"Literature" and "Culture and Anarchy"

While very different at first glance, “Culture and Anarchy” and “Literature” both seem to share a common thread—literature and culture are so connected that they are almost intertwined. It seems that Matthew Arnold views literature as more elitist. The author of “Literature” acknowledges that literature is no longer constrained to elitism and that there are forms that “[correspond] with a particular social class.” Literature is defined by “Literature” to be the “human experience.” This made me think about why certain types of literature fall out of style, like silent films, or are changed completely, like the pastoral. Is it because culture changes, because people get bored of it, or because something better comes along? The idea of the Bible having such a lasting appeal for hundreds of years is also interesting, and the same thing, in a way, applies to writers like Shakespeare. Even though the language and words he uses are nothing like our culture now, we still read his works, why?