I found intention and context to be the most interesting and important concepts when it comes to language and meaning because it makes the most sense. Intention is one of the most important parts of communicating and the use of language. When reading, leaving the meaning up to interpretation by the reader seems to be counterproductive as it leaves many with more confusion rather than clarity in an answer, after all this is why we choose to read isn’t it? We search for an answer or a satisfaction to our curiosity and without direction this can’t be achieved. And with context, language has no meaning. There is no ground to stand on or point in space to start without some sort pre-existing viewpoint, biased or unbiased, objective or subjective

In chapter 6 “Narrative”, Culler describes narrative as more than an academic subject, but instead as a drive by humans to want to hear and tell stories. He breaks down the difference in a narrative about what a plot is versus what discourse is and how the two complement yet contrast each other simultaneously. A plot tells us the main point or message that the narrative is trying to get across. Its used as a clear message or takeaway. For example, A celestial being comes to earth to explore the intricate and misunderstood behaviors of human beings as he discovers the truth to what it means to be a human being and what they may truly desire. In contrast, a discourse sets the ground for how the plot is to be told/delivered. This can be through various methods which change the events that may occur or perspective that we may understand something from. However the plot is still the message delivered at the end of the day. For example, in addition to the celestial being, his brother and sisters join him on his quest to explore what the world has to offer and come in and out of view between their world and the human world. This individual develops personal and professional relationships with others whom he deals business with as well as an employer with their perspective of the celestial added as a method of self reflection. These two characteristics drive out desires to want to know more and tell narrative of our own to others while setting up our own discourse to add to the delivery of the story while keeping the plot consistent. These narratives also provide us with pleasures from imagery left up to interpretation by our minds. It fuels us and propels us to continue delivering the stories of others to others as well as the stories of our own.

Throughout the latter half of Culler’s “What is Literature and Does it Matter?”, he defines literature through several different angles. The one that I found to be a good descriptor of what literature is was the “Literature as fiction” viewpoint. Here, Culler states that in literature, a lot more than just the character or the setting can be fictional. In literature the grammar, tense, perspective, events, who, what, where, when and why and even the audience are up for interpretation; what is said can not be taken at face value. In fact, it’s even up to the reader on whether or not the literature is studied from an objective or subjective viewpoint. This is unlike non-fiction, where there is not much wiggle room left for interpretation

I’ve always known the word “literature” to mean ” anything in relation to books, poems, and plays”. After reading and analyzing the short excerpt from Jonathan Culler, I can say the definition is a tad bit more complicated. Throughout the chapter, Culler goes on about how non-literary works can have components of a literary work, how different cultures can interpret literature in their own way, how certain texts can be considered literature while others cannot, etc. However, I found Culler’s comparison of literature to weeds to be the most important aspect of this chapter because it makes it easier for us to understand why this question needs to be asked, and more importantly, answered, in the first place.

What makes literature, literature? What makes a weed a weed? If I were to come up with my own example, I would say these ponderings are analogous to the question “what makes someone a cook?”. If I can scramble eggs and I know how to turn on an oven, does that make me a cook? Or do I have to know how to prepare an ossobuco and a gremolata, flute a mushroom, truss a chicken, and tourne a potato to be considered a cook? It’s when questions like these pop up that it becomes more apparent why finding the margins for the definition of “literature” is important, otherwise the guidelines would be too arbitrary to know when something is literary and when its not.

The question that I kept asking myself during the reading was if literature can ever truly have a solid definition. I know its a stretch – literature is an art form, and art is VERY open to interpretation – so how/when would an agreeable definition ever come to hold? Culler mentions this, that literature can have no solid definition because it is based on the observer’s own interpretations, analysis, questions, and reflections of the text. However, my question still stands