My conclusion ( sort of )

I have been thinking a lot about our discussion over the changing definition of literature. Going through everyone’s responses on the blog, and listening to everyone’s opinions in class, I realized that we are afraid. We have made a lot of comparisons between the definition of art, and the definition of literature, but I feel that the changes we make in defining literature will always have a greater impact in our lives than any change we make in the definition of art. My English teacher in high school was very open, but for some reason The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini was always read outside of class and Shakespeare’s Hamlet in class. I never thought about this much till we started our discussions in this class. The way I see it, we are dealing with a huge part of our lives here. Reading is one of the main tools we use to sharpen our ability to communicate with each other, and “true” Literature teaches us to use our language with precision. Edgar mentioned on Tuesday that one of the defining things about literature is its use of technique, and I feel this is what many of us are scared of losing. By sticking to the classics like Shakespeare that are considered undebatable Literature, we are sure that we are not going to loose tools that are essential to language and communication. I do agree that by being weary of the changing forms of literature, we are missing out on some thoughts and ideas, and views we have never witnessed, but how much are we willing to risk? There is that feeling that broadening our scope on how we define literature my cost us more than we ever imagined.