yet another defence of literary studies

The ability to write and communicate clearly, as well as read analytically, are of course valuable skills in no matter which career one pursues, and English classes teach exactly that. But that doesn't necessarily justify why literature itself should be studied. Why even have literary analysts then?

Why, precisely because they exist--Literature indeed doesn't grow crops, feed the poor, or build armies, so why on earth have so many people, of all the things they could spend their lives doing, put themselves to the great pains and expense of producing literature? What does that say about us psychologically? What is it about creative, artistic enterprises that makes life worth prizing?

No writer writes in a vacuum, either; they are products of their time, culture, economy and circumstance. What then does their writing then say about their period of history? From a sociological-anthropological perspective alone, literature is a veritable gold-mine of data, individual case studies collected and passed down through the ages. We'd be foolish not to study it.

Literature is produced in writing, and words (either written or oral) are representations of our thoughts, not the thoughts themselves. Come to think of it, nothing we perceive is communicated directly to us, but is all mediated through representations, symbols, and senses, all perceived and filtered through our imaginations and systems of representation. What, then, does literature tell us about the way in which mankind experiences reality itself?