Dragon Ball and other types of Literature

[Polyphase Avatron]

I'll fully admit i've never really read any so-called classic literature because I find that old-fashioned style of writing quite tedious to get through(The oldest book I read was "The Jungle" and that was for a class assignment in high school). So definitely give me Manga over that any day of the week.

Try reading the 'Weird Fiction' genre of the early 20th century (H.P. Lovecraft, Clark Ashton Smith, Lord Dunsany, Robert E. Howard, etc.)

Often quite short stories and can be rather entertaining (if you can get past some of the unfortunate implications in the writing due to being products of their time).

[Cure Dragon 255]

Try reading some Oscar Wilde too! His writing is really touching and beautiful and full of meaning...

...I'm a sensitive guy.

[Planetnamek]

I'll fully admit i've never really read any so-called classic literature because I find that old-fashioned style of writing quite tedious to get through(The oldest book I read was "The Jungle" and that was for a class assignment in high school). So definitely give me Manga over that any day of the week.

Try reading the 'Weird Fiction' genre of the early 20th century (H.P. Lovecraft, Clark Ashton Smith, Lord Dunsany, Robert E. Howard, etc.)

Often quite short stories and can be rather entertaining (if you can get past some of the unfortunate implications in the writing due to being products of their time).

With Lovecraft after hearing how racist he was even for his time(to the point where authors were calling him out on it back in the day) I have to say i've got no real urge to read his stories, i'm perfectly content just consuming adaptations of his work(like the underrated video game "The Sinking City").

Might check out the other authors though.

[Polyphase Avatron]

I'll fully admit i've never really read any so-called classic literature because I find that old-fashioned style of writing quite tedious to get through(The oldest book I read was "The Jungle" and that was for a class assignment in high school). So definitely give me Manga over that any day of the week.

Try reading the 'Weird Fiction' genre of the early 20th century (H.P. Lovecraft, Clark Ashton Smith, Lord Dunsany, Robert E. Howard, etc.)

Often quite short stories and can be rather entertaining (if you can get past some of the unfortunate implications in the writing due to being products of their time).

With Lovecraft after hearing how racist he was even for his time(to the point where authors were calling him out on it back in the day) I have to say i've got no real urge to read his stories, i'm perfectly content just consuming adaptations of his work(like the underrated video game "The Sinking City").

Might check out the other authors though.

To be fair, he improved somewhat on that front in his later years. I can definitely give you a list of his stories to avoid, though.

[Planetnamek]

Try reading the 'Weird Fiction' genre of the early 20th century (H.P. Lovecraft, Clark Ashton Smith, Lord Dunsany, Robert E. Howard, etc.)

Often quite short stories and can be rather entertaining (if you can get past some of the unfortunate implications in the writing due to being products of their time).

With Lovecraft after hearing how racist he was even for his time(to the point where authors were calling him out on it back in the day) I have to say i've got no real urge to read his stories, i'm perfectly content just consuming adaptations of his work(like the underrated video game "The Sinking City").

Might check out the other authors though.

To be fair, he improved somewhat on that front in his later years. I can definitely give you a list of his stories to avoid, though.

Ok sounds good.

[Cure Dragon 255]

I never really understood the hype for Lovecraft. Even now.

[Polyphase Avatron]

I never really understood the hype for Lovecraft. Even now.

Personally I enjoy his writing style, although many people find it very drawn out. However I think what really made his work popular was his ideas, if not necessarily the execution thereof.

[Zeon_Grunt]

I never really understood the hype for Lovecraft. Even now.

Personally I enjoy his writing style, although many people find it very drawn out. However I think what really made his work popular was his ideas, if not necessarily the execution thereof.

Can confirm: Only interested in Lovecraft for his lore and monsters, not necessarily how his works were written.

[ABED]

Defining something as "literature" is one thing. Going around calling something "literature" is another. I can't imagine doing the latter with a manga or comic book.

It's literature. It's a book. Some books use words to express ideas. Some books use pictures to express ideas. Some books use words and pictures to express ideas!

