In its simplest terms, novels can be reduced to setting, plot, character, conflict, and resolution. Any seventh grader knows that. But literature is more than these things. Literature is different than story. But what makes literature, well, literature?
The explanation of what is literature and what is not has endured generations of writers, reviewers, and critics. Most recently the debate has fallen into the Freudian realm of "a pipe is just a pipe," leading to recursive arguments where both sides lack a will to move toward consensus. However, the question remains: why is one piece of writing considered literary and another, perhaps similar piece, not.
The explanation of what is literature and what is not has endured generations of writers, reviewers, and critics. Most recently the debate has fallen into the Freudian realm of "a pipe is just a pipe," leading to recursive arguments where both sides lack a will to move toward consensus. However, the question remains: why is one piece of writing considered literary and another, perhaps similar piece, not.
This got me to thinking: how do we know Hardy is literature? What makes his novels more important than what some would call Victorian melodrama, or soap operas? In the New York Times Book Review, reviewer Christopher Beha disagrees with Marjorie Garber's premise that "what it might mean to regard literature in a 'literary' way, or as Garber writes, how we might distinguish it 'from other distinct, though valuable, human enterprises like morality, politics and aesthetics.'" Beha promotes the idea that this is exactly what literature is for: to express the author's views on society, morality, and beauty.
Read the review and comment below on whether you believe Hardy's work can be considered literature.
Garber believes that literature is defined by how the author writes their piece of work rather than what the piece of work is telling the reader. Beha argues the opposite: literature is defined by what the author is writing about as opposed to how the piece is written. I think that in either case, Tess of the d'Urbervilles can be considered literature. For Garber's definition, Hardy uses many allusions, especially to the Bible, and he writes in a way that you just don't see anymore in today's books. For Beha's definition, Hardy wrote critically about the Victorian era, and he wrote it so it was, at that time, pleasant to read and talk about. So I think that Hardy's work fits both definitions of literature.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Erikka because Hardy's craft is one that is quite unique. His writing has a subtle way of getting points across that would not otherwise be tolerable in his society. Also, the points which he makes are still relevant today. Hardy is able to criticize in his own unique style which makes him a true literary author.
DeleteI agree with Alanna and Erikka on this one. Hardy's has his own unique way of writing that puts points across to people that wouldn't be tolerable in his own society. Hardy's main theme was definitely Victorian Era, and the comparison to man and nature. Hardy's work is arguably literature. Different people have many different opinions and thoughts on this since this topic is difficult to define.
DeleteIn my opinion, which opposes that of Garber, literature should not be defined by one specific set of criteria. Literature is not an art form, it's a classification of a work after it has been written. Impressionism, surrealism and cubism are art forms. Works of art that fit within these categories are not disputed because the classification categories have clear "criteria." When Hardy started writing, he had no way of knowing that the books would one day be classified as "literature." According to Beha, Hardy's work can be considered literature because it does express his views on society, morality and beauty. Well, this is a broad category that really doesn't even narrow down the list of novels that might be considered literature. Does any book that addresses an issue with society have the chance to become literature? Of course not. I believe that literature can't (and shouldn't) be defined. The classification of a work as a piece of literature is the result of a public consensus that a bunch of words arranged in a specific way on paper is of "literary value." This is no more than a matter of personal opinion. So back to the question... yes, Hardy's works can be considered literature. His works have been widely popular since their first printings, and they continue to be studied and referenced to this date. Beha would agree with me, but for different reasons. He would say that Hardy's works are pieces of literature because they express the "author's views on society, morality and beauty."
ReplyDeleteI agree with Taylor. Literature, according to Beha, is the author expressing their opinion on society. Garber, however, argues that a novel has to be written a certain way to be classified as literature. Almost all books can be considered literature from Beha's point of view since almost all books are about society, morality, and beauty. It would be easy to classify Hardy's novels as literature. Garber have a very narrow opinion of literature. He believes literature can only be classified by the way we distinguish it from other literature. I don't see how this opinion makes sense for any novel. How can you classify literature by comparing it to other literature? What is the starting requirements to classify the first novels as literature. So yes, Hardy can be considered literature according to Beha. But I don't believe Garber's definition of literature works in any sense.
