What is Literature?

The question first struck me from a discussion I did not witness but was rather told about – concerning whether Walden, the essay by Henry David Thoreau on his years living in the woods near Walden pond, should be considered literature. At first, this debate appeared merely as a matter of semantics, as literature can refer generically to all the printed word, or more specifically to the volumes of work that we teach as Literature. However, the questions prompted by these debate deserve, in fact need, answering. In this treatise, I will attempt to answer two questions: “Is this question relevant? If so, what defines a work as Literature?” In attempting to answer these questions, I came to realize there were other questions to ask – “Does Literature exist as a separate entity from other form (i.e. Non-Literature)?” “Can Literature be defined by more basic terms?” “If so, what is that definition?”

At some point in our education, once we have satisfied a criterion for basic reading comprehension, we will become immersed in a course on Literature (possible American Literature, or perhaps English Lit, World Lit¸ or some other course of similar scope). These classes generally include a selection of “important” novels, short stories, plays, and poems. My concern with this essay is not to determine how Literature is separated, but rather why it is separated and how it should be separated. To determine these questions, we must realize why we have literature courses to begin with.

It is not the primary purpose of classes in literature to develop basic reading comprehension (i.e. vocabulary, sentence structure, etc.), nor should literature be taught primarily as the basis for composition skills (though both skills are byproducts of reading literature). Neither can I state that we teach literature primarily to highlight the importance and influence of the written word on human history – else there would be no cause to segment Literature from Non-Literature (nor are literature courses typically steeped in historical context). Some would express the argument that we teach literature to learn the logic and style present in standard literary forms – that we teach the forms rather than the content of Literature. While some truth lies in this argument, almost all literature courses focus on the “Great Books” and I have yet to hear a proponent of the “Technically proficient yet content-lacking Books” series. The courses in literature teach content along with form, and should continue to do so, as Literature is not form alone. Others feel Literature is taught to convey moral and ethical values – again a half-truth, though literature curriculum generally differs from that of a typical ethics course. A better argument insists that Literature is used to convey and understanding of the human experience. While the literature course no doubt produces this tertiary benefit, I think we would be poor teachers indeed if we used fictional accounts of reality as the best medium for teaching the human experience. We teach Literature for the learning of Literature itself – not merely the learning of the texts we assign (though an important by-product), but for the development of the skill and ability to analyze and interpret all Literature. The primary goal of a good literature course is not to create familiarity with specific text, nor stylistic analysis of writing, reading comprehension and composition skills, or moral or character education, but to underscore the understanding of Literature. Thus, the answers to the preliminary questions of our discourse have presented themselves. Now that we have determined that we have literature courses to develop the ability to analyze Literature, the question of “What is Literature” becomes an important question, as it will underscore all curriculum in the field of literature.

Nonetheless, I have not yet demonstrated that in fact Literature exists as an entity separate from Non-Literature. Does Literature in fact possess a quality that makes analysis of it different from the reading of Non-Literature? If the only distinction between Literature and Non-Literature is the form of writing used, the quality of the writing, or even the complexity of the content, then Literature is merely a name applied to certain forms, and better or more complex text - Literature would not be an entity in itself. The possibility exists that Literature has not characteristic it can call its own – that I am merely chasing a ghost in my attempt to know Literature.

This premise states that rhetoric (herein defined as the study of form or writing rather than its less complimentary definition) remains the same between Literature and Non-Literature, the only difference being that the texts of Literature are superior in some manner or another to the text of non-Literature. Literature does not exists as an object or a method of study, but only a name applied to combine specific forms of writing, or a term loosely used to discriminated between greater and lesser texts. There is nothing inherently different about Literature to differentiate it from Non-Literature. The study of literature is no different that the study of all texts; the methods are the same.

The question is a simple one, with an answer equally as simple, “Is there a quality present in Literature that is absent in Non-Literature?” While the answer is not obvious, it certain seems the answer is yes. There is a substantive difference between that which, even as yet undefined, we think of as Literature, and that which we reject as Literature. Comparing texts of both categories, it does not appear to be the quality of the writing, nor even its complexity that differs Literature from Non-Literature. Many would claim that Literature is defined by its quality or by specific forms, or by both, yet Literature cannot apply to forms alone, if there is nothing to connect those specific forms and not others. The quality of Literature may seem better than that of Non-Literature, but we do not consider all well-written works Literature – there is something else present that makes a work a work of Literature. The term literature seems synonymous with certain forms (the poem, novel, play, etc) and with quality writing, but there remains an essence of Literature that separates these texts from all the others. Analysis of Literature goes above and beyond the rhetoric we apply to all written forms. The ability to analyze, interpret, and understand Literature requires a skill all it own. I have leapt our first, and perhaps greatest hurdle in our reflection on “What is Literature” – Literature does exist as an entity separate and distinguishable from Non-Literature.

