No longer is, say, Twilight Princess and the land contained on the disc a world of fiction, but rather a foreign country that you have yet to explore. So, what is it that truly makes Zelda literary? Is it the story of each game? Is it their style of writing, perhaps? Maybe it’s the world that each game creates? We know they do not exist, but we cannot help but believe the rolling hills of Hyrule Field, the flowing tide of Koholint, or the scattered islands in the sky and Skyloft, that these worlds are truly real, even for just a moment. If I haven’t lost you yet, let’s continue.
#LEGEND OF ZELDA WORK JOURNAL HOW TO#
In these three sentences, all I did was say that the sky was blue, but I gave the sky and its colors its own personalities, and I made it “ attention to itself.” But what does any of this mean for Zelda? All I’ve been talking about is how to define and make literature, but believe me, it is important. The day’s tone calmed that of the sun, who was burning and angry, made him neutral, cool, comfortable.” No longer was this canvas speckled with white and enveloped in a hue as black as pitch, no, but rather one that complimented the sun’s complexion, though opposed him all at once. “As the sun reawakened from its rest beneath the mountains, he illuminated the sky and gave camouflage to his sister’s, the moon’s, glowing stars. It does not speak to make itself real, or rather it is just there. This is a fact, and it simply is just that. For example, I could tell you that the sky is blue. According to Eagleton, literature cannot be so easily defined by what is fact or fiction, but rather how the words are used as a tool to construct artistic phrases, sentences, paragraphs and so on that utilizes its words in a manner that “draws attention to itself, flaunts its material being.” Whenever these words become “artistic,” there is no longer delineation between fact and fiction, as the words are presented so masterfully that the truth does not matter, because the writing creates a reality. Unfortunately, that was not the case, but reading his book was definitely not unenjoyable, as it gave me new insight into what truly classified a work as literary. Naturally, as any college student would do, I skimmed through the pages of Eagleton’s book, Literary Theory: An Introduction, to see if he had given a clear-cut definition to “literature,” so that I could write my paper simply on a yes-or-no basis. As the class period drew to a close, he assigned a paper with the prompt, “Is The Communist Manifesto literature?” except through the eyes of literary theorist, Terry Eagleton. To an extent, I agreed with him, as I simply was trying to make a point, but the more I thought about my answer, the more I was beginning to believe my own words. While my professor did not shoot me down, he said that, while my definition captured the essence of what was literature, my examples of movies and video games being included were a bit extreme. I went as far as to say that this meant that literature could, in fact, include films and even video games. I was hesitant to give my input, but after three or four people said some variation of the same thing (literature being any fictional, written work) I raised my hand and said that I didn’t think literature necessarily had to be anything written, rather, a literary work could be anything that spoke words that were far greater than itself to he who heard them. A few weeks ago, the question of “What is literature?” was asked in my Hispanic Literature class.
0 kommentar(er)
