Boundaries of Literature - Can Non Fiction be Literature?

TedB

I wonder what the posters on boards.ie consider to be the boundaries of literature - is it restricted to the arena of fiction and poetry?

Personally I consider most non fiction books to be 'literature' in the traditional sense. Especially memoirs or anything really which resembles life.

I'm probably being horribly inelegant in its defence but having read some of the great historians (My background primarily being in the arena of historical scholarship) such as Hobsbawm, Maitland, Seely, Lecky, AJP Taylor, Pakenham, Mc Dowell, Gilbert, Macauly and Gibbon (By way of example) I find it hard to suggest they write anything other than 'literature'. Especially the great narrative historians. James Anthony Froude, for example, wrote with such a strong agenda that his history barely resembled narrative history at all but a contemporary political agenda - a political agenda as blatant as anything Swift, Dickens or Twain could conjure up. Does this not class the Froudes, the Lecky's and the Hobsbawms along with the Twains, Dickens and Swifts?

What do you think?

TedB

5 views in 2 hours... the lit. forum is dead.

Hermy

Or maybe we're all too busy reading books.:P

WinstonSmith

can a shopping list be considered poetry/literature if set out in a certain way? thinking of WCW poetry here...

buck65

I would consider some non-fiction literature. Norman Mailer-The Fight, Bukowski, Celine, Makine. Surely writers use alot of personal experience in their fiction so the lines blur in my eyes.

buck65

TedB wrote: »

5 views in 2 hours... the lit. forum is dead.

I know what you mean but surely a few of us can keep it going? I log on most days so patience required for a response...

Spiritoftheseventies

buck65 wrote: »

I would consider some non-fiction literature. Norman Mailer-The Fight, Bukowski, Celine, Makine. Surely writers use alot of personal experience in their fiction so the lines blur in my eyes.

Bukowski i dont think was non fiction. most of his stuff i know was based on true life experiences but i think i he definitely employed artistic licence.

buck65

I agree to an extent on Bukowski but he did base alot of his writing on fact.

Spiritoftheseventies

what was that story where took some small being out of his wallet or something like that. bizarre!

turgon

Well consider In Cold Blood by Truman Capote; defined as non-fiction I would consider it literature.

I dont think this spreads to historical texts proper; or technical politics and economics books. However biographies and books such as Freakanomics I would consider Literature.

Except Katy Price of course.

TedB wrote: »

5 views in 2 hours... the lit. forum is dead.

RIP Denerick, tbh. I wonder how it could be rejuvenated.

Spiritoftheseventies

turgon wrote: »

Well consider In Cold Blood by Truman Capote; defined as non-fiction I would consider it literature.

I dont think this spreads to historical texts proper; or technical politics and economics books. However biographies and books such as Freakanomics I would consider Literature.

Except Katy Price of course.



RIP Denerick, tbh. I wonder how it could be rejuvenated.

In cold blood up there with the greats. But was it 100 per cent non fiction.

turgon

True. He portrays the killers pretty greatly. He also switches the focus from present to past and back again without ruining the flow.

Spiritoftheseventies

turgon wrote: »

True. He portrays the killers pretty greatly. He also switches the focus from present to past and back again without ruining the flow.

Yes I think one of those in charge of the investigation thought Capote got a little bit too close to one of the killers and as such took everything he said as gospel. 'The consensus being that Capote was taking in by him.

turgon

Oh really?

Well I thought a lot of his opinions were founded on past facts. Take the thing about making the victims comfortable. Before Capote even made a comparison, it was obvious to me it was Perry who did it because of what happened him in the past. As in, he felt some sorrow towards the victims.

Spiritoftheseventies

turgon wrote: »

Oh really?

Well I thought a lot of his opinions were founded on past facts. Take the thing about making the victims comfortable. Before Capote even made a comparison, it was obvious to me it was Perry who did it because of what happened him in the past. As in, he felt some sorrow towards the victims.

