Nov 10 2009
What Makes a Book Real Literature?
… I always enjoy reading your articles in amie. There was one I especially like about a man who was tricked into listening to a “friend” and ended but getting killed. When I read that, I thought, “She should be writing science fiction!” Turns out you are! Last night I was trying to find your email address and ended up on your website. I immediately downloaded Worlds Unseen. I only read two pages before I had to go to bed but let me assure you that two pages were enough to hook me.
Anyway, I had something I wanted to discuss and get your feedback about: real literature. I went to a writer’s conference in Searcy and was amazed to find how many writers are working on trash. I thought about the books I like to read — mostly classics — and other books I have read that are fluff — they have no substance whatsoever under that first layer.
I was wondering: What must a book do to become real literature? What distinguishes it from the trash and the fluff? What about books that I love that don’t seem to have a deeper layer — like the Anne books. I have a few ideas but I wanted to talk to someone else about this.
So, readers weigh in please! I would love to hear your thoughts. I’ll be blogging in response for however long I have things to say :). But I’d love to get your insights too.
I’ve never really thought about this question deeply, but off the top of my head, here are my thoughts:
!. I think originality is a key factor. If you write a story that is obviously a copy of some great work of fiction, the I don’t think it qualifies as literature.
2. Great literature give the reader something to ponder. Many great writers such as C. S. Lewis and Charles Dickens (and contemporary writer Cornelia Funke in her novel Inkheart) write plots or ideas that make the reader think.
I’ll be interested to read what other people think! This was a great topic, Rachel!
Generally, a good rule of thumb is: the author’s last name starts with “W” and ends with “odehouse”.
Seriously, though, I’m not at all an expert in any sense… but if you took everything that is generally considered to be “literature” by a few reliable sources, you’d probably be left with an incoherent definition of what “literature” is. It seems that the use of “literature” is suffering from far too widely-divergent usage. Everyone is investing the meaning they want to invest into it, and there is hardly any consensus or understanding of what is being communicated.
I’ve noticed that there is a small and growing revolt against the term “literature”, some people just refuse to use the term for one reason or another. I have no problem with it, although, I see the point–it really doesn’t mean a whole lot (apart from its broadest usages) unless it is narrowed or qualified some way.
Maybe any applications of the term besides the broadest, most inclusive sense could be just relegated to the mysterious “you know it when you see it” category.
Good thoughts, both of you. Elisabeth, are you a Cornelia Funke fan? I saw the movie Inkheart (and I think Ms. Funke has one of the greatest author names EVER), but I’ve heard mixed reviews of her writing.
Mark, I love Wodehouse too. Interesting that you should bring him up, since those who demand depth and symbol and lasting impact in their literature probably wouldn’t view his work as literature — it’s comic and innocent, but there’s not much depth.
But then the way the man uses language is unparalleled.
Actually, the barest definition of “literature” is simply “a work of letters.”
I’m not exactly a Cornelia Funke fan, but I do enjoy her novel Inkheart (the movie was nothing like the book!) The concept of the novel–the ability to bring storybook characters into this world simply by a skilled voice reading aloud gives you a whole banquet for thought.
I think the “trash/fluff” vs. “literature” division is entirely arbitrary and subjective– hence essentially meaningless. It’s a value judgment, and those can’t be done objectively or universally. One reader’s literature will always be another’s trash, and vice versa.
Books are subjective to a point because everyone can’t read and enjoy the same type of books. For example, I think “The Giver” by Lois Lowery is thrilling, thought provoking and heart-wrenching but you might think it’s just plain depressing.
If a book can challenge me to do better, expand my world view, or help me understand another person, doesn’t that book become real literature?
Even if someone else gains nothing from it, couldn’t they recognize that the book has certain key elements of “real literature”? (I am still trying to figure out what these are. Rachel quoted Merriam-Webster definition of literature.)
Elisabeth, I found a lot of food for thought even in the movie. I should read the book sometime!
Gabriel, I agree with you to a point. Reading is subjective, so what you and I get from the same work may be different. But I do think we can identify certain key elements of “real literature,” if only because so many people agree that certain books are worth more than others. Why does one book continue to impact people for hundreds of years, while others (think some of the kids’ books in a Wal-Mart checkout aisle) are forgotten almost overnight?
So in asking “What is real literature” from a subjective viewpoint, it may be worthwhile to figure out WHY certain literary works affect me so strongly. The answers may impact my own writing.
Annalisa, I’m with you on “The Giver” :).
As for what the key elements of “real literature” are, it really is an eternal debate. But I think Merriam-Webster does a pretty good job of breaking it down. Some folks narrow the definitions so much that nothing that isn’t experimental, depressing, and realistic (as opposed to fantastic) will qualify. I think that’s a mistake.