How do we understand what literature means today having in mind that there are a number of great works (such as Homer's Iliad, or Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes, and Shakespeare's Hamlet) which we consider to be prime examples of literary art and the western canon, but, at the same time, that literature's essential properties are not indisputably established and have undergone critical changes throughout human history?
The margin between literary (novels, poems, plays) and non-literary (advertisements, news) texts is fairly well outlined but are there any texts which do not fit either of the two groups, or, to the contrary - which bear some essential characteristics of both groups and hence cannot be so easily categorized?
I think your question can be interpreted based on personal bias. For me, I would say that anything by Piers Anthony is questionable as literary art. I am also sure many people would disagree with me. Do TV shows count as literary art? If so, the American television sitcom Seinfeld fails miserably. I am not sure where the humor of watching disfunctional people comes in. Oh, Wait. They had to have canned laughter to tell you when they told a joke.
Take Issiac Asimov as a great example. Asimov was so prolific and diverse in his writing that his books span all major categories of the Dewey Decimal Classification except for category 100, philosophy and psychology.
Consider him to be the one person who could answer this question with deep insight.
As to the difference between literature and non-literary sources? In America, there is no hard and fast line. Take "Fox News". In other countries, it is not allowed to use the word "News" in their name. They have gone to court and won twice that they do not have to report factual items on their channel. So the entire programming of their network counts as fictional in some way. Or is it?
Literary or non-literary indeed...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Communications (Networks)
- Simulators