My opinion, and also for the sake of having an alternative to vote for:
No, it should not considered on-topic here
There are several issues with oral literature being considered as literature:
- We usually don't have records of 'oral literature' from before voice recordings, unless it was written down.
If we want to analyse an old piece of text, say Euclid's Elements, there is usually no way we could do so if the text hadn't been written down. There are very few times where literature has survived that long without being written down, and the majority is now extinct.
- Most things that started as oral literature, had to become literature to survive (see above point)
So if we were to analyse something, I doubt we would do it from memory, we would probably look at text. Even analysing a song, we probably wouldn't listen to it, we would search up the lyrics because that is easier
- We have had literally no questions that I can find which is based on oral literature
A question about a written work that was originally transmitted orally is not a question about oral traditions. And of course, if we decide that "oral literature" is off topic, that does not mean that works that were originally transmitted orally are off topic.
No, I am not saying everything in the last 2 months is off-topic, of course not Rand. I am saying, that the fact out of all the posts, submitted so far, none have been about oral literature suggests that there are very few questions, that are about that and if there are they probably aren't very good.
- How do we even know if it was transmitted orally first, if that was written down?
If it was transmitted orally, and wasn't written down, then over time people will forget. Granted some work has survived, but the majority has died out.
- And good oral work would have been written down to preserve it
So there is not much point trying to expertly analyse something that didn't make it onto paper, we won't be able to do so.
Welcome to more suggestions why.