What is Literature? (Simple Explanation for Students)
Have you ever been asked, “What is literature?” At first, it sounds like an easy question, right? But when you actually sit down to answer it, it can leave you scratching your head. That’s because we use the word so often that we never stop to think about what it really means.
Let’s break it down in simple words.
The Original Meaning
The word “literature” didn’t always mean stories, poems, or novels. In the beginning, it simply meant any written or printed material. Even today, we say things like “medical literature” or “travel literature.” It basically referred to anything written.
From this came the word “literate,” which means a person who can read and write.
How the Meaning Changed
Over time, especially around the 19th century, the meaning of literature became more focused. It started to refer mainly to imaginative writing—like:
-
Poetry
-
Stories and novels (fiction)
-
Plays (drama)
Before literature became an academic subject, people studied things like classics (old Greek and Roman texts) and rhetoric (the art of speaking or writing effectively).
One important figure here is Matthew Arnold (1822–1888), a famous English writer and critic. He helped give “literature” its modern meaning through his essays.
How Literature Became Popular
Literature became more common and accessible during the Industrial Revolution (around 1750–1850) in Europe. This was the time when machines made it easier to print books quickly and cheaply.
Books became something ordinary people could afford—not just the rich. A new middle class was growing, and many people now had the time (leisure) and education (literacy) to read.
As more people read books, literature became a part of everyday life. It was no longer just for scholars or poets—it became for everyone.
A Simple Formula
Here’s a fun way to understand how literature came to be so important:
Agriculture → Industrialization → Leisure → Literature → Culture
In short: when people had more free time and access to books, they began to read more. And reading helped shape ideas, values, and cultures.
So, What is Literature?
To sum it up in one line:
Literature is creative and imaginative writing that helps us understand life, emotions, people, and society.
It includes poetry, stories, and plays, and it reflects the world around us—sometimes in beautiful, emotional, or powerful ways.
What is Literary Criticism?
Literary criticism may sound like a difficult or serious term, but it’s actually something we all do, often without even realizing it. For example, when someone asks you, “Did you like that novel or story?” and you say “yes” or “no,” you’re already beginning to do literary criticism. Now, if they ask “why?” and you try to explain your reason—maybe you liked the characters, the plot was boring, or the writing was beautiful—you are actively thinking about and analyzing what you read. This act of thinking deeply and giving reasons for your opinion is what we call literary criticism.
It doesn’t have to be formal or academic. Sometimes it’s just your personal thoughts. But it can also be highly professional, like the reviews you see in newspapers, magazines, or academic journals. Even when you try to understand the meaning behind a poem or how a story made you feel, you’re engaging in literary criticism.
This idea isn’t new. Famous English writers and poets like Wordsworth and Matthew Arnold also discussed whether criticism is more important than creative writing itself. Many classic essays were written to defend poetry—like those by Philip Sidney and Percy Bysshe Shelley.
In ancient times, Greek and Roman thinkers also debated the role of poets in society. Back then, they used terms like “Aesthetics” (the study of beauty) and “Poetics” (the study of poetry). These were the early versions of what we now call criticism. If you’re interested in how these terms developed, you can check out the book Keywords by Raymond Williams.
What is Theory?
Let’s try to understand what the word “theory” means — especially in literature.
In simple words, a theory is a system or method that helps us understand things better. Life is full of different experiences, ideas, and events. A theory helps us organize all this and make sense of it, so we don’t feel confused or lost. Without theories, everything might feel like chaos.
This is true in real life — and also when we read or watch a piece of art or literature.
What Does Theory Do in Literature?
When we read a poem, novel, or play, we often ask:
-
What does this story mean?
-
Where does the meaning come from — the writer, the text, or the reader?
-
How does it affect me as a reader?
Literary theory helps us answer these kinds of questions. It helps us look deeper into the text and understand how meaning is created. It’s like putting on special glasses to see different layers of a story.
Some theories focus on the author and their ideas.
Some focus only on the text itself.
And some focus on the reader’s own thoughts and feelings.
