RunningAir wrote:You CANNOT. CANNOT. CANNOT. Compare literature. If you can- then one of them is obviously based off of the other, because otherwise, there is NOT ENOUGH SIMULARITY to compare the two.
TxCat wrote:RunningAir wrote:You CANNOT. CANNOT. CANNOT. Compare literature. If you can- then one of them is obviously based off of the other, because otherwise, there is NOT ENOUGH SIMULARITY to compare the two.
Actually, you can compare and contrast literature. I spent a large portion of my academic career doing so and then spent aboyt five years teaching high school and middle school students the concept. The two works don't even need to be based off one another nor do they even need to be the same genre. I've seen essays which successfully compared such dissimilar elements as a popular TV show and a classic short story aving nothing to do with the show.
We can do this because not one thing written is a new, genuine idea. They all come down to three basic themes: man against another man, man against nature, and man agsinst his inner self.
Personally, I would not consider either series literature. They're books but not literature. Literature, for me, holds some higher social purpose besides entertainment. It has to demonstrate high quality, original thought, fluid use of the language. It has to express some form of idea which is of permanent and enduring interest (meaning that whatever was written will either speak to future generations or at least demonstrate something about the era in which it was written).
Both series are entertaining, though I do not consider either well written, but they're just stories. 50 years from now no one will be reading them, if they remember them at all.
And no...I don't read popular materials. Most don't live up to the hype so I have just quit buying or reading them.
Users browsing this forum: Jeccakat and 2 guests