What is the definition of literature? Some said that literature is to explore issues which are timeless, and eternal. So literature will never outdated. Some said that literature has to contain the elements of truth, goodness, and beauty. So literature enriches human’s souls. Which one you agree with? Or literature has to have both of them? Or there are some other things that literature must contain? For me, literature is one kind of art. And any kind of brilliant artworks have to be subversive and unique. Compare to “goodness and beauty”, subversive is much more important. Truth of course is the most basic thing, and good artists have to be subversive, as somehow it's a way to explore the ultimate truth. I hope listen to all kinds of views about literature. As recently, there is a keen argument on that at my local internet community. thanks so much!
Humans' souls. For me, literature starts with proper grammar and an elevated register, although these are naturally subject to an author's stylistic choices. The actual content of literature can be much more variable. In fact, literature tends to work like a Rorschach test, allowing the reader to make of it what he or she will.
if one is easy to listen to what people said, and easy to agree with them. if one is easy to let different kinds of standards to shape him, these kind of person can't have unique thoughts, and he will too lazy to have it. then even he has good skills, he is just a worker of art, instead of an artist. as his soul is too plain. he is too dumb to sense emotions.
Are you sure you're not thinking about great literature? Surely even less well-received works of writing can still be called literature.
Yeah, I think literature has to have some sort of universality about it. And it doesn't have to be in book form. On the movie side, "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou" and "Forest Gump" get it. "Kill Bill" and "Get Shorty" do not.
English is evidently not your first language, so this is difficult to decipher; but if I understand the basic idea, you're saying those who are most susceptible to the intellectual influence of others are least able to produce anything worthy to be called literature. I have no problem with that idea, but fail to see how being subversive (or not) has anything to do with that, as there are plenty of subversives who couldn't think independently to save their lives. Moreover, I would direct your attention to a pair of towering figures in Russian literature, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, and challenge you to explain why either should be considered subversive relative to their culture. Now Steinbeck, with his socialist leanings, could certainly be considered subversive relative to his culture, but I'd say his literary stature has nothing to do with that and everything to do with his insights into human nature.
I think I didn't express my idea correctly.....3_3" my English is not good enough. and I mean....good artists must be kind of rebellious...like when all people say it is right, and he will question about it...but seems that it's not a inevitable character according to your given example...
That can reasonably be said if the "conventional wisdom" is actually nonsense, as is so often the case. Solzhenitsyn was certainly rebellious against the Soviet regime; and while atheism and nihilism held little sway in Dostoyevsky's lifetime, it could still be said that he rebelled against both. I encourage you not to take my word for it. If you prefer not to slog through such tomes as Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky are known for, they both wrote short stories that can give you an idea of what you can expect from their novels.
