Re-Defining
Literature
Literature, in a weird sense, can be said to be a
genuinely rendered sum total of someone’s sociological, psychological, philosophical,
anthropological, historical, theosophical, ontological, scientific, and
political sense. Now, that I say it, I have already asked for an apology that I
might sound complicated. However, if one sits to frame literature within a
certain framework, either he will run away pinching his hairs or he will not be
able to digest something said by a Victorian figure after reading something by
Terry Eagleton. That is why Literature needs a definition that can suit
everyone's perception.
The definition that I have put forth is not a
rash verdict. Moreover, nor is it a display of the little knowledge I have
earned. The line that I speak of Literature has come to my mind after examining
various works of Literature itself. Yet, I confirm that I find this definition
lacking a lot! Let us assume a novelist writing a novel. Undoubtedly, he/she
will take the inspiration from history; put a layer of the psychological,
philosophical and sociological sense; give the resultant a certain political
turn and if necessary, there is going to be a sort of theosophical polish!
Nevertheless, it is never essential that we find all these in a literary piece.
I remember a novel, Animal Farm. It does not give you anything else except the
sarcastic political commentary and yes, the fun! The things that it lacks are
theosophical sense and ontological sense, at the least. However, it is a piece
of literature because it has a good number of elements as per the theory
propagated above. Having said that, the conclusion that we arrive at is - we
cannot give a 'proper' definition of Literature. Nevertheless, I think that I
have tried something in this field...
Alok Mishra
Editor-in-Chief
