Talk:Literature/Archive 1

Archive 1

Early discussions

see bottom of Talk for my rather serious problem with the introduction. Big/Little-L issue... seems like an obvious placeholder for a lack of a better introduction. Tricky, perhaps impossible, to define literature, and the intro. should make more note of this--Stefankamph 04:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

---

DEFINITION OF POETRY My remark on the difference between poetry and narrative text has been removed for reasons I don't know. In Germany it is unthinkable nowadays to confound narrative fiction with poetry. There also seem to exist contradictory statements: epics are used as examples for poetry, later on tehy are mentioned again with regard to narraive prose. It is generally acknowledged that form is not decisive for determining the genre of a work of literature. Tis is true not only for modern art, but also for works of he past. What I wrote about the communicative structure (lyric I, epic 3rd-person narrator, drama-dalogue) is more essential. Everyrthing said about poetry in the present version is also to be found in narrative fiction, even in prose, and in dramatic fiction. Perhaps terms are used in a different way in English. But I can`t imagine that "poetry" is used in the same sense for an Arthurian legend and for a poem by Yeats. In German the first would be "epic fiction", the second "lyric" fiction (= poetry). Whatever your point of view, I think the article needs a deeper look into the aesthetic nature of literature. As it is, it reminds me of dull definitions without insight into the heart of the matter. --Gabel1960 (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

---

ScienceFiction as a separate Literary Art form? That doesn't sound right to me.... If it's good, it fits in literature, if not, it doesn't even fit in art...

Also, Literature separated from TheNovel? I'm not sure who made that list knows what is he/she talking about...I don't correct it because i don't feel competent enough.

Well, the list was obviously just thrown up there for you to edit!

Here's a suggestion...

• Literary styles: Novel, Poetry, Short Story, Dramatic Literature (see theatre)
• Literary Genres: Buldingsroman, science fiction, biography, etc.
• Literary figures: authors, poets, critics, dramatists, etc.

(I would throw this in there myself, but I am not sure how to rename a page without losing its contents. Sorry-still learning.)

---

What's the difference between Literary Art and Literature? Seems the same to me....I think there is some serious renaming-refactoring to be done.

---

well, i made a stab at it. seemed a reasonable enough suggestion, so i took it.

---

how do folks feel about "{fill in your favorite Language name} literature" entries? --MichaelTinkler

---

We should have them. --KQ

---

What do people think about including public domain texts by the authors that we are creating entries for? It seems that Wikified texts might be of value as part of this project. It's clear we aren't quite producing an encyclopedia... something better. This is one of those things that might make it better. However, I don't know what all of the implications would be and I wonder what others think.---Trimalchio

---

It seems inappropriate to mention individual authors and educational programs on the top "literature" page. Literature existed before IA and will continue to exist afterwards (btw, does anybody know if they actually eiminated the MFA there, or was that simply rumor?) -- perhaps a summary of the literature/fiction/pulp debate would be more appropriate, or simply a genre summary plus a brief history of the academic traditions that introduced the word...

---

hyhhhsection 'literary movements' or 'literary history' as the 'cultural movement' section doesn't suffice.

---

is there a convention for individual novels? some are subpages of the author, some (eg those of Jane Austen) are top level pages.

---

I would be bold. Make the Novel title the top level name. If the name of a book is also the name of something else, then just append the article to the page, making for a split entry. Ultimately that will have to be sorted out, but better you get the page up then worry overlong on naming conventions. Just be clear about separating articles. Mostly, novel titles are distinct and will only be shared by derivative works anyway (like Cider House Rules would be both a novel AND a movie). In those cases, it makes sense to have the entries closely linked if not on the same page anyway. Avoid subpages. They can get too easily lost. -T

---

Where do books on history fit into the category of literature...I'd say it does...Gibbons/ Boorstein/ Zimms etc.

