except a databok is not a work of literature silly rabbit
also ''officially licensed'' & ''authentic'' are not the same thing, totally different contexts there, slugger...
one refers to things that can be bought & sold , while the other refers to the telling of a story
Does the definition say works of literature? No. However, it says all works written by an author of which the databooks were.
Also, if you want to have a linguistic discussion about what literature means, we can look at it's lexicology, how it has derived semantically, phonologically, and morphologically to determine if what you say is true. Considering that's the type of work I just finished up doing last semester, I can do it if you feel like reading about ten pages, none of which relates back to Naruto or Tsunade, but simply how words function, how they are derived and created, how a meaning is applied to a word and how the meanings have evolved since the original creation of it's parent word
diphthera. All of which will display that you are incorrect.
If you don't want to engage in the sort of work that linguists actually do, then we can take a short cut and look at a dictionary for the definition of literature which is as follows:
3
a (1) : writings in prose or verse; especially : writings having excellence of form or expression and expressing ideas of permanent or universal interest (2) : an example of such writings <what came out, though rarely literature, was always a roaring good story — People>
b : the body of written works produced in a particular language, country, or age
c : the body of writings on a particular subject <scientific literature>
d : printed matter (as leaflets or circulars) <campaign literature>
The first ever usage of literature that excluded some forms of knowledge that are gained through a book was in 1779 by Samuel Johnson in Lives of the English Poets. In which he defined literature as "literary production or work" which still doesn't exclude the databooks but contributes to the idea that they are in fact literature.
The only thing in which you might point to is that snobbish school of thought that derived following Ezra Pound's 1934 release of ABC's of Reading, in which he makes a comment about what Great literature is and not literature no holds barred. It from the idea of great literature that the A definition arose. But it's semantic history quickly shows then that the definition was never meant to literally apply to the term literature as a complete descriptor of what literature is no holds barred.
Now on to your usage of the terms authentic
Definitionally it means
1.
not false or copied; genuine; real:
an authentic antique.
2.
having the origin supported by unquestionable evidence; authenticated; verified:
an authentic document of the Middle Ages; an authentic work of the old master.
3.
entitled to acceptance or belief because of agreement with known facts or experience; reliable; trustworthy:
an authentic report on poverty in Africa.
4.
Law. executed with all due formalities:
an authentic deed.
5.
Music.
(of a church mode) having a range extending from the final to the octave above.
Compare plagal.
(of a cadence) consisting of a dominant harmony followed by a tonic.
6.
Obsolete. authoritative.
If we look at its etymology we still see no evidence of authenticity being tied to whether or not a thing is created for the purposes of selling. You outright made that up. As an authentic Picasso, was painted for the purposes of being sold and not for the purposes of telling a story or conveying a deeper message. As opposed to the databook which does include information not explicitly stated in the manga. But returning to linguistics authenticity is about truthfulness and reliability. It and canonical stood to be synonyms in the 13 century. You can't Trump your way out of a logical discussion by just making up your facts. Facts exist and can be supported by math or history, certainly by reason. The lines of logic can be drawn out.
You set up a false dichotomy by suppossing that authentic and officially licensed were things that could be compared in this case. But they can't because Kishimoto wrote the Databooks. Making them both authentic and officially licensed, implying that it's not a one or the other scenario and that they are two separate ideas that need not necessarily conflict.
IF all you have are logical fallacies and statements you make up that contradict logic and well Kishimoto's words and illustrations, you are incorrect. Fundamentally so.
