00:00:00
The question of what makes something literary
is an enduring one, and I don’t expect that
00:00:05
we’ll answer it fully in this short video.
00:00:08
Instead, I want to show you a few different
ways that literary critics approach this question
00:00:14
and then offer a short summary of the 3 big
factors that we must consider when we ask
00:00:18
the question ourselves.
00:00:20
Let’s begin by making a distinction between
“Literature with a capital L” and “literature
00:00:27
with a small l.”
00:00:28
“Literature with a small l” designates
any written text: we can talk about “the
00:00:33
literature” on any given subject without
much difficulty.
00:00:37
“Literature with a capital L”, by contrast,
designates a much smaller set of texts – a
00:00:43
subset of all the texts that have been written.
00:00:47
So what makes a text literary or what makes
a text “Literature with a capital L”?
00:00:52
Let’s start with the word itself.
00:00:55
“Literature” comes from Latin, and it
originally meant “the use of letters”
00:01:00
or “writing.”
00:01:01
But when the word entered the Romance languages
that derived from Latin, it took on the additional
00:01:06
meaning of “knowledge acquired from reading
or studying books.”
00:01:10
So we might use this definition to understand
“Literature with a Capital L” as writing
00:01:14
that gives us knowledge--writing that should
be studied.
00:01:19
But this begs the further question: what books
or texts are worth studying?
00:01:25
For some critics, answering this question
is a matter of establishing canonicity.
00:01:30
A work of literature becomes “canonical”
when cultural institutions like schools or
00:01:35
universities or prize committees classify
it as a work of lasting artistic or cultural
00:01:41
merit.
00:01:42
The canon, however, has proved problematic
as a measure of what “Literature with a
00:01:48
capital L” is because the gatekeepers of
the Western canon have traditionally been
00:01:53
White and male.
00:01:55
It was only in the closing decades of the
twentieth century that the canon of Literature
00:01:59
was opened to a greater inclusion of diverse
authors.
00:02:02
And here’s another problem with that definition:
if inclusion in the canon were our only definition
00:02:10
of Literature, then there could be no such
thing as contemporary Literature, which, of
00:02:14
course, has not yet stood the test of time.
00:02:17
And here’s an even bigger problem: not every
book that receives good reviews or a wins
00:02:22
a prize turns out to be of lasting value in
the eyes of later readers.
00:02:27
On the other hand, a novel like Herman Melville’s
Moby-Dick, which was NOT received well by
00:02:33
critics or readers when it was first published
in 1851, has since gone on to become a mainstay
00:02:39
of the American literary canon.
00:02:42
As you can see, canonicity is obviously a
problematic index of literariness.
00:02:48
So… what’s the alternative?
00:02:51
Well, we could just go with a descriptive
definition: “if you love it, then it’s
00:02:56
Literature!”
00:02:57
But that’s a little too subjective.
00:02:59
For example, no matter how much you may love
a certain book from your childhood (I love
00:03:05
The Very Hungry Caterpillar) that doesn’t
automatically make it literary, no matter
00:03:10
how many times you’ve re-read it.
00:03:11
Furthermore, the very idea that we should
have an emotional attachment to the books
00:03:12
we read has its own history that cannot be
detached from the rise of the middle class
00:03:13
and its politics of telling people how to
behave.
00:03:14
Ok, so “literature with a capital L” cannot
always by defined by its inclusion in the
00:03:18
canon or the fact that it has been well-received
so…what is it then?
00:03:24
Well, for other critics, what makes something
Literature would seem to be qualities within
00:03:29
the text itself.
00:03:31
According to the critic Derek Attridge, there
are three qualities that define modern Western
00:03:36
Literature:
00:03:37
1.
00:03:38
a quality of invention or inventiveness in
the text itself;
00:03:43
2.
00:03:44
the reader’s sense that what they are reading
is singular.
00:03:47
In other words, the unique vision of the writer
herself.
00:03:51
3.
00:03:52
a sense of ‘otherness’ that pushes the
reader to see the world around them in a new
00:03:56
way
00:03:58
Notice that nowhere in this three-part definition
is there any limitation on the content of
00:04:04
Literature.
