<p>LMAO, Tako! Who were your interviewers? What TASP did they go to and during what year? Hubba hubba, eh? =P And why wouldn’t she define CoN as literature ANYWAY? Bah. Lit is a hard concept to define, just like “art”. It’s funny because pieces that were once emocrap are NOW considered literature. It’s still fun to debate about it, though. :D</p>
<p>Yeah, I get what you mean, Daenerys. Just like a blog I type up is not literature, but it is writing.</p>
<p>Well yes, we had defined literature as a subset of writing. I guess I was asked what makes literature literature and not just writing. We went on to discuss what “great literature” was and who defined what literature was, and how peoples’ views of literature changed over the years, and if the fact that this elitist group of scholars gets to decide what literature deserves the title “great” was fair, etc. </p>
<p>It was a fun discussion. Made me think alot. Also brought up stuff that I will think about now and in future weeks.</p>
<p>It wasn’t really differentiating between writing and literature as processes/things, but more of a “What makes writing into literature, and what makes literature ‘great.’” Like, Harry Potter = writing. Invisible Man = literature (and great literature, at that).</p>
<p>While I wouldn’t say CoN isn’t literature, I wouldn’t say it was GREAT literature, either, you know? And THAT was the question, basically. Why isn’t it considered great? </p>
<p>OH I remember how we got into it now. Actually not really, because I don’t remember how we got into the discussion that got us into the literature discussion. But she asked me if a person needs a special “toolbox” to become a writer, and I said no, I think writing is more about personality, and so everybody can be a writer if they want to be.</p>
<p>I fear to say my interviewers’ names, but they went to 05 TASP at UT Austin. They sounded like they had hecka fun; they gave me anecdotes and whatnot and they were hecka cuteee :D</p>
<p>I suppose when it comes down to it, you can’t really put literature in a box. I mean, not in the sense that you could objectively define or capture what great literature is. Perhaps this subjectivity (and, a lot of times, controversy) is part of what makes everything exciting (think Nabokov, haha). Someone might totally dismiss CoN as a failure of literary genius, while others might justifiably argue that even children’s books can carry profound seeds of insight, of poise, of immortal masterpiece…and it is these droplets of brilliance, however insignificant, that make great literature.</p>
<p>On a side note, I definitely agree that Harry Potter=writing, not literature. Although if I said that to my HP-obsessed friends they would pummel me Invisible Man’s amazing. </p>
<p>At any rate, there is also, I think, an aspect of timelessness in any (great) piece of literature, as someone mentioned before. I consulted Mr Dictionary and here’s what he has to say: literature–“writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays.” I guess the rest is up to the reader him/herself to decide. :)</p>
<p>Anyway, congratulations on your interview!! :D</p>
<p>Mintie: For that technology question, I’m afraid I probably butchered a potentially delicious answer. Anyways, I think I said something to the extent that technology was any tool that humans used to “better” their society, etc etc. I was going to mention that these tools were mostly machines or electronic devices, but then they asked if, say, fire could be considered a form of technology to ancient cave-people (or something like that), and so then I revised my initial definition to include any process or invention or method, man-made or no. Then we went off on this wonderful tangent about the evolution of technology and how it potentially crowds out other parts of our lives, yada yada. It was pretty mentally taxing, I have to say! :0]</p>
<p>Haha my life is meaningless because there’s nothing to anticipate anymore, except editor decisions.</p>
<p>Oh, and Denver, Colorado on Wednesday for Journalism/Yearbook convention. Wait, is anybody on this board going? That would be heckaaaa exciting.</p>
<p>Wait you have school this week huh… Lynbrok and yall are off week after next. Which stinks…
I totally thought of coming up and suprising you today at Stanford since I have to go to Tressider and post flyers before I leave for DC on Wed but we had family over. So Im going tomorrow.</p>
<p>Just because I’m curious, and because I have a bad memory: Would you guys care to list your seminar rankings again? I’ve talked to some of you about them, but for some others, I don’t really recall. I know this has been asked a bajillion times, but would anyone care to humor me? :)</p>
<p>1) Cornell II
2) UT Austin
3) Michigan, Cornell I and WashU</p>
and they were hecka cuteee :D</p>