Talk:Literature/Draft

OK, let's have at it

After a long (relatively) hiatus, I've decided to return to working on CZ, but just one item at a time -- in this case, the main entry for Literature. While I glanced at the WP entry long enough to see that it was not all that satisfactory, I am writing this entry from scratch. I'd certainly appreciate the advice/collaboration/editing/wikifying skills of any and all CZ folk in this effort. I want this article to read, look, and be an approval-worthy top level entry.

One thing right off the top: I think we need a good image for this page. WP has some old leather books from the Bodleian Library, but I think we could do better. Maybe something like the montage that the Biology writers and editors devised?

I'll be tapping away at this over the next week or so, hoping to get it in general, overall shape.

Russell Potter 12:34, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

Names and usage

Many thanks to John Kenney for raising the question of names.

I'm not committed to any one protocol, but agree we should try to be as consistent as possible. With writers who have chosen a one-name nom-de-plume, such as Molière, there's no first name to use; with some, such as Shakespeare, the author is so well known as not to need one. In a few cases, such as the Brontë sisters or George Eliot/T.S. Eliot a first name is needed to avoid confusion.

I'd suggest that we use only the surname, except in the kinds of cases outlined above -- what do you think?

Thanks also for adding Ibsen, his name should certainly be there! I also would like to ask all editors/authors whether we want to list exemplary authors or texts; they can be so useful for illustrative purposes, but it is possible that we could end up in a long series of edits as users put in (or take out) those writers whom they feel are worthy ... what do you think?

BTW, Dionysos is actually the older standard spelling -- I use Robert Graves's Greek Myths and he spells it thusly -- but I am happy with Dionysus as well if that's the consensus. See the reference entry here.

Russell Potter 18:01, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

Are we talking about what names to use in this article, or what names to use for article titles? On the former, I think it's good practice to give a person's whole name on a first reference. On the latter, I think if a person is basically known by their first and last name, it makes more sense to use this as an article title. This is certainly how most encyclopedias do it. For Chekhov, for instance, Columbia's article is at "Chekhov, Anton Pavlovich," Encarta's at "Anton Chekhov," and Britannica's at "Chekhov,Anton".

In terms of exemplary authors, I think it's basically worthwhile to list some, but we should be careful to keep the lists relatively short. Discussing drama without mentioning at least some of the Athenians, Shakespeare, and Ibsen would seem absurd, for instance, as would discussing the novel without mentioning Dickens, Tolstoy, and Joyce. On the other hand, you're right that it would be easy for it to get out of hand.

In terms of Dionysus vs. Dionysos, I'll refer again to the "other encyclopedias" test - Columbia, Encarta, and Britannica all use "Dionysus." "Dionysos" is a closer rendering of the Greek, while "Dionysus" is Latinized, but I think that about 90% of usages in English for ancient Greek names in General are to the Latinized version. I'm not sure what exactly the naming rules are here (as opposed to that other place), but I think in cases like this a "most commonly used form in English" rule makes the most sense. There has been a recent tendency towards using the more faithful rendering, but I don't think it's anywhere near dominant. Graves is generally rather idiosyncratic on these subjects, and is probably not a good guide to follow. John Kenney 18:20, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

Many thanks for your thoughts here. For main entries (article titles), I am all for full names; when mentioned as figures in a list I am a bit less certain. In your own post, you say "Dickens, Tolstoy, and Joyce," which suggests exactly how I would handle those names (they would of course be piped from wikilinks to [[Joyce, James Aloysius]]. So would you agree, that within articles, we'll just use surnames except in cases where that would render the name ambiguous?

I also find myself obliged to agree with you that we should use Dionysus; it certainly seems to be the reference consensus, though I am always partial to "closer rendering of the Greek" in my own writing. Graves is indeed idiosyncratic -- just what I like about him! -- I only meant, over the years I've gotten rather used to his usage.