Biography IMO falls under literature also. Boswell on Johnson, definitely. --KQ

---

The 3rd sentence of this definition is impenetrable to me: "It is commonly held that a literature of a nation, for example, is the collection of texts which make it a whole nation." If I understood its meaning, I would fix it, but I don't so I can't. Help! - Pheff

A nation is defined by its cultural output, in particular by its verbalized cultural output? (My gut reaction.) --KF 17:55, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

Sounds credible (not to mention sensical!). Thanks. - Pheff

---

... (e.g. romance, crime, science fiction) is sometimes excluded from consideration as "literature". I think, here is some confusion. We should distinguish between "literature" as "written texts" and "Literature" as a special kind of written texts. I'm not fluent enough in English to describe it in the Wikipedia. But I think: "romance, crime, science fiction" are part of the literature in the sense of the definition. If not, there should be two definitions for literature. The second one: "Literature - is a special part of the literature, including only high level texts of a special kind." Best regards Bernd from Dresden

---

Newbie here so I want to talk out a huge change before I jump in and ruin something or make enemies: The "Literary Analysis" subsection doesn't strike me as quite useful - and I think my sense is confirmed by the number of dead links it contains. Literary analysis in general is a subset of literary criticism (so for instance Aristotle's relatively formal description of the structure of a tragic play belongs in the "classical" sub-section under literary criticism). In formal terms, literary analysis (like scansion of poetry, for instance) was popularized by New Criticism in the US, or the more sophisticated Structuralism internationally. In other words, powerful critical theories that propounded studying literature analytically (breaking it down into its component parts) rather than reading it contextually - i.e. socially, historically, culturally, psychologically, etc. - are responsible for cultivating the idea that "literary analysis" is a discourse that can - empirically and objectively - dissect a literary text: however, this is a debatable point, and as such belongs with the other debatable theories delineated in the "Literary Criticism" entry. (The ongoing strength of New Criticism may be noted less in American universities and more in American high schools: it often came as a surprise to my freshman students that they had been schooled in New Criticism for four years and yet never knew it by that name). So here's what I'd like to do:

1. Remove the "Literary Analysis" subsection. 2. Replace it with the Literary Criticism article 3. Piece the Literary Criticism article out into stand-alone pages listed under the new "Literary Criticism" subsection. 4. Bulk out the survey of literary criticism so that each school/theory/period can be a stand-alone article.

-Lawshe 14 July 2004

---

Explain this

Popular belief commonly holds that the literature of a nation, for example, comprises the collection of texts which make it a whole nation.

Can anyone care to explain to me what this silly sentence mean? Mandel 13:02, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Seven great stories in Literature?

What are the seven great stories of literature? I heard someone make a comment about 'trying to get home' is one of the 'seven great stories of literature'? I missed that day in lit class. What are the others?67.150.90.211 02:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The comment was by Tom Hanks talking in a DVD documentary about the Apollo 13 movie, referring to "The Seven Basic Plots" by Christopher Booker (Overcoming the Monster, Rags to Riches, The Quest, Voyage and Return, Comedy, Tragedy and Rebirth)

Terminology

In all seriousness, this section of the article lacks all worth and ought to be entirely stricken from the piece. The definition of literature is covered well nigh exhaustively in the introduction, and it contributes little to that discussion. Is there any way to form a consensus for deleting this? Matthew 22:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the dispute tag, so it should be obvious that I agree with you. Checking the comments above, I'd say it looks an awful lot like concensus. I think the Introduction is a bit dubious itself, but that could probably be fixed with some editing. The Terminology section—even if it could be fixed, no one has bothered to do it or even try. And it's been over a week since I added the tag. I say kill the section. With extreme prejudice. If you please.  :) Xtifr _tälk 08:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

haha, comic book guy from the simpsons was bored.

what really does it take to make a classical literature?

