When does fiction become literature?

HMTKSteve

I was at the library this weekend looking for some books when I found myself with a sudden desire to read some classics. I found some books by Dickens in the fiction section yet Dante's Inferno was in the literature section. When I asked the librarian I was told that 'technically' all fiction is literature but as to why some classics were in the fiction section while others are in the literature section she had no answer.

Does anyone know why? Is there a certain amount of fame a book or author needs to achieve before moving from the fiction to the literature section? Remember, Dickens was in the fiction section.

Apreche

Much like the discussion of sport, this is yet another no true Scotsman fallacy. Everything written is literature. This forum post is literature. Fiction is a subset of literature in which the ideas represented are not matched by the reality of the universe we know and live in. If there is any separating of books into a literature section, it is entirely a subjective judgment. Though, there might be a library science justification for the division, perhaps to account for the psychology of the patrons.

jcc

Hmmm... well, if I understand correctly, it goes something like this.

Literature can now refer to any written material. However, it was originally reserved for those works which were considered literary, originally meaning "of, relating to, or having the characteristics of humane learning." humane here referring to the humanities. So literature were works that exemplified the principles of the humanities and helped in the acquisition of a liberal education.

Two sets that are generally recognized in the West are the Harvard Classics and the Great Books of the Western World series that Encyclopedia Britannica issued.

Mortimer Adler, one of the fellows involved with the second series, further clarified things like so:

* the book has contemporary significance; that is, it has relevance to the problems and issues of our times;
* the book is inexhaustible; it can be read again and again with benefit;
* the book is relevant to a large number of the great ideas and great issues that have occupied the minds of thinking individuals for the last 25 centuries.

ZakoSoldier

Yet, much of the "scholars of literature" will look down on certain genre (science fiction, mystery, adventure, horror) and not consider those books literature no matter how much that fulfill those categories. Frankenstein is one of the few science fiction books that will be taught in schools (in my experience). To some degree this effect is self-perpetuating because the "scholars of literature" will not read these books since it is not a canon genre or they will have not read the book as a youth either. Hence the works are not read and not considered to be added to the canon of literature.

N.B. This is not all encompassing and it was a bit of a tirade that I've been waiting to have for a while. Sorry to all those who don't want to read vitriolic ranting.

HungryJoe

I was at the library this weekend looking for some books when I found myself with a sudden desire to read some classics. I found some books by Dickens in the fiction section yet Dante's Inferno was in the literature section. When I asked the librarian I was told that 'technically' all fiction is literature but as to why some classics were in the fiction section while others are in the literature section she had no answer.

Does anyone know why? Is there a certain amount of fame a book or author needs to achieve before moving from the fiction to the literature section? Remember, Dickens was in the fiction section.

It doesn't help that you don't say what Dickens book you're talking about. David Copperfield is a lot more likely to be considered great literature than The Mystery of Edwin Drood. Similarly, you only say that The Inferno was in the Literature section. That wasn't the only thing Dante wrote. What about Convivio, Detto d'Amore, or Fiore? So, no - it's not the "fame" of the author that counts nearly as much as the lasting quality of the piece.

Frankenstein is one of the few science fiction books that will be taught in schools (in my experience).

I like science fiction too, but, with the exception of 1984, Fahrenheit 451, and Brave New World, can you really name many science fiction books that are "relevant to a large number of the great ideas and great issues that have occupied the minds of thinking individuals for the last 25 centuries", or that is "inexhaustible", or that has significance not only to the time in which it was written?

jcc

Yet, much of the "scholars of literature" will look down on certain genre (science fiction, mystery, adventure, horror) and not consider those books literature no matter how much that fulfill those categories.

I can't disagree. Like in most fields, there is the ideal and then the reality of practice.

Andrew

I like science fiction too, but, with the exception of1984,Farenheit 451, andBrave New World, can you really name many science fiction books that is "relevant to a large number of the great ideas and great issues that have occupied the minds of thinking individuals for the last 25 centuries", or that is "inexhaustible", or that has significance not only to the time in which it was written?

Anything by Arthur C. Clarke? Ender's Game?

Rym

When does a "movie" become a "film?"

All arguments like these are basically just as Scott said: people using the No True Scotsman to insult that which they do not enjoy.

