Another in my getting-longer line of srs filosofy discussion topics that never seem to get anywhere...

 

Discuss.

 

edit: ok people reading this thread I'm not an elitist whore I just didn't word the title very well...

I agree.

I've never really thought that there's a difference.

I think of literature as being something more general. Like Poetry or short stories would be in literature. Books would be under the category of literature.

yeah, I mean, books are objects that house text, and literature is the art of writing and text. So literature encompasses books as well as writings that may be in a form other than books...

Oh really? Most people, I think, consider certain books to be "literature" and certain books to be more on the side of "just books" if you get what I'm saying... hmm. :thinking:

I think "books" is a more broader, general term, and "literature" is more specific. Literature would be more like poetry, fiction, etc.

i see what you mean.

 

Like a stupid example would be like comparing Clifford the Big Red Dog vs. Moby Dick. Like although I guess technically Clifford the Big Red Dog would be a piece of literature I guess it wouldn't be hailed as a piece of strong literature by scholars.

 

In that case I don't really know where you define the line between the two.

i see what you mean.

 

Like a stupid example would be like comparing Clifford the Big Red Dog vs. Moby Dick. Like although I guess technically Clifford the Big Red Dog would be a piece of literature I guess it wouldn't be hailed as a piece of strong literature by scholars.

 

In that case I don't really know where you define the line between the two.

 

Right that's sort of what I was thinking of.

 

And way to stimulate the discussion. :shifty:

There's a difference?

 

But yes, thinking about it, books with words in them would be a subset of the category "literature" as literature doesn't necessarily have to be in a book- eg a poem on the bus.

 

Now if a book had nothing but pictures in it it probably wouldn't count as literature.

 

However, if this is snobby bad books aren't really literature thing, then well, tough. They are.

Oh really? Most people, I think, consider certain books to be "literature" and certain books to be more on the side of "just books" if you get what I'm saying... hmm. :thinking:

I thought that was what you were insinuation with this thread, but I reject the elitist distinction the same way I reject the distinction between noise and music. Or people deciding which paintings deserve to be called art.

Ahh.. I don't really care.

I thought that was what you were insinuation with this thread, but I reject the elitist distinction the same way I reject the distinction between noise and music. Or people deciding which paintings deserve to be called art.

Word. :cool:

I thought that was what you were insinuation with this thread, but I reject the elitist distinction the same way I reject the distinction between noise and music. Or people deciding which paintings deserve to be called art.

 

good point... i guess all in all it's subjective

I thought that was what you were insinuation with this thread, but I reject the elitist distinction the same way I reject the distinction between noise and music. Or people deciding which paintings deserve to be called art.

 

Okay, I agree with what is behind what you're saying, but I think everyone makes a personal distinction for themselves as to what they consider "artistic," whether it be paintings, music, or books. Wouldn't you agree?

 

And since you definitely should agree, where do you personally draw that line?

Wait, is a medicine book literature?

i see what you mean.

 

Like a stupid example would be like comparing Clifford the Big Red Dog vs. Moby Dick. Like although I guess technically Clifford the Big Red Dog would be a piece of literature I guess it wouldn't be hailed as a piece of strong literature by scholars.

 

In that case I don't really know where you define the line between the two.

you don't, because that would imply that one can objectively measure the quality of art, to quote mr. keeting : "we're not laying pipe! we're talking about poetry."

Wait, is a medicine book literature?

yes, it's technically literature. It might be easier to separate fiction from non-fiction, as obviously something as objective as a science text book based on facts is a lot easier to compare than say, poetry or a novel. But non-fiction can also be somewhat subjective, like a biography.

you don't, because that would imply that one can objectively measure the quality of art, to quote mr. keeting : "we're not laying pipe! we're talking about poetry."

 

You may not be able to measure quality of art OBJECTIVELY but that still doesn't stop anybody from deciding "this art rules"/"this art sucks"/"this art rules"/"this art SUCKS" which was kind of what I meant by this thread, what makes a good book to you... gah I should change the title xD

yes, it's technically literature. It might be easier to separate fiction from non-fiction, as obviously something as objective as a science text book based on facts is a lot easier to compare than say, poetry or a novel. But non-fiction can also be somewhat subjective, like a biography.

 

But it's not literature per se.

I think there's the difference, between just books and lit.

Ok, taking the art part of the argument, this is art.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire

 

Some of the haters (of which I am one) may say that it isn't art, but it is. In the original context, it was interesting too, apparently. It was in a whole room full of weird graphically bold paintings at expo '67 in Montreal. It kind of fits with the whole 60's aesthetic.

 

Then in the late 80's, it was purchased by our national art gallery for nearly two million dollars. And everyone has been debating it ever since. Because it's a board with 3 stripes on it that cost millions. It is stupid art. You could argue that it's bad art.

 

But it will never stop being art no matter how much you hate it.

 

In the same way, the writings of Amanda McKittrick Ros may be the worst literature in the history of English literature (look her up), but even bad literature is still literature.

 

Goodnight Moon or Great Expectations, it has words in a book. They even tell stories. Therefore they are literature.

...BUT

 

What makes literature GOOD LITERATURE... to YOU...

To me, a good book is one that can make me feel thrilled and excited to continue reading even if it's 5 am and I'm falling asleep, my eyes red and noting that I have to wake up early.

A book that flows, a book with a story/subject than I can actually picture in my head.

WOAH, anatomy <3

You may not be able to measure quality of art OBJECTIVELY but that still doesn't stop anybody from deciding "this art rules"/"this art sucks"/"this art rules"/"this art SUCKS" which was kind of what I meant by this thread, what makes a good book to you... gah I should change the title xD

Of course, I view art as neither fully objective or subjective. Everyone has the right to judge, and say what they believe is crap or brilliant. And just because you can't mathematically determine which of two books is qualitatively better doesn't mean you can't rationally argue about art. We all have reasons why we like some musicians or authors more than others, and most of us agree that some criterion are objectively better than others. So if a radiohead fan is arguing with a katy perry fan, to just say 'to each his own' wouldn't be acceptable. But I think what keeps universal standards being put in place is the fact that not all artists are trying to accomplish the same thing.

 

:edit: damn, I love these discussions, but I have to leave for an hour or so....

 

let me just say in response to space cadet, color-field/expressionist art is the shizz-niz. I particularly dig barnett newman and clyfford still.

favorite books -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i can't really say why i love this 4 but i keep reading them over & over.

especially 100 years of solitude. i haven't finish it yet but it's so far the best i've read.. :surprised:

it's hard to follow because the time frame skips constantly & you have to pay attention otherwise you get completely lost.

but marquez magical realism blows me away. ♥