It is a trite that literature is a representation of life what it represents? What is the difference? And why we need a representation of life? People widely discuss these topics.
Literature in the very first place is not the representation of actual life but it imagines a life that might happen. Life is bitter, life has no climax and anti climax, life does not take accountability of deeds, does and don’ts. In fact, life is a journey from birth to death.
What literature represents is a life of the mind of a particular writer. The writer writes what he wants. He has his own criteria of catharsis that probably matches the story of someone else. No religion, philosophy, morality, or pros and cons of ethics can dictate life. In life, there are harsh realities and needs that are difficult to achieve, unlike the achievements of a tragic hero. Literature sacrifices the wishes and expectations of the most powerful people and make hero victorious. This is the actually the hero but the writer himself conquers the entirety of ignorance. In reality, power wins, wealth wins, either they are evil and ignorant. People call written works that imaginatively imitate life, whether in prose or verse, literature.
The question is why we need a representation of life.
I envisage, it is the preaching of an ideal life, that tries to convinces the rouges of society to become good men. Yet the society is a structural hierarchy of good and bad people. If you eliminate one the other falls and society vanishes. So we conclude to this extent that literature is not didacticism that compels men to become good but is lay bare the structure of an ideal life. It is up to reader whosoever he chooses to follow either good or evil.
The Henry Fielding’s Joseph Andrews. Fielding represents the life of a young ideal boy. Who rejects any intimacies with every sort of woman.
That is an ideal situation and most of the pious readers decides to stand in foot steps of Joey who rejects to have sex with Lady Booby. In real life the situation is mostly unlike Joey’s. Not all of us can afford to reject the proposal of such a wealthy woman. Literature has ethical demands like has society. Literature has subjectivity of writer, life has objectivity of circumstances. But life exists in both situations, and one should live life to the fullest, thus winning the game of life.
Another woman writer of the most conservative age tries depicts life as it is and she greatly won. In Jane Austin’s Pride & Prejudice the protagonist of the novel Elizbeth rejects the most wealthy and handsome man of the town because of his behaviour. Elizbeth wants to marry a person who is loving, caring and worth believing. And from the very first day she doubts Mr. Darcy and rejects his proposal. The real life has greed for money, sensation for beauty, and love of materialism that compels men/women to ignore the prejudice of Darcy and pick his wealth. In the very moment, Elizbeth’s sister decides to marry Mr. Colins regardless of his ridiculous behaviour. She tells Elizbeth “Not all of us can afford to be romantic”. And that is the situation where life wins.
Literature at last, gives us a document of both the facets of life. The reader chooses one but merely applies it in the harsh reality of life. Again life wins.
BS English Literature student at Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan. He is always eager to engage with new ideas and perspectives, and his passion for literature fuels his desire to write freely and creatively about the world around him.