00:04:05
Instead, we call something Literature when
it affects the reader at the level of style
00:04:10
and construction rather than substance.
00:04:14
In other words, Literature can be about anything!
00:04:18
The idea that a truly literary text can change
a reader is of course older than this modern
00:04:23
definition.
00:04:24
In the English tradition, poetry was preferred
over novels because it was thought to create
00:04:29
mature and sympathetic reader-citizens.
00:04:31
Likewise, in the Victorian era, it was argued
that reading so-called “great” works of
00:04:38
literature was the best way for readers to
realize their full spiritual potentials in
00:04:43
an increasingly secular world.
00:04:45
But these never tell us precisely what “the
best” is.
00:04:50
To make matters worse, as I mentioned already,
“the best” in these older definitions
00:04:55
was often determined by White men in positions
of cultural and economic power.
00:05:01
So we are still faced with the question of
whether there is something inherent in a text
00:05:05
that makes it literary.
00:05:07
Some critics have suggested that a sense of
irony – or, more broadly, a sense that there
00:05:12
is more than one meaning to a given set of
words – is essential to “Literature with
00:05:16
a capital L.”
Reading for irony means reading slowly or
00:05:21
at least attentively.
00:05:23
It demands a certain attention to the complexity
of the language on the page, whether that
00:05:27
language is objectively difficult or not.
00:05:31
In a similar vein, other critics have claimed
that the overall effect of a literary text
00:05:35
should be one of “defamiliarization,”
meaning that the text asks or even forces
00:05:41
readers to see the world differently than
they did before reading it.
00:05:45
Along these lines, literary theorist Roland
Barthes maintained that there were two kinds
00:05:49
of texts: the text of pleasure, which we can
align with everyday Literature with a small
00:05:54
l” and the text of jouissance, (yes, I said
jouissance) which we can align with Literature.
00:06:03
Jouissance makes more demands on the reader
and raises feelings of strangeness and wonder
00:06:08
that surpass the everyday and even border
on the painful or disorienting.
00:06:12
Barthes’ definition straddles the line between
objectivity and subjectivity.
00:06:17
Literature differs from the mass of writing
by offering more and different kinds of experiences
00:06:22
than the ordinary, non-literary text.
00:06:25
Literature for Barthes is thus neither entirely
in the eye of the beholder, nor something
00:06:29
that can be reduced to set of repeatable,
purely intrinsic characteristics.
00:06:34
This negative definition has its own problems,
though.
00:06:37
If the literary text is always supposed to
be innovative and unconventional, then genre
00:06:42
fiction, which IS conventional, can never
be literary.
00:06:47
So it seems that whatever hard and fast definition
we attempt to apply to Literature, we find
00:06:53
that we run up against inevitable exceptions
to the rules.
00:06:56
As we examine the many problematic ways that
people have defined literature, one thing
00:07:01
does become clear.
00:07:03
In each of the above examples, what counts
as Literature depends upon three interrelated
00:07:08
factors: the world, the text, and the critic
or reader.
00:07:12
You see, when we encounter a literary text,
we usually do so through a field of expectations
00:07:18
that includes what we’ve heard about the
text or author in question [the world], the
00:07:21
way the text is presented to us [the text],
and how receptive we as readers are to the
00:07:26
text’s demands [the reader].
00:07:27
With this in mind, let’s return to where
we started.
00:07:31
There is probably still something to be said
in favor of the “test of time” theory
00:07:34
of Literature.
00:07:36
After all, only a small percentage of what
is published today will continue to be read
00:07:40
10, 20, or even 100 years from now; and while
the mechanisms that determine the longevity
00:07:46
of a text are hardly neutral, one can still
hope that individual readers have at least
00:07:52
some power to decide what will stay in print
and develop broader cultural relevance.
00:07:57
The only way to experience what Literature
is, then, is to keep reading: as long as there
00:08:03
are avid readers, there will be literary texts
– past, present, and future – that challenge,
00:08:09
excite, and inspire us.