Philosophers and Poets on Theory
Great thinkers like Hobbes and Locke talked about the importance of “judgement” and “imagination” in poetry. Hobbes once said that a good poem needs both imagination and logic. Without both, it doesn’t work.
Kant, another philosopher, talked about two types of judgment:
-
Moral judgment — based on right and wrong
-
Aesthetic judgment — based on beauty and emotion
Wordsworth, in the preface to Lyrical Ballads, also gave his own views on poetry. His ideas are considered a kind of Romantic theory of literature.
Theory vs. Practice
You’ve probably heard people say, “In theory, this sounds good—but in practice, it’s hard.” That gives us a clue.
-
Theory is about thinking, planning, and understanding.
-
Practice is about doing.
In literature, when we talk about how to read, we are discussing theory.
When we actually read a poem using that method, we are doing criticism.
For example:
-
Talking about how Marxism helps understand class struggle in stories = Theory
-
Reading a novel and applying Marxist ideas = Criticism
Why Theory Matters
As David Lodge says, since the 1960s, critics have become more focused on understanding the ideas behind what they do. This led to the growth of literary theory — a field that mixes ideas from many subjects like philosophy, politics, psychology, and more.
Today, theory helps us explore new ways of thinking about literature, and understand how it connects with the world around us.
In Short:
Theory helps us think about how meaning is made in literature. It asks deep questions about authors, readers, and texts. And it gives us tools to read more thoughtfully and critically.
Understanding Contradistinction: Theory and Literary Criticism Made Simple
The word contradistinction means showing how two things are different by comparing them. In this case, it helps us understand the difference between literary theory and literary criticism.
Theory, when we talk about literature, refers to the general ideas or assumptions about what literature is and how it works. For example, if you say that the economic system, class structure, or production methods of a particular time shape the kind of literature created during that period, you’re making a theoretical statement. That’s because you’re talking about literature in a broad, general way — not about any one poem or novel in particular.
Now, when you take this theory and use it to study or analyze a specific work of literature — like a poem, a short story, or a novel — you are doing literary criticism. For instance, if you look at a novel and explain how it reflects class struggle or the economic conditions of the time, you’re doing Marxist criticism, which is based on Marxist theory. You might have already done this kind of reading without even realizing it! In this way, we can say that literary criticism is basically applied theory, where we use a theory as a tool to understand or interpret a literary text.
Another way to understand the difference is this: literary criticism focuses on particular works, whether written or spoken. In contrast, theory — whether classical like Aristotle’s poetics or modern like post-structuralism — deals with general ideas about literature as a whole. Usually, theory comes first. It provides a framework, and then we use that framework to interpret specific texts. This process is similar to the scientific method: we observe many individual examples, come up with general principles (theory), and then apply those principles to new individual cases.
The word “theory” became more popular in literary studies when structuralism and post-structuralism challenged New Criticism in the mid-20th century. Since then, theory has come to include many different approaches — from Marxism and Feminism to Deconstruction and Speech-Act Theory. However, the idea of literary theory isn’t new. Even as far back as ancient Rome, writers like Horace or medieval thinkers like Thomas Aquinas had their own general ideas about literature. In fact, scholars like Wimsatt and Brooks in 1957 referred to Horace as a “literary theorist” because he expressed certain basic beliefs about the value and purpose of literature.
Horace, for example, would say that some works are better or worse than others — and that is criticism. But when he makes such judgments based on some general standards or ideas, that becomes theory. Wimsatt and Brooks explain that Horace’s criticism was based on his belief in the “normative value” of different types of literature — meaning he had clear ideas of what good literature should look like.
When we talk about theory today, we mostly mean the modern idea of “doing theory” — something that became common in the second half of the 20th century. These modern theories don’t just stay limited to literature. They cross over into other fields too — like history, philosophy, sociology, linguistics, and more. This has allowed theory to break down the boundaries between academic subjects, making literary studies more connected to the wider world of knowledge.
