The Function of Literature

External Since: May 12, 2004 Posts: 7

The function of literature, the basis of its cultivation by humanity, is
clearly not solely a matter of enjoyment. Although it is possible to
read a work of literature with profound pleasure, from whence the
pleasure derives and its ultimate effect of it upon the formation of an
aesthetic deserve a thorough examination. But the fundamental question
of literature is perhaps that of poetic form: what is it for a work to
have poetic form? What differentiates a piece of writing with notable
poetic form from ordinary discourse, and why do we prefer one to the
other? The answers to such questions clearly derive from the character
of literature as a whole, the reasons we turn to it for edification and
relief; so perhaps a brief examination of literature's formal status can
shed light upon the question of poetic form in particular.

Literature is coextensive with the real. It is not so much that we ought
to like it, as that we should like some parts of it given our worldly
dealings: if a particular genre suits our fancy, it is hardly impossible
that we maintain some practical connection to the subject-matter, if
only from a comfortable distance. Broadly speaking, we like literature
because we find language to be the omnipresent mediator and divider of
our affairs it obviously is, and literature counts as something like
"sympathetic magic" with respect to the felicity of our utterances and
our place within the whole of speech, a safeguard against the inability
of a form of words to have their appropriate purchase upon us. It is
true that language and literature are not so easily divided: separating
a classical work from the commonplace analogies made to it is hard
going, and this is the point.

So it would not be beside the point to specify poetic form as an attempt
to imbue a going form of words with a certain character, a stipulation
of a discourse's purchase within the social totality: this is exactly
what the aim of all language is, and literature in this estimation turns
out to be the conscious cultivation of the arts of language, a notable
attempt to impress upon the reading public a certain sensibility in
practical dealings. The edification experienced by the reader of
literature is coextensive with the practical education life in general,
and to cultivate a taste for the existent is by no means a foolish
endeavor but rather a specifically literary activity. With this in mind,
it seems that the formal analysis of literature is in fact an extremely
pragmatic discipline permitting of many applications to everyday cares:
but perhaps we can say that here we have a motive for plot, and leave it
at that.

--
Jeff Rubard
http://opensentence.tripod.com/
Essays on theory, culture, and politics

External Since: Feb 05, 2004 Posts: 5

The function of literature is actually to heighten our own understanding of
what it is to be human and to record it for future generations. Any kind of
book can be a great piece of literature.
What I disagree with is the Newsnight Review version of literature and the
presecribed literature of education. Books that are put forward as great works
are often no and I as for Newsnight Review, they lacked the intelligence to
read a Patrick O'Brian novel and far less to understand it. Truly great
literature creates a world within th confines of book as if another reality
lies within the words.
As for poetic writing I think that poetry is better utilised as one of ideas
and synthesis of presentation rather than the cheap showiness of people pushing
poetic works in an attempt to appear more intelligent than they truly are.