Two Espressos Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I would question: 1. Why we need to establish 'literary' value, in the first instance, and what is meant by it? Particularly given, as TripWillis has noted, English today finds literariness and textuality in many places. 2. How, and by whom is this 'value' being 'measured' (or, more accurately, conferred)? And, similarly, who decides and on what bases do they decide that some writings/texts are more valid or 'deserving'(!) than others. 3. Upon what template is the 'complexity of ideas' to be measured? 4. Why is 'originality' important? And, what does it look like? 5. Shakespeare as somehow transcending history/culture/politics and processes of canonicity 6. Why I care? All of these are valid, necessary questions. The most salient are 2, 3, and 4. I actually was going to add those very questions to my original post but in laziness decided to elide them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veniente Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 All of these are valid, necessary questions. The most salient are 2, 3, and 4. I actually was going to add those very questions to my original post but in laziness decided to elide them. It's cool. Like koolherc, I also majorly ♥ the Bard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawkeye7269 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 On topic for this thread: Atlas Shrugged is something which Dante easily could have put in the Inferno as one of the punishments in the lower circles of hell. Sure, we can talk about her philosophical worth as a writer, but did Ayn Rand REALLY need to write a thousand pages trying to tell us what Gordon Gekko managed in three words: "Greed is good"? I know some people like her philosophy, which is fine, but can we just agree that her writing is like a red hot poker to the eye? As to the point of canon (maybe it should have its own thread?): I particularly want to respond to the comment about whether ideas have intrinsic value or whether the value is produced by the arbitrary values choices of society. On the one hand, Billy Shakes himself very definitely thought that there are natural values which cannot be disputed - i.e., Truth. He worked to incorporate these Truths into his works at every turn - so, setting aside how we may now view it, it seems we must at least agree that Shakespeare did not think that the cultural norms of society determined values and relative truths. In other words, he was entirely opposed to any form of relativism. But that IS a separate question from how we now think about him, obviously. I'm a traditionalist, not into theory, so I'm biased towards thinking that we, as scholars, are meant to investigate literature in order to find the Truth which is lurking therein. The purpose of art is the conveyance of Truth - and writers like Shakespeare, Milton, Spenser, etc, were exceptionally good at doing this, thus their success. So, in short, I just want to offer a brief defense for the notion of the intrinsic value of ideas - which is of course predicated on the existence of certain, unchangeable truths in the universe. I don't know how that idea will go over, but there it is. In any event, this is a great conversation! Well worth having, lets please continue! MelleMelville, pinkrobot and the giaour 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NowMoreSerious Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Whew what a Friday night this is shaping up to be for me. Writing an abstract while watching a literary discussion/debate develop on here. I know I'm in bad shape when I'm reading this thread for my entertainment time between writing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Espressos Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) It's cool. Like koolherc, I also majorly ♥ the Bard. Yeah, Shakespeare is awesome. I just think that it is possible to criticize certain elements of canonicity while still establishing some standards. I was also going to add to the other post: DeLillo sarcastically portrays an academic department that analyzes cereal boxes, seemingly to suggest the complete absurdity and inanity of modern academe. But if you think about it, cereal boxes can provide lots of information about cultural values, more than one would suspect on first glance. Yet if Harvard decided to establish an Institute for Cereal Studies, you'd laugh, would you not? But an Institute for Shakespeare Studies wouldn't absurd at all. I guess I'm saying that while many texts (popular, haute couture, etc) have textual or "literary" value, some have more than others. I don't think that's outrageous, do you? Edited February 18, 2012 by Two Espressos asleepawake 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thestage Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I would question: 1. Why we need to establish 'literary' value in the first instance, and what is meant by it? Particularly given, as TripWillis has noted, English today finds literariness and textuality in many places. Because a line must be drawn. Even trip, who earlier evinced the quite radical (and I do hope you appreciate that it is radical) opinion that all texts contain within themselves, in and of themselves, the means of imparting worthwhile knowledge; even he would have to draw a line, primarily by defining the word text in these circumstances. It is simply not the case that all written things bear fruit by virtue of what they themselves say, that they hold some truth value, present some visible aesthetic form or conclusion, or otherwise permit of the inclined reader some intellectual space with which to work. Your other questions are questions of determination, but this one is fundamental. If texts do not have literary value, or if all texts have literary value (you will note that these two things are one in the same), then the discipline itself is just a shadow of philology or a particular branch of cultural studies that can only be viewed as the application of privilege to largely historical entities. We have a quite firm belief, as a discipline, in the idea of the possibility of a text rising above those factors to the extent that it contains some value not as a means (ie, as a sort of key to the moment in which it was created), but as an end too. This is, I think, even implicit in theoretical models that stress