Background to the Contemporary Situation in Literary Theory
In this section, I want to explain — in a simple way — why literary theory became so important during the second half of the 20th century. This explanation is based on my own understanding of history, influenced by what I’ve read and learned from others. So, please don’t accept everything here as absolute truth. In fact, part of what modern theory teaches us is to be critical, thoughtful, and skeptical — to question the sources and the ideas we come across. Later in your studies, you’ll learn more about concepts like “subject positions” and “interpellation”, which encourage this kind of questioning. Even the way we write and understand history (called historiography) now promotes this critical attitude.
Let’s take a look at how English Studies developed in the first place. Until the early 1800s, higher education in England was completely controlled by the Church of England, and only two major universities existed — Oxford and Cambridge. These were like old religious monasteries: only men were allowed, the teachers were mostly unmarried churchmen, and subjects like Ancient Greek, Latin, Mathematics, and Divinity (religion) were taught.
Things started changing in 1826 when University College London was founded. For the first time, it allowed both men and women from all religions to study. In 1828, English was introduced as a subject, and by 1829, the first professor of English was appointed. But back then, the focus was more on English language (like grammar and linguistics) than on literature.
It wasn’t until 1840 that English literature found its place in universities. F.D. Maurice, a professor at King’s College London, introduced the idea that studying literature could help free people from narrow, limited thinking, and allow them to see values that were timeless and meaningful. Later, Matthew Arnold would also promote these same ideas, making them the foundation of what we now call liberal humanism — the belief that literature teaches us high moral values and helps us become better human beings.
At first glance, this approach may seem neutral and free from politics, but if we look closer, we see it was actually a response to social and political changes. The working class was growing stronger, and this worried the traditional ruling class. Religion, which once helped keep society in check, was losing its power as people started to doubt its teachings. So, literature was brought in as a kind of replacement for religion, offering new values to guide people. That’s why Arnold said that poetry and criticism would take the place of religion.
Later on, writers like T.S. Eliot and the New Critics, along with F.R. Leavis, tried to defend these traditional values through literature. They believed literature could help maintain social order and morality. But as time went on, this idea came under attack, especially from left-wing political thinkers, who believed that religion and traditional values were tools used by the powerful to control the masses. Thinkers like Karl Marx even called religion “the opium of the people.”
If you’re interested in learning more about this fascinating history of English Studies and how theory developed over time, you should definitely check out books like:
-
The Social Mission of English Studies 1848–1932 by Chris Baldick
-
Re-reading English edited by Peter Widdowson
-
The Rise of English Studies by D.J. Palmer
-
The Moment of Scrutiny by Francis Mulhern
Theory Before Theory: Understanding Liberal Humanism
Before the rise of what we now call “literary theory,” the dominant way of thinking about literature was something called liberal humanism. It didn’t call itself a “theory,” but it had a clear set of ideas about how literature should be read and understood. These ideas were followed for a long time and shaped the way people studied literature. Literary critic Peter Barry outlines its key points in his book Beginning Theory. Here’s a simplified version of those points:
-
Literature is timeless
Great literature, according to liberal humanism, has value that goes beyond any specific time or place. For example, Ben Jonson once said Shakespeare’s work was “not for an age, but for all time.” Similarly, in the 20th century, Ezra Pound called literature “news that stays news,” meaning it always stays relevant. -
The text speaks for itself
A literary work is believed to contain all its meaning within itself. You don’t need to look into the author’s personal life, political background, or historical setting to understand it. -
Study the text in isolation
To truly understand a literary work, liberal humanists argued that we should look at it on its own, not through outside influences like politics, history, or the author’s biography. -
Human nature is universal and unchanging
According to this belief, people — at their core — have always been the same throughout history. That’s why old literature can still connect with readers today. -
Every person is a unique individual
Liberal humanism believes each of us has a true inner self — a stable identity — and that literature helps us understand that “essence.” -
Literature enriches life
Literature was seen as something that helps make life more meaningful. It promotes kindness, compassion, and moral values — things that make us better human beings. -
Form and content are naturally connected
Good literature combines its form (structure, style) and content (ideas, themes) in a way that feels natural and organic. One grows from the other. -
Sincerity matters
Great literature is believed to come from a place of emotional honesty. It reflects real feelings, truthfulness about life, and a deep sense of empathy for others. -
Show, don’t tell
Instead of clearly stating a message or lesson, powerful literature shows it quietly and subtly — letting the reader discover the meaning on their own. -
The critic helps the reader understand
The role of a literary critic is to interpret the work and help bridge the gap between the text and the reader — making the experience of reading more meaningful.
