Lietrature is a body of written works,in general menaings.The name has traditionally been applied to those imaginative works of poetry and prose distinguished by the intentions of their authors and the perceived aesthetic excellence of their execution.In other words it is such verbal works, written or oral, related by subject-matter, by language or place of origin, or by dominant cultural standards while Literally translation means "acquaintance with letters" (from Latin littera letter). In Western culture the most basic written literary types include poetry and prose, fiction and non-fiction.But regardless of the fact the hue and cry arises when it comes to understand it in its true soul.Understanding exactly what literature is has always been a challenge; pinning down a definition has proven to be quite difficult. In fact, at times one seems to be reduced to saying, “I know it when I see it,” or perhaps, “Anything is literature if you want to read it that way.” Sometimes the motivation for a particular definition seems like the work of copyright lawyers, aimed primarily at stopping people from using the word ‘literature’ for works which have not been licensed as literature by…well, by The Critics, by the keepers of the tradition, by “all high school English teachers,” and so on. Almost no one is now so naive as to think that The Critics, the high school teachers, or anyone else has a monolithic front on the question—yet most discussions seem to veer eithertowards an authoritarian definition based on certain critical assumptions, or towards a definition based solely on whatever a particular reader chooses to call literature.

To a member of a college English department who is a linguist rather than a literary scholar, this can seem silly. After all, the word ‘literature’ is a word in the English language; like all words, it is used by perhaps millions of speakers, speakers who  come from vastly different backgrounds and who have quite divergent personal experiences with, and views on, literary texts. And like all words, it is used fairly successfully; speakers and listeners generally communicate adequately, despite this variety of experience, background, and training.

If we assume that a definition of literature should be, in many important ways, like definitions of other words in the language, we will perhaps find a more fruitful approach to the term. Here I will first present two different approaches to definition—the criterial approach and the prototype approach—and then suggest some features of a prototypical literary work.

The Criterial Approach

The usual approach in defining a word in English is to provide a list of criteria which must be met. For example, a bird might be defined as an animal which has feathers, which has wings, and which lays eggs. If an animal meets all of these criteria, it is a bird; if it does not (for example, a bat neither has feathers nor lays eggs), it is not a bird. Other characteristics of some birds—that they fly, for example, or that they sing—are not relevant in the definition, since they are not criteria which are met by all birds. This approach has also been called the checklist approach; if all the items on the list are checked off, the word applies. It is characterized by “clear, inflexible boundaries” and by categories which are “internally defined, i.e., defined on the basis of the properties of the members” (Hohulin 1987:4).

There are many examples of definitions of literature which follow this approach. For example, many of the essays in Hernadi 1978, What Is Literature?, attempt a criterial definition: To speak sweepingly one can say, summarizing, that in antiquity and in the Renaissance, literature or letters were understood to include all writing of quality with any pretense to permanence (Wellek 1978:20).

"Let me, then, end with my own stipulative definition of literature. Literature includes any text worthy to be taught to students by teachers of literature, when these texts are not being taught to students in other departments of a school or
university" (Hirsch 1978:34).

Even definitions which focus more intentionally on a shifting understanding of literature
reveal this criterial approach:

"I should say, then, that literature is a canon which consists of those works in language by which a community defines itself through the course of its history. It includes works primarily artistic and also those whose aesthetic qualities are only secondary. The self-defining activity of the community is conducted in the light of the works, as its members have come to read them (or concretize them) "(McFadden 1978:56).

In all of these cases, the attempt is to provide criteria which must be met by all texts in order for them to be called literature. The criteria may be based in the text (as in Wellek) or in a community (as in McFadden and Hirsch), but the criteria must be met.

Why do we read literature?

Literature represents a language or a people: culture and tradition. But, literature is more important than just a historical or cultural artifact. Literature introduces us to new worlds of experience. We learn about books and literature; we enjoy the comedies and the tragedies of poems, stories, and plays; and we may even grow and evolve through our literary journey with books.

Ultimately, we may discover meaning in literature by looking at what the author says and how he/she says it. We may interpret the author's message. In academic circles, this decoding of the text is often carried out through the use of literary theory, using a mythological, sociological, psychological, historical, or other approach.

Whatever critical paradigm we use to discuss and alyalyze literature, there is still an artistic quality to the works. Literature is important to us because it speaks to us, it is universal, and it affects us. Even when it is ugly, literature is beautiful.

Psychological analysis of literary works evolved as modern psychology itself began to take form during the early twentieth century. Although this type of critique employs the concepts expressed by many noted sociologists, including Carl Jung, Alfred Adler and Otto Rank, none have contributed as heavily to this field of study as Sigmund Freud has. While many aspects of his theories have been discounted by contemporary psychologists, the fundamental ideas he expressed have withstood the test of time. Five of these, in particular, form the basis of the psychological analysis of authors and the books they write.

The Primacy of the Unconscious

Freud believed that every individual has a conscious and an unconscious mind. Moreover, he believed that it was the unconscious mind that plays the largest role in shaping someone's personality. He maintained that the vast differences between real and apparent motives are a result of this delineation between the two aspects of the soul.

The Iceberg Theory of the Psyche

Freud believed that the psyche, or "soul", of an individual was shaped like an iceberg. The small part that remained above the surface for all to see was the ego, the individual's self image that he projected to the world. Below the surface, much larger, the pleasure-principle, the id, remained away from public view. Lining this iceberg was the superego, representing parental influences. Between the conscious mind (the ego) and the unconscious mind (the id), at the "waterline" of the iceberg, was a line separating the two parts of the individual. Occasionally, the id would poke through that line, but, in most psychologically well-adjusted people, this barrier was a strong one.

Dreams are an expression of our unconscious mind

One of Freud's best-known theories states that the conflict between the ego and the id is continued while we sleep. He believed that these two aspects of our psyche expressed themselves while we sleep, using a language of symbolism and hidden meanings. He believed that id-driven dreams were outbursts of instinct and repression and that realistic dreams were an example of our ego's iron control over our soul even while we sleep.

Infantile behavior is essentially sexual

Freud believed that during an individual's formative years, he or she was entirely governed by his developing identity. This developing unconscious often takes sexual and/or hostile mannerisms, as in the case of the Oedipus complex, in which a young boy falls in love with his mother and is jealous of and hateful toward his father for the attentions he receives from her. Freud also believed that any repression or neurosis formed during this time period would later surface as damaging outbursts in the mature adult.

The relationship between neurosis and creativity

Freud's last theory applies more to the author than the characters in his works. Freud believed that those who create (artists, poets, etc.) are using their creativity as a sort of therapy. He believed that an individual relieved his or her own neurotic tension through their creative work. In addition, these individuals give us insights into the nature of reality and the people who inhabit it. Thus, psychoanalyzing a work of literature can give us great insight into the unconscious of the author.

These five concepts can be employed in the study of characters and their actions in a literary forum, as well as giving us insight into the nature of man in general.

Examples such as " I think ,therefore i am " [Rene descarte French philosopher ] becomes the ultimate result of such quest when blended with " To be or not to be, that is the question " [Hamlet -Shakespeare].In otherwords differnt genre of literature and dielects such as  psychology and philosophy  are inter-linked beautifully when studied on critical basis. . Sigmund freud's opinion that dreams are expression of our un concious mind is a perfect example to be quoted to depict the deep and strong relation between psychology and literature.Conclusively , Literature as reviewed on psychologicaland critical criterias reveals a unique yet very interesting prospect of innovations combined with mental sharpness and consequently impressive expressionof those abstract ideas.