Portfolio of Class Activities

Taking the Britannica definition of literature, it is a body of written works. They add specifications to that in subsequent sentences, but those are added as ways that the definition is "typically applied," not as a core part of the definition. Personally I love this definition since it puts just about every piece of media I enjoy consuming into the category of "literature," but that really is my personal bias.

The further specifications added are that literature is typically distinguished by the intentions of their authors as well as "perceived aesthetic excellence." Observing other definitions from Merriam-Webster, Oxford, Collins, and Cambridge we find that literature either is or especially is works with a certain artistic merit or quality, or even that it simply refers to "printed material of any kind." This last definition I take particular umbrage with, but I will return to that thought momentarily.

If works need to have a perceived aesthetic excellence or a certain artistic value or merit in order to be considered as "literature," then it naturally prompts the questions of perceived by whom? and to whom? 

In our group discussions in class many things were brought up as things which may preclude something from being considered as literature - things which were seemingly not up to the standard of aesthetic excellence, or at least not certain people's.

One student spoke about works which contain little in the way of words and how it would be difficult to classify them as literature for that reason. One student's suggestion was that things which are made specifically for the purpose of entertainment should not be considered as literature, that they should have a deeper level to them. Yet another person mentioned that some lyrics, such as the lyrics to WAP, shouldn't even be considered as poetry since they are too smutty.

I have chosen the specific images attached as a direct response to these three suggestions. The first is the cover of a graphic novel which won a Pultizer Prize, a prize that clearly denotes a level of aesthetic and cultural excellence. The second is the complete works of Willian Shakespeare, one of the dominant foundational figures of English literature. The largest part of his body of work is stage plays. These are works which were created not to be read, but to be performed as entertainment. The last is an excerpt from Sappho's poetry. Sappho of Lesbos is not only a poet whose work is typically considered Greek literature, but also one whose work is so smutty that she gave rise to the words sapphic and lesbian, both words denoting sexual attraction to women.

I don't personally believe in defining literature myself. If it needs to be printed work then it excludes classic stories such as the Illyad or Beowulf, if it requires me to decide what counts as aesthetic excellence then it tells students their views are of less importance than either mine or some vague third party other, and if it requires a large number of printed words then even certain Pulitzer prize-winning works end up excluded.

If students want to read something, and if I believe they can learn something from it, even just learn to enjoy reading, then it meets the definition of literature as far as I am concerned, at least insofar as it applies to my future role as a teacher.

Written January 14th, 2026