the social relevance of a text, in as much as they find a given text worth investigating under certain auspices in the first place. Shakespeare might tell me some things about Elizabethan England (whatever kinds of things I leave up to you), but so too would the newspapers of the day. And we don't read those newspapers. There are people that do, but we house them elsewhere, so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veniente Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) we, as scholars, are meant to investigate literature in order to find the Truth which is lurking therein. The purpose of art is the conveyance of Truth - and writers like Shakespeare, Milton, Spenser, etc, were exceptionally good at doing this, thus their success. So, in short, I just want to offer a brief defense for the notion of the intrinsic value of ideas - which is of course predicated on the existence of certain, unchangeable truths in the universe. I don't think I know where to begin Edited February 18, 2012 by arrivant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawkeye7269 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I don't think I know where to begin Well, pick something and go with it. I'm curious as to why you think this is particularly controversial. No sarcasm there, I do want to know. Exchange of ideas and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thestage Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 well it is absolutely controversial in that it can, has, and will be argued one way or another. But it certainly should not come as a shock to anyone that such a position is possible, particularly as it has been, historically, more or less the dominant position of western intellectualism since its inception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veniente Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Well, pick something and go with it. I'm curious as to why you think this is particularly controversial. No sarcasm there, I do want to know. Exchange of ideas and all. Any of the bold-ed bits, I guess. Like, say, the idea that a piece of literature has a singular 'Truth' which may be unlocked. Or that art has one purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Espressos Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) The conversation here is getting complex and controversial...excellent. I am sympathetic to much postmodern theory, and I'm a huge theory nerd altogether, so I certainly don't consider myself a staunch "traditionalist" by any means. I think that all human thought is linguistic/textual (a thought that many share--Jameson is only one famous example). So I disagree with the above comment that some sort of capital-T "Truths" exist independent of human conception of those truths. Yet at the same time, most would agree that some things are simply wrong (torture, raping children, etc). Why is this so? Can we have moral "values" (and, extrapolating from that, any sort of standard in assessing literary "value") without having some extra-human claim to "Truth"? The Theory Wars of the later 20th century began talking about the above, but as far as I'm concerned, we've barely begun to discuss these matters... Edited February 18, 2012 by Two Espressos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koolherc Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) I think we need to stop a moment and consider whether this notion of some "truth" that hawkeye and stage are defending is nonetheless human-experience specific. I figure that a universal/noumenal/?objective? truth should have been as such before humans existed (being atemporal) and after we disappear. Since such a claim, to me, at least, seems preposterous, I would indeed embrace the idea that English Lit is just another cultural studies. Even if Shakespeare's insights into, say, nihilism, are indeed worthwhile for virtually the whole human race, the fact of the matter is that we are all linked by a biology and biology-derived culture. Shakespeare's insights can only have value relative to that nature and that culture. Edited February 18, 2012 by koolherc wreckofthehope 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawkeye7269 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) Any of the bold-ed bits, I guess. Like, say, the idea that a piece of literature has a singular 'Truth' which may be unlocked. Or that art has one purpose. Well, if I may, that has been the dominant idea for quite a long time about art - just look at anything from the Renaissance period, either literature or music or the visual arts - it's about God and faith and the truths associated with religion/Christianity. So those writers were definitely thinking that there was one Truth, and they were pursuing it. So I don't think it's particularly absurd to read those writers looking for the truth they wrote about. Now, if we want to talk more recent writers, who don't think that way about truth, then sure - it's mostly inappropriate to force truth upon them when they don't want it. My sole point is simply that to study writers like Shakespeare, we need to recognize what they were looking for and talking about - and it was truth, like it or not. Koolherc, I would agree with your comment, but it's undercut by those writers' belief in God, which renders moot the point about literature being mostly biology/culture derived. The existence of God is not my point here - simply that, if you believe in God, as Shakespeare did, you believed in one singular truth. And wrote about it. I'm simply making the historical point here. Again, I do not wish to offend - simply discuss literature in the public square in a friendly maker. I mean no offense! PS. Two Espressos - in regard to your thought/question about those things like murder which just seem naturall wrong - CS Lewis has a lot to say about the nature of value systems in his short, excellent book "The Abolition of Man." I highly recommend it, very thought provoking! Edited February 18, 2012 by hawkeye7269 the giaour 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koolherc Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) Well, if I may, that has been the dominant idea for quite a long time about art - just look at anything from the Renaissance period, either literature or music or the visual arts - it's about God and faith and the truths associated