Response: What is Literature?

In response to Jacob Wheeler's post "Degrees of Literature" (January 25, 2012):
The technical definition of literature is 'written works with artistic value'.  While at first glance I thought that this was so vague as to be almost useless, on second thought I decided that, while as an independently-standing definition it really is vague, when taken in the context of Nussbaum's text it is actually quite helpful.  Many philosophical treatises are focused on one goal only - to present, explain, and support an idea as accurately and in as straightforward a manner as possible.  They typically omit flowery or metaphorical language because such language tends to obscure meaning.  However, in some cases they may include such language, because it actually helps to explain a concept (for example, a text on aesthetics might use vivid imagery).  This is problematic, because invoking emotion (which, in this context, is the goal of flowery language) relies on the subjective perceptions of the reader.

Regardless - the difference, I think, between literature and philosophical or scientific writing is the reason for using flowery language.  While philosophical writing might occasionally utilise such language, the purpose of doing so is to clarify whatever it is they are trying to explain.  In literature, flowery language is used for aesthetic value.  It does not have to help the reader understand anything; it does not even have to evoke emotion (although in many cases this may be its purpose in literature as well); all it has to do is be aesthetically pleasing.  Thus, defining literature as 'written works with artistic value' actually seems to aid in distinguishing it from other forms of writing.