Someday, when CZ has its own copyediting style sheet, we can pass over these matters! -- but for now, in hopes that this entry can become an exemplary one, I think dotting all i's and crossing all t's in order.

with many thanks,

Russell Potter 18:45, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

In terms of the issue of first names in general references, as I said before I would prefer to give full names on first mention. In an informal discussion using last names alone is fine, but I think in a formal article it is better to give the full name. This is, for instance, standard journalistic practice, and I think tends to be the way that encyclopedia articles and similar are written. I don't think it's an incredibly big deal, but I'd prefer, "Examples of famous novelists include Charles Dickens, James Joyce, and Jane Austen," to "Examples of famous novelists include Dickens, Joyce, and Austen. The latter seems informal and potentially confusing. Best, John Kenney 18:51, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

Prose writers

Is it correct to say that literary prose first appears in the middle ages with Boccaccio? There are a lot of historians in the ancient world - Herodotus, Thucydides, Livy, Tacitus - who are considered to be of literary value, as well as essayists and letter writers like Cicero, Plutarch, and Pliny the Younger. Beyond that, there are certainly classical writers who wrote in a similar vein to Boccaccio - Petronius and Apuleius come to mind as Roman "novelists." To say nothing of eastern works like the Tale of Genji (or the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, which was roughly contemporary with Boccaccio). And the Bible... John Kenney 18:58, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

Good point. Well, perhaps one should say "prose written with a self-conscious desire that it be received as literature" -- I would class Cicero with rhetoricians, Plutarch with biographers, and Pliny with historians. Petronius may be a tricky case -- and with the Tale of Genji we come to another issue this entry faces, which is whether non-Western forms which are, or seem to be, roughly parallel with or equivalent to, the genres or forms of the Euro-Greco-Roman tradition commonly thought of as "Western" should be referenced. I have gone a step in this direction with Li Po -- should we go further? I rather think we should . . .

The other issue, as to whether texts with religious purport such as the Bible, which can *also* be read literarily, ought to be counted, is no less thorny ...

Cordially,

Russell Potter 19:09, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

I agree there's a lot of thorny issues here. But Cicero's and Pliny's personal letters, at least, can hardly be seen as rhetorical or historical works. That being said, I would agree that they don't constitute self-conscious literature - they were letters. Plutarch, on the other hand, wrote the Moralia as well as the Lives, and those were definitely essays, although moralistic essays. Certainly Plutarch would not have been seen in his own day as an "artist," I don't think. But the Latin prose writers of the 1st and 2nd centuries would certainly seem to qualify, I think. And I certainly agree that we should discuss non-western forms. The Mahabharata and the Ramayana should be discussed alongside the Iliad and Odyssey as epics, and I think Genji and the Three Kingdoms should probably be discussed alongside the novel. Kalidasa and No theater are probably worth mentioning alongside the western tradition, too. John Kenney 19:14, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

Good points all! Well, I am very glad to have your energies here (I see you are also working on World War I! -- let's edit away and see how things shape up!

Russell Potter 19:25, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

Novelistic exemplars

The current list of novelists seems heavily focused on the English language - only Proust wrote in another language. I would suggest a) separating out discussion of the 19th century novel from that of the 20th; and b) including somewhat more writers. Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and Balzac should probably be mentioned for the 19th century, as pretty uncontroversially "canonical" authors. I'm less sure of who might be added for the 20th (Mann seems a likely choice). But I'm not really sure. For the moment, I'm just going to add Tolstoy. John Kenney 20:00, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

Oh, never mind, Tolstoy's already there. I'm stupid. John Kenney 20:00, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

Me?

