Project

	What is Literature better understood to be? gary e. davis	March 22, 2026

“Does that matter…?,” I asked earlier (¶ 3 here), “Does Literature Help Us Live?,” a New York Review of Books writer asked. I want to take a long road into the second question. But to both questions: Yes! Inquiry into “What is Literature?” is at least rhetorical inasmuch as it assumes what it sets out to define (The Question of Literature, 2013: refs.2.14 p. 9). “[T]he nature of definition itself is also worthy of distrust” (ibid.). There’s good reason to claim that “What is literature?” is just a self-serving can of worms which properly becomes “What is the situation of the writer?” (refs.2.14 p. 5). The highly esteemed literary theorist J. Hillis Miller avows late in his life that “literature is its own end….without any why…” (refs.2.15 p. 417). So, plausibly what’s better for understanding belongs to the writer’s venturing— but not as conceptual expressionism; rather (I venture), as proffered example, presumably useful for others, which warrants itself through its defining venture. Literature is better understood to be, at least, highly meaningful narrative— high textual craft regarded as art—in service to person-al interests. At best, author and reader both welcome openness of venturing typified by artistic regard. Literature may best be understood openly relative to better understanding textual craft regarded as art, thus transposing inquiry into “Literature” to inquiry into text- uality as craft deserving to be regarded as artistry. Literature is essentially storial narrative, implying a holistic horizon of personist engagement which literary-conceptual inquiry and venturing explore. So, what is the potential of narrative art? How may good responses to that relate to originary conceptuality in scientific artistry? Very downscale: Simply-enriching text from high-end media (e.g., New York Times Opinion) may intimate values of being literary, of aspiring implicitly for high textuality. So, textual craft of high literacy sometimes anticipates Literature, if not yet seeming memorable. “Literature” may have conceptual gravity for assessing the rhetoric of any textual aspiration, for appreciating unpretentious eloquence of narrated voice, for asses- sing the “displayed” (reader inferred) authorship of a designing author.

Literary textuality

“Literature”: high textual craft regarded as art—highly literate craft (dramatic, poetic) through narrative presentation, thus highly presentational text regarded artfully (received as intentionally artful and/or perceived artfully). So, “the” question of Literature is well served by inquiry into textual artistry as such: textuality of artistry, be it dramactional narrative (storial) or poetic nar- rative. (Or is the matter artistry of textuality? Is all art glyphical narrating?) The craft of both kinds of narrative are integrally trope-al in content (tropal). But also the authorial act of forming the presented work is troped by being present. Its genesis, creative process (the Work) is implied. Also, creative tropality itself is twofold: temporally twofold as [1] proleptic appeal (Miller, refs.2.13 pp.64-72, 74-75) in its presence; i.e., telling narrative yet to be fully told; and [2] re-interpretable immanence of already given (read) text in light of narrated furtherance (enriched horizonality) relative to that givenness. This is performative or rhetorical twofoldness of read authorship (i.e., narrative voice) appealing from its futurity in light of which what’s already read may be renewed. So there is manifold tropality of the text: immanent (the normal sense of the figural text), genealogical (there being the work of background Work), and rhetorical (temporal invocation). All of this is immanently implied by there being presence of the text, a mani- foldly tropal presencing—there being artistry as if the text is self-presencing. So, artistry generally (across media: linguistic, visual, aural, etc.) may be a “textuality” (a glyphicality) of tropal presencing?

next—> glyphicality as narrative

 

Be fair. © 2026, gary e. davis