Introduction

This contains several weasel words, and I have added the appropriate tag. If the section was sourced I would have attempted to fix the problem myself, but it isn't. The phrases that may need attention are:

• To some people, the term "literature" can apply broadly to any symbolic record which can include images and sculptures, as well as letters
• To others, a literature must only include examples of text composed of letters, or other narrowly defined examples of symbolic written language (Egyptian hieroglyphs, for example)
• whereas some tend to look down on the works of Jeffrey Archer as unworthy of inclusion under the general heading of "English literature".

Regards. One Night In Hackney 22:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Initial sentence:"Nations can have literatures, as can corporations, philosophical schools or historical periods." Why is "corporations" second there? What is corporation literature and how is it more important than the philosophical schools/hist. periods that follow? (Comment Unsigned)

literature?

what are the key points of literature ?

To-Do

FA drive

While I think that things will become clearer as this FA drive moves along, here are some rather obvious items needing to be worked on (please add to this list if as you see fit):

1. Rework the lead. The lead needs to summurise all the different parts of the article. Also, there's a secion labled introduction, which needs to be merged with the lead.
2. Refrences. We'll have to start from scratch on this one.
3. Do something with "Literature by country, language, or cultural group"
4. Clean up External links. Bardofcornish 22:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Improvement drive

The article on Franz Kafka has been listed to be improved on Wikipedia: This week's improvement drive. Add your vote there if you want to support the article.--Fenice 06:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Genre Fiction

"Genre fiction (for example: romance, crime, or science fiction) may also become excluded from consideration as "literature"." Is there anything to back this up? While many deride some works as "genre fiction", it seems to be at least as accepted as it was in the past. It has been said that "90% of science fiction is crap, but 90% of everything is crap". --RLent 21:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I encourage people to check out the Lit site on the French wiki fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littérature. They are using a great template that could easily be modified for a "Lit" series here, with subsections by genre, language and period, plus direct access to the category indexes. Suggestions? -- NYArtsnWords 17:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

literature and Literature

The opening supposed distinction drawn between 'literature' and 'Literature' strikes me as overly long and pretentious; also somewhat questionable. (I can't recall seeing the word Literature spelled in uppercase except possibly as an occasional pretentious way of saying something like 'great literature'. I haven't myself seen it often enough for it to be worth remarking on, at least in the introduction.) Ben Finn 19:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree... plus, the big/little-L distinction seems like one particular theory rather than something that should be stated matter-of-fact in the introduction. For a treatment of the "definition-of-literature" problem, see the introduction to the Britannica article on "literature". --Stefankamph 04:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The definition of literature should be read in Terry Eagleton's: Literary Theory: An Introduction (1983/1996) and it becomes clear then that there is no clear definition of literature whatsoever. Andrej I.

I agree as well. I might go so far as to call it an implausible theory. My dictionary says (paraphrasing and condensing): "written works, esp. those of exceptional artistic merit." There is absolutely no suggestion that these are two distinct things, one named with a proper noun. I am working on a replacement for that section which should be more in line with mainstream thinking. I will install it when I finish, and then you guys can criticize and correct it instead. (Or revert it if you find it completely unacceptable.) - Xtifr 10:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

(Followup): I haven't gotten around to the promised rewrite yet. However, I still say that the section (now Terminology) is simply and plainly wrong. So I've tagged it as a disputed section in order to call attention to the problem. If I find the time, I may still go ahead and rewrite the section, but this way, it's more clear that there is a problem, and maybe others will be encouraged to address the problem before I get around to it (which would be great). Xtifr _tälk 20:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The two meanings of the word literature

Meaning 1: A set of written texts, usually on a specific field (Medical literature).

Meaning 2: The art of written fiction. Note that this second meaning is pretty new, 18th century. According to Jacques Derrida, this concept of literature, together with the modern concept of author, is linked to a shift in the copyright laws in Europe by the 18th century. Aristotle in his "Poetics" referred to this kind of writings as Poetry. He states that poetry should be considered as such according to the type of content and not according to wether it's written in verse or prose. Many writers and chritics referred to what we now call literature as poetry, and theatre was known as dramathic poetry.

