What Is Literature?

MARIANO, LUIS SIDNEY N. B.A. LITERATURE LIT 100 - 1 1. In E. Showalter's Teaching Literature, is Terry Eagleton's statement "anything can be literature" absolute? Explain your answer with supporting arguments from the text. There are two arguments from the text. George Levine thought, "teaching literature ... requires a clear idea of what literature is ... It requires, in fact, some very self-conscious theorizing." On the other hand, Terry Eagleton argued, "anything can be literature, and ... any belief that the study of literature is the study of a stable, well-definable entity, as entomology is the study of insects, can be abandoned as chimera..." He said that anything could be literature because it is impossible to compare literature to a work of entomology, which is precise and unambiguous. For him, literature is abstract that even though it varies in form, some can still be considered literature, and some are not. The statement "anything can be literature" is not absolute, for there are still elements that can distinguish literature from other types of work. For example, not all fiction is contemplated as literature, the same with the way it is spoken; the self-centered theme is more literary than labored use of language. Literature is indistinguishable in a set of inherent and specific properties, but, on the contrary, as he admitted, literature often uses the play of words. That if somebody approaches him in a place with a poetic-type of language, then it is literature. 2. Also in Showalter's Teaching Literature, Roland Barthes defined literature as "what gets taught." Do you agree with this perspective? Why or why not? Since literature cannot be defined by educators, the opinion of Roland Barthes viewed literature as "what gets taught," and I agree. Personally speaking, literature came from an ancient past. Its definition even is expansive and intersecting. Through its origin or those literary works that came before, we can fathom what makes literature. These references range from the classics, postcolonial literature in English to best-sellers. Teaching literature means teaching fiction, poems, plays, critical essays by renowned authors, or other kinds of cultural materials, like film and television. There are already ways of teaching and analysis when it comes to literature. From those that are said, fiction, poems, and plays are the most profound sources. Literature is teachable in its nature because of the examples produced by humans, and the concepts of fiction, poems, and plays take part in its overall construction. 3. In Jonathan Cullen's book Literary Theory, how does he set literary works apart from other forms of narrative display texts? Do you agree? Explain your answer. Literary narratives are also based on stories produced by society, on narrative display texts. Literature and narrative display text are similar to each other because they both fall under "tellability." Point of significance that can be found in their story. The difference is, literature is published, reviewed, and reprinted for the sake of its "worthiness" from a larger scale of people, while narrative display texts are just for a smaller scale of consumption. Literature is made for people from all walks of life and to consume something significant from it, and there might be gaps along the way, but they will only perceive it as innately intended by literature. This aspect can deduce many features of literature. Literature not only asks audiences to observe but also tests their comprehension of its meaning, observation of details, and faith in facing unworldly truths. Pieces of literature are a special form of speech or text. They have these features that call for attention. You can tell literature that it is literature with its context as well, like when it is found in a book, magazine, library, or bookstore. I have the same sentiments as Jonathan Cullen's. There may be forms of narrative display texts that seem to be literature-looking, wherein one or two qualities of literature may be part of them. Still, one distinct attribute of literature is that it is universal and published. There is no exclusive definition of literature, but its dynamic features can be found and studied through history, language, and conventions. 4. What are the five points theorists have made about the nature of literature? How do these points help construct the definition of literature? Do you agree with these points? Why or why not? The first of the theories is “Literature as the ‘foregrounding’ of language.” The “literariness” that can be found in language so as for it to be distinguished as literature is what gives language life. You can identify literature if the language used is alive, creative, and unique. The linguistic patterning and verbal combinations of a poem signify that it is made to attract the attention of literature. Yet, such elements are not easy to notice unless it is titled or treated as literature. The second theory, “Literature as the integration of language,” is already conscious of various relations, such as reinforcement and contrast, sound and meaning, and grammatical organization and thematic patterns. However, like the first theory, it still does not define literature. It only provides elements. These elements even are not bounded only by literary works. They are also used in tongue twisters, advertisements, and political slogans. Thus, finding relations among possible works of literature is only a part of it because some literature is not as complicated as poetry, which needs one's imagination. The third theory is "Literature as fiction." One of