Q: “Does Beardsley’s definition of literature limit the concept of literature too much?”
According to Beardsley, literature is: “(1) an imitation illocutionary act and (2) being distinctly above the norm in ratio of implicit to explicit meaning.”
Now, I should first point out that this is not the best question, mainly due to the fact that we spent much of a class period discussing the strength of this definition. However, I do not think we completely ended with a solid conclusion to our discussion. Furthermore, I felt that, after my reading, there was certainly a strong possibility that Beardsley’s definition limited the concept of literature too much.
In this blogpost, my aim is to focus on the second part of Beardsley’s supposed definition. This is not to say that the first part of the definition is not as contentious; in fact, the first part may actually be more contentious, however I found Beardsley’s discussion on the importance of the implicit meaning in literature to be more interesting.
I do not think there is any question that most forms of literature that we are accustomed to contain a greater ratio of implicit to explicit meaning in comparison with what most would label non-literature. If I think of any type paradigm case of literature, I tend to remember it for the significance of its implicit meaning. For example, when reading the different stories in my Intro to Literature class, what I remember about them was the fact that each story’s meaning was, in most cases, never immediately evident. When comparing this to a supposed example of non-literature, lets say for example, a news article, I find just the opposite. In this type of writing, the meaning is almost entirely explicit.
Judging from these statements, it would seem that Beardsley was correct in putting the stipulation in his definition of literature that it must include an increased ratio of implicit to explicit meaning. However, I think that it is imperative that I question (as I did in my Q&A), whether this condition could be limiting the concept of literature too much. I.E, is there any forms of literature that do not have a greater amount of implicit to explicit in comparison with of other forms of composition.
After spending a brief amount of time attempting to find examples that run converse to Beardsley’s second condition, I would conclude that, as of this point, I would agree with him. He is correct in defining literature as necessarily including a ratio of implicit to explicit meaning that is distinctly above the norm.
Before I move on from this, one major problem still seems to exist. What ratio of implicit to explicit meaning suffices for a composition to be labeled as a piece of literature? Although, I agree with Beardsley’s point regarding implicit meaning, he is not clear about the level of implicit meaning that is required. I could be being overly concrete in making this a problem. Nevertheless, I think that this I an issue with his definition. If it is not clearly made known what the level of implicit meaning needs to be, the definition may not be as clear-cut as it should be.
1. Is there a certain threshold that a composition needs to pass in regards to its implicit meaning in order to be considered literature?
2. Can you provide an example of literature that you find is not distinctly above the norm in ratio of implicit to explicit meaning?
0 comments:
Post a Comment