Well, I'm not competent enough to write about the development of the concept of literature, its relationship with the concept of fiction, the concept of poetry, etc. But I think we should work on this line and replace the amateurish current introduction. If someone starts this line, I might try to contribute with a chapter on the complicated boundaries between literature and other forms of writing such as history, filosophy, scientific texts and journalism.

BTW, you can't start an article on literature with the complicated concept of national literature (which is also poorly explained).--Rataube 16:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

External links

I think that there are definitely too many external links. —ScouterSig 16:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't there are too many, but are there some that you think are inappropriate? I already removed about 2/3'rds of them a while back. -- Stbalbach 14:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Just Doing some Clean-Up

Just doing some minor cleaning. The Rypcord. 22:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

New organization by oxford definition

Oxford defines literature in three way, a group of work organized by subject, by nationality, or by merit. I think the article could have three sections focusing on these three types, and then move on into basic genres, and by basic I mean basic, as in prose and poetry, fiction and nonfiction. Wrad (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The Oxford definition is strongly POV against oral literature, privileging written literature as the only literature. This completely ignores centuries of research and knowledge of the field of folkloristics. This is Wikipedia, it's not necessarily a reproduction of an elitist editorial board from Oxford. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is to be NPOV, which means to include different points of view and let the reader decide was is valid literature and what is not. Unless a case can be made in this article that oral literature is not literature, then it needs to be included in the definition. Bruxism (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

discuss the importance of sharing and feedback

Discuss the importance of sharing and feedback

What is sharing?

Sharing is the ability to divide materials or things into portions. But in this context, sharing is the process whereby you give out your write ups or materials to a friend, a spouse, a colleague, a group of people or publisher in order for them to criticize and evaluate your work or material. This enable the readers to look at the work or materials from different perspectives and give quality or concrete advise on how to improve on your work. It also allows the writer to meet with knowledgeable and intelligent critics.

Importance of sharing

Ø It helps to learn about writing. Ø It gives listeners permission to contribute to your work. Ø It helps to improve on your writing skills. Ø It gives you a sense of feasibility Ø It helps to communicate better. Ø It gives you confidence and reduces nervousness. Ø It gives room for criticism of your work.

What is feeback?

Feedback is the response you receive as a result of sharing your material or work with readers either in the form of friends, colleague, relatives and publisher. Feedback comes as a result of giving and taking. The writer shares his work with a group or people or friends and in return gets a response (feedback) in the form of contributions, corrections, additions, etc.

Importance of feedback?

Ø It gives you a broader view of your work. Ø It proffers ways of improving on your work. Ø It makes your work to be rich.

In conclusion the importance of sharing and feedback cannot be over-emphasized in the sense that it is a major tool in the hand of a writer. No man is an island to himself. When you share your ideas with people, you rub minds and share your views. In the process of sharing, areas of misconceptions are cleared and more knowledge is gained from people who are more intelligible than you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.238.29.77 (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Image

Does anybody else feel that the image currently used in the article should be removed? I know literature generally means books are involved but I think its not really that related. I don't know how to explain it but it seems a bit childish: like there's no better image so we just use that "cos books are literature".212.120.248.142 (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any images should be removed. I think more should be added. Wrad (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"Use of Slang"

I think this should be removed from the introduction. While the other comments are true, I don't think anyone would, or anyone has, argued that the use of slang prevents, say, Dickens from being literature. And Dickens most certainly used slang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.87.141.17 (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Literary Criticism

I deleted the miniscule section on literary criticism. It wasn't relevant enough to warrant inclusion in this article, especially as Literary Criticism is already linked to. Sorryitwasme (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

old post

The word "literary" has diffrent meanings depending on how you use it. It could be used as a symbolic record,encompassing everything from images and sculptures to letters.

