Just to satiate my curiosity... ;) Would you? What if it had a monthly literature contest with a $25 - $30 reward for first place?

Probably not because you'd end up with an elitist group who flame, troll and generally decry people who enjoy or wish to speak off any book they don;t deem to be literature given enough time.

 

I mean I can see the different value of books and some are far more literature than others; but that doesn't mean other books aren't nice to talk about and enjoy. I mean for example Twilight and Harry Potter in literary terms are absolutely appallingly written and contribute little to the great swathes of literature out there. But they are still good books because the story is engaging and they are enjoyable and can be discussed.

Probably not because you'd end up with an elitist group who flame, troll and generally decry people who enjoy or wish to speak off any book they don;t deem to be literature given enough time.

 

I mean I can see the different value of books and some are far more literature than others; but that doesn't mean other books aren't nice to talk about and enjoy. I mean for example Twilight and Harry Potter in literary terms are absolutely appallingly written and contribute little to the great swathes of literature out there. But they are still good books because the story is engaging and they are enjoyable and can be discussed.

 

I disagree. That only happens if the staff allows it to happen. But if the staff were to get a firm grip and show that they want to have fun, but also were there to keep everyone friendly I think the forum could succeed and do very well.

Probably not because you'd end up with an elitist group who flame, troll and generally decry people who enjoy or wish to speak off any book they don;t deem to be literature given enough time.

 

I mean I can see the different value of books and some are far more literature than others; but that doesn't mean other books aren't nice to talk about and enjoy. I mean for example Twilight and Harry Potter in literary terms are absolutely appallingly written and contribute little to the great swathes of literature out there. But they are still good books because the story is engaging and they are enjoyable and can be discussed.

 

I disagree. That only happens if the staff allows it to happen. But if the staff were to get a firm grip and show that they want to have fun, but also were there to keep everyone friendly I think the forum could succeed and do very well.

 

I've seen alot of lit communitys go that way regardless of staff intervention; because just being scolded by a staff member wont stop a literature snob from being such.

Probably not because you'd end up with an elitist group who flame, troll and generally decry people who enjoy or wish to speak off any book they don;t deem to be literature given enough time.

 

I mean I can see the different value of books and some are far more literature than others; but that doesn't mean other books aren't nice to talk about and enjoy. I mean for example Twilight and Harry Potter in literary terms are absolutely appallingly written and contribute little to the great swathes of literature out there. But they are still good books because the story is engaging and they are enjoyable and can be discussed.

 

I disagree. That only happens if the staff allows it to happen. But if the staff were to get a firm grip and show that they want to have fun, but also were there to keep everyone friendly I think the forum could succeed and do very well.

 

I've seen alot of lit communitys go that way regardless of staff intervention; because just being scolded by a staff member wont stop a literature snob from being such.

 

I was never much for scolding, it is always better to warn and then ban. I would never allow an elitist group of people to form on my forum. I am trying to provide a safe environment for authors, and I will do anything to keep it safe.

If the community wasn't how Sy described it to be, I would. In theory, it sounds like a peaceful community, but it only takes a handful of trolls to change that.

If the community wasn't how Sy described it to be, I would. In theory, it sounds like a peaceful community, but it only takes a handful of trolls to change that.

 

It would only take a handful of trolls if there were a handful of trolls. We don't even have a handful of people. XD

I mean for example Twilight and Harry Potter in literary terms are absolutely appallingly written and contribute little to the great swathes of literature out there. But they are still good books because the story is engaging and they are enjoyable and can be discussed.

 

Yes, that doesn't sound elitist at all.

 

-

 

Aside from that, there are already a lot of communities out there: you'd really have to do something interesting to make it worthwhile.

I mean for example Twilight and Harry Potter in literary terms are absolutely appallingly written and contribute little to the great swathes of literature out there. But they are still good books because the story is engaging and they are enjoyable and can be discussed.

 

Yes, that doesn't sound elitist at all.

 

-

 

Aside from that, there are already a lot of communities out there: you'd really have to do something interesting to make it worthwhile.

