Literature for Dummies

Because Octopus vs. Chipmunk is, at its heart, a literature website (well, that's a keyword I clicked once on some kind of search engine registry), I figured it was time to talk about literature. Like, you know, what is it.

When I'm in doubt at moments like this, I do one of two things. Curl into the fetal position in a corner of the room behind the door and cry. Or go to Wikipedia. I already cried once today, so let's go to Wikipedia!

So, I typed "literature" and clicked.

And I received a lengthy and thorough article in return. Which was cool 'cause I was thinking that Wikipedia was mostly just dedicated to Japanese cartoon characters (and yes, I'm using the word "cartoons" in anticipation of a backlash) and obscure actors and actresses.

I think I once noticed that Steve Feffer, faculty member at Western Michigan and a playwright who has had a great deal of stuff produced and published, had a Wikipedia entry. It is no longer there, which made me realize that someone consciously decided that this writer--who has work can be read or seen in performance with little difficulty--was not worth a Wikipedia entry.
But you can find Lisa Rieffel which, obviously, would be a more useful resource for research. She is much hotter than Steve, though.

• 

That picture of her? Came from a website called "King of Queens World." That made me sad.

Also, the "anime" page is larger than the "literature" page, though not by much. So there's a chance this literature thing can make it after all.

So let's see what it says about literature. I'll leave all those links in there in case you need to refer back to find out what an "historical period" is. Go ahead, I can wait.

"Nations can have literatures, as can corporations, philosophical schools or historical periods. Popular belief commonly holds that the literature of a nation, for example, comprises the collection of texts which make it a whole nation. "

So, confess, you clicked on "nations" and "nation" to see if they were the same, right? Or did you simply forget the definition of "nation" by its second appearance? Though they didn't give us the hyperlink by its third appearance. Hmmm, maybe they developed enough confidence in their readers to assume they don't need it hypertexted three times. Oh well, hopefully someone will fix it someday. And then unfix it. Oh, the cycle of wikis.

One thing I really dig about this first sentence, the thing that gives me a tremendous amount of hope (you can read that as "no hope," by the way) is that "corporations" is listed second among the possible entities that can have literature. Nations first. Corporations second! Second! And then, sure, philosophical schools or historical periods, but those are afterthoughts. And what about specific cultures, ethnic backgrounds, communities built on a shared racial background or gender? That's too liberal, I suppose, so we won't even consider it a real afterthought 'cause, yeah, no one talks about African-American Literature or Women's Literature. But they're always talking about Citicorp Literature. In fact, I believe I'll be teaching a class on the Literature of General Mills next semester. We'll mostly be reading cereal boxes, but it's very worthwhile. Here is one of our primary texts:

The article doesn't seem to talk much about "literature" as a term referring to documents you would distribute to elucidate some subject matter of importance to the entity (like a church or a corporation would use), yet the word "corporation" still appears. Thank you, mysterious wiki user, for making sure that even in an entry that spends most of its time discussing artistic writing (well, trying to discuss artistic writing), you still get me thinking about capitalism and business. For no actual reason. Bravo.

Anyway, later in the entry, it discusses poetry and makes this little claim:

"Language and tradition dictate some poetic norms: Persian poetry always rhymes, Greek poetry rarely rhymes, Italian or French poetry often does, English and German can go either way (although modern non-rhyming poetry often, perhaps unfairly, has a more "serious" aura)"

"Perhaps unfairly?" It's little statements like that and the corporation crap that make Wikipedia so dangerous. These little subtle things that people stick into wikis that seem innocuous if you don't know the subject very well. I mean, to make a statement like "non-rhyming poetry often, perhaps unfairly, has a more "serious" aura" shows either a lack of knowledge of any poetry since Whitman or a complete disregard for contemporary poetry (and the use of the word "modern" also shows that this editor is a fairly clueless tool, assuming that modern, I'm guessing, means "now"). And quoting the word ""serious"" so as to emphasis how foolish and lazy people who don't write in rhyme are, mocking the mere idea that what they do is serious.

I'm guessing this person has not spent a huge chunk of the last eight years reading poems for literary journals. If had, "perhaps" it could be determined that people who write in rhyme today are usually completely unversed (that's a pun) on the ins and outs of contemporary lit (and therefore not really part of it) or trying to be funny. There is an outlet for people who excel in writing exclusively in rhyme and rhythm -- it's called popular music. Be serious there. Not in English poetry. Which, oddly, has evolved in very interesting way since Tennyson. You should look some of those writers up. Wikipedia has entries on some of them.

Oh, and in its "poets" entry, it lists these guys as being among the most influential and profound writers in English literature.:

Chaucer, William Shakespeare, John Milton, Wordsworth, John Keats, W. B. Yeats, T. S. Eliot and Ezra Pound.

It's kind of no-brainer list. Sort of. There are only so many you can list. But Pound? Seems odd. Somewhere Blake is smashing his head against a wall in sadness and disgust.