   1.Literary-of or having to do fun with literature or books (adj.) 
   2.Literarily-(adverb)
   3.Literariness-(noun)

unsigned comment added by 75.184.28.36 (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2003 (UTC)

culture - literature

Culture - the way of life of a group of people who share similar beliefs and customs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.25.53 (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Language Arts help

The article Language arts needs some help. I've removed a bunch of irrelevant stuff, but thought people here might be able to add something useful.

-- TimNelson (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Request

All those of you watching this page, please come and have a look at linguistics. There is a gross misrepresentation and censorship taking place there. Post-structural linguistics has been deleted and censored by the community there, and I urge you to participate in the discussion to restore a balanced view for the article. Supriya 13:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Why is the opening paragraph all in bold? It looks stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.19.42 (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What about Law?

It mentioned everything from poetry to essays, but shouldn't it mention Law (or should it)?

Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 17:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank whomever posted the original part about law. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 12:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Literature and Genre Fiction

Right now, the article states briefly that genre fiction may not be considered literature. As this is one of the big debates in the literary world and has been for some time (with Dorothy Sayers fighting for some crime/mystery novels to be considered literature and Kurt Vonnegut more successfully so with science fiction), the article should at least mention that there is strong disagreement on that point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.151.123 (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I tried to improve balance of this para in header section Oldwes (talk)Oldwes 18 June 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 12:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC).

(although, under circumstances unpublished sources can be exempt)

Not English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Goethe's Early Faust Novels?

In the section called History, which has many lacunae, particularly between the ancient world and the 19th century, "the German Faust books" are called an early example of the novel. I am assuming that the image of Goethe to the left of this paragraph indicates his Faust is what is being referred to here, although I'm not entirely positive; this because the statement strikes me as completely false. Gulliver's Travels, written 70 years before Faust, was an early novel. Faust (1808) is in verse, and was written only a few years before Sense and Sensibility and The Red and the Black. In other words, the novel was already becoming established, growing out of romances and short fiction, and Faust is not part of that history. The psychological issues explored in Faust may have influenced later novels, but that is a different matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.178.60 (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Huge problem with article

Some of the statements in this essay, I wouldn't call it "article", are biased and POV to the point of it being hilarious.

"Literature is usually differentiated from popular and ephemeral classes of writing, and terms such as "literary fiction" and ::"literary merit" are used to denote art-literature rather than vernacular writing."

The above sentence I have removed. It is grammatically incorrect, racist, and makes no sense at all. "Vernacular" writing is not LITERATURE?!!!!!

There are some huge, severe other problems with the way this article has been written, and I am warning the community involved in advance here of a massive rehauling that is coming up on literature. Because when I do so, I hope you will comply and don't you dare edit war.

UnconsciousInferno (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• It should be noted that the word "literature" is often used to mean a certain canon or a high class of writing. For example:

1. Familiarity with letters or books; knowledge acquired from reading or studying books, esp. the principal classical texts associated with humane learning (see humane adj. 2); literary culture; learning, scholarship. Also: this as a branch of study. Now historical.

The only sense in Johnson (1755) and Todd (1818)
3. b. Without defining word: written work valued for superior or lasting artistic merit.

- OED, 3rd ed. online

• Many would be confused if we called any speech, utterance, or baby-talk "literature", even if it is recorded in writing somewhere.
• That said, there are many literatures and jargons, vernacular and majestical, native to regions and peoples, as real as any.

RonPotato (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a lot that can be done to improve this page, which I also found to be problematic, to put it mildly. As a literature professor and scholar in the field, I'm concerned that this page is inaccurate, incomplete and a very biased article which does not reflect current thinking on the topic. I'll collate some references and see if I can learn what the issues have been through reviewing the history of the literature page. If anyone has any insight, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. (Note, I'm new to Wikipedia, so if I've violated any protocols, please let me know-- but be nice!) Vochek (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Article needs an overhaul

The article is confused enough to be close to misinformation, IMO. I'll try to copy edit a bit in the coming weeks. Could use help from people comfortable with literary history, theory, etc... Beyond the English language, even better. OttawaAC (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

talking back............

the subject of literature is an advanced subject for people who read.

nya811 Nya pritchett 01:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nya811 (talk • contribs)

Overhaul Plans

I plan to incorporate the following changes to the article (as part of the Core Contest):

1. Model the article around the FA Law, as another topic with an expansive scope
2. Drastically reduce the size of the Poetry section, which should be included under the topic of techniques/major forms; also to incorporate material from the FA Poetry Y
3. Add a section on Literary theory and Literary criticism
4. Add a section on Literary awards
5. Add a section on Definition of literature Y

If there are any suggestions or queries, please raise them. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Are encyclopediae literature?

