Before examining the value and meaning of literature, it is important to understand that literature in any social sense is only an appellation, not an actual thing. It is impossible for there to be an objective or universally recognized basis for literature; it can only have meaning through personal definitions and individual literary canons.
Something cannot be literature based on an innate quality or its readership. If the status of literature is an innate quality within a written work, then we face a dilemma. If this were true, then it would be possible for things which have never been read by anyone to be literature. If the status of literature is an innate quality, then it would be possible for every single person to declare something to be literature, including the author, without it being truly literature. This would mean that the status of literature exists separately from the recognition of something as literature. It would perhaps be difficult to identify what this innate quality could be, and impossible to do so without the subjectivity of reading. It does not appear logical that the status of literature could be based off of an innate quality, rather than the reaction of its readers.
However, there is also a problem if literature is based off of the reaction of its readers rather than an innate quality. If the reaction of readers is the basis of literature, there still exists a problem: books that are commonly regarded as literature are not the most widely read. For example, Brave New World is often considered literature, but it is not as widely read as the Twilight series. There would clearly be a problem in basing the status of literature on general readership levels, which vary greatly over time. There is also a problem of basing the status of literature off of the opinions of literary critics. If the status of literature was something substantive and more than an appellation, then it would require that critics could agree on what constitutes literature. The example of the reception of Poe’s work demonstrates the problem with this theory, in that some famous writers and critics, such as George Bernard Shaw and Robert Frost praise him while others, such as Aldous Huxley and Henry James, strongly critique his work (Canada).
However, even though it appears impossible to objectively and meaningfully declare something to be literature, it is still possible to recognize that not all written works are created equal. There is clearly a difference in both the authorial intent and the reader’s response when comparing works such as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and The Secret of the Sinister Six. Because we can recognize this difference between books, it becomes possible for individuals to create a list of works that they consider to be of superior merit. This approximates the idea of a literary canon, although there are some important distinctions. One important distinction is that this list is purely subjective; it is one individual’s idea of what could be literature, but that does not make it literature. Another important distinction is that combining the lists of all individuals could not create a true literary canon, because of individual bias. For example, though extremely well-educated, my mother prefers mystery novels over some novels that many people consider to be classics, such as Lord of the Flies, Dracula, and Frankenstein. If one were to combine what people read, enjoyed, and considered to be of merit, we would not necessarily arrive at a list of truly superior books, but perhaps just a list approximating that of Oprah’s Book Club or the New York Times Bestseller List. It is possible to have personal lists of what one considers to be literature, or works of superior merit, but there is no meaning gained by combining lists.
In determining the qualities of works I personally consider literature, I stipulate that they must be universal and exceptionally realized (written, filmed, or the media’s equivalent). Works that I consider literature must be universal; they must portray and/or explore some aspect of human nature in such a way that it transcends time and geography. Another important characteristic is that it must be written in a particularly effective way, often creatively way. There are many writers, such as William Topaz McGonagall, that seek to address grand themes, but that are unsuccessful due to their ineffective writing. While the universal themes of written works are crucial, the ways in which they are presented are of equal importance.
The reader’s response to the work is a strong indication of its value, though not a reliable one; tabloids can have more readers than academic journals. While some written works allow the reader to mentally “check out” while reading, a work of superior value should require them to be both emotionally and thoughtfully invested. This focus while reading the work is not necessarily the result of unnecessarily complex diction, but rather the inclusion of profound ideas. Works that I consider literature inspire the reader to continue thinking about the themes discussed after they have finished reading it.
Understanding that it is impossible to determine if something is literature based on an innate quality or readership, and recognizing that only personal literary canons can have meaning, it is important to answer the question: “Why study it?” The works that one considers literature are valuable and worth studying because they create a better understanding of our human nature. The universality requirement that I mentioned means that literary works must address such fundamental aspects of humanity that their themes and messages are always applicable. By reading both broadly and selectively, we can better our understanding not only of ourselves, but also the world around us. Through poems such as “I Taught Myself to Live Simply,” we can learn to live contentedly in and harmoniously with nature, while novels such as The Kite Runner and The Poisonwood Bible help us better understand other cultures.
There is no unifying factor in my pieces besides that of universality and exceptional realization of the creator’s vision. Rather than all focusing on any particular theme, author, time period, worldview, or other unifying factor, I chose works that reflect a broad spectrum in order to address more issues. Because I consider all of them to be of superior artistic merit, they all fulfill the “aesthetic analysis” element of the general education requirements; any elements that the works meet are in addition to this one.
Works Cited:
Canada, Mark. "Edgar Allan Poe." 1997. University of North Carolina at Pembroke. 12 December 2009
--------------------
Photo from:
http://www.tempe.gov/LIBRARY/events/images/books.jpg
