This was the question posed to my class today in British Literature. Unfortunately, the class seemed to have a more restricted idea of literature than I do: they seemed to be describing literature as a work that they would read, leaving out what they didn't like. (This became rather apparent when we began listing authors and works that we considered literary.) Our description of literature probably better described what is generally considered "good" literature.
Here's a list of a few major points:
- ordered
- thought provoking
- characters, symbols
- tells a story (excluding poetry)
When I looked at our list of characteristics once we completed it, I noticed that most of them also applied to many pieces of classical music. One orchestral work that came to mind was Nicolai Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade, Op. 35. This symphonic suite is based on
One Thousand and One Nights (aka
Arabian Nights). This work meets almost all of the criteria that my class came up with: its four movements give order, each movement tells a different part of the story, while listening you can get swept away by the images that the music portrays, and Rimsky-Korsakov uses specific themes to portray different characters in the story (specifically the Sultan and Scheherazade). After a bit of thought, I found that our definition of literature was actually more of a description of fine art, which includes drawing, painting, sculpture, ceramics, architecture, literature, music, dramatic art, and dancing.
My own definition of literature is simpler than my class's: any writing that has been published. The quality of the work is not considered.
During the last 10 or so minutes of class, we discussed another topic: "Why take literature?" I agreed with all of the answers for this question. Here are a few of the best responses: to make the student see from a different perspective, improve his/her writing skills, question his/her own beliefs, and develop critical thinking skills.