Immediate Contexts: How Modern Literary Theory Began
The modern form of literary theory that we study today started taking shape after the modernist movement in literature. Scholar Aijaz Ahmad explains that even the more advanced areas of English studies between World War I and World War II were influenced by four major trends:
-
The practical criticism of I. A. Richards, which focused on close reading and analyzing texts directly.
-
The traditional and conservative criticism of T.S. Eliot, who held monarchist and religious (quasi-Catholic) views.
-
A bit of modernist experimental writing, although in English-speaking countries it was not discussed in as much theoretical depth as it was in Europe.
-
The rise of a new style of criticism in the U.S. called New Criticism, promoted by critics like John Crowe Ransom and Allen Tate.
However, many critics and scholars, especially in England, began to push back against this narrow, overly technical approach to literature. England had a deeper tradition of studying literature through a social and historical lens, and many felt that the new ways ignored this important context.
One major figure was F. R. Leavis, who led a group called the Scrutiny movement. He borrowed ideas from I. A. Richards’ practical criticism, which tried to treat literature like a science — focusing only on the text and avoiding personal opinions. Leavis also wanted to define objective standards for judging literature, moving away from the old idea of literary “taste” that only the elite had.
At the same time, Leavis tried to connect literature to the social life of England, rather than keeping it isolated. But later, some critics saw even Leavis’s work as part of a conservative, middle-class (bourgeois) mindset. This criticism came especially from thinkers like Raymond Williams, who was influenced by Marxism and helped create the field of cultural studies.
In the U.S., critic Frank Lentricchia wrote about how, by the late 1950s, New Criticism was starting to fade. Even during its peak in the 1940s, some scholars were already questioning it quietly. New Critics believed that the text should be read on its own, without any reference to history, myth, or the author’s background.
But people like Northrop Frye disagreed. In his famous book Anatomy of Criticism (1957), Frye broke away from the New Critical approach. He believed in studying literature as part of larger mythical and symbolic systems, rather than just isolated texts. Frye criticized New Criticism for being too secretive and too focused on technique — almost like a mysterious ritual that only trained critics could understand.
His goal was to make criticism more democratic and accessible. He wanted ordinary readers to feel included in literary discussions, rather than feeling like only professors and scholars had the “keys” to interpretation.
You might think it’s strange now, but back then, many students felt intimidated by their teachers. They believed their professors had special powers to “unlock” deep meanings in poems — meanings that regular readers could never find on their own. Today, some students might feel the same way about modern theorists.
But the truth is, literary theory has become more open and diverse over time. There are now many different ways to read and interpret literature, and students have more choices than ever.
One important figure from this earlier time was T.S. Eliot. He was a poet, but also a very influential critic. Looking back, Eliot admitted that most of his criticism was actually written to support the kind of poetry he and his friends were writing. For example, in his essay Tradition and the Individual Talent, he argued for “impersonality” in poetry — the idea that poets should focus on the art, not on expressing their personal emotions.
Eliot also believed criticism should focus on comparison and analysis, not on the author’s biography or historical background. But even Eliot wasn’t always consistent — sometimes he said one thing and did another.
Critics like I. A. Richards were influenced by Eliot and helped turn this idea into a method called Practical Criticism, which focused only on the words in the poem. This way of thinking became so dominant that for a while, poetry was seen as the main form of literature. In fact, all kinds of texts — even Shakespeare’s plays — were analyzed as if they were simply poems.
