[ 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: 41 KB, 450x808, nutrition_facts_electrifire.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3341149 No.3341149 [Reply] [Original]

Are nutrition facts literature?

>> No.3341155

In the sense that they call college guidebooks "literature."

>> No.3341154

No, not within our current Western discourse.

>> No.3341161

>sugary drinks
>2013

>> No.3341165

there was a character in one of John Sladek's early stories, an ex-army guy who wrote poetry based on nutrition labels. therefore, yes.

>> No.3341169

>>3341165
Writing A based on object B doesn't make object B literature, anymore than Shakespeare's Hamlet being set in a castle makes castles literature.

lrn2logic

>> No.3341216
File: 245 KB, 680x433, alice of the apes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3341216

Everything is literature.

Movies are literature.
Music is literature.
Sports are literature.
Philosophy is literature.
College is literature.
Video games are literature.
Ponies are literature.
Anime is literature.
Cooking is literature.
Suicide is literature.
Tao Lin is literature.
Sasha Grey is literature.
Facebook is literature.
Comic books are literature.
Graffiti is literature.

But we don't discuss books here.

>> No.3341236

>>3341216
None of that is literature.

>> No.3341241

>>3341236
Well, it's all we ever discuss here.

>> No.3341319

>>3341241
/lit/ is like /b/, except with less janitors.

>> No.3341340

>>3341216
>Tao Lin is literature.

I have yet to see anyone on /lit/ who enjoys Tao Lin.

>> No.3341351

>>3341161
>7 grams per serving
>From natural fruit juices
>Agave nectar
>Sugar
>mfw this isn't even a drink
>mfw no drink is only 60 ml
>mfw this is probably some sort of flavored honey substitute
Do you even nutrition facts?

>> No.3341489

>>3341340

I actually really enjoy his style.
Its pretty easy reading. The same reason I read GoT and Brandon Sanderson.

>> No.3341549

>>3341149

Your post is good and you should feel good.

>> No.3342006

This question is pretty similar to the matter of what constitutes art, and the answer is purely subjective. "Literature" is a word. It's nothing more. Since there is no consensus on what literature entails, then yes, all answers are valid. Literature is just quality literature in your opinion. Literature is everything simultaneously.
Go ahead and have your opinions. Just be civil about it, if you like.

>> No.3342010

>>3342006
>Literature
You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

>> No.3342017

>>3341340
Speak for yourself, I like his stuff.

>> No.3342031

>>3342010
That's kind of the point.
Look, you can cherry-pick definitions if you want. That doesn't mean there's any sort of consensus on the matter outside of your specific community.

>> No.3342045
File: 108 KB, 450x539, 1312033775980.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3342045

>>3342031
I'm at a loss of words right now, that's how dumb you are.

I'm just going to take what you're saying and show how logically absurd it is.

>"Pants" is a word. It's nothing more. There is no consensus on what pants are, so anything can be pants. Pants are just quality pants in your opinion. Pants are everything simultaneously. You can cherry-pick definitions from a dictionary if you want, that doesn't mean there's any consensus on what pants are.

>> No.3342081
File: 243 KB, 500x744, 1351879376254.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3342081

Are vcr manuals /lit/?

>> No.3342089

>>3342045
I'm not him, but that is in fact true for "pants" as well.

We just don't care about pants to discuss it what it means profoundly, we just know from the context that we are just speaking of it in a shallow way, you picture an ordinary pair of pants in your head like you've seen it so many times. But if you were deep into fashion, you could as well be discussing the boundaries between what makes something to be pants or a bermuda or a long skirt or shorts, etc.

The consensus works within a context and it is very limited. That works for all words. If you are addressing it on a deeper level, things will be more blurry and you'll have to define it more. There are at least 4 or 5 definitions for literature, from "anything with words", to "high brow fiction", from "narrative" to "stuff that makes a book". It's just a matter of what context you are talking about.

>> No.3342092

Ugh, okay:

Not *everything* is Literature. However, some might say that everything is a text. Aiight?

If you were to study the body of Nutrition Facts labels, and all related studies, laws, or histories, you might say you were studying the literature of Nutrition Facts labels.

But a label is not Literature.

>> No.3342121

>>3342092

Fine by me. No, I suppose not everything is literature. Most subjects have literature associated with them though.

As for the topic at hand though, this guy gets it. The difference between "pants" and "literature" though is that whereas the poster's examples are types of pants, you can only establish types of literature once you determine how literature is categorized, and that's the dilemma. The overarching term itself cannot be adequately defined without eliminating conflicting definitions. So because there are many accepted definitions of what literature is, everybody who holds to any of the accepted definitions is as correct as they can be.

The nutrition facts are literature. They're not literature the way you conceptualize literature, but they're still literature for somebody, just not for you. We have no universal definition, so what we are left with are individual definitions, and you don't have to accept those.

>> No.3343258

>>3341340
Speak for yourself, Taoist gang rolls at least six deep on /lit/.