Derek Attridge sets out to answer the centuries-old question 'What is literature?' in his book The Singularity of Literature (2004). He acknowledges how problematic previous answers have been, since literature, by definition, resists any attempts of definition. Therefore, instead of formulating a theory, Attridge presents his readers with a report and invitation:

"a report on a certain living-through of the literary, and an invitation to the reader to share, at least for the duration of the reading, this living-through".

Striking about the text is that Attridge does not only take on the singularity of literature but of artworks in general.

In Attridge's report, each artwork is seen as a "transformative difference," bringing "otherness" or "alterity" into the cultural field. The literariness of a text depends on whether it lets its reader experience otherness,

"that which is, at a given moment, outside the horizon provided by the culture for thinking, understanding, imagining, feeling, perceiving".

In order to explain how this otherness comes into a work of art, Attridge builds on Derrida’s notion of invention. This invention of literature is as much an act as it is an event since it is

"something that is done intentionally by an effort of the will and something that happens without warning to a passive, though alert, consciousness".

What makes works of art so special is that they make a demand for a performance,

"a performance in which the authored singularity, alterity, and inventiveness of the work as an exploitation of the multiple powers of language are experienced and affirmed in the present, in a creative, responsible reading".

Thus, the singularity of literature seems to lie in the act and event of writing, but also in the act and event of reading. In order for the reader to experience a text as literature, he or she has to acknowledge a responsibility towards the other. Only by yielding to the obligations a literary text presents to its readers—by opening up to the otherness—can the unique event of literariness take place.

Other scholars have also tried to define literature as something other than static objects, but only a few have succeeded so well in their explanations as Attridge does here. Attridge does not only discuss how form, meaning, and context are linked together, such as Peter Lamarque and Stein Haugom Olsen have done in their research about Truth, Fiction, and Literature (1996), but he also shows how form creates meaning as

"a performance of reading answering to a performance of writing".

Thus, what is new in his exploration of the singularity of literature is that it is seen as an event, a performance which takes place not only on the level of the writing but also of the reading. By doing so, Attridge moves beyond the instrumentalism of aesthetic tradition, cleverly arguing that

"[i]f literature rests on a certain inaccessibility to rules, as the aesthetic tradition recognizes, there is no way it can serve as an instrument without at the same time challenging the basis of instrumentality itself".

With his discussion of the other, form, invention, and responsibility, Attridge seems to present old ideas, merely reformulating the terminology. However, as he himself points out that

"[t]he claim implicit in using [these terms] is that the current discussion of alterity is both a disruption and a continuation of an ancient discourse: as always, we bring the new into being by refashioning the old rather than by jettisoning it".

Thus, his methodology works along the same line as the ideas he presents to his readers. In fact, by doing so, the text becomes remarkably accessible. Attridge does not resort to jargon, making the text very appropriate to use as a starting point for discussions by literary students, but also opening up the field to anyone interested in literature or art in general.

Paradoxically, the idea Attridge seems to have of the readers of literature is more problematic. Literature requires from its readers a responsible response, but who guarantees they are willing to

"refashion what [they] think and what [they are] in order to take the fullest possible account of, to respect, safeguard, and learn from, the otherness and singularity of the other, and to do so without any certainty about the consequences of [their] act"?

Attridge solves this problem by following Levinas’ argument, explaining that

"[w]e find ourselves already responsible for the other".

However, what happens to this attitude if we read a book which is simply badly written, or when a reader is not very experienced and has not found his or her

"way of being in the world of words"?

In the same way, Attridge overlooks the problems concerning his discussion of the cultural matrix of a work. He argues that

"only if I find a way of absorbing the nuances of the other cultural matrix—which might entail living in another place for a considerable period—will I be able to enjoy to the full the inventiveness that the work has in its original context".

Who decides whether the reader has absorbed enough nuances in order to experience the singularity of a work of art within that cultural matrix? Besides that, what exactly constitutes the cultural matrix a work does (or perhaps does not) belong to? Attridge does not answer any of these relevant questions, thus weakening his argument.

However, it does not seem fair to end this discussion of The Singularity of Literature on a negative note, since Attridge does what he sets out to do, and he does it quite elegantly. As he reminds his readers one more time in his last chapter, literature cannot be defined by one book or theory, because it is literature, and thus an event. Throughout his 'report,' Attridge has shown us what makes art art, and he invites his readers to a better understanding of it by engaging with its otherness.

Review: The Singularity of Literature

The Singularity of Literature