You are on page 1of 4

1

What is Literature?
Adapted from Terry Eagletons Introduction: What is Literature? pu!lished in Literary Theory: An Introduction "#inneapolis $%&'() There ha*e !een *arious attempts to define literature) +ou can define it for e,ample as -imaginati*e .riting in the sense of fiction.riting .hich is not literally true) /ut e*en the !riefest of reflection on .hat people commonly include under the heading of literature suggests that this .ill not do) 0e*enteenth1 century English literature for e,ample includes 0ha2espeare and #ilton !ut it also stretches to the essays of 3rancis /acon and the sermons of 4ohn 5onne) A distinction !et.een -fact and -fiction then seems unli2ely to get us *ery far not least !ecause the distinction itself is often a 6uestiona!le one) 4ust as literature includes much -factual .riting it also e,cludes 6uite a lot of fiction) 0uperman comics are fictional !ut not generally regarded as literature and certainly not as Literature) If literature is -creati*e or -imaginati*e .riting does this imply that history philosophy and natural science are uncreati*e and unimaginati*e? 7erhaps one needs a different 2ind of approach altogether) 7erhaps literature is defina!le not according to .hether it is fictional or -imaginati*e !ut !ecause it uses language in peculiar .ays) 8n this theory literature is a 2ind of .riting .hich in the .ords of the 9ussian critic 9oman 4a2o!son represents an -organi:ed *iolence committed on ordinary speech) Literature transforms and intensifies ordinary language de*iates systematically from e*eryday speech) If you approach me at a !us stop and murmur -Thou still unra*ished !ride of 6uietness then I am instantly a.are that I am in the presence of the literary) I 2no. this !ecause the te,ture rhythm and resonance of your .ords are in e,cess of their a!stracta!le meaning) +our language dra.s attention to itself it flaunts its material !eing as statements li2e -5ont you 2no. the dri*ers are on stri2e? do not) Language literary or not can !e read and construed in many .ays) ;onsider the follo.ing prosaic 6uite unam!iguous statement that sometimes is seen in the London underground system: -5ogs must !e carried on the escalator) This is not perhaps 6uite as unam!iguous as it seems at first sight: does it mean that you must carry a dog on the escalator? There is still another .ay of -misreading the sign .hich may !e helpful in our pursuit) Imagine a late1 night drun2 dou!led o*er the escalator handrail .ho reads the notice .ith la!orious attenti*eness for se*eral minutes and then mutters to himself: -<o. true= What 2ind of mista2e is occurring here? What the drun2 is doing in fact is ta2ing the sign as some statement of general e*en cosmic significance) /y applying certain con*entions of reading to its .ords he pries them loose from their immediate conte,t and generali:es them !eyond their pragmatic purpose to something of .ider and pro!a!ly deeper import) This .ould certainly seem to !e one operation in*ol*ed in .hat people call literature) When the poet tells us that his lo*e is li2e a red rose .e 2no. !y the *ery fact that he puts his statement

2 into meter that .e are not supposed to as2 .hether he actually had a lo*er .ho for some !i:arre reason seemed to him to resem!le a rose) <e is telling us something a!out .omen and lo*e in general) Literature then .e might say is -non1pragmatic discourse: unli2e !iology te,t!oo2s and notes to the mil2man it ser*es no immediate practical purpose !ut is to !e ta2en as referring to a general state of affairs) 0ometimes though not al.ays it may employ particular language as though to ma2e this fact o!*iousto signal that .hat is at sta2e is a way of talking a!out a .oman rather than any particular real1life .oman) This focusing on the .ay of tal2ing rather than on the reality of .hat is tal2ed a!out is sometimes ta2en to indicate that .e mean !y literature a 2ind of self-referential language a language .hich tal2s a!out itself) There are ho.e*er pro!lems .ith this .ay of defining literature too) 3or one thing it .ould pro!a!ly ha*e come as a surprise to >eorge 8r.ell to hear that his essays .ere to !e read as though the topics he discussed .ere less important than the .ay he discussed them) In much of .hat is classified as literature the truth1*alue and practical rele*ance of .hat is said is considered important to the o*erall effect) /ut e*en if treating discourse -non1pragmatically is part of .hat is meant !y -literature then it follo.s from this -definition that literature cannot in fact !e -o!?ecti*ely defined) It lea*es the definition of literature up to ho. some!ody decides to read not to the nature of .hat is .ritten) It is true that many of the .or2s studied as literature in academic institutions .ere -constructed to !e read as literature !ut it is also true that many of them .ere not) A piece of .riting may start off life as history or philosophy and the come to !e ran2ed as literature@ or it may start off as literature and then come to !e *alued for its archeological significance) 0ome te,ts are !orn literary some achie*e literariness and some ha*e literariness thrust upon them) /reeding in this respect may count for a good deal more than !irth) What matters may not !e .here you came from !ut ho. people treat you) If they decide that you are literature then it seems you are irrespecti*e of .hat you thought you .ere) In this sense one can thin2 of literature less as some inherent 6uality or set of 6ualities displayed !y certain 2inds of .riting all the .ay from Beowulf to Airginia Woolf than as a num!er of .ays in .hich people relate themselves to .riting) It .ould not !e easy to isolate from all that has !een *ariously called -literature some constant set of inherent features) In fact it .ould !e as impossi!le as trying to identify the single distinguishing feature .hich all games ha*e in common) There is no -essence of literature .hatsoe*er) Any !it of .riting may !e read -non1pragmatically if that is .hat reading a te,t as literature means ?ust as any .riting may !e read -poetically) If I pore o*er the rail.ay timeta!le not to disco*er a train connection !ut to stimulate in myself general reflections on the speed and comple,ity of modern e,istence then I might !e said to !e reading it is literature) 4ohn #) Ellis has argued that the term -literature operates rather li2e the .ord -.eed: .eeds are not particular 2inds of plant !ut ?ust any 2ind of plant .hich for some reason or another a gardener does not .ant around) 7erhaps -literature means something li2e the opposite: any 2ind of .riting .hich for some reason or another some!ody *alues highly)

