Re: Eagleton agrees that Literature can not be given a meaning.

I feel there was truth behind what Eagleton said, about literature being undefinable. If literature was defined solely on conventional standards, our realm of literature would be very limited. I agree with your statement that literature is "comparable to art". Take music, for example. To an orthodox literary critic, music is not literature because it does not consist of the conventional qualities that define literature. But to call Beethoven's 5th Symphony or Hanson's Merry Mount Suite as “not literature” is scandalous, and, to the very least, narrow minded. If one looks closely enough, he or she would realize that many literary techniques are applied to music. There are musical phrases, motifs, and themes that are prevalent throughout. Composers strive to write a piece that, musically, makes sense, and does not merely consist of random notes placed together. An incredible amount of feeling and depth is involved in composing a musical work, and there is usually a message behind it. For example, many of Shostakovitch's works reflect his dissent and unhappiness with the Soviet government, and, like most controversial literary works, his pieces were highly censored and under strict scrutiny by the Soviet government. Just like noted writers of novels and directors of movies, Shostakovitch signs off his work with a trademark. He incorporates his initials through a series of four notes: D, E flat, C, and B, which in German terminology, translates into D, Es, C, H. This stands for Dmitri SCHostakowitsch, the German translation of his name.

It is clear that there are many other realms of merit that also constitute literature. Not only music, but also art, film, dance, and many other areas, are all synonymous to literature.