Thinking . . .

[kaethe]

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

Comments

[gweneiriol]

for me, literature is something that is written and tells a story. So, I guess, for me, while a movie or tv script would be literature the actual film wouldn't be something I consider literature.

Though now that I think about it, I guess it's literature too. Only literature in motion. :D

[kaethe]

I agree, but that still leads me to wonder--if, say, Citizen Kane could be considered literature, given that it's widely considered to be an outstanding movie*, could the same be said for Raptor Island**?

*Haven't actually seen it, so I'm going on what I've read/heard for this one.

**Haven't seen this one either; you're the one who told me it was an awful movie.

[gweneiriol]

I think, above given my definition of animated literature, they're both literature (though Raptor Island is a Grade A B Movie) as they're both stories. It's just one's supposedly great and one sucks rocks. :P

[hitwoman]

Interesting question. I think, for me, that for a work to be considered literature there is a question of quality. Not necessarily that something is "good" or "bad", but that it affects people or moves them in some way. And I don't really think it can be so personal to the point that one person says, "That moved me to tears" and wham! We have literature. Perhaps longevity is part of the qualification as well. To me, classics are classics because they've stood the test of time and there is still worth to be found then. In 50 years, I'd bet that there are still kids reading HP books, but Goosebumps have already outlived their trendiness. One is literature, the other isn't.