What Writing Does To Us

"...'literature' maybe at least as much a qustion of what people do with writing as of what writing does to them."

Terry Eagleton makes this statement and I immediately took the Devil's advocate stance in my head. From this statement I get the impression that he is referring to writing which moves us as being literature. As much as this can be true; there are also many instances of moving writing which is not definable as literature. We can get a pamphlet about the homeless of Austin and be move to action. We can read an account of what Concentration camps were like during WWII and be moved emotionally, however that doesn't make these instances of writing literature.

If what literature does to us is a key deciding factor then why aren't pieces of writing such at these considered literature? Well obviously they lack some key literary elements that give it a more 'refined' sense. So a piece of literature cannot be simply determined by the way it moves the reader. There has to be some solid evidence of what defines literature. However, literature is far to broad to define. When you pick a field of study you find that the more you try to narrow a subject down, the more difficult it becomes. It's almost impossible to define culture in exact terms for an anthropologist. Literature is much them same. The closer you get to defining it, the more you realize you're leaving out. Literature is indefinable but it's an item that you will "know it when you see it."