Yes but Capote allied himself more with one of the killers which annoyed the other killer. and one of the investigators said after book was released that Capote was smitten with one of them. Think it was Perry.

turgon

bayviewclose wrote: »

Yes but Capote allied himself more with one of the killers which annoyed the other killer. and one of the investigators said after book was released that Capote was smitten with one of them. Think it was Perry.

Its was indeed. Perry gets way more of a focus than Dick.

raah!

I think that to a certain extent, the more a non-fictional text tends towards true literature, the more it tends towards bias. In something like a historical text I do not think that this would be desirable. But then there is more to non-fiction than historical texts, and more to historical texts than the non-biased ones.

But I would not be so inclined to see any objective exposition of just facts as literature. If the writer gives no sense of themselves in the writing, then it's not literature.. in my opinion.

Spiritoftheseventies

raah! wrote: »

I think that to a certain extent, the more a non-fictional text tends towards true literature, the more it tends towards bias. In something like a historical text I do not think that this would be desirable. But then there is more to non-fiction than historical texts, and more to historical texts than the non-biased ones.

But I would not be so inclined to see any objective exposition of just facts as literature. If the writer gives no sense of themselves in the writing, then it's not literature.. in my opinion.

Well you look at the famous essayists like Samuel Johnson and even at diarist like Samuel Pepys. Both wrote non fiction but their work is classed as Literature due to the merit of their works.

turgon

raah! wrote: »

But I would not be so inclined to see any objective exposition of just facts as literature. If the writer gives no sense of themselves in the writing, then it's not literature.. in my opinion.

I thinks thats a good way of describing it.

raah!

Perhaps we should have a topic to reccommend well-written non-fiction which could be classed as literature? Perhaps I'll have a look at Johnson and Pepys.

TedB

bayviewclose wrote: »

Well you look at the famous essayists like Samuel Johnson and even at diarist like Samuel Pepys. Both wrote non fiction but their work is classed as Literature due to the merit of their works.

Exactly, well put. My thoughts entirely.

From mid 1960 onwards there has been a push from within the historical community to either attempt to write history with complete objectivity or to accept that objectivity is a fools cause and accept the view of history as art versus history as science.

I think where the great narrative historians are concerned - Gibbon and Macauly being the prime examples since they were also rather influential politically - historical works can be classed as literature. Whether the analytical history of modern days can be considered literature... I'm unsure. Its a tough one.

Essayists like Swift also wrote books unanimously considered amongst the greatest of literature. Can we stretch the idea further? Can the correspondence of Edmund Burke be considered literature?

TedB

buck65 wrote: »

I know what you mean but surely a few of us can keep it going? I log on most days so patience required for a response...

I'd love to be keep this going. I think it will depend on how we view snobbery and how we view moderator interference. Either demon will not bode well for the forum. In a sense we should look to create a strong community capable of self regulation with the barest hint of moderator constraint.

Perhaps its that I like the days when I can have a right good back and forth with friends over drinks, and perhaps I'm a little naive as to whether it can be done as well on the internet. But discussing literature is discussing the very fundamentals of life - and the very fundamentals of life require strong, emboldened and impassioned emotions. I worry we allow the oh so softly approach to have predominance.

Karlusss

I wouldn't describe narrative history as literature unless it's clearly intended to be read as such. My mother is reading a history of the wives of Henry VIII which could probably be literature if you were willing to argue the point, but it's not like it's referenced thoroughly like a serious scholarly text. The lack of a story arc makes it tough for history to be literature, and if there is one (as in some very agenda-based historians such as the Marxists, or in popular history), it probably impinges on how seriously the text is taken by historians.

The consummate example of non-fiction as literature, though, is The Diary of Anne Frank. It has had an influence on fiction in its wake, and it's read alongside novels by people who wouldn't necessarily read it if it wasn't so good, if you understand what I'm getting at. Any extant diary or document is a source for a historian, but it's pretty easy to tell if it has literary value.

Also it could be argued that a lot of poetry is non-fiction and still literary. Think of Yeats - writing as himself, about real situations and real people (apart from the Celtic mystic forays), but in a consciously poetic/literary style.

sxt

TedB wrote: »

I wonder what the posters on boards.ie consider to be the boundaries of literature - is it restricted to the arena of fiction and poetry?

