One of the most
indolent questions concerning a student of the arts regards the meaning
of Literature. Since no one is able to place an accurate functional
label as to what literature really is, one important question may serve
as a general rhetorical argument. Is the study of form or the study
of content more important in the assessment of literature? Some working
definitions are important to this argument so I will begin with content.
Content is more
than what is contained in something. The initial idea of content
deals with the composition of a book; the table of contents and chapter
outlines as a preliminary discussion into the nature of the book.
But this definition that is found in Webster's Dictionary falls short in
meaning and significance. Content deals with subject and topic; what
is really contained in a specific work that outlines significance, meaning,
substance, or just the main idea. Really, content deals with ideas:
whether the ideas are inspirational, argumentative, aesthetic, or ambiguous.
This is the meat of literature that initiates the thought process of intellectual
argument.
In discussing
composition or contents, one must define form. Form may suggest a
certain type of arrangement that would systemize ideas. For example,
a formula is used for application of how something is approached, the procedure
that will be used in studying; it is suggestive of a system or a mode of
thought. This working definition may be better suited for the lab
or scientific environment. But, the end is significant to literature.
The essence of form is the arrangement of ideas. Form deals with
two important methods of application: structure and organization.
What form really does for a piece of literature is offer a scaffold that
the ideas can rest upon. This methodical thinking offers a conformation
of ideas that create an instructive mode of aesthetic creation or mere
informative rhetorical discussion. But, what is literature?
Unfortunately,
these working definitions are not enough to define the meaning of literature.
Let us suppose that another way of describing literature may be necessary.
Is Literature reliant upon form and content? It was Alexander Pope
who first tested the idea of good criticism being important to literature.
Pope does make one point that is important to our rhetorical question in
his assessment of what is good and bad or witty and foolish. Pope
states that good literature should first delight and then instruct.
The delightful or rhapsodic side of writing brings an aesthetic quality.
But the instructional side of literature may just be how the piece is organized.
By instituting the ideas of Alexander Pope, literature is not reliant on
form or content but more upon the criticism that follows the piece.
The life of a
work of literature is dependant upon criticism or what intellectuals may
define as the scholarly conversation. Criticism is the tunnel that
brings the life of literature to and from its source. If a piece
is being argued or discussed based on form, content, or neither, it is
alive. It does not matter necessarily what is being said but just
the mere fact that something is being said. Since the opinion's of
people vary, the nature of an argument is dynamic. But the conversation
of an idea gives life to the subject or the content of that specific piece
of literature. So reader keep that in mind: literature only exists
as a living form.
What gives life
to literature is you and your discussion from now on. Talk and think
about the composition of ideas and how the author decides to organize them.
Because the painstaking task of organization is only regarded important
so that the reader may understand a simple but complex idea.
--Jay Keller
27 March 1994