Why is literature important?

Answer 1

Literature is defined both as: (1) the body of written works of a language, period, or culture. Encompassed are imaginative or creative writing, especially of recognized artistic value, including all the compositions of a certain kind or for a specific instrument or ensemble, and; (2) the body of written work produced by scholars or researchers in a given field, a collective noun to refer to all available printed material literature on a given subject. ("Literature must be an analysis of experience and a synthesis of the findings into a unity" [Rebecca West]).

Source: http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/literature

By the first definition, literature is important as it documents what makes man human and, hopefully, humane. It is what defines man as specie higher than a mere amphibian and, in any case, a specie hopefully much higher than a reptile. This body of literature both documents and proves our artistic attempts (“failed poets” society? then they die or are made to die?), completed efforts and achievements, elevating both ourselves and those who may benefit from our “documented learnedness and/or refinement”. (Incidentally, this first definition specifically says “of recognized artistic value"; so, I guess, if someone’s work fails that test, it doesn’t elevate anyone, does it? How depressing, lol)

By the second definition, if “literature” refers to that body of written work produced by scholars or researchers in a given field, a necessary record of man’s efforts to improve the quality of life, make his efforts more efficient or effective, then it is important because that “literature” documents human achievement in various fields of endeavor, giving man’s contemporaries, as well as future generations, a readily accessible, verifiable record of efforts to achieve practicality, efficiency, effectiveness, development and progress.

Without that body of evidence, man, in his ignorance, would be constrained to:

(1) relearn things by word of mouth or actual observation, instead of conveniently reading extant literature on a subject of inquiry, or;

(2) relearn a tool or a process by reverse-engineering (an unforgivable violation of intellectual property rights), or;

(3) reinvent an already existing invention (another wheel, perhaps?) that may have or have not worked.

Without “literature” (by both definitions of the word), man won’t have available and/or accessible documentation of practical, scientific or artistic dreams, aspirations, creations. For all practical purposes, without literature, man’s every succeeding generation would be left reinventing, recreating itself without aid or benefit of the previous generations enriched experience. Would that be the case, would man progress? Or be refined? Or elevated?

I'm afraid we might end up repeating ourselves endlessly...endlessly

Answer 2

For historians, they can undestand history better.

Answer 3

Because life itslf is--to us, anyway.