The quest to discover a definition for “literature” is a road that is much travelled, though the point of arrival, if ever reached, ...
The quest to discover a
definition for “literature” is a road that is much travelled, though the
point of arrival, if ever reached, is seldom satisfactory. Most
attempted definitions are broad and vague, and they inevitably change
over time. In fact, the only thing that is certain about defining
literature is that the definition will change. Concepts of what is
literature change over time as well. What may be considered ordinary
and not worthy of comment in one time period may be considered literary
genius in another. Initial reviews of Emily Brontë's Wuthering Heights in 1847 were less than spectacular, however, Wuthering Heights is now considered one of the greatest literary achievements of all time. The same can be said for Herman Melville's Moby-Dick (1851).
Generally, most people have their own ideas of
what literature is. When enrolling in a literary course at university,
you expect that everything on the reading list will be “literature”.
Similarly, you might expect everything by a known author to be
literature, even though the quality of that author's work may vary from
publication to publication. Perhaps you get an idea just from looking
at the cover design on a book whether it is “literary” or “pulp”.
Literature then, is a form of demarcation, however fuzzy, based on the
premise that all texts are not created equal. Some have or are given
more value than others.
Most forays into the question of “what is
literature” go into how literature works with the reader, rather than
how the author set about writing it. It is the reception, rather than
the writing, which is the object of enquiry. Largely, what we call
“literature” is often a subjective value judgment, and naturally, value
judgments, like literary tastes, will change.
Etymologically, literature has to do with
letters, the written as opposed to the spoken word, though not
everything that is written down is literature. As a classification, it
doesn't really have any firm boundary lines. The poet Shelley wanted to
include some legislative statutes of parliaments under poetry because
they created order and harmony out of disorder. There is recurring
agreement amongst theorists though that for a work to be called
literature must display excellence in form and style. Something may
also be literary by association – that is, because V.S. Naipaul is a literary figure through his novels, his private letters are passed as literature as well.
There is also general agreement that
literature foregrounds language, and uses it in artistic ways. Terry
Eagleton goes some way towards a definition of literature and its
relationship to language: “Literature transforms and intensifies
ordinary language, deviates systematically from everyday speech”. Just
as architecture is the art form that arises out of the human ability to
create buildings, literature is the art form that arises out of the
human ability to create language.
The common definition of literature,
particularly for university courses, is that it covers the major genres
of poetry, drama, and novel/fiction. The term also implies literary
quality and distinction. This is a fairly basic view of literature
because, as mentioned in the introduction, the meaning of the term has
undergone changes, and will no doubt continue to do so. Most
contemporary literary histories show a shift from the belles-lettres tradition,
which was concerned with finding beauty, an elevated use of language,
emotional effects and moral sentiments before something could be called
literature.
The three main ways of approaching a
definition of literature are relativism, subjectivism and agnosticism.
With relativism, there are no value distinctions in literature; anything
may be called good literature. Subjectivism, as the term implies,
means that all theories of literary value are subjective, and that
literary evaluation is a purely personal matter. Agnosticism follows
from subjectivism, though it argues that though there may be real
distinctions in literary value, our subjective value systems prevent us
from knowing anything about the real values.
By
the 1980s, there was a sense of inclusiveness (and relativism) in what
was termed literary that ran alongside the inclusiveness of
multiculturalism - anything could be literature, and attempts were made
to dismantle distinctions between high and low culture. Letters,
diaries, reports, petitions, journals and essays as well as the
traditional genres of novel, short story, poem and play can be included
as literature. In universities, literature began to be studied for
issues and themes, and works were valued for their ideas and engagement
with the world as much as for their aesthetic qualities. These
standards are also applied to non-fiction, such as auto/biography and
philosophy. The most recent amendment to what
constitutes literature is the inclusion of oral narratives. This
inclusion hasn't been without debate. There is some argument that the
written word lends itself more easily to analysis, while the flip side
is that oral narratives are a legitimate part of a culture's literary
capital.
Definitions of literature change because they
describe and clarify a reality, they do not create the reality they
describe. Or it may be that definitions tell us what we ought to think
literature should be. At a dinner party you would be swiftly corrected
if you referred to Mills & Boon as literature. This might occur for
two reasons: the common perception of literature as described by
current definitions doesn't include mass-market romance novels; or Mills
& Boon might well be literature, but contemporary definitions tell
us it shouldn't be.
Does it really matter what “literature” is?
Does everyone have to agree? Because there is no hard and fast
definition of literature, perhaps it is more beneficial to seek an
analysis instead. What purposes does literature serve? What
distinguishes literature from non-literary works? What makes us treat
something as literature? How do we know when something is literature?
Would it be easier to ask “what isn't literature”?
Literature is as literature does. In
exploring ideas about what literature is, it is useful to look at some
of the things that literature does. Literature is something that
reflects society, makes us think about ourselves and our society, allows
us to enjoy language and beauty, it can be didactic, and it reflects on
“the human condition”. It both reflects ideology and changes ideology,
just like it follows generic conventions as well as changing them. It
has social and political effects: just ask Salman Rushdie or Vladamir Nabakov. Literature is the creation of another world, a world that we can only see through reading literature.