the reasons why people patronize literature is because of the fictional world it proffers. With the use of linguistic, a new world emerges that includes characters, events, environments, and the narrator. It is where deictics could mean a lot of points in time, from the first time it was written, it was published to the time in a poem. Also, "I" can be two persons, the speaker or the author. In this way of writing, the interpretation of literature is versatile in the actual world. When the last three theories come together, the fourth theory, “Literature as aesthetic object,” serves as an umbrella term. The term “aesthetic” is the theory of art and beauty. It is an archetype between the material and spiritual world. A literature’s interrelation between its form and content makes it an aesthetic object. It is a spectacle that surpasses colors, sounds, and ideas. There is purposiveness in its overall construction but without a particular purpose. It is always open-ended. There are no right or wrong answers when it comes to its aim. The fifth and last theory is the “Literature as intertextual or self-reflexive construct.” First, “intertextual” or intertextuality is what they call a work that is made out of other works. A literary work has relations to other texts that came before it. To read literature is also to search for its details among other poems, plays, and fiction. It happens because there are concepts in literary works that would result in primary representations of things if used repeatedly by other authors. Second, “self-reflexive” or self-reflexivity is a retrospection of the way literature makes sense. It can trace references back as far as the author’s personal experiences and the books they have read. Hence, literature is, in a way, a practice of creating or recreating literature. Contrariwise, these instances can also be observed in other non-literary works, which renders the definition of literature as yet to be answered. I agree with these general truths presented by Jonathan Cullen that literature cannot be defined by objective properties or by framing a text with literature because it resists being boxed with labels that make it literature. Among these features, its linguistic materials and conventional contexts defined literature more clearly. These five features may not be literature's defining features, but they sure are parts of literature. 5. Share what you’ve realized/learned about how literature is defined from your own researched readings. How would YOU define literature based on everything you have read on the topic? In lieu of the complicated nature of literature, its functions make it distinct among other works. Literature literally performs national identity, sense of community, and seldom, as a surrogate for religion. It is a microcosm of the world that can be adapted in various situations due to its universality and absurdity. It is not just about stories but underscores the "human condition" among other specific categories. It is with these offerings that they render a national function, which is to hold society together. It is a calming influence that fires the populace's imagination but not influencing them in one idea. There is a line in the literature that people would feel like crossing, but they take a step back first to examine the pieces, then make their own judgments about it. When people understand shared universality, wonders materialize as it defies class hierarchies, political parties, and old-aged creeds. It can deconstruct anything with all of the unification of the masses and the truths they embody. A similar scenario is seen in the aftermath of Jose Rizal's novels. Rizal used literature to implicitly educate his fellow Filipinos, who at the time were sleeping of face-to-face injustices, about the nodi of the Philippines under the rule of Spaniards. It became his only way of speaking about the opinions that would otherwise lead him to the harsh and lethal ramifications. The profound impact of his works reached as far as uniting the people and later on liberating the country and, in a much deeper sense, initiating Filipino nationalism. Rizal's legacy is just one of many successful usages of literature. Despite its positive side, there is another side in the coin of literature. Like politics, it is neutral, and its effects of whether good or bad, depending on the mass. The wrong side of it is that it can use with the opposite purpose—and since the majority of its goals is to end struggles, it fosters injustices by leaders because of its "liberal" side. On a more personal note, I would like to relate literature to gender. Literature and gender are both social constructs, and putting labels on them is impossible and even discriminatory in the case of gender. Gender is different from sex that tells you when you are male, female, or intersex. Non-literary work compared to literature is easy to recognize because it does not change or improve (i.e., sex). Gender is the characteristics of what men and women should be as defined by society. “Defined” and with no basis at all. Literature is an art, published writings, and aesthetic objects about the human condition. Humans create it to express their frustrations and dreams. These gender roles of men and women just cannot be imposed for the reason that it is, like literature, too broad, intersecting, and ever-changing. There is no one definition of gender, and the same goes with literature. However, answering the question, "What is literature?" matters because it helps us understand literature better. Albeit not defining it, it allows us to preserve and advance literature.