Personally I consider most non fiction books to be 'literature' in the traditional sense. Especially memoirs or anything really which resembles life.

I'm probably being horribly inelegant in its defence but having read some of the great historians (My background primarily being in the arena of historical scholarship) such as Hobsbawm, Maitland, Seely, Lecky, AJP Taylor, Pakenham, Mc Dowell, Gilbert, Macauly and Gibbon (By way of example) I find it hard to suggest they write anything other than 'literature'. Especially the great narrative historians. James Anthony Froude, for example, wrote with such a strong agenda that his history barely resembled narrative history at all but a contemporary political agenda - a political agenda as blatant as anything Swift, Dickens or Twain could conjure up. Does this not class the Froudes, the Lecky's and the Hobsbawms along with the Twains, Dickens and Swifts?

What do you think?

It depends on what your definition of literature is?

I think that in schools you come away with the impression that only the "classics" or "books worth studying" in English class, are deemed "literature" and everthing else is .....

buck65

Borges is another who's essays I would class literature.

Spiritoftheseventies

Karlusss wrote: »

I wouldn't describe narrative history as literature unless it's clearly intended to be read as such. My mother is reading a history of the wives of Henry VIII which could probably be literature if you were willing to argue the point, but it's not like it's referenced thoroughly like a serious scholarly text. The lack of a story arc makes it tough for history to be literature, and if there is one (as in some very agenda-based historians such as the Marxists, or in popular history), it probably impinges on how seriously the text is taken by historians.

The consummate example of non-fiction as literature, though, is The Diary of Anne Frank. It has had an influence on fiction in its wake, and it's read alongside novels by people who wouldn't necessarily read it if it wasn't so good, if you understand what I'm getting at. Any extant diary or document is a source for a historian, but it's pretty easy to tell if it has literary value.

Also it could be argued that a lot of poetry is non-fiction and still literary. Think of Yeats - writing as himself, about real situations and real people (apart from the Celtic mystic forays), but in a consciously poetic/literary style.

Well poetry is rarely about fiction, they mostly deal with themes. Yeats for instant dealt with History (September 1913, An Irishman forsees his death) love (when you are old and grey) and Ireland in general. Most poets are there to stimulate the senses.

TedB

Karlusss wrote: »

I wouldn't describe narrative history as literature unless it's clearly intended to be read as such. My mother is reading a history of the wives of Henry VIII which could probably be literature if you were willing to argue the point, but it's not like it's referenced thoroughly like a serious scholarly text. The lack of a story arc makes it tough for history to be literature, and if there is one (as in some very agenda-based historians such as the Marxists, or in popular history), it probably impinges on how seriously the text is taken by historians.

The consummate example of non-fiction as literature, though, is The Diary of Anne Frank. It has had an influence on fiction in its wake, and it's read alongside novels by people who wouldn't necessarily read it if it wasn't so good, if you understand what I'm getting at. Any extant diary or document is a source for a historian, but it's pretty easy to tell if it has literary value.

Also it could be argued that a lot of poetry is non-fiction and still literary. Think of Yeats - writing as himself, about real situations and real people (apart from the Celtic mystic forays), but in a consciously poetic/literary style.

G.M. Trevelyan - literature or just bad history? His history of Garibaldi in three volumes is as exciting and dramatically written as any novella on the life of the great Italian.

Narrative historians (Particularly those pre-1970) all wrote with a very discernable agenda. Within every narrative history work their agenda is at play. That agenda in my opinion makes their work a piece of literature.

turgon

Yeah the readers list isnt that good though, comparatively speaking.

What do you think of Ayn Rand, Ted? She features 1, 2 and 7 in the readers list.

How in the name of god did I post that in the wrong thread

ally2

I think a lot of great writers produced essays that are classed as literature - Montaigne, Virginia Wolfe, Joan Didion are a few that spring to mind. For me personally it is great writing and a sincere voice that can alter your own viewpoint and change something - that can be fiction or non-fiction.