Portal talk:Japanese literature

Structure

 * EncycloPetey: Do you think the works should be organized/sorted by age? Should some separation be made between translations of Japanese works and works by Japanese authors originally in English? Do you know of a public-domain translation of “Rashōmon”? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So far, I've arranged them first by form, then alphabetically under each heading. If we have long lists that would benefit from additional kinds of sorting, we can do that too, or even have child portals for self-contained groupings.  Or multiple listings, such as sections by form and sections by period, or any other sort of arrangements.  I did not initially start with a chronological arrangement because (a) there weren't a lot from each period, but also (b) such arrangement presupposes a certain familiarity on the part of the reader, which is an assumption I did not want to make for the length of list I started with. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. I see a good number of my works listed here, and I definitely think that this is a good start for a list. I plan to start proofreading more of the Anthology once I finish up A Wreath of Cloud, and then upload Nachod’s volumes once the new year comes. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand that the list is short, but even if it were, I feel a strong discomfort with works from completely different periods being listed out of order. In particular, the Tosa Nikki and the Tale of Genji (the Japanese versions of which I have inputted) contributed greatly to the formation of the Japanese language, so it seems unnatural to place them below works from the Meiji period onwards. CES1596 (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The dates of translation into English and the dates of original composition are very different. And as mentioned, we have very few works.  Once we have a sufficient number of works from various periods in Japanese history, then we can create a section for chronological arrangement, with subsections for various periods (Heian, Edo, Meiji, etc.).  As it is, we have such huge gaps, and so few works, that a chronological listing will not be meaningful except to people who already know the literature.  The average reader will gain nothing, and will find it harder to locate works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that, within each category, items should be sorted by the date of the original work. This is especially because that is a major method of categorizing works for people being introduced to the literature. I don’t think separate categories (by which I mean headings on this list) should be applied for ages unless and until we have enough works for that to be of practical use. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would prefer not to conflate the two. That is: One portion of the page listing works by form (novel, poetry, etc) and a separate section listing the same works by date.  Rather than having a combination of first-by-form-then-by-date mashup. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that separate lists might be a good idea, but I’m still not sure about alphabetical listings: chronological listings just seem more natural to me. I agree (if that is what you saying) that there should not be era/date divisions within the form headings. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That, and the additional confusion chronological listing would create. Do we really need to put A History of Japanese Literature between the two volumes of the Bibliography because its publication date is between them? If we have a recently published anthology of Heian poetry, do we date it by the contents or by the publication date?  What if its an anthology mixing Edo and Meiji works?  Chronological listing is not as straightforward as alphabetical listing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, most works are not anthologies (especially if we omit period anthologies, like the Hyaku-nin-Isshu), so I don’t think that that concern will come to play too often. Works sufficiently new in arrangement (like the anthologies) can either be dated to a rough “period of original works” or more generally to the date of actual publication. I also feel that in some cases combined works can be separated into constituent pieces when doing so is not cumbersome: the Omori–Doi diaries could be so (although I don’t think that that is necessary) and some of the works in Keene’s anthologies can be put up at disambiguation pages. Another question that just came to me: should Noguchi’s Valley poems be here? They were written in the U.S. about the U.S., so they don’t feel so much like Japanese literature. (I suppose they would fall under v. Wenckstern’s category of “Works written by Japanese in European languages on subjects not relating to Japan in particular,” but I feel it’s always better to ask questions in such cases. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This Portal aligns with the LoC designation of "works originally in Japanese" (and works about such works). So if Noguchi’s Valley poems were written originally in Japanese, then they would be here, regardless of the country of origin. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with the arrangement based on the period in which the original works were written. The creation of alphabetical lists could be automated by categorisation. Also, the links to the Tosa Nikki and the Tale of Genji are not to individual translations, but to pages that list them. For these works, it should be possible to determine their positions independently of when they were translated. I hope that more such pages will be added in the future. CES1596 (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * P.S.: No, I do not know a PD translation of Rashōmon. That item was carried over from existing lists. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)