Talk:Literature
|
|
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...
I agree wholeheartedly with the last entry. It is entirely inappropriate. I am deleting it but it could be rewritten in the future and added to a new section '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 seperating 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)