Through an examination of the work of poets and novelists who have managed to garner honor -- including Shakespeare, Homer, and Emily Dickinson -- and those whose reputations are of more recent vintage and therefore more difficult to evaluate such as Tom Wolfe, Seamus Heaney, and Toni Morrison -- Glenn Arbery explores the title question with elegant prose and subtle criticism.
Far and away one of the best works on literature I've encountered. Arberry successfully defines and defends what literature is, and why many books of literary aspiration do not meet the mark: what gives Toni Morrison's Paradise the enduring literary merit that Tom Wolfe's A Man in Full falls short of?
I've lost track of the breadth of authors and critics Arberry brings into his discussion, but what struck me most about his command of the field is his humility: one might almost better describe it as submission to the field. He isn't name-dropping; quotes and references aren't included to casually prove how widely read he is, or to shore up his arguments with appeals to authority. He is tutored by these writers, conversant with their thought. Not only that, but to produce a book like this, his tutelage must have transcended ulterior work done to secure a professional place and continued throughout professorship. I can point to few examples as fruit of what Josef Pieper calls skola, or leisure; this book is one.
This is my other bible. This book gave me my literary criticism geneology, I didn't even know I had one. But Arbery helped me see that I come from a New Criticism tradition, which is why most self-obsessive lit theory seems so hollow to me. His own writing is also just magnificent and a pleasure to read. His essay on the Illiad is revolutionary and beautifully written,the only piece of criticism that literally brought me to tears. I am constantly rereading this book, particulary the last 3 or 4 chapters.