 

It's not elitist at all. Anyone with a vague concept of literature can't really argue they are that well written or contribute to the Canon and the great thing known as literature. But it equally doesn't mean they aren't worth discussing or a good read.

Anything to do with Brandon Sanderson = good in my book (pardon the pun).

 

Aside from that, I'm in enough communities as is. <3:

I mean for example Twilight and Harry Potter in literary terms are absolutely appallingly written and contribute little to the great swathes of literature out there. But they are still good books because the story is engaging and they are enjoyable and can be discussed.

 

Yes, that doesn't sound elitist at all.

 

-

 

Aside from that, there are already a lot of communities out there: you'd really have to do something interesting to make it worthwhile.

 

It's not elitist at all. Anyone with a vague concept of literature can't really argue they are that well written or contribute to the Canon and the great thing known as literature. But it equally doesn't mean they aren't worth discussing or a good read.

 

You really cannot hold that position in an argument.

 

Primarily, who is offered this immense power to decide what qualifies as literature and what does not? And it will vary from person to person, as well, and is subject to all sorts of strange social ideals and contortions: Shakespeare was seen as a form of low-brow entertainment, whereas today his work is considered the pinnacle of literary form.

 

And in my (and my other people's) opinion, lumping Harry Potter and Twilight into the same category is lunacy: it's like doing the same to Lord of the Rings and... well, Twilight.

I mean for example Twilight and Harry Potter in literary terms are absolutely appallingly written and contribute little to the great swathes of literature out there. But they are still good books because the story is engaging and they are enjoyable and can be discussed.

 

Yes, that doesn't sound elitist at all.

 

-

 

Aside from that, there are already a lot of communities out there: you'd really have to do something interesting to make it worthwhile.

 

It's not elitist at all. Anyone with a vague concept of literature can't really argue they are that well written or contribute to the Canon and the great thing known as literature. But it equally doesn't mean they aren't worth discussing or a good read.

 

You really cannot hold that position in an argument.

 

Primarily, who is offered this immense power to decide what qualifies as literature and what does not? And it will vary from person to person, as well, and is subject to all sorts of strange social ideals and contortions: Shakespeare was seen as a form of low-brow entertainment, whereas today his work is considered the pinnacle of literary form.

 

And in my (and my other people's) opinion, lumping Harry Potter and Twilight into the same category is lunacy: it's like doing the same to Lord of the Rings and... well, Twilight.

 

I'm hardly "lumping them into the same category" only differentiating them as good fiction books opposed to books that currently are classed as great literature.

Sure people differ in views but there is always a general consensus at any given time that certain books are literature, certain books are not and others fall in a grey area that is quarrelled over and thus slowly shift what is classed as the greats and literature etc.

 

It is undeniable that at present Harry Potter and Twilight fall safely into the category of not at all literature.

As I stated however this does not make them unworthy of discussion or of reading; which is what the elitist I spoke of do and thus create a lot of fighting as they try to "outlaw" as it were, books they deem not literature.

 

I'm hardly "lumping them into the same category" only differentiating them as good fiction books opposed to books that currently are classed as great literature.

Sure people differ in views but there is always a general consensus at any given time that certain books are literature, certain books are not and others fall in a grey area that is quarrelled over and thus slowly shift what is classed as the greats and literature etc.

 

It is undeniable that at present Harry Potter and Twilight fall safely into the category of not at all literature.

As I stated however this does not make them unworthy of discussion or of reading; which is what the elitist I spoke of do and thus create a lot of fighting as they try to "outlaw" as it were, books they deem not literature.

 

How is an opinion "undeniable"?

 

Neither book is War and Peace, but both (harry potter in particular) are quite well written, that's part of the reason for their popularity. Harry Potter especially is descriptive, well thought out, and quite elegant at times.

 

Also, you do know that "literature" refers to writing in general, not just good writing? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literature

Literature is one of those odd words with conflicting meanings.