HungryJoe

I like science fiction too, but, with the exception of1984,Farenheit 451, andBrave New World, can you really name many science fiction books that are "relevant to a large number of the great ideas and great issues that have occupied the minds of thinking individuals for the last 25 centuries", or that is "inexhaustible", or that has significance not only to the time in which it was written?

Anything by Arthur C. Clarke? Ender's Game?

I have nothing against Ender's Game, but it simply doesn't stack up in significance next to The Canterbury Tales. Also, even though I really enjoyed everything I ever read by Clarke, none of his books deserve to be on the same list as Moby Dick.

When does a "movie" become a "film?"

All arguments like these are basically just as Scott said: people using the No True Scotsman to insult that which they do not enjoy.

So there's no significant difference between Green Eggs and Ham and Silas Marner in terms of artistic merit? I suppose so, just as there's no difference between Monopoly and Carcassone in playability.

Apreche

So there's no significant difference betweenGreen Eggs and HamandSilas Marnerin terms of artistic merit? I suppose so, just as there's no difference between Monopoly and Carcassonne in playability.

There is a difference. The only problem is in how you express the difference. Don't say that Green Eggs and Ham isn't a book, because it is a book. Don't say that Teenage Cat Girls in Heat isn't a film, because it is a film. Don't say that badminton isn't a sport, because it is a sport.

If you want to say that Carcasonne is better than Monopoly, just say that Monopoly sucks ass and Carcassonne is awesome. Don't say that Monopoly isn't a game, because it is a game. It's just a bad game.

HungryJoe

So there's no significant difference betweenGreen Eggs and HamandSilas Marnerin terms of artistic merit? I suppose so, just as there's no difference between Monopoly and Carcassonne in playability.

There is a difference. The only problem is in how you express the difference. Don't say thatGreen Eggs and Hamisn't a book, because it is a book. Don't say thatTeenage Cat Girls in Heatisn't a film, because it is a film. Don't say that badminton isn't a sport, because it is a sport.

If you want to say that Carcasonne is better than Monopoly, just say that Monopoly sucks ass and Carcassonne is awesome. Don't say that Monopoly isn't a game, because it is a game. It's just a bad game.

Are you actually making a quality distinction? Isn't that a subjective judgment? Isn't there nothing other than the psychology of the consumer to support those distinctions?

Andrew

Are you actually making a quality distinction? Isn't that a subjective judgment? Isn't there nothing other than the psychology of the consumer to support those distinctions?

True, but when you categorize a medium, you must have an objective baseline. If you want to make a distinction between fiction and literature, you need to have a quantifiable measurement which can be applied to all objects in a medium. Saying something sucks or is awesome is subjective, but when you use a category to make these generalizations, a subjective decision is not enough to justify these statements.

Apreche

Are you actually making a quality distinction? Isn't that a subjective judgment? Isn't there nothing other than the psychology of the consumer to support those distinctions?

Yes, it's a subjective judgment. It's an opinion. In my opinion Monopoly sucks. That's besides the point. What we're talking about here is not what people's opinions are, but how opinions are stated. If you think something sucks, just say that it sucks. If you don't like the Nintendo Wii, then you should say "The Wii sucks". Don't say, "The Wii isn't a real video game console" because it is.

If you think that Shakespeare has more artistic merit than a trash romance novel, you should say "Shakespeare is the best ever, and your romance novels are trash." Don't say "That romance novel is not a real book."

HungryJoe

No one said those things aren't books. Papers held together by bindings are books. You're focusing on an unfortunate part of the definition of . . .

lit·er·a·ture (ltr--chr, -chr)
n.
1. The body of written works of a language, period, or culture.
2. Imaginative or creative writing, especially of recognized artistic value: "Literature must be an analysis of experience and a synthesis of the findings into a unity" Rebecca West.
3. The art or occupation of a literary writer.
4. The body of written work produced by scholars or researchers in a given field: medical literature.
5. Printed material: collected all the available literature on the subject.
6. Music All the compositions of a certain kind or for a specific instrument or ensemble: the symphonic literature.

Source.

. . . unfortunate in that one can either use the definition in a very broad way as you seem to enjoy, or in a limited way, as Steve's library does.

Apreche

. . . unfortunate in that one can either use the definition in a very broad way as you seem to enjoy, or in a limited way, as Steve's library does.

