The Question of Literature

This is a response to both Hannah and Bree's blogs.

Literature is a fickle thing. The more I learn about literature the less I feel I can truly quantify what literature is. On the other hand, the more I learn about literature the easier it is for me to argue that a particular piece of writing is literature.

I guess what I am saying is that literature is fickle. In some ways it is completely objective. Almost anything can be seen as literature.

So to answer Bree's question directly: You're right, that was the point. There was no clear answer. The term "literature" is broad enough to encompass all that we read.

Perhaps the most beautiful things about literature is that it can speak to us on so many different levels, and all of those levels are valid. Literature can say different things to us at different times depending on our mood or where we are (in life or location).

Hannah, I don't think you have anything to worry about. Scott is already in the process of teaching us ways to look at and analyze literature. I think he's going to do a great job helping us to see and appreciate both the flexibility and the importance of literature.

Literature seems like such a heavy word. It has a lot of umph behind it. It is a word that can be both intimidating and comforting.

2 Questions

1.) When do you think writers understand the cause behind a shift in style? Specifically from romanticism to realism.

2.) Why do you think Booker T. Washington was more interested in African Americans devoting "their energies to economic and educational advancement, rather than pressing for social equality and political rights?"