Yes in a literal dictionary sense literature does refer to all written works.

 

However it is also used in a more specific sense to refer to works classed as literature. The stuff deemed to fall into the canon in some way and to be worthy of extensive study and dissection past and present. It's one of the issues my course looked at early last year. That is does conflict as all books are literature, but not all books are Literature.

 

I can also quite safely say from a writing perspective Harry Potter is not that amazingly well written. It has a fair few badly constructed sentences and has a tendency to telling rather than showing.

Edit: Though tbf Harry Potter is one of the books that is well enough written for it to not be noticeable that its badly written unless you are fully aware of what defines "well written". Its one of them once you know it you notice it type things, like having been taught the techiniques you read them used badly and its like OH MY GOD BAD BAD. But prior to being taught you'd not notice the flaw at all. If that makes sense. Its why professional critiques often heavily disagree with public opinion.

I'd use the term "great literature". It's a little more clear :P

Literature is one of those odd words with conflicting meanings.

Yes in a literal dictionary sense literature does refer to all written works.

 

However it is also used in a more specific sense to refer to works classed as literature. The stuff deemed to fall into the canon in some way and to be worthy of extensive study and dissection past and present. It's one of the issues my course looked at early last year. That is does conflict as all books are literature, but not all books are Literature.

 

I can also quite safely say from a writing perspective Harry Potter is not that amazingly well written. It has a fair few badly constructed sentences and has a tendency to telling rather than showing.

Edit: Though tbf Harry Potter is one of the books that is well enough written for it to not be noticeable that its badly written unless you are fully aware of what defines "well written". Its one of them once you know it you notice it type things, like having been taught the techiniques you read them used badly and its like OH MY GOD BAD BAD. But prior to being taught you'd not notice the flaw at all. If that makes sense. Its why professional critiques often heavily disagree with public opinion.

 

I am fairly well read: I'm not trying to bloat my already over-inflated ego, and to be fair, the majority of my reading is non-fiction, but I don't understand your distinction of "literature" and "great literature."

 

What is classified as "great" literature is entirely relative: one person can say one thing, another can say something else. I'm sure that the majority of teenage girls would argue quite determinedly that Twilight is the masterpiece of 21st century fiction, and quite a few Potter fans would do the same, whereas all of the literary snobs are busy arguing about whether either book has any literary value, so that they can appear all the more pretentious criticizing the other.

 

I'm quite sick of it: books are a way of creating stories and transferring information - I hate Twilight (and let other people know it) but I don't waste my time attempting to pass judgments about what is and what is not literature. In this respect, books are like free speech, in that no fair line can be drawn, so we must accept it all.

Ehh I don't know if I'd say no line can be drawn, but aside from the obviously great and the obviously garbage it's really just a matter of opinion.

Yes, but I can't promise I would be active. It seems like a rather narrow range of discussion - more the sort of thing you would find in a subforum.

There is a line drawn and it is a collective that creates it. In the literary world essays and thesis are written by all sorts of critiques of different views; through that process the debate occurs. Some works are seen as foolish and wrong others are praised and accepted. Through this process what is collective decided upon as Great Literature opposed to mere books is decided.

I know fanatical fanbases would argue blind their book is great literature, but that doesn't make it so. These things are decided by the culturally and academically qualified and sort of filter down through the layers.

 

But regardless of all this you seem to be trying to argue a moot point, my whole original premise was literary communities need to discuss and enjoy ALL books and not just refuse to look at them because they aren't part of the current Great Literature which seems to pretty much match your sentiment.

There is a line drawn and it is a collective that creates it. In the literary world essays and thesis are written by all sorts of critiques of different views; through that process the debate occurs. Some works are seen as foolish and wrong others are praised and accepted. Through this process what is collective decided upon as Great Literature opposed to mere books is decided.

I know fanatical fanbases would argue blind their book is great literature, but that doesn't make it so. These things are decided by the culturally and academically qualified and sort of filter down through the layers.

