3 ms·

I hold very specific definitions for terms. For me, literature is defined by aesthetic quality, and that is measurable. The rhythm of the sentences, the flow of

by unalone 18y ago

I hold very specific definitions for terms. For me, literature is defined by aesthetic quality, and that is measurable. The rhythm of the sentences, the flow of the actual sound of the language, and the conciseness of the language... all of that is what makes writing literature to me. But I use literature as a very specific phrase. I don't hold it to encompass all of writing. I use it to define a very particular branch of writing: the sort of writing that has an emphasis on language. However, I don't dismiss things that I don't call literature, either, and I don't hold literature necessarily on a level above everything else, either. For instance: I think that the Narnia series is better-written than Harry Potter, and that it's a more literary series. However, I think that Harry Potter is a better story, and I think that it has more about it that interests me than Narnia. I think the characters are more interesting, the arc of the story is more powerful, and I think that Rowling singlehandedly changed the face of the "children's literature" genre. If I were to pick which of the two series to keep and cherish for the rest of time, I'd go for Harry Potter. So, as I said. Take what I said precisely for what I said. I'm not dismissing Yegge's article. I'm just saying that I take the term "literature" to define writing that is memorable for its aesthetic. Steve Yegge is an interesting writer, and at times he's compelling, but he is not particularly good with using the English language. He isn't bad, he just isn't good.

dusklight 18y ago
and in what way is "aesthetic quality" measurable? can you ascribe a number to measure "the rhythm of a sentence"? If you can, what number is good? is a higher number good, a lower number good? You think Narnia was better written than Harry Potter. That is cool, and you are entitled to have your own asshole. What makes your opinion any better than anyone else's? What gives you the credentials to define the word "literature"? If you want to say you didn't like Yegge's work, that's cool, if you want to say you don't think it is literature, that's cool too. But to say no one else is allowed to consider it literature .. that is not cool at all.
- unalone 18y ago
  Of course you're allowed to call it literature. I was giving an argument as to why I don't think it is, in the hopes that perhaps people would read what I said and change how they think about literature in turn. It's possible to determine aesthetic quality, but no measure is by any means accurate. However, aesthetic is absolutely present. The easiest way is to determine how things sound when spoken aloud. There's no "formula" to it. It's entirely a matter of personal taste. However, Steve Yegge is not somebody who writes for the sound of his language. He writes to express ideas. Is it worth reading him? Yes. Does his writing have aesthetic merit? No, and he doesn't care, and swombat probably doesn't either. As I first said: I didn't post that to try and be a writing nazi. It was just something stewing in my mind, and I wrote it down as a response to something small that swombat wrote. I upvoted both swombat and the story itself: this was not meant to be an assault on either. If you don't think there's a such thing as aesthetic in writing: read Joyce. Read Nabakov. Absolutely read Beckett. All three are writers with immediately identifiable styles, and each one certainly has a powerful aesthetic about his writing. "Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins." There's a coupling of ideas (light/fire, life/loins). There's the name Lolita itself, which Nabakov expands himself in the story's opening paragraph. It flows. It spikes in the beginning, stretches out in the second and third phrases. These are all things that you can discuss. Compare that to "I write a column for computer programmers called "Stevey's Blog Rants." The second is informative without any styling whatsoever. And there's nothing wrong with that. It just isn't literature. Narnia almost certainly is better written than Harry Potter. Don't take my word for it: read both. Narnia focuses on its language much more than Harry Potter. That's not saying Rowling writes without meaning: I wrote a minor dissertation about the first line in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone once, because I thought it was interesting and because I like picking things apart. Harry Potter has moments where it sounds beautiful, but those moments are few and far between, and Rowling does resort to clichés rather often. That doesn't make Harry Potter bad: I think that it defined a generation, my generation, and that the final 200 pages of the final book move me like very few things in writing do - that despite its lack of emphasis on beautiful language. My credentials? I write. I've written since the sixth grade. I've gone to programs where I learn how to write. As such, I've developed informed opinions on things. My opinions are better than many people's opinions, because I've taken time to think about what I mean when I say things about literature. Most people don't think about how they define the term. I do. Therefore, I already know what I think about this. I'm certain other people have other opinions, but they haven't responded yet. Why would you call Yegge's article literature, if you do? We could talk about that, and chances are both of us would learn something new in the process. I don't want to dictate literature and its definition: I only wanted to start a discussion.
- jlc 18y ago
  There are any number of measures of aesthetics, but here's one to get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versification It's about poetry, but all of the devices of poetry, including meter, are useful in prose. This is one of those arguments that can't be won outright, but that doesn't mean some opinions aren't better (better reasoned, better informed) than others. FWIW, I love Yegge's essays, but they ain't literature. They're too careless and breezy on any number of vectors -- more like a better than usual newspaper feature article. You know, something about the local Pumpkin Festival or whatever.
swombat 18y ago
For me, literature is defined by aesthetic quality, Ah, see, this is where we diverge. I too am a wordsmith, but to me, literature is defined by what it is that it leads the reader to. A fantastically written piece of poetry that has no deeper meaning is, to me, not literature. A piece of vogon poetry with a deeper meaning is also not literature, mind you - there has to be some basic level of craft. In either case, I consider the meaning to be more important than the form. Amateurish as it might be, this piece had a Truth to tell, and to me, that makes it literature. Your point of view is just as valid as mine, so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree :-)
- unalone 18y ago
  Absolutely, yes. While I don't agree with you, I can absolutely respect your opinion. And I love discussions like this - possibly too much.

