Defining Literature

            In Literary Criticism, Bressler explains Horace’s definition of the best writings.  They should be edifying and enjoyable for the reader.  I agree with Horace on this.  Readers who find a work of writing tedious rather than enjoyable are less likely to learn from it.  Also, a text which is merely for pleasure will not be as pleasurable if it lacks the substance to keep the mind active. 

            I find Bressler’s account on Longinus to be lacking.  He states that an author is “one who must possess a great mind and a great soul.”  I find this ambiguous and widely open to interpretation.  Is a “great mind” one that is highly-educated, or is it one that is creative?  Also, how is a person able to judge if an author’s soul is great?  Can this be based on the author’s writings or their other actions?  In any case, I appreciate Longinus’ concentration on the reader’s response, but I find issue with it as well.  Are only educated people allowed to determine a text’s merit?  How is a “learned audience” defined?  I think that all reader’s thoughts on a text can be valuable, instead of just those of a higher “learned” class.

            I can appreciate Matthew Arnold’s obsession with culture and how literature may elucidate it.  However, I do not agree that the critic should be “the preserver of society’s values.”  I think that the author and the critic should be observers and recorders of culture’s evolution.  They may make commentaries on culture however they desire.  Yet, I do not believe that the critic should be forcing society to uphold certain values, even though Arnold was seeking what he felt was best for society.