2 ms·

That's a pretty shaky definition. A series of fictional letters that chart a narrative are also "Literature" (there have even been books based entirely on this

That's a pretty shaky definition. A series of fictional letters that chart a narrative are also "Literature" (there have even been books based entirely on this letter format). The letters writers wrote are often considered a part of their canon. Some novels contain fictional or even real news clippings. Some beloved novels today were once considered "cheap", quickly churned out crap (aka "blogspam"), such as the pulp thrillers from the Chandler era. Some great Victorian writers (notably, Dickens) mostly serialized their work. There is no authority proclaiming something as or as not literature.

coldtea 8y ago
>A series of fictional letters that chart a narrative are also "Literature" (there have even been books based entirely on this letter format) That's because it's been explicitly written as such (e.g. Dostoyevsky's Poor Folk). Those letters are in fact just chapters of a novel telling a story. A series of non fictional letters wouldn't be considered literature (and generally hasn't). >Some beloved novels today were once considered "cheap", quickly churned out crap (aka "blogspam"), such as the pulp thrillers from the Chandler era. The weren't considered worthy (or high) literature. They however had literary form (and often pretentions). The same goes for the serialized Victorian (and of course 19th century French) works, whether their initial outlet (newspapers or whatever), they still followed the same overall structure. Tons of others wrote lots of different formats even then (from manifestos, once a very popular form of expression, to dadaist word collages, lettrism, newspaper joke columns, quips (e.g. from Karl Kraus, or Ambrose Bierce, Brecht, etc.), published travel correspondence, and so on. But unless they told a story over an extended number of pages they weren't considered literature (whether good or bad).
- jrumbut 8y ago
  I would say that many things we consider (early) literature today were hand written on scrolls and not typeset on pages. If handwritten scrolls, newsprint released a few pages every week, and pages printed out of a wordprocessor and bound can all be literature I'm not sure why hypertext on a website can't be (even using links and embedded media, the same way scroll authors added marginalia and early book makers illuminations, of course contemporary book makers also include marginalia (like page numbers and the book/chapter title). Even pseudo-links appear in works like Nabokov's Pale Fire. My point is that extension and experimentation with form are part of any creative tradition. It's really hard to create a useful and consistent definition of literature that includes everything that's similar to War and Peace and excludes everything that's similar to Breaking Bad. It might be more fun to cast a wide net.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >I would say that many things we consider (early) literature today were hand written on scrolls and not typeset on pages. That's not the distinguishing point though. It's the form (of the story), not the medium. It could be clay tablets or bits on an SSD too. But if we say "Breaking Bad" is literature then we lose distinguishing characteristics, which is not just "telling a story". In we call TV or games "literature", we we could just go on an call "Breaking Bad" architecture or music too, why not? Like music, it evokes emotions and is shifting. Like architecture it has a structure and certain tolerances, etc. We give more restrictive names for a reason, to not lose track of concepts and things in an amorphous blob. >My point is that extension and experimentation with form are part of any creative tradition. It's really hard to create a useful and consistent definition of literature that includes everything that's similar to War and Peace and excludes everything that's similar to Breaking Bad. Actually it sounds very easy, and every literary criticism magazine for example has managed to achieve it in its review section...

coldtea 8y ago

>A series of fictional letters that chart a narrative are also "Literature" (there have even been books based entirely on this letter format) That's because it's been explicitly written as such (e.g. Dostoyevsky's Poor Folk). Those letters are in fact just chapters of a novel telling a story. A series of non fictional letters wouldn't be considered literature (and generally hasn't). >Some beloved novels today were once considered "cheap", quickly churned out crap (aka "blogspam"), such as the pulp thrillers from the Chandler era. The weren't considered worthy (or high) literature. They however had literary form (and often pretentions). The same goes for the serialized Victorian (and of course 19th century French) works, whether their initial outlet (newspapers or whatever), they still followed the same overall structure. Tons of others wrote lots of different formats even then (from manifestos, once a very popular form of expression, to dadaist word collages, lettrism, newspaper joke columns, quips (e.g. from Karl Kraus, or Ambrose Bierce, Brecht, etc.), published travel correspondence, and so on. But unless they told a story over an extended number of pages they weren't considered literature (whether good or bad).

jrumbut 8y ago
I would say that many things we consider (early) literature today were hand written on scrolls and not typeset on pages. If handwritten scrolls, newsprint released a few pages every week, and pages printed out of a wordprocessor and bound can all be literature I'm not sure why hypertext on a website can't be (even using links and embedded media, the same way scroll authors added marginalia and early book makers illuminations, of course contemporary book makers also include marginalia (like page numbers and the book/chapter title). Even pseudo-links appear in works like Nabokov's Pale Fire. My point is that extension and experimentation with form are part of any creative tradition. It's really hard to create a useful and consistent definition of literature that includes everything that's similar to War and Peace and excludes everything that's similar to Breaking Bad. It might be more fun to cast a wide net.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >I would say that many things we consider (early) literature today were hand written on scrolls and not typeset on pages. That's not the distinguishing point though. It's the form (of the story), not the medium. It could be clay tablets or bits on an SSD too. But if we say "Breaking Bad" is literature then we lose distinguishing characteristics, which is not just "telling a story". In we call TV or games "literature", we we could just go on an call "Breaking Bad" architecture or music too, why not? Like music, it evokes emotions and is shifting. Like architecture it has a structure and certain tolerances, etc. We give more restrictive names for a reason, to not lose track of concepts and things in an amorphous blob. >My point is that extension and experimentation with form are part of any creative tradition. It's really hard to create a useful and consistent definition of literature that includes everything that's similar to War and Peace and excludes everything that's similar to Breaking Bad. Actually it sounds very easy, and every literary criticism magazine for example has managed to achieve it in its review section...