Literature doesn't have to be combative

Must a work of literature be combative to be appreciated? And must literature always be negatively tilted towards the political establishment of the day? 

Critics have socialised young literature lovers to associate writing with warfare of sorts. That the pen is a lethal weapon that the writer employs against enemies, both real and perceived. Perhaps, it is this kind of reasoning that has, for instance, turned newspaper columns into spaces Where vendetta wars are waged. Interestingly, columnists who use sledge hammers against their “opponents" command a huge following. The barbs that newspaper columnists often trade, albeit without dropping names, to many of us, is the flavour of their writing. 

Be this as it may, controversy should never be hailed as the only hallmark of good literature. Literature is supposed to educate, inform and entertain. And the pillar of all these functions is the entertainment aspect. Let literature perform all its functions in an entertaining way because art and beauty are inseparable. 

Critics should not erect walls between what they consider mediocre and great literature. Let them allow literature be the social mirror that it is meant to be. Critics should teach the current generation that literature doesn’t have to be combative to be appreciated. 

There is a need, now, more than ever, to help the young appreciate that literature can be used to promote cohesion and peaceful co-existence. 

If it has to be combative, then literature should go to war not against personalities but the socio-economic challenges that arrest the development of the human race.