Writing: Playing with Definitions

[sartorias]

One of the things recently discussed: it’s even more difficult to define what is, and is not, good literature when our fundamental definition of the purpose of literature is radically different from another’s.

That’s not to say that I believe there is a single definition. I do not. I will only go so far as to posit that my own definition works

Comments

[merriehaskell]

Something that's troubled me about the study of history is that it seems that you can't get really good historical analysis without increasing resolution (perspective, as it were). It seems that any history of the last twenty years (at any given point in time) is always lacking in real perspective. You can, at best, perhaps put down an ethnography, or a "faithful" rendering of events, but the best diagnosis of trends, the comparisons and the deeper meaning of events seem to come later on. It's hard to pick out the details, and see what will be meaningful for the history that comes after.

I say this because I think that people aren't circumspect with literature. The literati are all too ready to pass judgement here-and-now, and not see how books withstand time and increase or decrease in relevance in declaring some things literature and some things... not.

It's all subjective, anyway, what has relevance. Some of the least favorite books people have are considered among the greatest that exist.

Crud. I've painted myself into some sort of corner. I have no idea where my point went.

[sartorias]

Worry not. This is a rumination and extrapolation permitted zone!