From the Q&A, Part 3

As was discussed in class a lot this past week, I have been wondering very seriously about this conversation concerning the definitions of "Literature" and I think that after some time I have finally come to some of my conclusions on the subject. In my Q&A for last week I posed two questions that somewhat confound the definability and necessity of the term Literature, and I am going to discuss them here.

The first problem that I had with this concept comes down to the simple fact that it is a term that, if used the way that it has been argued by writers, sets the other forms of artistic expression out of balance. To elaborate, consider this: there is no other word that even remotely resembles the term "literature" within the fields of art or music (the other major figureheads of art in my opinion). With this being the case, literature as a term can be seen as somewhat of a braggart descriptor of writing in general, for all that literature really tries to do is make up a better description in the eyes of people trying to sell their novel; suggesting that their work is better than simple writing, for it is rich with "literature".

This is my first issue with the concept of literature, and I pose it as a topic I am interested in discussing further... so what are your thoughts?