Question (probably not the question though)

I currently am not sure what question I want to revolve my project around. But I do have a question...

Michael's remarks from class (about the merit of literature being innately skewed because it is created on the basis of literature that has been published; and the publishing industry leaves hundreds of books unpublished a day) left me stumped. I didn't even know how to look at the whole thing straight...previously I had been alluding to the nature of authors-- after hearing the Vonnegut passage I was sure the modern world had not changed the ability for a writer to write. I later mentioned the passage portrayed a problem with individuals having an understanding of themselves and a confidence to put it in action and to learn, not the inability for storytellers to emerge now that we no longer live in clans of 50-100 people with distinct roles. The absurdity that we lose freedoms with improvements in technology and advancements in society is bogus to me; a claim that points towards the increase in individual trials and tribulations is an argument I would accept. To me literature is what is written, not what is read. And yes, improvements in tech and advancements in society have made publishing easier on one hand-- it has increased the freedoms of writing from simply the time it takes to write a manuscript compared to type it, to the ease of mass production, and so on--, while making the writing world more difficult to navigate on the other. But the writing world and social world behind it, the changes they undergo, and the restrictions they put in place are not the author and his or her ability and desire to write.

To me, for the purely literature takes, the focus has to be on what is written and not what is read. To focus on the consumer side of things would pollute the concept of "higher" literature...which is why what Michael said had me stuck. I took his words to mean: if the books we consider to be a part of the Cannon of Literature are those which were publish and promoted, if not by a publishing house then by a crown or a religious symbol, and have sold well for long enough to stick around, then how can "higher" literature ever be removed from consumerism. And now I ask, does something have to be read by other people to be literature with merit? I know its a clique question-- if a tree fell and no one was there to hear it did it fallesque--but if so how many people need to read it? If not, then bare with me...

If not, then literature becomes a calling that one answers. Writing is something this person has to do. To get something out. And that something COULD be useful for masses of people in a plethora of ways. But it is not the masses of people that make the book's merit, the book has merit of its own because now it is the creation of something that had to get out, and not a creation of something that wanted to sell out...

And so the follow-up question is: Is all literature, and all art for what it's worth, a matter of faith-- a self-guided journey towards one's own sense of enlightenment? And if so, then why does it matter what people categorize as literature with more or less merit, what sells in book stores and what doesn't...For if it's a matter of faith then one would assume they would have the book that was necessary for their journey to proceed...and if they didn't...they would write it...