ENGL 497Senior Seminar
Prof. G. Steinberg
Like Horace, Johnson is interested in trying to define what makes good literature (as opposed to bad), but Johnson sees literature differently from Horace in some fundamental ways. According to Johnson, what is supposed to be the focus of literature? Why? What purpose does Johnson think literature should serve? What is the measure of great literature?
Johnson uses terms such as "nature," "species," "accident," "virtue," "discrimination," "observation," "general passions," "common humanity," "local customs," "essential character," "general principles," and "temporary opinions." What does he mean by these terms? Which of them should be the focus of literature? Which should not be?
According to Johnson, literature should focus on what he proposes because only by having such a focus will it become great literature. What, for Johnson, is the ultimate test of great literature? How does a piece of literature come to be considered great?
But literature shouldn't just aspire to be great. According to Johnson, it also has a higher purpose. What is the higher purpose of literature? How should that higher purpose affect literature's focus?
To respond to these questions on the message board, click here.