From Criticism to Theory
Aijaz Ahmad, in the introduction to his famous book In Theory, points out that one of the most noticeable changes in literary studies over the last 25 years (especially in English-speaking countries) is the rise of what we now simply call “theory.” This rise in theory happened because people started to disagree more and more about how to interpret different social and cultural issues.
Originally, social scientists developed theories to make their research more scientific. Later, literary critics began to take inspiration from these social sciences and started applying similar methods to literature. In fact, literature itself became a subject for social scientists to study.
Before theory became such a big part of literary studies, the common approach to literature was what we now call liberal humanism. You can think of liberal humanism as the opposite of modern “theory,” even though it’s actually a kind of theory itself—just a different one.
To make this clearer:
While many New Critics had conservative views, others followed a liberal humanist approach. Back in the 1930s, two important literary figures—Rene Wellek and F.R. Leavis—had a serious debate in Scrutiny, the journal edited by Leavis.
Wellek criticized Leavis for not connecting literary criticism with deeper philosophical ideas. He felt that Leavis was analyzing literature without explaining or defending the basic beliefs behind his opinions. Basically, Wellek wanted criticism to be more thoughtful and based on clear, larger ideas—not just personal taste or vague arguments.
If you want to explore the works of these critics further, you can find many of them in the book English Critical Texts edited by D.J. Enright and Ernest de Chickera, published by Oxford University Press in 1962.
Finally, if you’ve read classic literature criticism before, you’ve probably already seen how humanist thinking works in practice. So, there’s no need to go into too much detail here—you already have a sense of what that looks like.
The Communication Chain
Before wrapping up this unit, there’s one important concept I want to highlight—it helps us understand the difference between various literary theories. This is known as the “communication chain.”
A well-known thinker, Roman Jakobson (his name is pronounced “Yakobson”), gave us a helpful way to understand this idea. He looked at art and literature as a kind of communication—just like a conversation between people.
Jakobson explained that any act of communication, including literature, has three main parts:
-
The Addresser is the author or writer who creates the message.
-
The Code is the actual text—the story, poem, or message being shared.
-
The Addressee is the reader who receives and interprets the message.
-
Critics and theorists usually focus on one of these three areas when analyzing a literary work.
-
Some focus mainly on the text itself—how it is written, the language, the structure—without thinking about the author’s life or the reader’s feelings.
-
Others are more interested in the author—their background, beliefs, and the historical time they lived in.
-
Then there are those who focus on the reader, and how the text makes sense based on the reader’s own experiences or interpretations.
Some modern thinkers even go as far as saying that the author doesn’t matter, or that the text doesn’t have a fixed meaning at all. That’s where you get titles like:
-
“Is There a Text in the Class?”
-
“The Death of the Author”
-
“The Birth of the Reader”
These titles show a shift in thinking—from focusing on what the author meant, to what the reader understands.
-
Conclusion
The journey from criticism to theory in English literature has been shaped by various thinkers, movements, and changing perspectives. It all began with early critics like I.A. Richards, T.S. Eliot, and the New Critics, who believed in focusing on the text itself, separating it from the author’s life or reader’s feelings. Then came voices like F.R. Leavis and the Scrutiny group, who tried to connect literature more closely with society.
As time went on, scholars like Northrop Frye and Frank Lentricchia questioned the limits of earlier criticism and pushed towards broader literary theories. These theories tried to make sense of not just the text, but also the world around it—its social, political, historical, and personal meanings.
We then entered a period of theory explosion, where no single method or idea could dominate. Thinkers like Aijaz Ahmad pointed out that multiple views—often contradictory—could exist at once. This opened the door for diverse approaches, allowing readers to interpret texts in many ways, depending on what they focus on: the author, the text, or the reader.
Finally, Roman Jakobson’s communication chain gave us a simple way to understand these differences. Whether a theory centers on the writer’s intentions, the message itself, or the reader’s perspective, each approach tells us something valuable about how literature works as a form of communication.
In short, literary theory has grown from focusing only on what a text says, to exploring how, why, and for whom it says it. Today, students and readers have the freedom to choose from a wide range of critical approaches, making literature not just something to be studied—but something to be lived, questioned, and experienced.