No, American English Lit professors look at it the same way. In school there was a huge fight over whether you could do your thesis on graphic novels by Fank Miller and the superhero theme or if you should concentrate on "Literature". I remember discussing it with a guy late one night in the computer room, while I wrote my thesis comparing Molly Bloom in James Joyce's Ulyssess to Caddy in Faulkner's Sound and The Fury. I envied the guy because his thesis frankly looked like more fun. I'd finally gotten over my obsession with Joyce and Faulkner's stream of consciousness style of writting.
I'm on the fence on this one. I do know what rates as literature and what doesn't - usually it's a book that takes me five months to read, each paragraph has to be read twice to make sense, and I hate it but once it's over I miss the damn thing like I'd miss a favorite pet that died on me and can never forget it. Literature is something I can't read fast. I always remember it. And it varies on whether or not I enjoyed it.
That said people argue. And do not argree anymore than they agree on which religion is the right one, which president to vote for, which language should be the official language - people come to think of it, agree on very little. We compromise. So it's not suprising they don't agree on literary works.
I do not think of Ayn Rand as a literary writer. Or any of her books as literature. Nor James Michener. I do see Voltair as literary and Stendhal and James Joyce. Why? The story, the words, the style, the reason they wrote it, all of those things put together. Ursula Le Quinn, who I find unreadable at times, is literary. Robert Heinlein is not. Philip K Dick is. Harlan Ellison is. James Butcher is not. Terry Prachett is not. Neil Gaiman would like to be but is not. The woman who wrote Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrel is. Do I care? Not really. I've never been picky about what I read or watch or listen to. I'm fairly eclectic in my tastes.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: How do we define art?
Date: 2006-05-24 11:08 pm (UTC)I'm on the fence on this one. I do know what rates as literature and what doesn't - usually it's a book that takes me five months to read, each paragraph has to be read twice to make sense, and I hate it but once it's over I miss the damn thing like I'd miss a favorite pet that died on me and can never forget it. Literature is something I can't read fast. I always remember it. And it varies on whether or not I enjoyed it.
That said people argue. And do not argree anymore than they agree on which religion is the right one, which president to vote for, which language should be the official language - people come to think of it, agree on very little. We compromise. So it's not suprising they don't agree on literary works.
I do not think of Ayn Rand as a literary writer. Or any of her books as literature. Nor James Michener. I do see Voltair as literary and Stendhal and
James Joyce. Why? The story, the words, the style, the reason they wrote it, all of those things put together. Ursula Le Quinn, who I find unreadable at times, is literary. Robert Heinlein is not. Philip K Dick is. Harlan Ellison is. James Butcher is not. Terry Prachett is not. Neil Gaiman would like to be but is not. The woman who wrote Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrel is.
Do I care? Not really. I've never been picky about what I read or watch or listen to. I'm fairly eclectic in my tastes.