line is?

>> No.3051974 [DELETED] 
File: 8 KB, 300x300, 1284986768453.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3051974

>>3051969

>"literary merit"

>> No.3052071

>>3049648
Who cares? Are you going to stop reading what you're reading now and read something else?

>> No.3052093

>>3052071
>Why do people want to know things?
Because definitions are interesting and can be important.
If you were undertaking an artistic endeavour for example, and wanted to apply for a grant, you sure as shit would want the people reviewing your application to know what is and isn't 'art'.

>> No.3052097

>>3052093
Right, but there is a fucking definition of literature, and he could just google that, instead of posting an asinine troll bait thread.

>> No.3052120

>>3052097
>try to start a serious discussion
>"gtfo troll faggot"

It's clear that the definition isn't satisfactory.
Is something literature only when it's written down?
What about something like Homer's epics, what were they before they were put on paper?
What about the act of writing? When I compose a sentence in my head, does it only become literature when I put my pen to paper?

>> No.3052131

>>3052120
>does it only become literature when I put my pen to paper?
Yes. That's the definition. It's not debatable.
You can debate on the quality of writing, but that's like debating the existence of souls. Objectively un-provable and based completely on personal belief. It also doesn't change anything and you can be deep all you want and think about artistic intent all you want, but you sound like a twat.

>> No.3052146

>>3052131
Ok lets say you're correct and before I put my 'writing' on paper it's not literature, and afterwards it is literature.
Then the act of practicing the human skill of 'creative writing', is not different than practicing any other human skill of artistic merit.
But where a woodworking manual differs from a novel is that the woodworking manual describes the practice of the skill of woodworking, while the novel is the result of the skill of writing.

Now consider chess. A chess game score is a recording of a chess game on paper, it is a result of practicing the skill of playing chess.

>> No.3052413

>>3052146
No. I hate you.

>> No.3052424

>>3052413
Well that's an extremely compelling argument, well done.

>> No.3052426

Literature: My favorite book
Not Literature: You're favorite book

>> No.3052431

>>3052424
Thank you. I hope you get gonorrhea.

>> No.3052494

Literature = written

Not Literature = not written

All else is mental masturbation for morons. A definition shouldn't entail quality.

"Good literature" and "bad literature", problem solved. It's subjective though.

>> No.3052534

I really thought /lit/ was more intelligent than this

>> No.3052537

>>3052534
Then your a fucking idiot.

>> No.3052560

>>3052537
>your

There's no way this wasn't intentional.

>> No.3052600

>>3052560
theirs*

>> No.3054847

>>3052600
>lel