Given the definition(s) in this article, are encyclopediae literature? More generally speaking, are either reference works or compendia non-fiction literature that should be mentioned in Template:Literature or do they lack 'literary merit'? Maybe the template is missing an entry about written works that merely provide factual information? --82.136.210.153 (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Lead

Any reason the lead of this article keeps going from something like "Literature, in its broadest sense, is any kind of writing" to "Literature, in its broadest sense, consists of writing"? Why is "consists" a more preferred verb than "is"? Wolfdog (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Due to the lack of discussion, I'm changing the lead back to "is". Wolfdog (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Going Deeper

While I think that the article is well written and cited there are a few topics I believe you could have gone into more depth about. While you mention some awards I feel like you could talk about a few more and even discuss what the awards are for. Another topic that I felt couple be talked about more is the genre's in literature. It talks about there being some but doesn't talk about what they are. The last subject I feel like you could've incorporated more information on is the essay section. While it's not a major part of the literature world it is one of the most used forms of literature so I feel there should be more information on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hananhrose5512 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The text you added to the section on essays dealt with academic essays, which is not a literary genre. I also believe that the addition read like an instruction (for instance, it addressed the reader directly), which is not something a Wikipedia article should do. There are also many other articles about literature, such as Literary genre, where you might find more detailed info. This article could definitely be improved - all articles can be improved - but it's always good to check first to see if what you want to add is perhaps covered in another article. --bonadea contributions talk 14:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Literature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.li/2012.09.12-031610/http://www.sevenoaksmag.com/commentary/94_comm1.html to http://www.sevenoaksmag.com/commentary/94_comm1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Literature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140220034442/http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/staffhome/siryan/academy/foundation/what_is_literature.htm to http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/staffhome/siryan/academy/foundation/what_is_literature.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sevenoaksmag.com/commentary/94_comm1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222222151/http://williamgiraldi.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/novella1.pdf to http://williamgiraldi.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/novella1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Literature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002221057/http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/5787 to http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/5787

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk

Removed the first paragraph in the definition section. The article didn't properly cite the source and only gave a reference to a person(s), making it unreliable information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrianajohnson (talk • contribs) 05:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Defining prose

I would suggest that it is more difficult to distinguish prose from poetry than this article suggestions. For example, prose does have rhythm and the language of poetry can be close to natural speech. I also wonder to what extent the definition of prose poetry in the Wikipedia article can be applied to some prose: "Prose poetry is poetry written in prose instead of using verse but preserving poetic qualities such as heightened imagery, parataxis and emotional effects." Rwood128 (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

This quotation from T. S. Eliot is relevant: "the distinction between verse and prose is clear, the distinction between poetry and prose is obscure".

I have since edited the article. Rwood128 (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

thought interpretation

Is Literature not a form of interpretation of human thought through skills of writing? Is Literature not a product of the art of writing (by masters of word)? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Suggested citations

An essay consists of a discussion of a topic from an author's personal point of view, exemplified by works by Michel de Montaigne or by Charles Lamb. Genres related to the essay may include the memoir and the epistle.

Suggested citations

Outside of "history of science" programs, students rarely read such works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suria.galindo (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Requesting wider attention

I felt article Islamic_literature is in bit of neglect so I added my note on talk page there, requesting to take note of Talk:Islamic_literature#Article_review. If possible requesting copy edit support. Suggestions for suitable reference sources at Talk:Islamic_literature is also welcome.

