Ulysses is probably literature. The ingredients on the label of a can of soup? Probably not.
Moby Dick is probably literature. What about Twilight? Literature, but to a different degree? Bad literature, whereas Moby Dick is good literature?
Does it come down to the author? If a computer wrote War and Peace and Danielle Steele wrote some Danielle Steele shit, is her work more literature than the computer's?
Or is it all about re-readability/complexity? I would pick up on the same amount of preciously-missed detail if I re-read Tom Clancy's Op-Center or re-read Wüthering Heights.
Is literature just like pornography, i.e. "I'll know it when I see it?"
Lastly, and most importantly, is my opinion: it's all an academic circle jerk and doesn't matter. A written work is literature if interpreted as such by the viewer.
Pennis and also dicke and balls
Bump
Of self
sometimes movies,,, are films
sometimes books,,, are literature
>>9494355
THE fact that this post isn't brimming w contribution signifies the redditness of lit
>>9494355
Literature is like other art in that it aims to evoke emotion rather than convey information. Text like what we're writing now is a simple mechanism by which we can convey information and knowledge. The same can be said for some pictures like the kind put on warning labels. A bathroom sign may be in part a drawing but it is not art, it is only intended to convey a meaning. Art (including music, film, literature, etc) is meant to evoke an emotional reaction from the audience. This emotional reaction can never be dictated as the audience's interpretations can vary wildly, but it can be guided. Horror and romance are very different yet they can elicit the same emotional response in different people due to the interpretive nature of the subject.
Good and bad literature are defined by their relative ability to evoke a strong emotional reaction from their audience.