Re: RARA-AVIS: Re: Mickey Spillane

From: Stephen Burridge (
Date: 31 Oct 2007's 1st definition makes sense to me: "writings in prose or verse; * especially* *:* writings having excellence of form or expression and expressing ideas of permanent or universal interest". Personally I prefer to use the broader definition, without the qualifications following the
"especially:". But others differ.


On 10/31/07, Michael Robison <> wrote:
> James Reasoner quibbles:
> Why can't this sort of novel be literature like any
> other kind of novel that's good enough to merit that
> distinction (which is pretty much subjective anyway)?
> ************
> Well, it kinda depends on what your definition of
> literature is. I define literature as works that
> retain popularity beyond the time period they were
> written in. So according to what Jim Doherty has said
> about Spillane's work, at least some of it could quite
> possibly be literature.
> miker
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 31 Oct 2007 EDT