Posting message here too for neutrality sake

Thanks and greetings

Bookku (talk) 07:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word) has been relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Bookku (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Intellectual

Re the recent edit, surely James343e there is an intellectual dimension to great literature? However, I hesitate to revert because I'm not happy with the original definition. Rwood128 (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

No doubt about it, there is an intellectual dimension to some novels. But the second defitnion of literature, the more restrictive, refers to novels of fiction exclusively, and "intellectual value" can also be found in a scientific book or a chess book, despite the fact that these books are not "literature" as per the second most restrictive definition that refers to literature, like the Nobel Prize in Literature does, to mean artistic "novels". The Nobel Prize in Literature will never give the award to someone specialized in scientific writing, despite the fact that those are intellectual writings as well. So I eliminated the term intellectual value, because it is not an exclusive or definitory characteristic of the second most restrictive definition of literature. The Oxford Dictionary includes both definitions of literatuer, the general one refering to any form of writing, and the most restrictive refering to an artistic form of writing. The Oxford Dictionary definition of literature also makes no mention to "intellectual value", probably to avoid confussion with other non-literary intellectual written domains. James343e (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Not just novels. I still feel that the current lede is inadequate, but this is difficult and requires more thought, perhaps starting with the word intellectual. The following clearly applies to at least some literature: "That appeals to or engages the intellect; requiring the exercise of understanding" (OED). Also where does philosophy fit in? I'm thinking of philosophers like Plato and Nietzsche here. Rwood128 (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I found this interesting quotation in the OED: "Books on Trade, Finance, and Social History, which were not considered to be ‘literature’ by any one before the appearance of the Wealth of Nations." Rwood128 (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Is the answer that this article should more explicitly address the ambiguity in this term? That is state more clearly that it is concerned with poetry, novels, etc. And then improve the subsequent sections that discuss specific non-fictional works of history, law, etc, that may at times also have a high "aesthetic" value.

Replace "More restrictively, literature refers to writing considered to be an art form" with <this article is concerned with works of fiction, such as novels, poetry, etc, and non-fiction works that have literary (aesthetic) merit, including works of philosophy, history and so forth> Some discussion of the intellectual dimension of literature also needs to be added. Rwood128 (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

James343e your are brave in attempting to improve this muddled article. In the main it is about literature as "a body of literary works produced in a particular country or period, or of a particular genre", "written work valued for superior or lasting artistic merit", but some editors have focussed on "A body of) non-fictional books and writings published on a particular subject" (OED). This has resulted in vacuous sections like those on "Non-fiction". The presence of two sections named "history" is also confusing.

This is from the Encyclopaedia Britannica article "Literature":

Literature is a form of human expression. But not everything expressed in words—even when organized and written down—is counted as literature. Those writings that are primarily informative—technical, scholarly, journalistic—would be excluded from the rank of literature by most, though not all, critics. Certain forms of writing, however, are universally regarded as belonging to literature as an art. Individual attempts within these forms are said to succeed if they possess something called artistic merit and to fail if they do not. The nature of artistic merit is less easy to define than to recognize. The writer need not even pursue it to attain it. On the contrary, a scientific exposition might be of great literary value and a pedestrian poem of none at all. Rwood128 (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

.

There are 2 (and only 2) widely accepted meanings of literature, both covered in the article. The article is not about exclusively 1 meaning of literature, it is about the 2 meanings of literature.

General meaning number 1: literature is any written work about a subject.

Restrictive meaning number 2: literature is about written works considered to be a form of art (including novels, novellas, short stories, plays and poems, excluding science, academic writing, newspapers, etc.).

Science is not an art, but it is a form of written work about a subject. Thus, sience is part of literature as per the general meaning number 1, not the restrictive meaning number 2. As the article covers both meanings, there is nothing problematic with its current state. The article specifies quite clearly that there is a generel and a restrictive sense of literature in the lede.

