Tuesday, January 31, 2012
On defining literature
It seems that when attempting to define literature, we should be observant of the purpose of such a definition. If we are trying to define literature so that we can properly apply it, then it may be more effective to work in reverse order. By that I mean we should adopt Stecker's method of vieiwng where the term was applied and then analyzing the criteria that made the term applicable. We can then compare the various criterias used to apply the term, and see what the criteria have in common. This may lead us to a definition which is pluralistic and multifaceted, but I believe that will bring us to the most full understanding possible of what literature may look like in its entirety. With terms like literature, science, music amongst many others, the difficulty in defining the term is that there is never one coherent circumstance in which the term is used. Instead we see that certain situations the term is used to explain degrees of a quality (something being musical or literary) or that it is an embodiment of the concept as a whole (it is lterature).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree. Literature is difficult to define outside of works that we have already produced, because it simply does not exist outside of them, it is not it's own entity. Also, new members of the group of literature are constantly being added. It's a slippery definition.
ReplyDeleteI think that one must perhaps also be open to the idea that even if one finds a good definition of literature today, it can change tomorrow.
That being said, I think there are necessary conditions for literature. We can add new things that could apply to literature, we could also make up a new category for new art that is yet to come, but open the definition too far and simply everything falls under that term and it loses any meaning whatsoever.