Russell, Your recent edit reminded me you wanted some feedback re: this article. I'm sorry but I am a neophyte when it comes to literature. Looking through, one thing that might be useful to add is Beowulf. It certainly made a large impression on me when I was a kid. Chris Day (Talk) 22:28, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

Another thing that I found interesting was that Dickens was serialised in the newspapers. This certainly must have had an effect on the style of writing, or maybe not? Anyway, it might be worth a mention; was it normal to be serialised rather than come out with a whole book? As far as modern literature, is there such a thing a pop literature? Certainly the Maus books by Spiegelman were basically a comic strip but seemed to be serious work. But could it be classified as literature? Chris Day (Talk) 22:36, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

Hey Chris, thanks for your feedback -- it's very helpful indeed. We do need some language here adressing the role of periodicals and serialized fiction (I'm an enormous Dickens fan and have done a bit of work on his entry as well). Also graphic novels absolutely need a mention; I am certain that at least some (Spiegelman, Alan Moore, et. al.) *do* count as literature (they're anthologized, taught in literature classes, and picking up the odd Pulitzer!). I'll try adding some references to both -- my only uncertainty is where exactly to place them. Russell Potter 07:24, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

I would suggest that the article is at the moment so skeletal that it may take some time and expansion before it becomes clear where such subjects should go. Discussion of serialization, for instance, would clearly fall into a discussion of the development of the 19th century novel, which at the moment is virtually non-existent. John Kenney 12:11, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

Hmm -- "skeletal," I don't think I'd use quite that term! My goal here is to create a toplevel article which *surveys* the subject as broadly and succinctly as possible -- but I feel very strongly that such an article is *not* the place to give a *detailed* history of things such as "19th century novel" or "science fiction" or "Romanticism" -- these each deserve a separate article of their own. If Literature becomes too encumbered with detail, it loses its value as a readable toplevel overview. I do think, though, that significant developments such as serialization, graphic novels, or the rise of the paperback after WWII deserve *mention* here. So, for instance, the entry for Novel would have a fairly extensive treatment of serialization in the nineteenth century as part of its historical survey, but I would not want that level of fine-grained detail here in this article. Russell Potter 15:05, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

Just thought of this, wrt things like graphic novels and science fiction, is that we ought to explicitly discuss the issue of whether such forms are, in fact, literature. The Britannica article spends a fair amount of time dealing with the distinction between what is literature and what is not. (Poetry which is not literature, for instance, is, according to Britannica, "verse." Britannica also states that while many novels are literature, many others are not.) While I don't think we should actually take a position as to what is literature or what is not, the question of which literary forms qualify as literature, and about the very issue of literary merit, ought to definitely be discussed here. Both the traditional, limited definition of literature and a broader view that incorporates a wider variety of things should be highlighted. John Kenney 16:49, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

In fact, I think this entry is already about as long as I think it should be, although if we can add some additional material on non-Western literatures (which are notably underrepresented in the current version), then that might justify a longer entry. We might also want a few highlighted links (WP has them) to the next level down of detail. Russell Potter 15:11, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

Hmm, yes. I wasn't actually trying to attack the quality of the article at present. The issue was more what you say - this is a survey, and the reason it's hard to figure out where a detailed discussion of serialization would fit in is because it is quite possible that it does not fit into the article as currently comprised, unless we want to make it considerably more detailed.

That being said, there might be some merit in turning the article into a more detailed overview. The Britannica article "literature" is 34 (online) pages long. Traditionally, encyclopedia articles about big topics tend to be long and detailed and to go on a long way to try to provide a much more detailed overview of the subject than this article aims to do. There's not necessarily any reason to insist on very short overview articles, although this is obviously a question that goes far beyond this article alone. But I've always thought that wikipedia articles on broad subject matters are generally the worst thing about wikipedia, other than subjects that are bound to become political battlegrounds. For obscure subjects, wikipedia pretty clearly already has better coverage than traditional encyclopedias like Britannica, even though the quality is widely various. But if I want to know about a particular species of antelope, or a particular 16th century battle, or what not, wikipedia is much more likely to have it than other encyclopedias, and the content is often passable. For subjects of broader interest, other than the aforementioned political battleground articles, wikipedia content is generally not going to be as good as a traditional encyclopedia, but the quality is still going to be okay. But for general articles on whole fields, wikipedia articles are invariably terrible, and I think this has a lot to do with the length requirements. It's hard to write an article on literature or biology or whatever which tells you very much in the confines of the length requirement, and it's virtually impossible to compete with the very lengthy treatment of a Britannica, even if all the other problems with wikipedia are removed (particularly the fact that articles on big subjects like that tend to be edited piecemeal, without much real oversight). John Kenney 16:38, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