For the word literature you have a point that the library may be making a proper distinction. Can you say the same for film vs. movie? How about sport vs. game?

HungryJoe

[W]hen you categorize a medium, you must have an objective baseline. If you want to make a distinction between fiction and literature, you need to have a quantifiable measurement which can be applied to all objects in a medium. Saying something sucks or is awesome is subjective, but when you use a category to make these generalizations, a subjective decision is not enough to justify these statements.

Do you really? Are you proposing that we assign numerical values to artisitc works and arrange them as though we were filing last year's expense reports? Sorry, but there are works that have artistic merit and there are works that do not.

Also, the works that do have artistic merit are not necessarily that ones that are "awesome". Finnegan's Wake is not awesome. In fact, it is more than a little sucky, in that it can be very disturbing. However, it has more artistic merit than Halo: The Fall of Reach, which I enjoyed much, much more.

Andrew

Do you really? Are you proposing that we assign numerical values to artisitc works and arrange them as though we were filing last year's expense reports? Sorry, but there are works that have artisitic merit and there are works that do not.

No, you don't have to assign numerical values, but there should be some sort of process or rubric for the determination of "artistic value." However, I don't think it's possible at all because artistic value is completely subjective.

HungryJoe

. . . unfortunate in that one can either use the definition in a very broad way as you seem to enjoy, or in a limited way, as Steve's library does.

For the word literature you have a point that the library may be making a proper distinction. Can you say the same for film vs. movie? How about sport vs. game?

I'm not sure I'm interested to find a distinction in sport v. game, but I think we can all agree that Epic Movie has less artistic value than Casablanca. Why do you have a problem with using a word to signify Casablanca's greater value?

[T]here should be some sort of process or rubric for the determination of "artistic value." However, I don't think it's possible at all because artistic value is completely subjective.

How many people do you think would agree that Epic Movie beats out Casablanca for artistic value? Would those people be delusional, or would they merely be expressing their subjective opinions?

Andrew

How many people do you think would agree thatEpic Moviebeats outCasablancafor artistic value? Would those people be delusional, or would they merely be expressing their subjective opinions?

It's easy for extremes on the spectrum, but what about a comparison between The Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield?

Apreche

I'm not sure I'm interested to find a distinction in sport v. game, but I think we can all agree thatEpic Moviehas less artistic value thanCasablanca. Why do you have a problem with using a word to signifyCasablanca's greater value?

You can use a word to signify Casablanca's greater value. There are thousands of words in the English language to choose from. Just choose one that actually means what you are trying to say.

If I say Casablanca is a movie, not a game, I would be correct. If I say Casablanca is a film, not a movie, I would be incorrect.

Tyashki

I would say that a film is simply something which was recorded on light-sensitive silver halide plastic. I have more of an attachment to it being the name of a physical medium rather than a measure of value.

Some movies are film by virtue of how they were recorded.

HungryJoe

I'm not sure I'm interested to find a distinction in sport v. game, but I think we can all agree thatEpic Moviehas less artistic value thanCasablanca. Why do you have a problem with using a word to signifyCasablanca's greater value?

You can use a word to signify Casablanca's greater value. There are thousands of words in the English language to choose from. Just choose one that actually means what you are trying to say.

It sounds to me like that what you're really about here is your personal language peeves. Many people distinguish between "movies" and "films". I propose that, since language is a thing that evolves and is, at least at some level, a tool of the people, the people get to decide on the definitions of various words. Getting worked up when people make distinctions between "movies" and "films" seems to me about as useful as getting worked up about people misusing "lay" and "lie" or "affect" and "effect".

I, for one, particularly hate the slang use of such phrases as "like . . . ", "for real", and "you know what I'm sayin'?" However, my dislike of those phrases and even the inaccuracies of their use has no effect on the way they are used by the public.

Jason

I have nothing againstEnder's Game, but it simply doesn't stack up in significance next toThe Canterbury Tales. Also, even though I really enjoyed everything I ever read by Clarke, none of his books deserve to be on the same list asMoby Dick.

And yet I'd be willing to say that more people today have the ability and interest to learn about the human condition from Childhood's End than from Canterbury Tales. I think a lot of veneration for "classic" literature is really aggrandizement by people who want to feel superior. There is quality in Shakespeare. There is quality in Hobbes. There is quality in Chaucer. But because of shifts in language and cultural context, I would argue John Irving and Kurt Vonnegut have far much more utility.

