From: zatavu-AT-excite.com
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:46:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: PLC: Literary Saints



On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 01:08:51 -0400 (EDT),
phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu wrote:

>  On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 zatavu-AT-excite.com wrote:
>  
>  > >  Slow down now.  One might claim that there is no such thing as a
moral or
>  > >  immoral sunrise without debate.  But when we get to human-made
objects 
>  > >  that are invested with high cultural value, the matter is not so
easy.
>  > The
>  > >  claim that art transcends morality is a claim as to how works which
have
>  > >  been and continue to be read many different ways should be read. 
And
>  > >  though it gives the aesthetic priority, this by no means implies
that
>  > >  moral judgments play no role what so ever in determinations of
beauty. 
>  > 
>  > Moral according to whom? WHen? In what culture? What have been
considered
>  > "immoral" literature in the past is considered great "moral" literature
and
>  > vice versa. In the end, literature goes beyond good and evil and
becomes
>  > merely aesthetic (thankfully).
>  
>  Well, no it doesn't exactly.  You have noted that what is considered
moral
>  or immoral does not remain constant. And you have noted this in relation
>  to changing literary evaluation.  This does not show that literature
"goes
>  beyond good and evil." 
>  
>  > >  Seems to me that a poem celebrating the pleasure of raping a child
could
>  > >  be very well written.  The language could be very beautiful.  But I
think
>  > >  that many people who normally separate aesthetic from moral judgment
>  > might 
>  > >  still think it was immoral.  It would not likely be included in
>  > >  high school anthologies any time soon.  Though, of course, it might
be
>  > >  someday.
>  > 
>  > THey don't include Mark Twain in many schools, which is ridiculous, and
is
>  > usually based on a misunderstanding of its relation to race. So I don't
look
>  > to schools' decisions as to what is "moral" literature for guidance.
>  
>  Good for you.  But that doesn't establish that you view art independently
>  of moral considerations, only that you do not agree with the schools
>  evaluation.  Back, now, to the point of the passage. Do you think a poem
>  celebrating the pleasure of raping a child would be immoral if
beautifully
>  written?

Immoral? No. Only actions are moral or immoral. Language does not fall into
that category (I think the concept of "bad" words ridiculous as well). But
even such a poem could be seen as "beneficial" if it taps into something in
the reader that makes him think about his own feelings and why he feels
those things, etc., as any good art does. I will add to what I have said
that all good literature also makes us think, particularly about why we feel
certain things or certain ways. The Marquis de Sade comes to mind in this
discussion. I find his works facinating, though they are about rape and
murder and pedophilia (and homosexuality, which was considered much more
"immoral" at the time than it is now). In fact, de Sade openly supports all
these things. Was de Sade immoral? Yes. Were his works? WHat does morality
have to do with them? It is essentually the same as if someone was talking
about raping someone but never did it. Words and actions are not the same
things. Immorality can only be traced to actions, not to words. THat is why
I say literature is beyond good and evil.

Troy Camplin





_______________________________________________________
Say Bye to Slow Internet!
http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html



     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---