3 Aalue1?udgments .ould certainly seem to ha*e a lot to do .ith .hat is ?udged literature and .hat isntnot necessarily in the sense that .riting has to !e -fine to !e literary !ut that it has to !e of the kind that is ?udged fine: it may !e an inferior e,ample of a generally *alued mode) Bo!ody .ould !other to say that a !us tic2et .as an e,ample of inferior literature !ut someone might say that the poetry of Ernest 5o.son .as) The term -fine .riting or belles lettres is in this sense am!iguous: it denotes a sort of .riting .hich is generally highly regarded .hile not necessarily committing you to the opinion that a particular specimen is -good) With this reser*ation the suggestion that -literature is a highly *alued 2ind of .riting is an illuminating one) /ut it has one fairly de*astating conse6uence) It means that .e can drop once and for all the illusion that the category -literature is -o!?ecti*e in the sense of !eing eternally gi*en and immuta!le) Anything can !e literature and anything .hich is regarded as unaltera!le and un6uestiona!ly literature0ha2espeare for e,amplecan cease to !e literature) Any !elief that the study of literature is the study of a sta!le .ell1defina!le entity as entomology is the study of insects can !e a!andoned as a chimera) 0ome 2inds of fiction are literature and some are not@ some literature is fictional and some is not@ some literature is *er!ally self1regarding .hile some highly1.rought rhetoric is not literature) Literature in the sense of a set of .ords of assured and unaltera!le *alue distinguished !y certain shared inherent properties does not e,ist) There is no such thing as a literary .or2 or tradition .hich is *alua!le in itself regardless of .hat anyone might ha*e said or come to say a!out it) -Aalue is a transiti*e term: it means .hate*er is *alued !y certain people in specific situations according to particular criteria and in the light of gi*en purposes) It is thus 6uite possi!le that gi*en a deep enough transformation of our history .e may in the future produce a society .hich is una!le to get anything at all out of 0ha2espeare) <is .or2s might simply seem desperately alien full of styles of thought and feeling .hich such a society found limited or irrele*ant) In such a situation 0ha2espeare .ould !e no more *alua!le than much present1day graffiti) All literary .or2s are -re.ritten if only unconsciously !y the societies .hich read them@ indeed there is no reading of a .or2 .hich is not also a -re1 .riting) Bo .or2 and no current e*aluation of it can simply !e e,tended to ne. groups of people .ithout !eing changed perhaps almost unrecogni:a!ly in the process@ and this is one reason .hy .hat counts as literature is a nota!ly unsta!le affair) #odes of feeling *aluing percei*ing and !elie*ing that is our ideology also dictate ho. .e read and *alue literature) A literary e,ample ser*es to pro*e this point) In his famous study Practical Criticism "$%C%( the ;am!ridge critic I) A) 9ichards sought to demonstrate ?ust ho. .himsical and su!?ecti*e literary *alue1?udgments could actually !e !y gi*ing his undergraduates a set of poems .ithholding from them the titles and the authors names and as2ing them to e*aluate them) The resulting ?udgments notoriously .ere highly *aria!le: time1 honored poets .ere mar2ed do.n and o!scure authors cele!rated) To my mind ho.e*er much the most interesting aspect of this pro?ect and one apparently

4 6uite in*isi!le to 9ichards himself is ?ust ho. tight a consensus of unconscious *aluations underlies these particular differences of opinion) 9eading 9ichardss undergraduates accounts of literary .or2s one is struc2 !y the ha!its of perception and interpretation .hich they spontaneously share.hat they e,pect literature to !e .hat assumptions they !ring to a poem and .hat fulfillments they anticipate they .ill deri*e from it) Bone of this is really surprising: for all the participants in this e,periment .ere presuma!ly young .hite upper1 or upper1 middle1class pri*ately educated English people of the $%CDs and ho. they responded to a poem depended on a good deal more than purely -literary factors) Their critical responses .ere deeply ent.ined .ith their !roader pre?udices and !eliefs) This is not a matter of blame: there is no critical response .hich is not so ent.ined and thus no such thing as a -pure literary critical ?udgment or interpretation) If any!ody is to !e !lamed it is I) A) 9ichards himself .ho as a young .hite upper1middle class male ;am!ridge don .as una!le to o!?ectify a conte,t of interests .hich he himself largely shared and .as thus una!le to recogni:e fully that local -su!?ecti*e differences of e*aluation .or2 .ithin a particular socially structured .ay of percei*ing the .orld) If it .ill not do to see literature as an -o!?ecti*e descripti*e category neither .ill it do to say that literature is ?ust .hat people .himsically choose to call literature) 3or there is nothing at all .himsical a!out such 2inds of *alue1 ?udgments: they ha*e their roots in deeper structures of !elief .hich are as apparently unsha2ea!le as the Empire 0tate !uilding) What .e ha*e unco*ered so far then is not only that literature does not e,ist in the sense that insects do and that the *alue1?udgments !y .hich it is constituted are historically *aria!le !ut that these *alue1?udgments themsel*es ha*e a close relation to social ideologies) They refer in the end not simply to pri*ate taste !ut to the assumptions !y .hich certain social groups e,ercise and maintain po.er o*er others)

You might also like