By the definition of "it's a book," my PG Gundam Exia's building manual would count as "literature."

I think the important point is it's fictional works, in general times. Although non-fiction is often called literature in certain contexts.

[It_Is_Ayna_You_Flips]

By the definition of "it's a book," my PG Gundam Exia's building manual would count as "literature."

Do you read it? Does it express ideas? It's literature. 'Literature' the word doesn't need anybody sucking its cock.

See, here's the problem, "literature" seems to have 2 meanings here. One is the academic definition that you'll find in most dictionaries and applied by any kind of academic authority ("written works, especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit."), and the one where people with no actual education into literature beyond reading Shakespeare in school to claim that any and all books (read: anything with a front and back cover) are "literature," often ignoring the qualifier that the work be exceptional in quality or merit.

I don't know if the "academic" definition of literature is all that coherent, honestly. A lot of junk gets grandfathered in just because it happens to be very old or a unique example of a genre. For example, despite being a bunch of inane gibberish The Canterbury Tales is typically considered literature because it's one of the earliest examples of what would become modern poetry¹.

_{1. Yes, I know they're also a window into how late medieval peoples saw the Church and their society but you can say that about any collection of poems from any point in history.}

[Zeon_Grunt]

It's literature. It's a book. Some books use words to express ideas. Some books use pictures to express ideas. Some books use words and pictures to express ideas!

By the definition of "it's a book," my PG Gundam Exia's building manual would count as "literature."

I think the important point is it's fictional works, in general times. Although non-fiction is often called literature in certain contexts.

The fun of words. It all depends on context.

When someone says "comics aren't literature," they're using the meaning that heavily implies a high level of quality or artistic merit (beyond the obvious "they're really well drawn pictures"). They're emphasizing that comics are just meant to be dumb fun, not something to be academically studied and held up to as a standard for good writing.

When someone asks "have you read the literature," it's usually in the context of just pre-requisite reading for an upcoming task (usually a technical manual or a starter's guide), which could technically count my Gunpla manual as "literature," but not in the classical sense. I digress, I was mostly just pointing out the flaw of considering all books "literature" in the classical sense.

I don't know if the "academic" definition of literature is all that coherent, honestly. A lot of junk gets grandfathered in just because it happens to be very old or a unique example of a genre. For example, despite being a bunch of inane gibberish The Canterbury Tales is typically considered literature because it's one of the earliest examples of what would become modern poetry1.

1. Yes, I know they're also a window into how late medieval peoples saw the Church and their society but you can say that about any collection of poems from any point in history.

Usually those works are considered literature because they were the first to do something or were greatly influential to their given medium/genre at the time. Technically, I would consider Dragon Ball "literature" on that merit alone to be honest.

[ABED]

That should read "general terms". Good lord I'm a terrible typist. But yes you're correct.

One thing I find silly is the idea that only works of "merit" should be considered for academic study.

[Zeon_Grunt]

That should read "general terms". Good lord I'm a terrible typist. But yes you're correct.

One thing I find silly is the idea that only works of "merit" should be considered for academic study.

I mean, what point is there in studying a piece of work that has no merit to it. Merit simply means "the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward." There's just not much point in doing academic studies on works that are generally agreed to be of middling or lower quality.

I mean, would you really want film academics to be discussing and reflecting on "Dude, Where's My Car" or "Mom's Got a Date with a Vampire" in schools 200 years from now?

[ABED]

That should read "general terms". Good lord I'm a terrible typist. But yes you're correct.

One thing I find silly is the idea that only works of "merit" should be considered for academic study.

I mean, what point is there in studying a piece of work that has no merit to it. Merit simply means "the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward." There's just not much point in doing academic studies on works that are generally agreed to be of middling or lower quality.

I mean, would you really want film academics to be discussing and reflecting on "Dude, Where's My Car" or "Mom's Got a Date with a Vampire" in schools 200 years from now?

