In ABC of Reading, Ezra Pound stated, “Literature is news that stays news.” Value judgments decide what is literature or Literature. And who is to say whose values are to be applied? Isn’t literature about a love of reading? Isn’t literature ultimately about what makes us happy as readers? Where can each of us escape in “literature” to forget our everyday world? Is your literature the same as my literature?
Can we remove value judgments and scientifically appraise a work in the way Aristotle would criticize the poets? Is it ridiculous to state that literature occurs any time two or more words appear together and leave it at that? By this definition, a traffic sign that reads “STOP” is not literature, but a traffic sign that states “SPEED LIMIT 50” is literature. There is no value judgment here. Simply a mathematical formula that says what literature is.
Certainly, none of us wish to stare at traffic signs all day as a form of reading entertainment. But at what point, when words are gathered together, do the words become literature? Ogden Nash’s Poem Fleas goes like this “Adam had ‘em.” Muhammad Ali, when asked to recite a two word poem, said “Me, we.”
In The Best Creative Nonfiction, Vol 2. Edited by Lee Gutkind, the opening essay is entitled The “L” Word—And all the Rest of us “Outsiders.” Even though the collection deals with nonfiction essays, these words apply to all literature: “While categorization may guide us in our selection of reading material, most readers are simply seeking enjoyment and enlightenment from books—no matter how they are categorized. . . Publishers and newspaper reporters care the most about categorization, I think—not so much readers (p x).”
Is there a brand of snobbery or elitism behind anyone designating one work as literature and another work not literature? Without a critical view, without this elitism, can one define literature? Whose view is correct? Who needs this definition and analysis, anyway? Can’t we enjoy a pulp romance novel without worrying about whether we are wasting our time not reading literature? If we step back from stating what is good and what is bad (an arbitrary value system which we embrace but we can’t quite explain and which differs from individual to individual) and include everything whether good or bad, is this our most inclusive definition of literature? It might not work for a college curriculum, but it should work well for the reading habits of the general public.
From Literary Theory by Terry Eagleton--“Like religion, literature works primarily by emotion and experience, and so was admirably well-fitted to carry through the ideological task which religion left off.” Although this is a small burden placed upon the back of writers, the description is closer to the truth of what literature tends to accomplish. Words are meant to touch our heart and soul and occasionally to tell us something about ourselves. That’s good enough for me.
Ramsey,
ReplyDeleteI really appreciated this entry because I was quite troubled by all these attempts to define literature. Maybe it is the knee-jerk reaction that us English majors have to definitive answers, but I actually think it is because literature is so special to each person.
Your definition works for me. Literature is spiritual, reflective, inspiring, perhaps. I cannot think of a general, blanket definition, though, without flinching. Part of me just wants to posit that we take it as a case-by-case process.
What I do dislike mostly is what you mentioned as "snobbery." We are playing god here by trying to force definitions down people's throats.