The second, everything strongly relates to such "fictionality", "invention", or "imagination". Philosophist, claimed as the third nature of literature. Fourth, literature, sometimes, may exist in 'boundary' area.
Literature is commonly identified with imagery. Imagery is used both in prose and poems. As much as possible, the authors indicate the visualization by imagery. Generally, imagery describes what the author wants to visualize. Most of visualizations by imagery can be well wondered by the readers. But, it is not in a little number that imagery even doesn't help the readers to understand the visualizations. Visualization using imagery normally appears in prose than poems.
There are good completely imageless poems, imagery should not be confused with actual visual image-making. In the description of fictional characters the writer may not suggest visual images at all for example. All these distinctions between literature and non-literature: personal expression, realization, lack of practical purpose and fictionality are restatements within a framework of semantic analysis of age old aesthetic terms such as: unity in variety, aesthetic distance, framing, invention and imitation. Literary work is not a simple object but rather a highly complex organization of a stratified character with multiple meanings and relationships. Literature "organized violence committed on ordinary speech" (Eagleton).
While the definition of literature has been widely disputed throughout history, British literary theorist, Terrence Eagleton, attempts to make sense of it all during the introduction of his 1983 book, What is Literature.
He described literature as, "imaginative writing in the sense of fiction" (Eagleton 1). If one then believes that 'writing in the sense of fiction' is the meaning of literature then who is it that decides what is true and untrue - and thus ultimately, literature? Says Eagleton, "A distinction between 'fact and 'fiction,' then, seems unlikely to get us very far.