with religion/Christianity. So those writers were definitely thinking that there was one Truth, and they were pursuing it. So I don't think it's particularly absurd to read those writers looking for the truth they wrote about. Now, if we want to talk more recent writers, who don't think that way about truth, then sure - it's mostly inappropriate to force truth upon them when they don't want it. My sole point is simply that to study writers like Shakespeare, we need to recognize what they were looking for and talking about - and it was truth, like it or not. Again, I do not wish to offend - simply discuss literature in the public square in a friendly maker. I mean no offense! With art it is a lot easier to just go ahead and admit that its underlying "true" forms are indeed consistent because of the fixed human visual system and neurology. When artists say that "space" is important to a painting, be it Rembrandt, the caves at Lascaux, or Mondrian, it's because conceived space is a foundational organizational structure for human sight. It's a lot harder to make a claim like that about literature, especially since literature is not naturally produced (eg. like speech is). Edited February 18, 2012 by koolherc NowMoreSerious 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Espressos Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I think we need to stop a moment and consider whether this notion of some "truth" that hawkeye and stage are defending is nonetheless human-experience specific. I figure that a universal/noumenal/?objective? truth should have been as such before humans existed (being atemporal) and after we disappear. Since such a claim, to me, at least, seems preposterous, I would indeed embrace the idea that English Lit is just another cultural studies. Even if Shakespeare's insights into, say, nihilism, are indeed worthwhile for virtually the whole human race, the fact of the matter is that we are all linked by a biology and biology-derived culture. Shakespeare's insights can only have value relative to that nature and that culture. We posted similar insights at the same time. This issue is so complex. I'm most interested in the possibility of establishing some standards (literary or moral) from a postmodern position of doubt. Is such a thing possible? (disclaimer: the above is somewhat related to research interests currently trending with me.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DorindaAfterThyrsis Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Well, if I may, that has been the dominant idea for quite a long time about art - just look at anything from the Renaissance period, either literature or music or the visual arts - it's about God and faith and the truths associated with religion/Christianity. So those writers were definitely thinking that there was one Truth, and they were pursuing it. So I don't think it's particularly absurd to read those writers looking for the truth they wrote about. I think you'd find that Sir Philip Sidney, to name just one Renaissance dude (and he was a Renaissance dude if ever there was one, good ol' Phil), would take a fair bit of umbrage with your claims. The "Defense of Posey" (for my money, still one of the best bits of literary criticism ever written) practically screams the opposite of what you're claiming, which seems to me a pretty reductive reading of an incredibly complex/diverse period of literary production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawkeye7269 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) I think you'd find that Sir Philip Sidney, to name just one Renaissance dude (and he was a Renaissance dude if ever there was one, good ol' Phil), would take a fair bit of umbrage with your claims. The "Defense of Posey" (for my money, still one of the best bits of literary criticism ever written) practically screams the opposite of what you're claiming, which seems to me a pretty reductive reading of an incredibly complex/diverse period of literary production. I'll admit, I have not given Sir Philip his fair share of time in my studies; not for lack of interest but simply time. I will, however, hesitate to agree with you about him, based upon what I know of the Arcadia, and what my professors have said about him. And even then, Milton, Shakespeare, Donne, Marlowe, Spenser, Tasso, Dante, Ariosto (to go Italian) would heartily agree with my comments. So it's not as though I'm just making this up, even if there may be exceptions. And I strenuously protest the idea that arguing that there is truth is reductive - entirely the opposite, I believe. But again - I'm a traditionalist, and I don't care much for theory. So therein lies the true dispute, I daresay. Edited February 18, 2012 by hawkeye7269 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thestage Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) I think we need to stop a moment and consider whether this notion of some "truth" that hawkeye and stage are defending I've tried to be careful to avoid that, specifically. I think "truth" might in this scenario be one of those wittgensteinian terms that impede productive debate or thought by virtue of their inability to be properly defined. Apart from all notions of objective/subjective discourse, social and historical influences and determinations, or the malleability, ambiguity, or impermanence of text, there is a sense that when we talk about non propositional "truth," we are chasing phantoms. Maybe what we can say is that a text is capable of producing propositional truths within the careful, capable, and interested reader via non propositional presentation, but I remain unconvinced that this is a useful definition of literature, or, indeed, a purpose or goal that, when taken entirely by itself, is enough to drive either the interests of the discipline or of myself personally. All I do mean to say is that attempts to throw out the skill, nuance, force, and nobility of great works by saying "ehh, value is unreachable, one text is as good as another for the purpose of the intellect, quality is illusory, and great artists are nothing but purified slaves of the zeitgeist" are to me extremely misguided. Edited February 18, 2012 by thestage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koolherc Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) Koolherc, I would agree with your comment, but