Thinking . . .
So I'm discussing plot w/ my Pre-AP kids, and the definition I give them is "the sequence of events in a work of literature." Which, naturally, leads to the question, "What is literature?", if only because you can never assume that kids are going to have the vocabulary you'd expect them to have.
Sure enough, the question was answered with silence, but after holding up Harry Potter and the--er, I don't remember which book I grabbed off the shelf, but it was a HP one, I managed to get them to say that novels were literature, and the discussion picked up momentum from there. And then one kid said, "literature is anything written down," which I responded to by writing my current grocery list on the board (kitty litter, dog food, and an alarm clock, if you're interested). "Is that literature?" I asked. "No," they all said in the "god, you're stupid" voices that seventh graders are so good at. "So what makes one thing literature and another thing not literature?" I asked, and no one could come up with a satisfactory answer, including me.
I've been thinking about it ever since, because I'm sure the question will come up again (if only because I bring it up again). It seems to me that the quality of the work at least partially determines what is 'literature' and what isn't. Is that the only criterion, though? And how do you define 'quality,' anyway, aside from 'what I like'? Can any quality work (assuming you can figure out what a quality work would be) be considered literature? Even fan fiction? Romance novels? Movie tie-ins? Text messages?
My most influential professors at college were ones deeply into things like film theory and multiculturalism and such; I was taught (and agree with the teaching) that 'literature' can be defined more broadly than it traditionally has been. But how broadly is that?
Things to ponder . . .
Sure enough, the question was answered with silence, but after holding up Harry Potter and the--er, I don't remember which book I grabbed off the shelf, but it was a HP one, I managed to get them to say that novels were literature, and the discussion picked up momentum from there. And then one kid said, "literature is anything written down," which I responded to by writing my current grocery list on the board (kitty litter, dog food, and an alarm clock, if you're interested). "Is that literature?" I asked. "No," they all said in the "god, you're stupid" voices that seventh graders are so good at. "So what makes one thing literature and another thing not literature?" I asked, and no one could come up with a satisfactory answer, including me.
I've been thinking about it ever since, because I'm sure the question will come up again (if only because I bring it up again). It seems to me that the quality of the work at least partially determines what is 'literature' and what isn't. Is that the only criterion, though? And how do you define 'quality,' anyway, aside from 'what I like'? Can any quality work (assuming you can figure out what a quality work would be) be considered literature? Even fan fiction? Romance novels? Movie tie-ins? Text messages?
My most influential professors at college were ones deeply into things like film theory and multiculturalism and such; I was taught (and agree with the teaching) that 'literature' can be defined more broadly than it traditionally has been. But how broadly is that?
Things to ponder . . .