The Case for Literature

To be honest, I’m not sure how to react to “The Case for Literature” (the essay, not the book). Perhaps it’s because it’s “conceit” is stated simply as a matter of course or fact, and argued so clearly that I find it hard, and/or pointless to argue with him. The only thing I really firmly disagree with him on is a pretty blatant hypocrisy in paragraph 35 (or around there). Gao makes the specific point that “The writer is also not a prophet.” Yet he spends much of the remainder of the essay prophesying (especially in paragraph 37). Perhaps he wasn’t speaking of “prophecy” in the context of public appearances (such as this Nobel Prize acceptance speeches) and only in their work—but I think that he ought to have been more careful or clear about what he meant by that.

I don’t disagree, I don’t think the writer is a prophet at all—as he seems to point out, his or her works are simply vehicles for personal views and emotions, and the audience digests it as it will, but if a man is a prophet, and that man is a writer (take the case of F. Scott Fitzgerald and The Great Gatsby), then it doesn’t preclude the notion, only intention.

Anyhow, for me, the piece left little reaction room—and while we don’t really have the readership yet to vet a good public discussion of the relevant issues that arise from the essay, here were some of my lingering conceptual questions:

Why are literature, art, and music so often censored? What makes them so dangerous?

In paragraph 33, Gao says that "The writer cannot fill the role of the Creator so there is no need to inflate his ego by thinking that he is God." What about Tolkien? I’m not a fan of The Lord of the Rings or its universe, but Tolkien worked hard to developan entire mythology around his work, and in fact, that was his intention. In that sense, could Tolkien be considered God (or rather, A god?)?

In paragraph 58, Gao says that “it is actually not the challenge of the writer to society but rather the challenge of his works." This brings to mind the classic Gandhi quote, "we must be the change we wish to see in the world." Can’t a writer consciously challenge the world intrinsically in his works? Is it really an either/or proposition?

Anyhow, a dry piece, but accordingly essential. I can’t wait to come home in April and get a hold of the other readings for this year!

-S

How to Read Literature Like a Professor

I took a break from reading W&P to read Thomas C. Foster's How to Read Like a Professor (perhaps hoping that it would improve my reading of W&P - that remains to be seen).

I actually have very little to say about this book, other than I loved it. Of the books I've read so far, of the books that I will read for the List, this is definitely one of the most enjoyable.

The chapter list is fairly comprehensive. While, as he notes, the topics covered aren't exhaustive, they would give anyone a good start into the realm of literary understanding and criticism. Each is accessible, providing thought-provoking but recognizable examples to learn from and digest. I haven't read most of the books he discusses but he has made me look forward to reading them (although, really, it's not hard to do that).

The chapters are self-contained units, but Foster takes care to use the same sources through several chapters, and reference previous themes he has discussed to build a more complete picture of the work.

At the end of the book, he includes an exercise for practice (A Test Case), but participation is obviously optional, and since I read it at 11 last night, I didn't bother, and still learned a lot.

My one quibble is I don't agree with him at all about Song of Solomon. The imagery he discusses are there, but I think the novel's character development is sufficiently flawed to negate its potential.

Foster is engaging and helpful, and is definitely one of my favorite English professors I've never had. This book is the best of English class with none of the worst (like homework, or even really reading the numerous texts he references). I would thoroughly recommend this to anyone attempting a project like the List, or even just anyone wanting to get the most from their reading, and pop culture more broadly.


- M

Tapestry

I think that the thing I love most about War & Peace is probably the richness of variety in the characters. There is a VAST range of personalities, motivations, attitudes, desires, and needs on display. Consequently, relationships as they are portrayed in literature are taking on whole new meanings for me. Indeed, it will be hard to ever look at a typical fiction's relationship dynamics ever again without feeling some hollow ring of sadness that Tolstoy is not writing it. I think this comes from the characters seeming to be in such relief against a theater that most authors find inaccessible. I think in the end, Tolstoy just committed to his story and his characters in a way few authors do (dare I say, "can"?). One would have to commit to this level in order to lay out such a staggering array of people and such a sprawlingly lengthy work. Every time I pick it up, I think "this is what it takes to commit and this is what happens when you do." In the end, I suppose that's the real root of my love affair with War & Peace. I do love the characters and the stories, and I'll discuss them more at length--but Tolstoy's commitment is inspiring and rewarding.

So this entry was short and rambly. I'm a rambly kind of guy. But not short. So you can usually expect me to be rambly. But if you see me, I won't be short. It was written in a cab at 12am. What do you want?

-S