In class on Monday, we discussed the difference between open and closed definitions, and which category literature may fall under. In the first essay of our assigned reading, Hirsch argues that literature must have an open definition because any closed definition of the term would not include all of the works that should be included and exclude the opposite. He claims that there is too much gray area to determine definitely which works are literature; he gives examples of hypothetical literary experts who disagree on different works to prove his point.
In class, I asked whether or not an object, which was classically defined using the necessary and sufficient criteria, could also have qualities beyond that criteria and still fit inside the definition or category. If we agree that this is true, than I think that a closed definition of literature becomes a much more viable possibility. The difficulty is reduced to establishing the basic criteria for literature, from which we can include works that may vary from each other in many different ways. While this definition may be difficult to formulate, and nigh impossible to achieve universal popularity, I believe that such an endeavor is necessary for a complete understanding of, and discourse involving, literature.
Is defining literature necessary for our class to examine the category?
No comments:
Post a Comment