Distinguishing Literature

In the late seventies a student of Literature, tasked with reading and responding to several examples of modern literature, concluded that read together as representatives of the modern novel, they offered a portent that the world was entering a new dark age. The student observed a progressive breakdown in the structure of plot, and a progressive preoccupation with the alienation of the individual ego in the face of an essentially meaningless and absurd human existence. There could be observed in the work of certain prominent authors a progressive abandonment of universal symbols in favour of introspective rumination and stream of consciousness, inviting the conclusion that the power of Literature to convey meaning through symbolism was itself under threat. The lecturer, on reading the essay, concluded that it had little to do with literature and more to do with psychology and refused to mark the paper. The student was given to understand that literature was a special class of text with special qualities which literary critics are trained to distinguish, and to which students of literature should aspire. 
 
Now, a quarter of a century later, and with the dark age clearly upon us, I turn again to the question of value in literature, and what distinguishes one type of writing from another so that one deserves the title literature and the other, pulp fiction. I would argue that this ability to distinguish one from the other is more important now than it was then with the proliferation of all manner of text in all manner of forms.
 
I have read commentaries by western authors on both the Koran and the Bible, extolling these books as Literature, while ignoring and devaluing them as scripture. The curious difference is that the western mind seems to ignore the authorship of the Bible, while decrying the claims made by the author of the Koran. The Bible is seen as a compilation by many authors, while the Koran is clearly the work of one author. The claims that this book is a sister to the Bible and belongs to that special class of scriptural literature are ignored, and in the process, the significance of the text is lost, despite clear evidence of the religious movement it gave rise to and its worldwide scope.
 
But does the fact that a text can spawn a religion make it of itself Literature? The writings of L Ron Hubbard and Claude Vorilhon come to mind. Both were journalists, and both have spawned religious movements, but the body of their writings has yet to attract significant academic attention as Literature, and in libraries both texts would be more often found under the category science fiction than religion.
 
It would seem that these journalists, responding to the demands of their audience have sought to inject new meaning into old symbols by reinterpreting the religious and historical phenomenon of centuries to build a new egocentric and godless religious system thereby giving meaning back to people’s lives. Life only appears without purpose due to the misinformation provided by others, while these movements claim to have the true knowledge which has been withheld from us.
 
If there was a portent to be seen from studying the modern novel, then surely there is a portent in the proliferation of ego worship evidenced by these new godless religions. Regardless of whether their text is Literature or trash, the student of religion can today clearly observe that there are certain universals within all the major and successful religious movements. It can be assumed that these universal principles are essential to the nature of religion itself, and where these are missing from a purportedly religious system, they may rightly assume they are observing some phenomena other than a legitimate functioning religion. This is the new task of the student of literature in this age, to distinguish prophesy from pulp fiction, and to distinguish egotism and cults of personality from humble worship of a divine essence.