/lit/ - Literature

>>1942085
That may be the stupidest thing ever said on /lit/. I'm not even mad. I'm just impressed.

Do you want to make the world a better place, OP?

If you do, kill yourself.

>>1942090
>>1942092
The hell are you talking about? It's a much easier way to explain things than the vague way they do now.

Books are literature. Poetry is literature when it's written on a page and music when recited/sung. Comic books are drawings AND literature. Video games are CGI, music, and literature if there's text. Sculptures are sculptures. Paintings are paintings.

>>1942096
That's an incredibly broad definition of literature and you'd struggle to find many people who would agree with it. Hell, there are even some forms of written word that aren't recognized as real literature, like genre fiction.

>>1942096
there are so many things wrong with that that I don't even know where to start

This is why I think the word ''literature'' is a nasty one, and why I favor the use of the word ''text''.

>>1942102
>i don't have any real argument except that it's not what i'm used to so i'll claim there's so much wrong with it that i "don't know where to start"

>>1942104
When I read your posts, it is like hearing a fat guy fart.

>>1942113
When I read your posts, I don't feel or think anything at all.

Oh, and art is constantly changing. If it's not there after you're done, it's not art.

Music was merely a FORM of literature written in its own language (notes and such) until the technology was invented to record it, at which point everything changed, and it became its own artform, which could be stored in the form of music (a CD, for example) or in literary form as they did in days of old.

Likewise, the play isn't its own artform. It's just a form of literature designed to then be acted out (though one wouldn't say the act of acting is creating the play! It's obviously already been created, and is just being performed... when you look at it this way it's obvious that a play is literature).

But when you film a movie, that's called "making" a movie because you are in actuality creating something that stays behind. A work of art.

>>1942125
I think I got a brain disease from reading that.

>>1942101
>if people agree with it, it's right
Cool. So the world used to be flat, and slavery used to be okay. Nice Argumentum ad Populum, bro.

>>1942152
But the world is pretty clearly not flat, and literature is not people.

>>1942152
>Baby's first lesson in the subjective

>>1942164
I was pointing out that the fact that a lot of people wouldn't call it literature doesn't mean it isn't.
>>1942166
Definitions aren't subjective.

self-bumping for truth

>>1942172
Bro, definitions are collective subjective. Enough people say a word means something, so it means that particular something, but a definition can (and almost always will) either change over time, or disappear in the mists of time, as long as enough people either agree to start using the word differently or stop using the word altogether, respectively.

You might be able to argue that an onomatopoeia is objective, since it represents a noise that can exist regardless of conscious presence, but even then you're kind of on shaky ground.

>>1942172
>Definitions aren't subjective
Definitions are relative to their uses and user. They are subjective.

>>1942194
>>1942196
>it doesn't mean what I thought it meant so I'll pretend it means something different

>>1942220
>I'm not even paying attention to the words I'm typing.

>>1942227
Probably the most honest you've ever been. But there was no need to greentext. Do you not know how it works?

>>1942228
>No, I just like doing this.

>>1942220
This is not an argument at all. Definitions being subjective doesn't mean we can just make up definitions. We still have to clarify these things. This is one of the first steps in any debate, anywhere, on any subject, and it's something that most internet arguments completely lack, which is why they devolve into nonsense and the textual equivalent of chimps hurling turds at each other.