The Nobel Prize in literature is never awarded to a scientific work, because they give the award following the restrictive meaning number 2 that excludes science.

On the other hand, ficiton works such as novels, novellas, poems, etc, 1) always cover a subject and 2) can be considered art, so only fiction words can belong to both defitions of literature, the general meaning 1 and the restrictive number 2.

The Oxford Learner's Dictionary, follows the 2 meanings of literature previously mentioned by me.

General meaning number 1: "pieces of writing or printed information on a particular subject".

Restrictive meaning number 2: "pieces of writing that are valued as works of art, especially novels, plays and novels (in contrast to technical books, newspapers and magazines, etc.)

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/literature#:~:text=pieces%20of%20writing%20that%20are,newspapers%2C%20magazines%2C%20etc.)&text=For%20most%20people%2C%20the%20desire,with%20a%20love%20of%20reading.James343e (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Well the article needs to be clearer then, and the vapid sections related to the first meaning deleted. Hope that you can help bring clarity to the muddle. You do not comment on Britannica's definition and merely repeat your previous comments. As far as I'm aware literature is usually the works of writers like Shakespaere, Dante, etc. and not just any piece of writing. Further problems, however, arise when terms like high and low literature are used. To be honest I think that this article needs merely to acknowledge the broad general meaning of the term (no.1) and concentrate on what is "universally regarded as belonging to literature as an art" (Britannica). Rwood128 (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, there is a Wikipedia page for scientific literature but it refers to the general meaning number 1. I totally agree with you that we can delete the sections dedicated to non-fiction like science, philosophy, law and history. But I disagree that the meaning 2 should be deleted.

I think when you mention the Britannica, you are particularly interested in differenciating literature from non-literature within fiction. But there is already an article for that in literary fiction. I think this article is more general isn't it? I think the restrictive meaning number 2 refering to fiction that I included is fine.

But you can put in the second paragrah (not the first) something about the Britannica, if you are so interested in doing so.

James343e (talk) 05:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Recent deletions

Re your recent edit James343e, as the essay, biography, history, some philosophy, mythology, and oral literature, are not discussed in the body I seem to have jumped the gun (however, there was a source I think for part of the list). You are certainly wrong; most obviously regarding the essay. I will look into this. Rwood128 (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

My source was most likely the "Literature" in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (I cleared my computer history very recently). Though I certainly added "mythology". Original research is a tricky term when some ideas are common knowledge in certain circles. Anyhow I'll d/w.Rwood128 (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Samples-

"Some personal documents (autobiographies, diaries, memoirs, and letters) rank among the world’s greatest literature"; "To use the word writing when describing literature is itself misleading, for one may speak of “oral literature” or “the literature of preliterate peoples”; "The essay was once written deliberately as a piece of literature: its subject matter was of comparatively minor importance. Today most essays are written as expository, informative journalism, although there are still essayists in the great tradition who think of themselves as artists"; "The Greeks thought of history as one of the seven arts, ... but most historical works and studies today are not written primarily with literary excellence in mind, though they may possess it, as it were, by accident"; " Many works of philosophy are classed as literature" "(Britannica). Rwood128 (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Literary techniques

Is this section appropriate for this topic? – I'm tempted to delete, especially as it reads like original research/opinions and has no citations. Any objection? Rwood128 (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Literary fiction

The subsections on novel, novella, and short story are largely concerned with defining these genres: what is the relevance of this to the topic, literature? To be more explicit, isn't this article concerned with defining "literature" itself rather than different types of literature – the common element that unites them? The William Boyd quotation and the lede to this section seems more relevant to a discussion of literature. The "Definition" section offers further guidance as do the articles Literary fiction and the Western canon. This comment is also relevant to the sections on "Poetry" and "Drama". Rwood128 (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Jawaid Danish (Playwright and Poet)

Rizvikamran, this is the wrong place to post a new article. See Help:Your first article. Please remove. Rwood128 (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Deleted Rwood128 (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)