From: zatavu-AT-excite.com Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 17:27:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: PLC: Literary Saints On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 09:10:53 -0400 (EDT), phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu wrote: > > On Sat, 12 Aug 2000, Barron wrote: > > > I'm also still confused about why such designations seem so important to > > both the accusers and the defenders. Why is it important that Eliot was an > > antisemite (let's just assume he is) or that Faulkner was a racist? > ...and... > > What does the teacher do besides point [Faulkner's racism] out? > ...and... > > As a corollary to this, I would be interested in knowing who the literary > > saints are. > > Three great questions which have provoked a debate big enough to stock a > small library....or at least way too many books in my office. These > questions go to the heart of why we study literature (or art) at all, why > and how we construct a "canon" of major over minor writers for > instruction, what purposes are served by literary and cultural history, > and how we conceptualize / theorize all those activities. > > Here is how I would start formulating a reply.... > > The basic issue, I suppose, is why we read (a term which embraces a set of > interpretative activities). The response which resonates with me is > "because we need advice on how to conduct our lives." Two texts I often > recommend to students for a defense of this position are Kenneth Burke's > "Literature as Equipment for Living" and Jean-Paul Sartre's _What is > Literature?_ (there are others which can be highly recommended, but these > have the advantage of brevity and succinctness...and they have manifold > implications). We read fiction because we want advice on how to conduct our lives? Dear God, I hope not! I certainly do not. I would personally recommend reading philosophy and perhaps certain aspects of psychology for that. Literary fiction should be used for advice on how to conduct our lives about as much as paintings or symphonies or sculptures should. Literature is first and foremost art. Any that coincidentally provides advice is an added bonus. What in "Naked Lunch" or Don Barthelme's "Snow WHite" gives us any advice on how to live? We should read literature for the beauty it provides in our language, which we cannot escape, since that is how we relate to the world, through language. Paintings provide visual beauty, symphonies provide auditory beauty, literature provides linguistic beauty. What you are essentially claiming here is that there is such a thing as moral or immoral literature. As Oscar WIlde pointed out, there is not. THere is only well- or poorly-written literature. This is not to say that in some literature (including the novels I write) where philosophy has been woven into the novel that advice cannot be garnered. BUt that is not its primary function. Troy Camplin _______________________________________________________ Say Bye to Slow Internet! http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005