No one seems to think it necessary to explain what is meant by "literature," or the "aesthetic." If one analyzes the use of these terms in their contexts, a variety of tacit assumptions seems to operate. Sometimes, all that is required is that a text already has been designated as "literature." Sometimes, the presence of story, of a narrative, is the clue. Sometimes, the presence of rhymed words, or of verse rhythms, or of metaphoric language seems sufficient to justify the claim that "literature," or at least "the aesthetic," has been operating. Sometimes, the aesthetic is attributed to the presence of emotion, as when students become excited about scientific information. All of these elements can indeed be found in texts read as literature. Yet none of these, either singly or all together, can insure the presence of "literature." The fact is that any text, even if it contains such elements, can be the occasion for either a "literary" or a "nonliterary" reading. The nonliterary kind of reading is referred to as "efferent." In this article, the author reminds readers of the difference between aesthetic and efferent reading and pushes everyone to consider exactly what is meant by the word "literature." (Contains 1 figure.)