This is Philosophy and Literature. We are two weeks into the semester and we have yet to define one of, if not the single one, key terms: literature. Obviously the question of whether or not it is definable comes first. I am assuming for reasons I make elsewhere, that it is. The correct follow up to my point would then be a proffering of a plausible definition. As an important annotation, this is extremely rough and therefore in need of much refinement.
Literature is an art form; the potential problems begotten by this classification are only actualized with a narrow, truncated conceptualization of the aesthetic which I do not share. This is important as it necessarily subsumes all the necessary conditions for art under the conditions for literature. Art, stipulatively, is the creation of an object through the use of an aesthetic medium with the intent to convey and embody a concept or emotion.
Literature is an art form, the medium of which is language. Unlike the musician whose medium is sound, the painter whose is paint, the medium of the author, of the poet, is language.
Literature is an art form, the medium of which is language, and that possesses, by virtue of syntax and semantics, a coherent narrative.
Therefore, a work of literature is an object created through the use of the medium of language, with the intent to convey and embody a concept or emotion, that possesses by virtue of its syntax and its semantics, a coherent narrative.
Literature:
1) An object
2) Consisting of Language
3) With the intent to convey and embody a concept or emotion
4) Coherent Narrative
Note that I remain silent on qualitative conditions, though I suspect, perhaps, that parsing 'coherent' may beget criteria of quality.
Thoughts?
I am going to respond to this post on my own blog so it counts for credit.
ReplyDelete