DeleteLiterature itself is very difficult to define. I would say it is anything which encourages the reader to think about his/her views on society or issues. Hardy's works are literature because they are thoughtfully written to depict and challenge common views within society while inviting the reader to develop their own opinion. Tess is an excellent example of this. It seems nearly impossible to read and not have a stance on the diverse troubles Tess faces, such as whom she should be with or to whom she belongs. With every opinion within myself, I found my own views on more complex issues, such as organized religious beliefs and the treatment of women. It is literature because it invokes so many feelings and thoughts within a reader which may have lain dormant. Literature is written for a purpose, to fulfill a task, whether it actually becomes a part of culture or not.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Taylor on this one. Hardy's works can most definitely be considered literature but literature isn't really something that can be classified by a set of criteria. In my personal opinion, literature is just simply an artform in the sense that it conveys one's expression. Hardy's work can be considered literature in that in it's entirety, it was and remains a documented expression of his views towards (evidently) the human society and the natural world. He clearly expressed his interest in the natural world through his comprehensive descriptions of nature, as well as the complex hypocrisies that exist within societies.
ReplyDeleteI'm also going to have to agree with Taylor and also Eliza in different respects. Thomas Hardy's work, both poetry and novels, is definitely considered literature but because it has literary merit...not simply because it follows a set of self-imposed guidelines. Hardy's work is also an art form. It is an expression to society regarding societal problems, especially in the case of Tess, and Victorian society. I think I agree here more with Beha, because what the author is writing about is going to have more profound implications on the world around them (if it is to be considered literature). In any case, I don't think that there is a specific set of guidelines that can be used to classify a novel or any type of writing, literature. I do think, though, that what the author is writing about and how that writing effects societal hypocrisies and norms, is extremely important in determining whether something can be classified as literature. As for the initial question, yes, Hardy's works are considered literature, as they speak to societal norms and hypocrisies. He is bringing attention to Victorian society and its flaws in a direct and thoughtful way.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Art allows people to get their point across with a level of security. Hardy uses literature to express his opinions on the flaws of the Victorian society. There is no way he would have gotten away with it if he were saying these things with his own voice out in public.
DeleteAfter doing a little research, I have come to believe that literature is any piece of work that can capture a society or culture and preserve it, while also being universal to the experiences of all humans. For example, we all feel love. This book has that. We all question ourselves, our lives, our world. That is natural human instinct, and the book has that too. The book is literature because it captures those instincts from the point of view of the Victorians (i.e. the culture he is preserving in his world) as well as from his own point of view. This leads to further questioning by his society, and then by anyone he reads his work after him (like us!). That society can be revisited through his work, and those problems can be felt again, but the kicker is that they are still relevant! That is the key: his work is literature because it is serious, it can be interpreted multiple ways, and it is still relevant today.
ReplyDeleteAs for the review, I would agree with it. Literature should be based on its ability to critique society, morals, and beauty. It should be about its ability to make people think, and question, and try to live their lives more fully. That is what it takes to capture a society, yet to also be universal. That is what it takes to still be relevant.
How can we limit literature to a definition? How can something not be considered literature? When I look up the definition of literature I get things like "The body of written works of a language, period, or culture" or " Imaginative or creative writing, especially of recognized artistic value". So, if some writing doesn't have a language, period, or culture which it represents, it isn't literature? Containing the expression of any person whom decides to share themselves through writing into a definition or not considering their work as literature seems paradoxical. The common consensus, and one I agree with is, that literature is any writing used for self expression or social critique. I realize by labeling literature through my own definition makes me a hypocrite, but whatever.
ReplyDeleteHardy's work, as viewed by Garber, wouldn't be considered literature because of the way he wrote, not the message he delivered or the story he told. I'd have to disagree with this. Literature, even Hardy's (as much as we criticize it), cannot be contained by a definition and therefore should not be limited to one. Literature simply is an expression of self. In Hardy's case, he used literature to decipher his beliefs and come to conclusions. His work clearly was well read, had a language, and critiqued society, therefore making it fit the definition of literature. By trying to understand natural divinities, questioning omnipotent powers, and being shocked into disbelief by Victorian society, Hardy's work was of great value to those who read with an open mind and the ability to create similar beliefs.
But, literature is so much more. It's the reflection of a person through words. It can convey, if well done, as much as a physical encounter. And Hardy, although far from the norm, expressed himself through his writing. To me, that's good literature.
