Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookworm_Girl
...It's simply for thought in what defines criteria to classify a book as literary nonfiction...
|
I think the trouble comes from the various subtleties of meaning that the words
literature and
literary have. In the historic but still current general sense,
literature refers to the whole body of written work and
literary as belonging to the whole body of written work. This body may be that of a nation, of a subject, or of the universe, for example. While I remember that the book received a literary award I have not checked what it was nor the tests applied in awarding it, but I assume that it was under the above general meaning that was applied.
So, for example, a scientific paper is a literary work as is a work setting out history (as in the case of
Heart of the Sea); their literary "worth" is most importantly measured by their contribution to knowledge.
But in quite recent times the usage of the words literary and literature has also become to be used in a narrow sense to describe works that have special characteristics in their form and prose. So this leads to literature such as
Ulysses and
Finnegan's Wake being classed in this sense as
literary. I mention those two books from the same author because the first is quite readable while the second is an extremely complicated read; so to be literary in this sense a book does not even have to be easily read or understood.
I think for non fiction there are many works that are also able to be classed as
literary in this narrow sense; Stevenson's
Travels With a Donkey in the Cevannes comes to mind, for example. Whether
Heart of the Sea does, in this sense, is perhaps a matter of opinion, but from what I recall of it I would personally have not classed it as so. But in terms of the wider general usage of
literature and
literary I think my opinion is that I would class it as being an important
literary work, especially in the USA's body of non fiction works.
And in my view the opinion is likely to be dependant on ones background. For example
Heart of the Sea is probably more likely to be classed as a
literary work (in the narrow sense) by an American (and so the award??) and perhaps other Westerners, than by another from a non Western society removed from the history of the Western countries, sail whaling ships, etc. I am from a Western country but not the USA. I also have attachments and interests in the sea. That probably makes me more likely to regard Heart of the Sea as being an important
literary work in the general sense than many others in the whole world might, but perhaps I can give myself some self credit
by even so recognising that it may not be an important work from the narrower sense as to the quality of its prose.
I hope that doesn't come across as too teachy sounding, and so to perhaps soften that a bit, for myself I am not pedantic about the use of the terms at all and have an open mind. For example, in my Calibre libraries I have a tag for "Fiction-Literature" and I use that in the narrow sense described above (applying my own selfish judgement to the work
). But when it comes to non fiction I have no such equivalent "Non Fiction-literature" tag so, for example,
Travels With a Donkey (which I, for myself, regard as an important
literary in the narrow prose quality sense work) is just tagged "Non Fiction-Travel".
NB: the are other usages of
literature and
literary, not relevant to the above.
Wow, that was a bit of a filibuster perhaps I should have a beer
.