" (Eagleton 1). Here, even as early as the first page, Eagleton begins to hint that the definition of literature is not objective, but rather subjective, as the distinction between fact and fiction is 'often questionable.' In the following pages, however, Eagleton discusses the works of the Russian Formalists. Their definition of literature focused on the structure of language instead of the content of the work, creating what Eagleton defined as 'self-referential language.' The Formalists focused primarily on distorting, twisting, 'intensifying,' and 'defamiliarizing' language for effect. I think this was a productive and easy way to try and get readers to easily identify works as literary.
Plato's Mimesis Conclusion.
Thus, just as "motion and change" define nature, mimesis, more than anything else, is the central characteristic feature of poetry. Indeed, imitation is what defines a poet: "he is a poet because of imitation and he imitates actions" (Poetics, IX, p82). Where in Plato there was a "quarrel between poetry and philosophy", by Aristotle's scheme poetry is more philosophic even than history (a chronicle of "real" events). Where Socrates puts it to Glaucon that an imitator is "he who is not in direct contact with nature", with Aristotle the best poets, in order to work their imitations, must be closely allied with nature. By accessing the universal, mimesis – and hence poetry – provides access to the "real", the forces that lie behind our very lives.
Ancient Greek thought held that poetry, drama, and other forms of fine art were imitations of reality, a reality that could be actual or potential. Indeed, their phrase for what we think of as "fine art" was "imitative arts", and great importance was attached to poetry as an integral part of the Greek education.
