Crash course in literary theory: The Definition Problem

Friday, 05 March 2010 01:05 AM Katrina Macapagal

A quick search of the query “What is literature?” in Google will produce several links with varying answers. For instance, Wikipedia begins with a simple statement: “Literature is the art of written words.” Compare this to another definition from another website: “Literature is a term used to describe written or spoken material.” The difference in definition is glaring. The first statement limits the scope of literature to “written” words, while the latter expands the scope to “spoken” material. This definition problem in terms of what literature should be versus what it should not be remains unresolved, and has become even more problematic given the developments in literary forms, genres, and movements.

A common way to define literature is to list examples of literary genres. Poems, fictional stories, and novels are considered Literature (note the capital L), while literature is used as a broader term to refer to all forms of writing, as in the use of the word in a sentence that begins with “Previously written literature on the Laws of Gravity shows that…” Implicit in the use of Literature to refer to poems, fiction, and novels is the idea that Literature means “imaginative writing,” and as such, other writings are common and ordinary.

Literature also initially referred to fictional writing and writing that is “non-pragmatic.” Scientific and history books, therefore, are “real” accounts, thus these should not be considered Literature. Writings that tell us how to do things, such as manuals and instruction books, should not be considered Literature. Some also say that works of literary merit use “good writing,” quite similar to the idea that literature is “imaginative writing.”

Over time, these initially accepted definitions of Literature have changed/adjusted in response to challenges that disprove them and, perhaps, to incorporate literary developments. For instance, the genre called “creative non-fiction” has challenged the definition of Literature as fictional writing. We have also been exposed to writings that are not necessarily “good” writing, in the sense that the levels of language used is not necessarily formal or is not as “good” as, say, the language used by Romantic poets. Forms have also changed over the years, for instance, written works no longer have to use rigid rhyme schemes to be considered poetry.

Since the definition problem remains unresolved, it would be more useful to accept that a single, objective definition of Literature does not exist. If you accept the first definition cited here that claims literature involves “written words,” then that means you are rejecting the inclusion of oral literature and graphic novel/comics in your definition of literature. The definition of Literature depends—but what exactly does this definition/s depend on?

In a sense, defining literature involves some sort of value-judgement. But your value-judgment depends on many factors: your social background, education, religion, and other beliefs. This doesn’t mean that you may simply call anything literature, although I suppose that you can. You have to be prepared to justify and defend your definition of literature—which means you have to be prepared to defend the validity of your values and beliefs.

The sooner you accept that there is no clear-cut definition of Literature/literature, the sooner you can begin to engage in a more meaningful understanding of “literary” works based on the definition of Literature/literature which is acceptable to you.

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites