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
1 comment:
I have the same problem you have with Gao not wanting to challenge the world. This is more evident in his Preface to Without Isms (which is available in the preview on Google Docs; I'll see if I can dig up a PDF). I've been struggling with his intentions, and my own reactions to this thinking since I read the book. Hopefully I'll be able to finally get my thoughts down on paper in the next week or so.
Post a Comment