Yes, I do think there's value in studying even bad works. Why did something catch on? What about it works; what doesn't? Why did some awful stuff get forgotten but other gains a cult following? A lot of talented writers say you learn as much if not more from the bad stuff as the good stuff. Christ I would've loved if my film studies class delved into Dude, Where's My Car instead of going on and on about Kubrick and 2001.

Who decides what has merit? Are these the same people that deemed Catcher in the Rye a great work of art? If so, they fucked up there.

[Zeon_Grunt]

That should read "general terms". Good lord I'm a terrible typist. But yes you're correct.

One thing I find silly is the idea that only works of "merit" should be considered for academic study.

I mean, what point is there in studying a piece of work that has no merit to it. Merit simply means "the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward." There's just not much point in doing academic studies on works that are generally agreed to be of middling or lower quality.

I mean, would you really want film academics to be discussing and reflecting on "Dude, Where's My Car" or "Mom's Got a Date with a Vampire" in schools 200 years from now?

Yes, I do think there's value in studying even bad works. Why did something catch on? What about it works; what doesn't? Why did some awful stuff get forgotten but other gains a cult following? A lot of talented writers say you learn as much if not more from the bad stuff as the good stuff.

Who decides what has merit? Are these the same people that deemed Catcher in the Rye a great work of art? If so, they fucked up there.

That's a fair point.

[ABED]

I agree 100% about DB being worthy of called literature on the basis of its influence alone.

[Cure Dragon 255]

That should read "general terms". Good lord I'm a terrible typist. But yes you're correct.

One thing I find silly is the idea that only works of "merit" should be considered for academic study.

I mean, what point is there in studying a piece of work that has no merit to it. Merit simply means "the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward." There's just not much point in doing academic studies on works that are generally agreed to be of middling or lower quality.

I mean, would you really want film academics to be discussing and reflecting on "Dude, Where's My Car" or "Mom's Got a Date with a Vampire" in schools 200 years from now?

Yes, I do think there's value in studying even bad works. Why did something catch on? What about it works; what doesn't? Why did some awful stuff get forgotten but other gains a cult following? A lot of talented writers say you learn as much if not more from the bad stuff as the good stuff. Christ I would've loved if my film studies class delved into Dude, Where's My Car instead of going on and on about Kubrick and 2001.

Who decides what has merit? Are these the same people that deemed Catcher in the Rye a great work of art? If so, they fucked up there.

I thought you were against calling bad stuff art? But I agree massively with you. Even if it seems like a total reversal coming from you.

[ABED]

I mean, what point is there in studying a piece of work that has no merit to it. Merit simply means "the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward." There's just not much point in doing academic studies on works that are generally agreed to be of middling or lower quality.

I mean, would you really want film academics to be discussing and reflecting on "Dude, Where's My Car" or "Mom's Got a Date with a Vampire" in schools 200 years from now?

Yes, I do think there's value in studying even bad works. Why did something catch on? What about it works; what doesn't? Why did some awful stuff get forgotten but other gains a cult following? A lot of talented writers say you learn as much if not more from the bad stuff as the good stuff. Christ I would've loved if my film studies class delved into Dude, Where's My Car instead of going on and on about Kubrick and 2001.

Who decides what has merit? Are these the same people that deemed Catcher in the Rye a great work of art? If so, they fucked up there.

I thought you were against calling bad stuff art? But I agree massively with you. Even if it seems like a total reversal coming from you.

Where did you get the idea that I was against bad stuff art?

That doesn't seem right coming from me even when I was younger. I don't ever think I've believed "art" included a value judgement. I can't remember everything I've ever believed, but I'm fairly certain I've always stood behind the idea that the definition of art is a semantic issue. There is good an bad art, just like there's good and bad food. Who knows, I could be wrong, but opinions do change, and often should.

[Cure Dragon 255]

Not bad stuff art. CALLING bad stuff art. I remember you having a discussion with Robo about that.

[ABED]

Not bad stuff art. CALLING bad stuff art. I remember you having a discussion with Robo about that.

Oh, that discussion was about whether video games are art. Robo brought up Ebert's views that video games aren't art, however, Ebert's definition of "art" includes value judgments. That's not something I've ever agreed with.