Here are those rough script outlines…We need to allocate them so that we can each change our allocated parts if we wish. There is 6 sections, so we can take 2 each and edit them to our liking before we film on Wednesday.
Literature has existed, in some for or another, from a time before the written language was even conceived. ‘Cavemen’ would draw stories on the walls of the caves they dwelled in; bards would would use spoken word, travelling from town to town sharing stories they had heard or created themselves. We have been sharing these stories throughout time, and it has given us the literature we have today. The dictionary can give us a definition of literature, but can we really define it? Is it words on a page? or something of a much deeper meaning? To really find out what literature is, we took to the streets of Auckland City and asked the people we met, not literature scholars but average people, what literature meant to them.
So we’ve looked at what we see literature as, but with so many different views on what literature is, does that make it a subjective topic? If so perhaps the question we really should be asking is not what literature is, but what shaped those views. Perhaps it’s our past relationship with literature that tells us what we feel towards literature now. So how does previous exposure to literature affect us in our views toward it?
Both current literature and classic literature still has a place in our preferences, but why? As Charles Segal wrote, “Talking about ‘Classics and Comparative Literature’ is artificial; thè subject would be more appropriately defined as just ‘Classics and Literature’, for thè best literary criticism of classical texts is, and must necessarily be, informed by thè study of literature as a whole. The most sensitive practitioners of literary criticism in Classics have always drawn heavily, directly or indirectly, on other literatures.” Basically everything we read in same way or another is affected, or directed by previous works. So when you read a modern piece of literature, many of it’s themes or ideas come from literature the writer has themselves read, or been taught from other texts. Take for example Stephanie Meyers’ book twilight series, everyone of them was inspired by someone else’s stories.
So if the first book in her series was based on something written by Jane Austen, who do people like more? The original, or the new? <<Stats>> Alright, but if we look at perhaps a classic storyteller that everyone knows of, and pair them with a well known author of today would the outcome be the same? <<stats>>> Perhaps it’s not the time the literature is from, but the content within it. (perhaps adding something here about the authors) But what makes that content stand the test of time, why are classics classics at all? “I would suggest that classics are primarily “mythic”…..telling people what they need to know about themselves” – Willard McCarty.
Time has not only changed the literature we’ve looked at, but how we look at it. Technology is changing the way we view literature; From putting the things we read onto portable electronic devices, to transferring the literature we know and love into cinematic works. But will this change how we see literature? Could the humble book become a thing of the past? And if the definition of literature is anything in written format, is film really literature at all?
The stats may look good for books of the past, but with technology constantly changing anything is possible. So, taking everything that we’ve found can we write a true definition of what literature is? I think the only true definition of what it is; is ‘Literature is what you see it as.” It’s subjective, personal, and truly undefinable.