By the last paragraph on page seven and throughout much of the rest of the article, Eagleton refocuses on the reader. He explains how literature cannot be defined objectively, insisting that the definition of what is and what isn’t literature, is up to how the reader reads it, and not necessarily the content or ‘nature’ of the work. Eagleton goes on to explain that the amount of truth-value and the extent to which value-judgments are placed on literary work defines just how literary the discourse or writing really is.
Throughout this article, Eagleton pointed out the many different definitions of how literature is defined. I believe it was Eagleton’s main goal, to distinguish between objective and subjective definitions of literature and prove that, in fact, neither objective nor subjective definitions are correct. By the time I had finished reading this introduction, I found myself quite easily agreeing with Eagleton in the sense that, literature is best defined by the reader. What may be considered literary to some may not be considered literary by others. Could this solve the age old question: What is literature? This philosophy is one which everyone can agree, or at least partially.
At the beginning of the article, Eagleton touches on how he thinks one might have originally defined literature. He described literature as, “imaginative writing in the sense of fiction” (Eagleton 1). If one then believes that ‘writing in the sense of fiction’ is the meaning of literature then who is it that decides what is true and untrue – and thus ultimately, literature? Says Eagleton, “A distinction between ‘fact and ‘fiction,’ then, seems unlikely to get us very far…” (Eagleton 1). Here, even as early as the first page, Eagleton begins to hint that the definition of literature is not objective, but rather subjective, as the distinction between fact and fiction is ‘often questionable.’
In the following pages, however, Eagleton discusses the works of the Russian Formalists. Their definition of literature focused on the structure of language instead of the content of the work, creating what Eagleton defined as ‘self-referential language.’ The Formalists focused primarily on distorting, twisting, ‘intensifying,’ and ‘defamiliarizing’ language for effect. I think this was a productive and easy way to try and get readers to easily identify works as literary. The Formalists tried to give their work a scholarly effect. They felt, and probably some readers also, that giving their work a scholarly feel would somehow add merit to their work. Subsequently, I found the Formalist definition of literature to be quite interesting. For as much as the Formalists seemed to push their characterization of literature, it did make sense. It seemed credible. But, then again, who has the authority to define something so contentious?
Because an authority cannot ever be named to truly and decisively define literature, I find myself agreeing more with Eagleton’s final definition of literature. That is, of course, that literature cannot be objectively defined. Literature is then defined per reader, allowing for a more acceptable definition socially, because everyone’s definition may vary. However, literature in this sense means that whatever is deemed literature by the reader is of high value or importance. Similarly, Eagleton mentions that people will think of literature as ‘good writing.’ I see this true in my own experience. That is, whenever instructors are not surrounding me in whatever they think is literature. What is good writing to them, may not hold true with me.
Toward the end of page nine, Eagleton moves to say that, since literature is now objectively defined, we may or may not have to regard certain works, such as Shakespeare, as literature. Nevertheless, one would be looked at quite oddly I feel, if they objected to Shakespeare being literature. Here, we see Eagleton start to shift away from subjective definitions of literature to a position which seems to be rather indefinable. From this point onward, Eagleton makes note that, his future use of the word ‘literature’ or ‘literary’ have no specific meaning, but are irreplaceable.
Eagleton continues on page ten, suggesting that since the definition of literature is now indefinable, that what is written may be given status relative to the value-judgment provided by the reader. Thus, the literariness or value of a work may and most often will be varying – whether it varies between each reader, or whether it varies in value on a daily basis for one reader. What may be ‘literary’ one day, may not be literary the next day, based on multiple factors including even the news, which Eagleton refers to at the bottom of page one.
At the top of page eleven, Eagleton makes one final observation. He states that the Shakespeare of the seventeenth-century reads differently to us today than it did to readers during the Shakespearean era. In essence, different historical periods have had varying sets of norms in which the readers read. Eagleton suggests that works are essentially ‘rewritten’ by societies as we have evolved. I certainly agree.
In conclusion, we have our own minds to make up. Eagleton has not defined literature. He has simply walked us from the sixteenth-century to where we are now, highlighting all different attempts to define literature. What’s intriguing about this search for meaning is the fact that no one was able to truly define literature. I believe, however, Eagleton says it best in the final paragraph of the article: “If it will not do to see literature as an ‘objective,’ descriptive category, neither will it do to say that literature is just what people whimsically choose to call literature” (Eagleton 14). Suffice it to say that literature has no definition. Will it ever?
