Furthermore, people may perceive a difference between "literature" and some popular forms of written work. The terms "literary fiction" and "literary merit" often serve to distinguish between individual works. For example, almost all literate people perceive the works of Charles Dickens as "literature", whereas many tend to look down on the works of Jeffrey Archer as unworthy of inclusion under the general heading of "English literature". Critics may exclude works from the classification "literature", for example, on the grounds of a poor standard of grammar and syntax, of an unbelievable or disjointed story-line, or of inconsistent or unconvincing characters. Genre fiction (for example: romance, crime, or science fiction) may also become excluded from consideration as "literature".
How much do you agree with this definition of literature? Do you think Vergil and Stephen King(I'm giving an extreme example ) belong to utterly different kinds of art, or rather, that of both, only Vergil can be considered as real art?And genre literature? I personally dislike detective stories but love science-fiction. Couldn't we just divide literature between 'good' and 'bad'? Or there are things so despicable they are not worth being put on the same ground as, let us say, shakespeare or homer?
My own view ist that there is such a difference, but it's a blurry one, i.e. there is plenty of space for a margin of error in our judgment of what is and what is not literature for, after all, there is a lot of subjectivity involved in its appreciation. Or not? Sometimes I'm in doubt.
If any of you could share a more enlightened thought on the subject that would help.