Polewach has (jokingly?) declared the pointlessness of reading 19th century novels (his language is that it's irrelevant, with the joke perhaps being that he doesn't think any literature is relevant). Much reading of old fiction juxtaposed with new is leading me toward the same conclusion that novels, even when they're interesting, are pointless. I probably arrive at this conclusion from a very different angle because, well, I never really know what John's saying or why.
I used to think that I read fiction for reasons beyond entertainment. I'm not really sure what I thought those reasons were, because I've never been a deep thinker. Really I usually read (I'm thinking of high school and into college here) because I was solitary and impressionable, I liked stories, and I believed that reading "important books" was necessary for someone who wanted to be "intelligent". I found reading enjoyable even when I didn't even follow the story, let alone any other meaning of the text, because I responded to the different rhythems and and dictions, and it gave me a vague but often stirring feeling of being somewhere else, as another person, much like in dreams. When I think about why fiction might be worthwhile, I fall back on the following very common postulates: 1. Fiction might help me understand life, or appreciate it better (recognize patterns, experience people and events more critically, appreciate the weight of decisions before making them). 2. Through stories, writers are able to examine and communicate ideas, even complex ones, in a way more immediate and accessible than standard argument.
I look at these postulates now and recognize them as belonging very much to the 19th century. I don't really know how thought about literature has developed since then, if it has. I see also that these postulates are very rarely true, at least for me. I mostly read for entertainment, historical curiosity, and the excitement I get from seeing a writer's abilities. Additionally, I recognize that the better writers tend to consciously examine social conditions and human psychology; but honestly I don't know that I get much out of it when they do. So why do I read fiction instead of quilt, or bet on horses? Dunno. Moreover, why do I stubbornly still think I ought to read, say, Fielding or even, as I did early this year, everything by Flaubert? Dunno.
3 comments:
but you *do* bet on horses. or cows, at least.
nc nc nc...Greg, you know what the difference between reading good fiction (i.e. literature) and reading crap (including a lot of philosophical texts that try to prove stuff)? it's the difference between a man and a eunuch, which is a difference in usefulness. naturally, some authors or novels are more useful (i.e.alive) to us than others depending on the age/time/place when we read them. So that reading Les Miserables or Madame Bovary at 26 in Paris or NYC is not the same thing as reading them at 13 and 16 in rural Albania.
The kind of learning that happens by reading novels is one that I think is best recognized years later as you sit in seminar and find yourself having to discuss with peers you have nothing in common with in terms of your background save your humanity and various other possibilities.
Literature DOES what philosophy theorizes about and argues for. That's not a light difference. That's why philosophers like Hegel and Kirkegaard and Nietzsche and Wittgenstein have become so important over the past century. They were mostly influenced by the literature of the past.
Oh, I do know the difference most of the time. You put it very well. I was just feeling particularly eunuch-like myself, and doubting my ability to get anything out of literature for several weeks.
My thoughts on how to study literature are still changing, but I think I'm pretty much decided that I should study it in some way. I always go back to it.
Post a Comment