Personally, I believe that the most important aspect that Culler points out is that there is not one way to define literature. He makes this clear when he states that “We are dealing with two different perspectives that overlap, intersect, but don’t seem to yield a synthesis” when referring to how literature is not a frame put around a specific type of language, nor is literature a specific type of language used to catch someone’s attention. Just because something is well written does not make it a piece of literature nor does something have to be incredibly eye catching to be considered literature. Culler believes that multiple points/perspectives are needed to consider something a piece of literature. However, just because these points are present in something, it isn’t automatically considered literature. This belief supports one of Culler’s earlier claims that “What sets off literary works from other narrative display texts is that they have undergone a process of selection: they have been published, reviewed and reprinted, so that readers approach them with the assurance that others have found them well constructed and ‘worth it'”. As someone who has never been very confident in their own writing ability, something that I pull from Culler’s text is that, just because your method of writing or expressing yourself does not fit into the standard that you consider “literature” does not stop others from potentially appreciating your work.
A question that stuck with me as I read this chapter was “By whose standards would one be considered fit to deem a ,text/passage/body of work, a piece of literature?”. As Culler explained that a reader can understand how to approach a text based on the fact that it has been published or reviewed by others that tells them that it is considered well constructed or worth it. What is it that qualifies someone else’s opinion of literature to be trust worthy?