I have to agree with Kraig that the definition of literature is a piece that can outlive society and still be relevant decades and potentially centuries later. When Garber says that "literature is 'a status rather than a quality" I have to disagree. Having your writing called literature is indeed a mark of status, but you also have to have obtained a certain quality of work to get to that status. Im sure that there are many persons who write the necessary quality without receiving the status, just as there are many people who receive status, in anything, not just writing, that have not obtained the level of quality that should have been reached. I also agree with Erikka that Tess for fills the definition of literature in both Garber and Beha's minds. Their definitions are very minimal and only for fill half of what literature is in my mind.
ReplyDeleteLiterature can't be restricted to one definition. Literature is art, a form of expression that conveys the author's ideas, morals, themes, way of thinking, or all of the above. Something as abstract as art can, and should not, be condemned to one single definition. Art does not have criteria, nor should "literature", whatever that word may mean to you. Beha makes this same claim, that literature is a way to portray the author's ideas of society, morality, and beauty. Of course, literature can also include literary tools that happen to meet the "criteria", but in reality, literary tools are used to help the reader think about certain themes and ideas that the author might be implying. The use of such tools don't necessarily deem the book "literature" or not, as, once again literature should not be put in boxes. They are a form of self-expression, and do not need to fit through society's norms.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Literature is a form of art that has to have a meaning behind it. As you said Lucas it, "conveys the author's ideas. morals, themes..." Literature is a work of art that not just anyone can do. You have give it feeling. Literature has to be something that others can relate to as well, otherwise no one would read it. Art in itself is a form of self-expression, therefore it shouldn't have to follow anyone's guidelines as to what it "has to be." Literature is art, so it should never have to follow any criteria. Literature should, like all art, be what you want it to be.
DeleteI agree as well. Jocelyn says that "literature is a form of art", and as we know art can be abstract. Therefore can't literature be abstract? It doesn't necessarily have to come right out and break down the points that it's trying to make, but it should directly or indirectly convey the author's ideas, morals, themes, way of thinking, etc.
DeleteLike Lucas said, some pieces of literature have literary tools and some don't. That doesn't make them less of a piece of literature, if that makes sense.
Literature to me is any piece of writing. It could be a six word short story or it could be a 759 page book (bless you, J.K Rowling, bless you). Neither of those are any more of a piece of literature than the other. Sure, I assume the 759 page book has a better plot and such but I think that makes it a better story rather than a better piece of literature. It's like comparing apples to oranges.
So, to answer your question, yes, both Thomas Hardy's poems, and his novels are literature simply because they either directly or indirectly convey his opinions, thoughts, themes, or ideas. I consider it literature, in my book (i couldn't resist that pun).
Hardy's work better be considered literature if we're reading and studying his works. On a more serious note, I agree with some of the other when they say literature can't be defined, that everyone definition of literature is different from each others. I thought that any book with words in it was considered literature, but from this article, it sounds like there are criteria for a piece of writing to be considered literature (not sure if i can allow this). Hardy's book has words in it, so therefore it's literature to me; Tess might not have been the best piece of literature ever written, but it's still literature. Beha believes that literature is there for authors to express their views on society, morality, and beauty, which Hardy does do in Tess. Hardy's work fits Beha definition of literature, and more importantly, it fits my definition, so that means Hardy's work has to be literature, right?
ReplyDeleteBrian, if you were to read any book by Thomas Hardy and not know that he was criticizing the Victorian era and everything around him, would it still make it literature to you? Do you think that we only follow the definition of literature because someone that has more power told us that it has to be any single definition. If you were given a switch and told to shock someone because they had gotten the answer wrong, would you follow those rules? Should the definition of Literature be based more upon what someone else thinks or what we think?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHow can we even be sure that Thomas Hardy's work 'is' literature? After all, didn't Rene Descartes propose the possibility that everything we observe, is actually just a deceiving god playing mind tricks on 'our' brains? And furthermore, does Hardy's work even fit the definitions of literature that Beha & Garber proposed? It obviously doesn't fit the Garber definition, because the story never progresses - randomly he'll just go off on some 30 page narrative, describing a romantic experience that he had with a majestic yew tree, glistening at the top of some windy hill, which is also located on the back of a shiny tortoise wearing a hat and eating a tortilla, while the gentle breeze of the ocean is jetting across the little toes of a bunny rabbit, and tickling even the most solid of penguins, producing the precious sound that is of that of a child's laughter.
