Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 12:02:54 -0500
Errors-To: rlstrick@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu
Reply-To: eng215-l@acadcomp.cmp.ilstu.edu
Originator: eng215-l@acadcomp.cmp.ilstu.edu
Sender: eng215-l@acadcomp.cmp.ilstu.edu
From: Daniel William Mc Nicholas <dwmcnic@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu>
To: rlstrick@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu
Subject: Microessay #1
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas

<b>Dan Mc nicholas<br>

                                          August 25, 1997<br>

                                          ENG 214<br>

                                          Ron Strickland<p></b>
What is Literature?<p>
     Terry Eagleton explores the interesting question of what literature is
in the introduction of his book, Literary Theory.  Many scholars have
attempted to define the topic; however, not one can reach a definition
suitable for all.  Eagleton analyzes and questions many of these theories
in his introduction excellently.<p>
     If literature is "Any kind of imaginative fictional writing," the
subject would be overloaded because of the generic definition.  If so,
could personal letters then be considered literature?  I disagree.  In an
American Literature course I took last summer, we read letters to and from
Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Abigail Adams.  I questioned the
authenticity of  letters as literature simply because they were generally
literal and very personal.  They may have used allusion to clarify or boast
knowledge, but there was really no literary texture within them.  In
addition, commercials could also fit under this category of literature.  As
I see it, they may fit better than letters.  Could you imagine analyzing a
commercial for classroom discussion?<p>
     Another theory exposed by Eagleton is that literature is "A highly
valued kind of writing."   We understand that art changes with time, so why
can't literature?  Will depending on subjectivity cause our heroes of
literature suffer?  If so, as Eagleton points out, Shakespeare can cease to
be literature.  This is crazy, but it is true.  I hadn't thought that
Shakespeare can actually be compared with bell-bottoms and platform shoes.
Arguably history's greatest writer being thrust into a closet of past
unknown fads is mind boggling.  Consequently, his works and others we
consider as masterpieces must continue to transcend themselves for
generations to come.<p>
     Can there be a scientific evaluation of literature?  I must disagree.
It is this unscientific approach that forces one to reach a personal
definition of literature.  The diversity of literature is so terrific that
not only interpretations of literature differ, but also the expert's
definition of literature as well.<p>