... is one where you struggle to suppress the urge to read out extracts - paragraphs or pages - to anyone in hearing distance. and of course, with a great book you can't hold back any more, and bug all your friends with "no listen to this--"
and literature? how do you define literature? one of my current professors likes to say "thoughtful writing," which seems inadequate. "whatever's in the canon" is certainly inadequate. "inaccessible" is worse than inadequate. definitions based on style or content are shallow...
so far the best i've got - inadequate, of course, of course - is "words that are trying to do many things as once." maybe?? putting aside "making money for their author" or "get read," words often try to be informative, inflammatory, titillating, fun to read, insightful, original... but it seems to me that the texts that are considered, or that I consider, "literature," are all shooting to do many things simultaneously. I have heard people talk about literature as texts that make us think about the human condition, but many non-fiction books on religion or philosophy do the same - but if that's all the words are trying to do, and not delight the eye and ear, surprise, be consistently interesting, inspire an emotional response, whatever - then it's hardly literature. but I do think that non-fiction writing can be literature- just that most isn't. books that are only fun aren't literature. books that are only complicated aren't literature. books that are only trying to "be literary" generally aren't. and many books try to do two or three things - have a moral, be funny, and be interesting; be informative and be allegorical; be easy to read and suspenseful; but "literature," for whatever the designation is worth, shoots for so many meanings and effects at once that one cannot easily list them all.
oh, but it's problematic. "words" or "authors" trying to do many things as once? and what is this "trying?" but if not "trying," how does one define success? but for that matter, how does one define "trying?" and what marks the division between the different things words can do - and does the intended audience matter? can things be literature without trying to be? how many is "many?" i think at some point we have to agree that some words pretty well defy concrete definition.
but even if a thing is undefinable, we can't just leave it at that, can we?
can we?
I think intentionality is an important thing to consider when beginning to try to decipher a text, but I think what really defines literature is the final product. So maybe not just "words or authors trying to do many things at once," but also "words or authors DOING many things at once." I'm not a pluralist when it comes to meaning--I don't it's good practice to approach texts as if whatever first occurs to you about the text is necessarily a good way of looking at it--so I find discussions about intentionality relevant, but I think it would also seem wrong to say that Crime and Punishment wouldn't be literature if it were the product of a million monkeys on typewriters.
ReplyDeleteBut my answer is unsatisfactory too. And not really even an answer. :P Not to mention, it's questionable whether or not anyone could write literature without having tried to do so.