Literature Has a Much More Value Than Television
It may go without saying that there are those who will never study, appreciate, or even perhaps consider literature as it is known in academic circles. There are those for whom the written word may have, at best, utilitarian purposes, and for whom any piece of writing beyond a technical manual should, at least, be a work of “non-fiction,” designed to impart a clearly stated morsel of information or worthy opinion. Part of the explanation for this may coincide with the same general reason that some people never consider religion: the proponents of literature – as is sometimes the case with the proponents of religion – sometimes themselves make their cause a used-up, weary, and trying thing, and may remove from it all the beauty and potential which it might, in the proper hands, convey. Much like religion, literature has a transcendent value, and fulfills an essentially universal need. After all, even the most ardent opponent of the usage of literature in his or her own life embraces forms which complete virtually the same need within him; that is, myths, folklore, stories, movies, television, and even song, occupy essentially the same place and function as literature in the human person, albeit in a form often immeasurably more crude. And, as hotly debated as the following may be in the milieu of post-modern and relativist academic circles, the need to convey truths and explore the human person through story and myth may reach its most sophisticated form in literature. That, of course, raises the implied debate as to just exactly what constitutes literature. Some societies view poetry and theater as “literature,” could not film, or popular songs also be literature? Along that line of reasoning could folk tales or geographically-oriented stories and Maki 2
myths constitute literature? One runs back into the post-modern worldview when considering that, if the songs of Bob Dylan or the films of Bergman can be...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document