Literature?

I think that Eagleton is right in saying that it is not a good idea to define literature by "what is good". Not only do people have different opinions in what is good writing, as he pointed out, but this could also mean that different, unique styles that come along might be written off as being non-literary just because they don't fit the mold. This would be a tragedy because then people wanting to excel in literature would probably just go the safe route and write conventionally, not wanting to branch out.

On a separate note, I know it is hard to define literature, but I wish Eagleton had put a little more effort into defending the definitions of literature that people had proposed rather than stating them and then immediately explaining why they would not work. I think it would have been interesting to see his way of building up evidence FOR the various possible definitions of literature as well as exploring his arguments against them.