Q&A 3, Second Answer

The basic form of my question is: Is writing which is untrue, but which the writer believed to be true, fiction or nonfiction?

I am not sure, but I think I would call such writing nonfictional.  I think that writing which is untrue and intended to be believed is deception or lying, writing which is untrue and intended to be disbelieved is fiction, and writing which is untrue, but intended to be true, is nonfictional (and the product of a mistaken author).  Unless the intent for a work to be fictional is there, I do not think the work can be fiction.

Q&A 3, First Answer

The basic form of my question is: Are descriptions of fictional characters or worlds forms of reference?

Yes, I would say so.  No matter how indirect the syntax, one cannot describe something unless that thing exists in some sense or another.  Even if whatever work of fiction one is drawing the thing from has never mentioned the thing before the description, by describing it the work is actually creating it.  For example: "The goat's hooves clattered on the cobblestone street as he ran after the cart."  By writing this scene, I've created three fictional things: the goat, the street, and the cart - despite the fact that nowhere in the sentence did I actually assert that any of those things existed.

Response: Semi-fiction and the Impressionistic

In response to Kelsey Phifer's post "Truth and Fiction" (February 6, 2012):
I do think that truth plays a vital role; in fact, I think it is the primary feature distinguishing fiction from non-fiction.  Non-fiction corresponds basically completely to the way the world is; fiction does not.  Works such as Frey's memoir are, I believe, typically classed under the term 'semi-fiction' - that is, fiction with a high amount of non-fiction included.  The matter becomes somewhat more difficult with abstract, impressionistic works, which some might say correspond more closely to reality than strictly non-fictional works due to their describing the essence of things rather than merely the material reality, and others might say correspond less closely.  Personally I think I would still classify such works as fiction, if only because it is possible to interpret them in many different ways, most of which do not closely correspond to reality.

Changing Quality of Literature

Several times in the past weeks' classes, someone or other has brought up Beowulf as an example of something which was literature by the standards of the past, and continues to be literature only because of Steker's third point (that something which was considered literature by the standards of its day will continue to be literature despite the existence of different standards).  I would not agree with this view, as I think that Beowulf still meets the qualifications to be literature, even if those qualifications are different in modern times as opposed to when the tale was written.  In fact, I cannot think of even one instance wherein a work which was considered literature would not be considered as such if it were written now.  Beowulf, and many other ancient works of literature, would likely be considered bad literature if they were written now, certainly; but they would still be literature.

Q&A 2, Second Answer

The basic form of my question is: If a piece of writing produces unpleasant impressions, but nonetheless stimulates the imagination and sense of the aesthetic, would Steker still consider it literature?

I think that (after a little consideration at least) he would.  He might refine his view to remove the parts which seem to state that reading literature must produce pleasant stimulation of the imagination, and replace them with something more neutral - he might say that works of literature should simply be able to stimulate the imagination to some extent in some way.  Thus, works with vivid but highly unpleasant imagery would still fall under the banner of literature.

Q&A 2, First Answer

The basic form of my question is: Could including aesthetic value as a requirement for something to be literature lead to a subjective uncertainty about whether given works are non-literature or bad literature?

I do not think so.  The idea of aesthetic value is not qualitative; saying that a work has aesthetic value is, I think, like saying that a work costs money.  Saying how much aesthetic value a work has (how much money it costs) is qualitative, but that is a secondary judgement, and leads only to a work being considered good or bad literature - not literature or non-literature.