Let us pretend you don’t know that without literature, life is Hell. Literature is what you fall back to, in days when it feels like you are no longer you. It is the only guide of life, it is what you seek when you need knowledge, it is the discipline that gave birth to all other disciplines, it is the reason you are reading my mind over there, it is why you and I could get in touch, it is why we were born. Now imagine life without such a phenomenon.
While I was kinda baffled with how to present this piece to you in a way anyone can decipher, I noticed certain things that could be the readers’ heartache.
The number one thing is what each keyword means to you and your understanding of word usage is the second thing. I have tried as much as I could to do justice to these and other things I think you may find difficult considering the given topic.
That life will be hell without literature is a thing that has already been said. You are only here to see the reality behind it. What this is, how it is true, and why it is, shall be examined on this page.
Now let’s see what ‘Without literature, life is Hell’ means.
What is being implied by the quotation “without literature, life is hell”?
It is important to admit that languages can be used in two basic forms. They are either used to tell the listeners things denotatively or connotatively. You can refer to this as either figurative or literal meaning of words too, in the same vein.
When a group of words are used literally, for instance, you have something like ‘I will turn a blind eye to your attitude until subsequent time’ to mean the speaker intends to get his eyes (perhaps) off the sockets holding them or do whatever will make him not see for the time being.
When it’s figurative on the other hand, the same sentence means that the speaker will pretend not to notice the receiver’s attitude for some time.
Is language not fun? To me it is fun how we arrive at these things! You may have a question on what changed in the two sentences.
Well, language is innate, and easily understanding what statements are connotative is one natural thing to a native speaker.
But what’s more is that anyone can do the same, though quite unnaturally. You can tell whether a statement is used figuratively or literally by paying attention to the context of usage. It is usually contextual. And as the term ‘figurative’ suggests, they are usually employing figures of speech like personification, irony, and metaphor.
In light of this, ‘Without literature, life is Hell’ should be interpreted contextually and figuratively.
You and I know hell is not a comfortable place (as the image is being painted in our minds) so life is not literally hell – point 1. Metaphor use!
We also know that life has once been without literature and people then survived through – point 2. Hyperbole use.
With this, we won’t go wrong to say that the saying ‘Without literature, life is Hell,’ is only a way to exaggerate the role of literature in the evolution of human society. It explains concisely what shape (obviously unpleasant) life will take without literature. Without literature, life will mean a burning fire for us.
How would life be without literature?
We are all curious to know what life would be without literature since we were not born in the days before literature and everyone who witnessed the days doesn’t really document how it was in direct comparison because they did not see today!
Obviously life is appreciating the role of literature. Unlike science, the downside of literature is not often talked about because it is just what we need.
Any random person that has an idea what literature is, will tell you life won’t be any way better without it, but what evidence supports this? Let’s check one or two areas.
Life without literature
Elizabethan age marks (as many researchers believe) the early stage of literature in England. Elizabeth ruled England within 1558 – 1603 after the reign of Queen Mary.
Elizabeth’s personal interest in literature motivated and inspired potential literians in the country – in the renaissance period when civilization was a thing of competition between England, France, and others. Literature was the thing for England and it soon started to lead in that regard with the likes of William Shakespeare.
That’s an introduction to the heart of the new content. Without any further ado, we would get a clear figure of Charles Bukowski’s mind by comparing life in the early age of literature and how it was before then.
This basically means looking at the system in England before and after 1558, as a case study.
Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth stand as point of contact to the said ages.
In the days of Queen Mary (Without literature)
Queen Mary was an authoritarian ruler. She was also known as Bloody Mary at the time because of her killing of people based on their religious beliefs.
Killing people who should have the right to choose where they associate with, is alone a great loss that not recognizing literature for the opening of eyes caused the people to suffer.
Imprisoning protestants to promote catholicism is indeed something only a person with shallow knowledge will do.
There are chances playwrights and poets would have written against Mary and make citizens see how they are being treated vs how they should be treated if England was a world with literature at the time.
Queen Elizabeth (With literature)
The Elizabethan period, compared to Queen Mary’s, was seen and acknowledged to be a success for a number of reasons including the promotion of humanity.
Humanity was at the heart of the renaissance movement at the time, and literature compositions were no longer restricted nor did people have to go by a single religion administered by the queen.
Also, in this age, the queen saw reasons to be an indecisive and not an authoritarian ruler, in that the system was more open to the people than it has ever been.
In a nutshell, since we don’t have the supreme power to say the actual state life would be without literature, understanding that it will lag economically, politically, scientifically, and in all ramifications of human evolution, will do to answer the question.
How we came about Without literature, life is Hell
Charles Bukowski was the first individual to use the statement and coming about it would be traced back to him – in his active years.
Charles Bukowski was a German-American novelist, poet, and short story writer with a good number of interesting and educational works. He was born on August 16, 1920, seventy-four years after which the world lost him!
His books are some of the best written prosus in the 19th century. If you are reading this, be sure you would need to check out some of Bukowski’s works. He was a legend in his time!!
Charles is the author of ‘Ham on Rye,’ ‘Post Office,’ ‘Pulp,’ and ‘Love is a Dog from Hell,’ among others. Fans of his work on several occasions have likened him to Hemingway.
Can we survive to live life without literature?
We can, but it would not be a life of mankind. Take the answer to this question as a bonus as you come to the end of this article.
To say that we cannot, will mean we assume that the first set of human beings on the planet found a guide book (or so) that helped them live life then.
On the other hand, to say that we can, will mean not having to look into the past, not having to keep records, and to the verge of not having to communicate. Remember literature is communication. Whether oral or written, you use figures of speech in your everyday conversation.
In view of this, disagreeing to agree to live with literature may mean having to live life like lower animals, as there would be no organisation or plan for our existence on Earth.
You May Also Like: Philosophy or Literature, which is more important?
You can help other readers understand better!!
I had wanted to publish this piece with an essay on ‘Without literature, life is hell,’ or at least what life without literature will be. But owing to circumstances, I could not.
You will take the credit, and I would be glad if you can help other readers by writing an essay to us on the examined topic.
Kindly reach us through [email protected] if you’d like to help with this at no cost. Thank you!
I have said it again and again that literature should not be taken for just a subject or field of study or we’d be getting it all wrong. Literature (more like philosophy) studies the entirety of human existence.
Show me one book, whether Maths or Physics, that is not a form of literature – given that it is any work of printed or unprinted art that instructs, entertains, informs, enlightens, teaches, and does all sorts of (what I tag) mirrofication.
We have a myopic view of what literature is in its plainest form and that is an issue on its own. Whenever you try to understand a topic (which stands for a problem), make sure you get to the root of it or you may have to lay a foundation after your construction.Share