Splitting hairs. Someone above mentioned "all written text" could be considered literature.
So, fine. Narrow it down to a yes/no question: Do you read?
Otherwise, he wants sub-categories. I consider "classics" to be fiction thats been through a few re-printings, a few decades old or older. If he wants to put The Davinci Code in with Ivanhoe, thats up to him. According to the hot-shots, modern classic is from the 19th century but I don't like to get into pigeonholes. Theres plenty of good stuff thats only a couple decades old. If it made a real impact on society, it's a classic. Its like the Kennedy assisination. If you can remember where you were when you got introduced to that book, it's probably noteworthy.
Good summation, Brasky.
I wasn't trying to get into a debate about
what is literature, only point out that the debate has been raging among people who have chosen to make their life's work the analysis of works that "contribute greatly" to "the human condition" sufficient to justify the inclusion of a "Literature" category in the poll.
Literary analysts (specialized readers with specialized tools of analysis) mostly agree on there is that there is this thing: "high literature" (what most people imprecisely imagine when thinking of "Literature" - not the abstracted and essentially useless "anything with printed words on it.", i.e., campaign literature.). They then set out with their specialized, professional tools of analysis in an effort to understand the works different cultures have recognized as "classics" and the commonality among them.
It isn't an elitist claim, though there are people in any field that will use the "appeal to authority" fallacy to coerce their claims with brute force. I think these people's bad habits is the cause of Johnson's (and many others') prejudices against literateurs. It saddens me, because I know people in that field with a careful, freedom mindset who have lent new light of discovery to ancient and near works, and who emphatically do not deserve Johnson's unjustified stereotype. (My God, it feels like I'm back in Pre-Cal, defending my friend from one who levied insults in her absence (didn't know we were friends).)
The claim merely recognizes that the field has a depth to it, now, that cannot be fully gleaned by merely picking up one of these "classics" and reading it (though every age has its geniuses). The evolution of human thought is far from understood, but we can safely say that there are stepping stones, building blocks to thought that occur before further extension occurs.
I am not the one to disparage or settle the debate (it's only a hobby I love); neither is Johnson; and neither are, for that matter, all the literateurs discussing these works professionally - they necessarily cannot, because human thought, the human condition, and literature, consequently, continues to evolve, with corresponding uncertainty.
Johnson: Barnes and Noble, by the way, does have a "
Fiction and Literature Classics" section, so I think your traipse through the world of online bookstore categorizations must have been slipshod. If any of this has helped you understand, you might change the category to "Literature and Classics" or "Classics and Literature" (not "Classical Literature", because that would be from the specific classical period in time) - and no quotation marks, please - it isn't a quasi-field of study.