by unalone 18y ago

dusklight 18y ago

and in what way is "aesthetic quality" measurable? can you ascribe a number to measure "the rhythm of a sentence"? If you can, what number is good? is a higher number good, a lower number good? You think Narnia was better written than Harry Potter. That is cool, and you are entitled to have your own asshole. What makes your opinion any better than anyone else's? What gives you the credentials to define the word "literature"? If you want to say you didn't like Yegge's work, that's cool, if you want to say you don't think it is literature, that's cool too. But to say no one else is allowed to consider it literature .. that is not cool at all.

unalone 18y ago
Of course you're allowed to call it literature. I was giving an argument as to why I don't think it is, in the hopes that perhaps people would read what I said and change how they think about literature in turn. It's possible to determine aesthetic quality, but no measure is by any means accurate. However, aesthetic is absolutely present. The easiest way is to determine how things sound when spoken aloud. There's no "formula" to it. It's entirely a matter of personal taste. However, Steve Yegge is not somebody who writes for the sound of his language. He writes to express ideas. Is it worth reading him? Yes. Does his writing have aesthetic merit? No, and he doesn't care, and swombat probably doesn't either. As I first said: I didn't post that to try and be a writing nazi. It was just something stewing in my mind, and I wrote it down as a response to something small that swombat wrote. I upvoted both swombat and the story itself: this was not meant to be an assault on either. If you don't think there's a such thing as aesthetic in writing: read Joyce. Read Nabakov. Absolutely read Beckett. All three are writers with immediately identifiable styles, and each one certainly has a powerful aesthetic about his writing. "Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins." There's a coupling of ideas (light/fire, life/loins). There's the name Lolita itself, which Nabakov expands himself in the story's opening paragraph. It flows. It spikes in the beginning, stretches out in the second and third phrases. These are all things that you can discuss. Compare that to "I write a column for computer programmers called "Stevey's Blog Rants." The second is informative without any styling whatsoever. And there's nothing wrong with that. It just isn't literature. Narnia almost certainly is better written than Harry Potter. Don't take my word for it: read both. Narnia focuses on its language much more than Harry Potter. That's not saying Rowling writes without meaning: I wrote a minor dissertation about the first line in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone once, because I thought it was interesting and because I like picking things apart. Harry Potter has moments where it sounds beautiful, but those moments are few and far between, and Rowling does resort to clichés rather often. That doesn't make Harry Potter bad: I think that it defined a generation, my generation, and that the final 200 pages of the final book move me like very few things in writing do - that despite its lack of emphasis on beautiful language. My credentials? I write. I've written since the sixth grade. I've gone to programs where I learn how to write. As such, I've developed informed opinions on things. My opinions are better than many people's opinions, because I've taken time to think about what I mean when I say things about literature. Most people don't think about how they define the term. I do. Therefore, I already know what I think about this. I'm certain other people have other opinions, but they haven't responded yet. Why would you call Yegge's article literature, if you do? We could talk about that, and chances are both of us would learn something new in the process. I don't want to dictate literature and its definition: I only wanted to start a discussion.
jlc 18y ago
There are any number of measures of aesthetics, but here's one to get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versification It's about poetry, but all of the devices of poetry, including meter, are useful in prose. This is one of those arguments that can't be won outright, but that doesn't mean some opinions aren't better (better reasoned, better informed) than others. FWIW, I love Yegge's essays, but they ain't literature. They're too careless and breezy on any number of vectors -- more like a better than usual newspaper feature article. You know, something about the local Pumpkin Festival or whatever.

swombat 18y ago

For me, literature is defined by aesthetic quality, Ah, see, this is where we diverge. I too am a wordsmith, but to me, literature is defined by what it is that it leads the reader to. A fantastically written piece of poetry that has no deeper meaning is, to me, not literature. A piece of vogon poetry with a deeper meaning is also not literature, mind you - there has to be some basic level of craft. In either case, I consider the meaning to be more important than the form. Amateurish as it might be, this piece had a Truth to tell, and to me, that makes it literature. Your point of view is just as valid as mine, so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree :-)

unalone 18y ago
Absolutely, yes. While I don't agree with you, I can absolutely respect your opinion. And I love discussions like this - possibly too much.