The question "What is literature" is not easily answered, as demonstrated by Terry Eagleton's muddled introduction. In the introduction, Eagleton tries to define literature in an historical context. He attempts to define literature with many theories, which he proceeds to disprove. Eagleton's article "The Subject of Literature" more clearly states the point I believe he was trying to make in the Introduction.

Eagleton describes literature as something that "teaches us to be... sensitive, imaginative, responsive, sympathetic, creative, perceptive, reflective". I believe with this definition, Eagleton hits the head of the nail. If we look back to what, as children we believed was literature, we'll find high moralistic writings that taught us about chores, siblings and the relationships between people. These early books became the foundation for our love of things that are literary know.

I tend to believe that it doesn't do any good to define something so varied. One of the many reasons that I love literature is that it is an ever changing animal. The great thing about literature is you can change your mind at any time during a reading, or that you can read something multiple times and have it touch you in a different way each time.