|
Of course all definitions of capital-L "Literature" are problematic, especially if the idea of quality enters - that Literature is somehow better than literature. I hope I have praised Pratchett enough in my posts here not to be suspected of that fallacy.
For me the distinction (with a very blurred dividing line) is about what Literature does with language. It uses language in a way that makes me look/read twice. It does something new to language that draws my attention to it and gives me a new perspective on it. It presents me with sentences that make me gasp - be it due to their images, their rhythm, their musicality; that resonate in me on levels that great music or great painting can. The joy is more than intellectual.
Pratchett does have those moments occasionally, but it is not what he focuses on. (Again: This is no value judgement. And I am absolutely aware how hard it is to write a style that seems so effortless. Pratchett was a brilliant writer.)
Let me put it this way: I can fully enjoy Pratchett (or Wodehouse or Agatha Christie, for that matter) on a full train with my iPod on listening to a Bob Dylan bootleg. I couldn't do that with Literature because I would be missing too much.
|