What is Literature - Essay Example

What is Literature? Many unsatisfying definitions have been given for the word ‘literature,’ with various scholars trying to explain why they think their definitions fit better. For instance, Terry Eagleton sees literature as any piece of writing which is ‘imaginative’ in nature and is not “literary true”(2). It is not sufficient to ground the definition of literature to whether or not it is a fact or fiction. By using Eagleton’s definition, I would like to suggest that the task of defining literature is a contentious issue. However, more controversy has been witnessed in the issue of what really makes a work qualify as literary. My work seeks to look at what makes any kind of literature literary. To do this, I will first give an overview of two approaches that have successfully been used to draw the line between literary and non-literary literature. The two approaches are the criteria approach and the prototypical approach. However, I shall dwell more on the prototypical approach. My main source of information will be a work done by Jim Meyer, on the definition of literature based on prototype. In addition, I shall use other sources to give more weight to the points advanced by Meyer. According to Meyer, most people who have attempted to define literature have relied more on the criteria approach. This approach proposes a number of characteristics that any literary work must have to be considered literary (1). These characteristics are very clear and mostly depend on the internal properties of individual members. Hernadi’s work “What is Literature?” (1978) contains a number of essays that use this approach to give more insight to what can be considered literary. According to Wellek (qtd. in Hernadi 16), in the past, literature was believed to include all pieces of writing “with any pretense to permanence.” For Hirsch, any work that can only be taught to literature students, and not students from other departments, automatically qualify to be literature (qtd. in Hernadi 25). It is important to note that some definitions which can be generally viewed as mostly concerning the dynamic nature of literature also tend to employ this approach. Such a definition is the following by McFadden: I should say, then, that literature is a canon which consists of those works in language by which a community defines itself through the course of its history. It works primarily artistic and also those whose aesthetic qualities are only secondary. The self-defining activity of the community is conducted in light of the works, as its members have come to read them”(qtd. in Meyer 2). As evident in the two definitions, we may say that the criteria approach may derive its facts from either the community or an individual text. The criteria approach seems to be losing relevance, if the latest definitions are anything to go by. Most scholars are now relying on the prototypical approach. The approach is based on the premises that the definition provided must get a general acceptance from people, as having most of the characteristics available in the given set of examples. The English speaking people have to determine this consensus on characteristics. They, therefore, tend to readily accept works with most of the characteristics they believe make a work literary (Meyer 3). This approach proposes that literary works are written. They are also characterized by a special selection of language, that is, the use of metaphors, unique phrases, well managed syntax, alliteration and so on. This use of a special form of language makes the work concrete, rather than abstract, so that mind can easily access the happenings in the literary work. Moreover, the works fall under at least one of the literary genres such as drama, poetry, and prose fiction. Literary works are not only read aesthetically but they also satisfy the author’s intention that they be read aesthetically. Last but not least, they give room for free interpretation, a factor mostly referred to as “weak implicatures” (New 2). As proposed within the prototypical approach, literary works are written. This should not be confused to mean that all verbal pieces are not literary. In fact, we have oral literature which is purposefully verbal. However, relying on this approach, oral literature will only qualify as literary because it meets the other characteristics. On the other hand, not all written literature can be certified as literary. Some of the written works which are not literary include reports, minutes and so on. These are not literary because our approach suggests that there has to be a consensus among the English speakers on whether a work is literary. However, these works are unlikely to enjoy that kind of consensus. On the idea of literary works having a unique selection of words, one may be tempted to certify essays containing well selection of words as literary. It is because of this characteristic that some published researches in other fields may be considered as literature, since they are not only written but also have a careful use of language. However, the researches and the essays are not literary because of the fact that they do not fall under any of the literary genres (Meyer 3). We also come across the relationship between literature and language use in Terry Eagleton’s definition of literature. She argues that “Literature transforms and intensifies ordinary language, deviates systematically from everyday speech” (1). Literary works have a special way of interacting with the audience. This is where the prototypical characteristic of reading aesthetically falls. Considering this, we have to note that to fully classify a piece of work as literary; we have to go beyond the