 

But regardless of all this you seem to be trying to argue a moot point, my whole original premise was literary communities need to discuss and enjoy ALL books and not just refuse to look at them because they aren't part of the current Great Literature which seems to pretty much match your sentiment.

 

I hate that attitude. I despise that attitude. One does not roll over and allow "experts" to make decisions about their lives. One can confer with experts, listen to and respect their opinions, but one should not allow them to make decisions simply because they say so. It's insane: I can think for myself: I don't need to be told what is literature and what is no, particularly since I don't really concern myself with it.

 

No line can be draw - none. I'm sure Lewis thought 'Jabberwocky' was completely useless, and yet today it is considered of great interest. Who am I to decide what qualifies as art? Who are you, for that matter? What values does a work posess to make it "great literature"?

Experts have every right to define what is classed as canonical literature.

You seem to be under the idea that status infers something to the book other than it cropping up on literature degree reading lists.

 

My whole point is it does not matter whether it is great literature or just a trashy novel.

Well, the critics have an opinion, as does the public, but it's the future public that decides whether or not a novel was great. Whatever you say, your literature choices are still governed by the public opinion; if a great book is for some reason not respected or read by the public, you will have trouble finding it or ever learning of its existence.

 

That said, Mark Twain was unpopular in his time. Now we have the general public believing Huck Finn is the epitome of a great American novel.

Probably not because you'd end up with an elitist group who flame, troll and generally decry people who enjoy or wish to speak off any book they don;t deem to be literature given enough time.

 

I mean I can see the different value of books and some are far more literature than others; but that doesn't mean other books aren't nice to talk about and enjoy. I mean for example Twilight and Harry Potter in literary terms are absolutely appallingly written and contribute little to the great swathes of literature out there. But they are still good books because the story is engaging and they are enjoyable and can be discussed.

 

You could not be more wrong, Sy. You're just making assumptions from what you've heard about aloof, literarily prodigious people and you assume that it applies to all of them and all of their communities. In the real world, this does happen, though not as often as everyone makes out.

 

My personal experience of the Stories community on the RS Official Forums is not like this at all. There were essentially three types of writer; the literary, mainstream and middle. The literary people wrote works which fitted in only loosely with the setting of the game, with rich language and imaginative, unorthodox character development and a myriad of ingenious literary devices. The mainstream work adhered closely to the setting of the game and was often poorly written and dull. The middle was essentially a middle ground between these two extremes. I'd say 5% of works were literary, 40% were mainstream, and 55% in the middle.

 

Now, despite all of this, the poor writers were almost never flamed. True, more often than not the literary would read and critique mainly each other's work, for it stimulated them more, but in general there has always been a sense of community. The literary writers did help the mainstream, as did the middle, and flaming was very rare. In all my time and over a thousand posts in the RSOF Stories community, I only ever saw one writer flamed. I will not name them, but I will quote their best written work of an oeuvre of five. Before I quote the opening to give an idea of the standard of the writing, please bear in mind that this author was offered constructive feedback many a time, which he rudely ridiculed and was therefore flamed by the middle, and some literary, sector of the community. Without further ado, here's the opening of the only work I've ever seen flamed.

 

There once were two very strong and powerful warrior brothers, Olafeau and Venson.

 

They lived in Triangle City; it was shaped like a Triangle.

 

Each of them was skilled in different ways.

 

Olafeau: Skilled in Magic; can fight, track, teleport, teleother, and basically anything magical; is the brains of the two...

 

Venson: A warrior skilled with Bow and Sword... Was HEXED by his brother to kill all his foes... lights fires, and is higher status in the army.

 

 

Delrith was vanquished... A myth in Runescape... But some unknown force in Runescape brought him back to life...

 

He created a group of Mutated goblins, the Rakktu; extremely wise, yet also vicous killers...

 

And all was good in Runescape... Until they attacked...

Epic necro of a thread that you clearly didn't read at all beyond that one post as two posts down from that I clearly say I'm talking from experience of literary sites so clearly not "what I've heard" its about what I've seen and experienced.