DeleteWhich in case you didn't know, had nothing to do with anything, let alone the actual story, which 'used to be' about a devious spider monkey eating pea soup out of a snow cone.
Although Hardy's books do fit the Beha definition, the views that he expresses on society and morality are introduced to the reader too subtly to even be noticed, and half of the time the reader has no idea what he's talking about - possibly for the reason above, and possibly for the reason that he lived in a country across the ocean over 100 years ago.
But regardless, I do not consider Hardy's work to be 'put together' well enough to be considered 'literature', and for that reason I award it a different adjective, such as 'crap' or 'terrible'.
I believe that Hardy's books are literature. They seek to define a society and a time period through fiction, and still remain relevant and read today. To me, that is literature. Like Taylor said, questioning society does not make a book "literature." Literature is purposeful and read for years after it's publication. For that reason, it's often not defined as such until years later, when readers realize the book's message is still important.
ReplyDeletePersonally i believe that Hardy's books are literature. He goes deeper than just writing stories about random people doing normal everyday tasks. Every aspect of his books has a certain meaning. People can analyze them down and pull out a whole bunch of meanings, and they'd all be correct. He didn't put scenes or even props in by coincidence. Like in Tess of D'urberville, when Tess's mom was reading the fortune teller book. He could of chosen any book for her to read, he didn't even have to include the title at all. He did it to prove a point and make people think. Some writers might just write things and people could say they have deeper meaning, but in reality they author just added them in because they felt like it. Hardy knows what he's doing, he wants people to think and talk about what they're reading. He doesn't just out right say his views on things, he makes you dig for them while reading his work.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Saorla and Rachael on this. All of Hardy's novels have certain aspects to them that make the readers think. Some books you just read and that's that. But with everything that Hardy writes, you can break everything down, find meaning behind it, and get multiple themes. Like Rachael said, in Tess of the D'Urbervilles, he didn't have to put in what book Tess's mom was reading. He decided to put it in because of his idea of fate. Everything that happened to Tess happened for a reason; her life was fated. Everything that happens to her, and the reason that is happens aren't just because he felt like adding that in. The events conveyed his ideas on society. When you can pull all of that out of everything that Hardy works, I would says that his works are literature.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn both classifications of literature Hardy's writing would be considered literature in my point of view. As Erikka said, Garber is saying that literature is how the author is presenting his writing while Beha believes what classifies as literature is what the author is expressing to the reader, their larger views on bigger issues. Whether the first definition is right or the second, Hardy's writing is considered to be literature. If one was to analyze all of Hardy's writing it can be seen that through his themes on Nature, Society, Faith vs. Fate and Victorian Society that he is clearly sending a message of how he feels on these topics. Therefore his writing is literature. In Garbers view that what matters is how he represents it, Hardy would also be considered literature. He uses many metaphors and crafts his opinions somewhat subtly into his stories, allowing them to flow smoothly. Small details reveille large things such as the reoccurring of Tess falling asleep, a minor detail or way to continue the stories events that can have a larger meaning concerning fate. The how is just as important as the what.
ReplyDeleteThomas Hardy, after writing such beautiful works of art, can be considered literature. We as a class have been breaking down the components of his work and setting them into different major themes/topics. What Hardy also is writing about is the differences between the two changing worlds. The world is changing and Hardy is speaking out about the tragedies that happen in his very small microcosm of a world. I can say that Thomas Hardy did write ´literature´ but it also can be said that he was bitter about how his world, however small it may have been, was changing.
ReplyDeleteI would have to disagree with you Brendan. I disagree because we learned that Tess, along with other pieces by Hardy, were released in a series of events. (no, not a Series of Unfortunate Events) Hardy would base what would happen in the story based upon what the public opinion seemed to be. He wouldn't specifically write what he wanted or believed, but instead what the public wanted in order to acquire revenue. In contrast Hardy did write some controversial things that the public clearly did not want to happen, and that the publishers didn't let happen. One example is when Hardy wrote about the baptism of Tess' bastard child. The publishers didn't allow this to be published immediately because this event was astonishingly improper. Therefore, Hardy's writing can't always be considered literature because he was writing in order to appeal to the public opinion.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete