J.K. Rowling set to write "crime" novel

[abecedarian]

No, not you. Steffee.

Brush aside his horrible writing (and even worse plots) and you will find some educational material. Not much but it's there.

I suppose, but so much is pure garbage; who can trust his historical accuracy? I guess I'm glad he's got people buying books and reading, but I hope they get tired of him and start looking around for the good stuff.

 

[Stewart]

Dickens is literature, I expect. But I do believe Dickens educates. He educates the reader on his times, such as with workhouses and whatnot; and he educates us on the scope of human nature.

But Dickens wasn't writing to educate. His stories were penny serials in newspapers, thrillers of their day. The people who read them and made him popular weren't reading him to be educated on his times for those were their times too.

 

[steffee]

*burns thighs due to backpedaling so quickly*

So by your reasoning Dan Brown is literature.

Er, no. But had his stories contained pure fact, rather than fiction, then I would say yes. I did find The Da Vinci Code an entertaining read. Obviously I've seen much better writing, better plots, better character development, etc; but I've also seen a lot worse. But his books weren't educational. Despite the negativity surrounding him, many people probably did find something entertaining in his stories. Are you truly suggesting that Dan Brown is the worst author out there?

Besides that, there are books of a similar nature, say Foucalt's Pendulum by Umberto Eco. Would that be literature? Why - just because he researched better and wrote the finished product better? But we have poor writers from the 19th Century who are still popular today. It doesn't take a great writer to write 'literature'.

Can you tell I hate being wrong?

But Dickens wasn't writing to educate. His stories were penny serials in newspapers, thrillers of their day. The people who read them and made him popular weren't reading him to be educated on his times for those were their times too.

He mightn't have had the intention of educating the masses, but he succeeded anyway. Maybe they did share the same 'times', I share times with suicide bombers, astronauts, people who work in shipyards, mountain climbers, deap sea divers, pop artists and actors, the homeless, chavs, emo moshers or whatever they call themselves, druggies, and the Beckhams, etc; it doesn't mean I can't be educated on the lives of those. More prominently, I think the people of Dicken's times, as with our generation, and all those in between, learned valuable lessons about people.

 

[sparkchaser]

Is a story containing pure fact literature? I hope not. I'd hate to think of my Op Amp design text book as literature while All Quiet on the Western Front isn't! eyes

I'm not saying Dan Brown is the worst writer out there but he is the first bad writer that popped into my head. I'm sure when I get home I will find an author on my bookshelf that is worse.

 

[steffee]

Is a story containing pure fact literature? I hope not. I'd hate to think of my Op Amp design text book as literature while All Quiet on the Western Front isn't! eyes

NO!!!!! Educating the rea... oh, I give up.

I'm not saying Dan Brown is the worst writer out there but he is the first bad writer that popped into my head. I'm sure when I get home I will find an author on my bookshelf that is worse.

Don't admit it though!

 

[beer good]

IMO: the day we start demanding that fiction should be educational and factually correct to be considered "real" literature, then it's truly dead. Fiction, by definition, lies.

 

[abecedarian]

Is a story containing pure fact literature? I hope not. I'd hate to think of my Op Amp design text book as literature while All Quiet on the Western Front isn't! eyes

I'm not saying Dan Brown is the worst writer out there but he is the first bad writer that popped into my head. I'm sure when I get home I will find an author on my bookshelf that is worse.

I don't know whether pure fact can be literature, but I've read some pretty great literary nonfiction that make me wonder.

As for worse writers than Dan Brown, the late great Barbara Cartland comes to mind

I'll now go hide, so the Cartland fans can't find me and hurt me

 

[sparkchaser]

Well one thing I don't want to do is begin a quest to find the worst author out there. That's too masochistic for me.

Back on topic: JKR is writing a crime novel. I will likely not read it.

 

[Zolipara]

I would disagree and say the purpose of literature is more to educate than entertain. There is less of a story, as such.

That seems like a very strange "definition" to me. What does the authors of literature want to teach you?

 

[Zolipara]

He mightn't have had the intention of educating the masses, but he succeeded anyway. Maybe they did share the same 'times', I share times with suicide bombers, astronauts, people who work in shipyards, mountain climbers, deap sea divers, pop artists and actors, the homeless, chavs, emo moshers or whatever they call themselves, druggies, and the Beckhams, etc; it doesn't mean I can't be educated on the lives of those. More prominently, I think the people of Dicken's times, as with our generation, and all those in between, learned valuable lessons about people.

I'm sure you can find plenty of "trash" fiction that could potentially teach you something about People too.

 

[steffee]

IMO: the day we start demanding that fiction should be educational and factually correct to be considered "real" literature, then it's truly dead. Fiction, by definition, lies.

You're right, I shouldn't have said that. Educating the reader about people, characters, situations, though. How many books have you read and enjoyed that you didn't learn from?

I would disagree and say the purpose of literature is more to educate than entertain. There is less of a story, as such.

That seems like a very strange "definition" to me. What does the authors of literature want to teach you?

They don't necessarily want to teach me anything, they inadvertedly do, though.

What is your definition of literature, then?

I'm sure you can find plenty of "trash" fiction that could potentially teach you something about People too.

Of course. But... um, I'm losing this, aren't I?

Thank you, as always, ABC, for your diplomacy and sticking up for me.

Back on topic: JKR is writing a crime novel. I will likely not read it.

Me neither.

 

[beer good]

How many books have you read and enjoyed that you didn't learn from?

147.

Seriously, I agree with you about fiction helping you understand people, etc... non-fiction is for what people have done, fiction is for what we have the potential to do. But I wouldn't consider it THE defining characteristic of what should be considered "literature".

 

[steffee]

147.

Seriously, I agree with you about fiction helping you understand people, etc... non-fiction is for what people have done, fiction is for what we have the potential to do. But I wouldn't consider it THE defining characteristic of what should be considered "literature".

So (and I bet you don't know what's coming next ) what would you consider THE defining characteristics of what should be considered literature?

 

[beer good]

So (and I bet you don't know what's coming next ) what would you consider THE defining characteristics of what should be considered literature?

I'd call them "irrelevant to any discussion regarding JK Rowling."

Seriously, I don't know. It's a bit like defining art; no matter how you twist and turn, somebody's going to disagree with it. I'll think about it.

 

[abecedarian]

I'd call them "irrelevant to any discussion regarding JK Rowling."

Seriously, I don't know. It's a bit like defining art; no matter how you twist and turn, somebody's going to disagree with it. I'll think about it.

Defining literature is like trying to pin jello to the wall. This should be fun

 

[Mrs Pacino]

I thought this forum was about enjoying books. Defining them as literature or not seems pointless. It becomes book snobbery and that is useless. We all enjoy books, some are classed as literature, some are not, why try to define them in any way? You either like a book or you don't.

And by the way, I'm an english teacher on holiday so I can use capital letters or not. It's the law. I can even make up words.

 

[abecedarian]

I thought this forum was about enjoying books. Defining them as literature or not seems pointless. It becomes book snobbery and that is useless. We all enjoy books, some are classed as literature, some are not, why try to define them in any way? You either like a book or you don't.

And by the way, I'm an english teacher on holiday so I can use capital letters or not. It's the law. I can even make up words.

Some of us just enjoy the friendly arguement..

And if CS Lewis and his brother could make up words, why not you

 

[Zolipara]

What is your definition of literature, then?

I think you went wrong when you tried to pin literature into a narrow definition, and I dont see the need to do so. Literature or not is in a way a measure of quality, but it is not something you can measure easily.

 

[PhilW]

I thought this forum was about enjoying books. Defining them as literature or not seems pointless. It becomes book snobbery and that is useless. We all enjoy books, some are classed as literature, some are not, why try to define them in any way? You either like a book or you don't.

Hear, hear. Literature? Fiction? Commercial fiction? (and, presumably then, non-commercial fiction?). "What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet" They are all books, good, bad or indifferent, matching peoples' good, bad or indifferent taste.

It's the law. I can even make up words.

I think that law only applies in England

 

[abecedarian]

I think that law only applies in England

And some parts of south central Kansas..but don't tell anyone