Before we move on, lets slow down from this furious pace to recap where we stand now. Our discourse has led us to certain assumptions, and I have undoubtedly made a few other unspoken assumptions. We assume that:
(1) Literature exists as an entity separate and discernable from other texts.
(2) Understanding, analyzing, and interpreting Literature requires different techniques and abilities than understanding, analyzing, and interpreting Non-Literature.
(3) The ability to analyze and interpret Literature is an important and valuable skill.
(4) Literature instruction should take place at some point during the educational process to develop this ability.
(5) Determining that which is Literature and that which is not prerequisites the design of literature curriculum.
This, however, begs my next, and primary question: “What is Literature? How can it be defined? What separates is from Non-Literature?”

The difficulty I face in finding the one, true definition of literature, i.e. the nature of Literature, suggest that I take the easy road, and suggest that Literature, while an entity separate from other writings, cannot be defined by anything more basic. There is a form of the thing we call Literature that exists and can be perceived; yet no definition of Literature exists. The essence of Literature cannot be broke down into simpler term or defined. All works of Literature have some literary quality that connects them. We as individuals are capable of distinguishing Literature from Non-Literature, despite the fact we can define neither. That which is Literature needs to be read, analyzed, and interpreted differently than other texts, as they are different, though that difference cannot be named.

This proposition, however it eases my burden in this discourse, creates several quandaries for me, most of which are pragmatic rather than ideological. If Literature cannot be defined, but merely identified, then I should be able to identify a work of Literature. My initial motive for beginning this discourse, though, was to determine whether Walden was a work of Literature. If I adhere to the premise that Literature can be perceived without definition, then I should be able to tell you here and now that Walden is or is not a work of Literature. The problem is, I still do not know. This could imply that I am unqualified to identify Literature, a possibility my ego desperately wants to reject. It also implies the two gentleman who argued the point to begin with lack the ability to determine Literature from Non-Literature (well, at least one of them does), despite the fact that both have been educated in the literary arts. This possibility demands that only a elite group of literary experts can tell the rest of us bungling fools whether something is Literature, or if is not, a solution I will not accept. Nor do I merely accept the fact that providing a definition for Literature is impossible, just because no one has yet defined it, though this presents another possibility. Perhaps Literature exists, can be defined or characterized, but I merely lack the ability to lead this discourse to its ultimate conclusion. I could leave to someone else the task of defining Literature, and allow that someone to enlighten me and save my effort. However, no definition I have yet seen meets with my satisfaction, and I know not when one ever will. I truly want to know what Literature is. While for you, my readers and fellow searchers, this inquiry is only in its first half-hour, I am well into my third week on the query, and have invested too much into discovering an answer only to come up empty-handed.

Therefore, the daunting task that lies before me is to find the definition of Literature. To create a definition or set of criteria for Literature requires determining what characteristic, or characteristics inhabit all Literature and none of that which is Non-Literature. Those who have gone before on this quest have defined Literature by its forms, by its complexity, by its originality, by its use of symbolism. I reject all of these. Originality seems the favorite concept of literary experts, but originality may or may not be present in Literature, just as it may or not be present in Non-Literature, though the former may represent the bulk of all creative works. I have already rejected defining Literature by specific forms, as only an underlying connection can bond various form as Literature. I respect the use of symbolism in Literature, but certainly believe a work of Literature can present itself with symbolism, just as a work of Non-Literature can wrap itself in metaphor. The complexity and quality of the writing do not in and of themselves create and entity that is Literature, as the essence of Literature lies in something inherently different. By rejecting both the form and the content of a piece as the characteristic that defines it as Literature, what remains? Literature extends beyond both form and content – and therein lies it definition. Literature is that which cannot easily be fully comprehended merely by examining its form and content. Literature affects, enlightens us, strikes us, connects with us, beyond merely what is written and how it is written. This is why the ability to analyze and interpret Literature goes beyond the rhetoric of other texts. While this is not a true “definition” for literature, I contend that it is the essence of Literature. That essence is what you have when you remove form and you remove content.

With the aid of inspiration from the Divine, I have arrived at a working model for segmenting Literature. All that remains of this discourse is now an easy question: Is Walden Literature? Does Walden convey meaning that extends beyond its essay, journal form? Does Walden say something more than what Henry David Thoreau did in the wilderness? Is Walden defined merely by its structure and the words in contains? I hope at this point, our discourse has succeeded and I need not answer; the answer should be evident enough – however, for those readers who have not experienced Walden, the answer is yes, Walden is indeed Literature.