Andrew

Jason has a fetish with Kurt Vonnegut.

Apreche

Jason has a fetish with Kurt Vonnegut.

Who doesn't?

TheWhaleShark

I have nothing againstEnder's Game, but it simply doesn't stack up in significance next toThe Canterbury Tales. Also, even though I really enjoyed everything I ever read by Clarke, none of his books deserve to be on the same list asMoby Dick.

And yet I'd be willing to say that more people today have the ability and interest to learn about the human condition from Childhood's End than from Canterbury Tales. I think a lot of veneration for "classic" literature is really aggrandizement by people who want to feel superior. There is quality in Shakespeare. There is quality in Hobbes. There is quality in Chaucer. But because of shifts in language and cultural context, I would argue John Irving and Kurt Vonnegut have far much moreutility.

A lot of modern authors have more direct applicability to where things are going rather than how things got here. William Gibson is an example of this; his books are commentary about where things are headed.

Just because a book is old doesn't mean it's automatically relevant. Classics are definitely essential in order to establish historical perspective, but an over-emphasis on the value of classic literature sort of marginalizes more modern works that may be more relevant.

Johannes Uglyfred II

Frankenstein is one of the few science fiction books that will be taught in schools (in my experience).

I like science fiction too, but, with the exception of1984,Farenheit 451, andBrave New World, can you really name many science fiction books that is "relevant to a large number of the great ideas and great issues that have occupied the minds of thinking individuals for the last 25 centuries", or that is "inexhaustible", or that has significance not only to the time in which it was written?

Gene Wolfe's The Book of the New Sun trilogy.

HungryJoe

A lot of modern authors have more direct applicability to where things aregoingrather than how things got here. William Gibson is an example of this; his books are commentary about where things are headed.

Just because a book isolddoesn't mean it's automatically relevant. Classics are definitely essential in order to establish historical perspective, but an over-emphasis on the value of classic literature sort of marginalizes more modern works that may be more relevant.

The classics don't merely have age going for them. They are old because they are good enough to have survived. How many people know about Simon Agonistes? How many people know about Paradise Lost? The same author wrote both of those works, but Paradise Lost has survived and Simon Agonistes has largely been forgotten. Why? There is an essential difference in quality.

William Gibson may be a competent writer but he is not a great writer. Melville and Conrad, for instance, are much better writers. They both construct deeper characters, weave tighter plots, and use language and symbolism better than Gibson. That's not because they are old. That's because they are simply better. Similarly, Irving and Vonnegut are better than Gibson.

Part of the definition of a classic (at least for me) is that it does not "marginalize more modern works that may be more relevant", because it remains just as relevant or maybe even more relevant than the modern work. The classic work has withstood the test of time and has remained relevant. The modern work, however it may be adored at the time, is likely to be ephemeral and quickly forgotten.

I'd be interested to see how many people are reading Gibson in one hundred years. I'm pretty sure he will prove to be ephemeral. However, I suspect that Vonnegut will survive.

Alex

...can you really name many science fiction books that is "relevant to a large number of the great ideas and great issues that have occupied the minds of thinking individuals for the last 25 centuries", or that is "inexhaustible", or that has significance not only to the time in which it was written?

Gene Wolfe's The Book of the New Sun trilogy.

Uglyfred beat me to it, so I'll just second that.

HungryJoe

...can you really name many science fiction books that is "relevant to a large number of the great ideas and great issues that have occupied the minds of thinking individuals for the last 25 centuries", or that is "inexhaustible", or that has significance not only to the time in which it was written?

Gene Wolfe'sThe Book of the New Suntrilogy.

Uglyfred beat me to it, so I'll just second that.

What makes it that good? Please explain how it is as good as Frankenstein, 1984, Brave New World, and Fahrenheit 451.

Apreche

What makes it that good? Please explain how it is as good asFrankenstein,1984,Brave New World, andFarenheit 451.

Though it might be a very good book (I know nothing about it), they did not say it was as good as those four books. All they said was that it is

"relevant to a large number of the great ideas and great issues that have occupied the minds of thinking individuals for the last 25 centuries", or that is "inexhaustible", or that has significance not only to the time in which it was written