From the Q&A, Part 4

As a second part of this conversation, I will also walk through the other question that i posed when discussing the topics of literature in my Q&A. This question becomes a little bit more philosophical than it does come down to descriptions, for I begin to wonder if the term "literature" needs to, or even should exist as a useful term in the artistic styles within writing.

The question comes down to this: In understanding the difficulty that there is to be had with trying to come up with the best description for literature, why do we try to make it a term that only confuses and distorts the much better descriptive term of simply "writing". To help explain this confusion I have, consider these two points: 1. what does the word literature really mean to you? and 2. Once you have a good solid understanding of it in your head, what does it really tell you that the word writing could not also tell you?

To help, let us consider an example posed in class. 1. At one point someone mentioned the possibility that literature functions as a good way to describe a "good piece of writing". With this in mind: 2. thinking of it as a good piece of writing literally supersedes the necessity of the word literature in the first place.

Are there any good examples hat you can think of as a descriptive force that better elaborates what Literature actually is without arguably replacing writing as the proper descriptor?