work’s form. What is more important is how the audience gets involved with the work. Literary works are read aesthetically, that is, readers invest much of their attention to the reading process and not what they get from the reading. A reader pays closer attention to what impact the work has on their emotions in association to the world around them. It is from their emotional response that they make sense of the words in the work: “In aesthetic reading, the reader’s attention is centered directly on what he is living through during the relationship with that particular text” (Rosenblatt, qtd. in Meyer 6). In an aesthetic reading our objective may be to remember whatever we have read, but this is never the super objective. However, aesthetic reading alone is never enough to classify a work as literary. The reader has to acknowledge the writer’s intention to have the work read or viewed as a literary. Therefore, we are only entitled to declare a work literary if we know that it was the author’s intention to make it fall under the three literary genres mentioned above (Meyer 6). Literary works leave room for free interpretation by the readers. According to Blakemore, literary artists, in almost all cases, do not direct their audiences on what message to pick from their works, but rather leave the task open to as many interpretations as possible. This is what makes good readers to avoid restricting their interpretations along specific perspectives. Literary works require their readers to actively participate in the giving of meaning to a text without relying on certain restricted assumptions. Moreover, most literary works contain as many meanings and messages as there are readers and critics. This is what is assumed when one is invited to give a speech to a certain group of people. The speakers are always required to address a number of issues simultaneously. This is never an easy task, and the only reason most people succeed as speakers is that the weak implicatures give them space to maneuver, knowing that the audience is entitled to their own interpretation. What the audience gets from the works is seldom the message, but a special kind of interaction with the writer’s experiences (Meyer 7). Blakemore adds that most writers employ the use of weak implicatures to give their readers an opportunity to derive a variety of meanings based on numerous interpretations (qtd. in Meyer 7). This approach suggests that almost all literary writers use numerous weak implicatures as a way of attracting active reader participation (Meyer 8). It is, no doubt, hard to exactly conclude what literature is. Even harder is the task to discern literary works from unliterary ones. However, I feel, to a certain point, that Meyer’s use of literary prototypes gives us important information on what should really be considered literary. His approach looks believable since there is a certain level of consensus between what he says on the relationship between language and literature, and what other scholars say on the same. As noted above, Terry Eagleton totally concurs with Meyer on how use of a particular type of language influences people’s perception on whether or not a work is literary. This is a point also echoed by Roman Jakobson, a Russian critic. For him, literature is a form of a well planned violence meted on a would-be normal speech. Literature gives language a new set of meanings. It also has the power to play with language to emphasize a certain meaning attached to it, as well as giving new meaning to already existing phrases (Eagleton 2). Therefore, the prototypical approach may have its own limitations in defining literature, just like many other approaches, but it is way much reliable in the task. It proposes the use of literary prototypes to ascertain certain believable characteristics of literature. The approach leaves us with three main prototypes, that is, literary works are not only written but also contain unique forms of language use, as well as falling under a literary genre. They also require not only aesthetic reading but also evidence that the author’s intention while writing the work was to have it considered as a literary work. Finally, literature contains a certain amount of openness which gives the readers freedom to derive as many interpretations as possible. I strongly believe that with a little improvement, Meyer’s approach can help us to fully understand the difference between literary works and unliterary ones. Until then, however, this issue will still attract as much controversy as it has done in the past. Works Cited Hernadi, Paul. What is Literature? Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1978. Print. Hernadi’s work gives us more insight into understanding what literature is. To do this, Hernadi has frequently referred to the work of Rene Wellek, “What is Literature?” and Hirsch’s “What is literature?” Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008. Print. Eagleton’s work adds more weight on the definition of literature. Meyer, Jim. What is Literature? 1997. Accessed 12 December 2011. www.undo.edu/dep/linguistics/wp/1997Meyer.PDF. Meyer gives us an overview of the criteria approach to defining literature. In addition, he provides us with a detailed discussion on the prototypical approach to defining literature. He quotes works such as McFadden’s “’Literature’: a many-sided process,” Rosenblatt’s “The reader, the text, the poem: transactional theory of the literary work,” and Blakemore’s “Understanding Utterances.” New, Christopher. Philosophy of Literature: An Introduction. London: Routledge, 1999. Print. New addresses the issue of literary works having weak implicatures for easier and open interpretation. Read More