Toplevel article length

Hey, you are talking to someone who bought a full set of the Encyclopedia Britannica ("Propedia," "Macropedia," and all) back in 1985!

I quite agree that "Wikipedia articles on broad subject matters are generally the worst thing about wikipedia," but I also feel strongly that online textual space functions *very* differently from print space. Since anyone who encounters a linked term (mostly red here, though blue on WP) has the choice to click on it, we have to think of what people are looking for in terms of the new, shorter attention-span world (while giving those who really want detailed information the quick means to obtain it).

It actually reminds me of the old EB "Propedia" approach -- toplevel articles are primarily an "index" to knowledge, a secondary level exists for general reference (the "Micropedia," as I recall), and a final, highly granular but also exhaustive level (Macropedia) -- except that in wiki-land, as in Looking Glass Land, you have to run as fast as you can to stay in one place. That is, the most exhaustive level now comes in the middle, the moderate level is the starting point, and the most detailed, most indexable level comes last (or, once CZ gains critical mass, quite possibly first). 90% of all traffic will be lateral, not topdown hierachical, so we need to give good, relevelant, knowledge at each.

My thought is that toplevel shold be summary, broad, wide-ranging, some attempt to answer the query "What is Literature?" (or Biology, or any other field of endeavor. The mid-level entries should be the stongest (and likely the longest), and should lay out the detailed ground of things such as "history of the Novel" or "Elizabethan drama." The last tier needs also to be succinct, but is limited to items, such as individual works (Bleak House, The Wife of Bath's Tale, or individual terms (parody, synecdoche, amanuensis), and so forth. We need a *fat middle*, along with slender toplevel and an economical bottom level, if we are to compete in the wiki-knowledge game ....

So I want to say, yes, I want to be able to expand beyond what print-bound encyclopedias can do at the "general" level, but not by making our "general" articles so exhaustive as to be wearisome!

Russell Potter 18:55, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

This seems like a sensible way to view it. I wonder about the idea of creating subpages. At wikipedia, at some point before I started there, it was allowed to create subpages for long articles. Thus you'd have American Civil War/Origins or Canada/Geography, rather than what you now have, which is Origins of the American Civil War or Geography of Canada. This was banned at some point before I started (which was in 2003), on the grounds that it created a hierarchy, when in fact "knowledge was free", or some such nonsense. It might be worth thinking about the possibility of having multiple pages that are clearly conceived to be part of the same article. John Kenney 10:28, 17 March 2007 (CDT)

Literary Media

Maybe this is a bit nit picky, but if we are on the topic of phonetic systems of writing, shouldn't syllabic systems (as occuring in some cuneiform and post hieroglyphic transitions) also be mentioned in the evolution of literary media? I recognize that these are also phonetic, but they are a part of the whole historical perspective, and might be worth some discussion, if not a mere mention. I didn't want to edit them in without some agreeable feedback.

Yours in the effort,

Raymond Reeves

Thanks for the note! Go ahead and edit -- you'll see where early writing systems are alluded to, and you can mention this aspect, somewhere between pictographic and alphabetic systems. Eventually, I imagine we'll want an article specifically on writing systems, where we could show cuneiform, or a series showing the transition from hieroglyphic to hieratic to demotic - but I do want the toplevel entry to at least mention the key points.

cheers,

Russell Potter 08:30, 17 March 2007 (CDT)