it's undercut by those writers' belief in God, which renders moot the point about literature being mostly biology/culture derived. The existence of God is not my point here - simply that, if you believe in God, as Shakespeare did, you believed in one singular truth. And wrote about it. I'm simply making the historical point here. Heh. A wolf in sheep's clothing is no sheep. Just because he searched for and pointed to a bundle of cultural artifacts that he called "God" doesn't mean that God it was. Or, perhaps put most sympathetically, it was only such at his time and for his subculture, and is no longer. Indeed, there's a bit of culturalcentricity going on here. An anthropologist would easily be able to identify Shakespeare's efforts (and the efforts of the profs who study him subsequently) as part of a cultural exercise. We posted similar insights at the same time. This issue is so complex. I'm most interested in the possibility of establishing some standards (literary or moral) from a postmodern position of doubt. Is such a thing possible? (disclaimer: the above is somewhat related to research interests currently trending with me.) Why not? People do it all the time. I mean, you just said an issue was "complex." *shrug* Edited February 18, 2012 by koolherc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koolherc Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) I've tried to be careful to avoid that, specifically. I think "truth" might in this scenario be one of those wittgenstein terms that impede productive debate or thought by virtue of their inability to be properly defined. Apart from all notions of objective/subjective discourse, social and historical influences and determinations, or the malleability, ambiguity, or impermanence of text, there is a sense that when we talk about non propositional "truth," we are chasing phantoms. Maybe what we can say is that a text is capable of producing propositional truths within the careful, capable, and interested reader via non propositional presentation, but I remain unconvinced that this is a useful definition of literature, or, indeed, a purpose or goal that, when taken entirely by itself, is enough to drive either the interests of the discipline or of myself personally. Unless of course it is indeed the case, in which case it would be by definition enough to drive you. EDIT: woooooooooo friday night! I have work tomorrow morning. Quick, someone say something so controversial that I'm forced to just give up. Edited February 18, 2012 by koolherc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawkeye7269 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Heh. A wolf in sheep's clothing is no sheep. Just because he searched for and pointed to a bundle of cultural artifacts that he called "God" doesn't mean that God it was. Or, perhaps put most sympathetically, it was only such at his time and for his subculture, and is no longer. Indeed, there's a bit of culturalcentricity going on here. An anthropologist would easily be able to identify Shakespeare's efforts (and the efforts of the profs who study him subsequently) as part of a cultural exercise. Yes, but whether God exists isn't the question. Shakespeare thought He did, and thus believed in truth, and thus we must approach his writing with that in mind! We have to understand what HE was saying, not what we try and make him say. But thats just how I approach literature, and I know its not the popular way to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koolherc Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) I definitely agree with all that.* But I think we can do both. Silly psychoanalytic interps of his work are fine, too. *assuming we can access his understandings of truth, God, other things, etc. edit: I should say that I'm not pursuing graduate level English Lit studies... Edited February 18, 2012 by koolherc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DorindaAfterThyrsis Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I'll admit, I have not given Sir Philip his fair share of time in my studies; not for lack of interest but simply time. I will, however, hesitate to agree with you about him, based upon what I know of the Arcadia, and what my professors have said about him. And even then, Milton, Shakespeare, Donne, Marlowe, Spenser, Tasso, Dante, Ariosto (to go Italian) would heartily agree with my comments. So it's not as though I'm just making this up, even if there may be exceptions. And I strenously protest the idea that arguing that there is truth is reductive - entirely the opposite, I believe. But again - I'm a traditionalist, and I don't care much for theory. So therein lies the true dispute, I daresay. Is my Donne the same Donne you're reading? And I think you should take a look at "Astrophil and Stella 1" for a nice, compact summation of Sidney's literary theory. Hell, you don't have to read beyond line 1 to get a sense of how willingly (and gleefully!) he toys with and subverts the categories of "truth" and "art". (This has nothing to do with theory, btw. This is pure, unadulterated close reading, which you say is your bag.) Sidney is way more fun than your prof is letting him be, traditionalist or not. (and of course, I mean no offense by any of this. Opposing readings make the academic world go round. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Espressos Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 PS. Two Espressos - in regard to your thought/question about those things like murder which just seem naturall wrong - CS Lewis has a lot to say about the nature of value systems in his short, excellent book "The Abolition of Man." I highly recommend it, very thought provoking! Hm, I'm not sure that I'd enjoy reading any more C.S. Lewis, haha. As a former Christian (now agnostic/atheist), I read too much C.S. Lewis for my liking in my youth (nearly all fiction, however)...The Screwtape Letters, Chronicles of Narnia, etc. These questions about value systems and ethics are perpetual issues in moral philosophy. I know that Walter Sinnot-Armstrong has a book called Morality Without God or something like that that argues for a moral system without a deity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thestage Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) Silly psychoanalytic interps of his work are fine, too. Stephen Dedalus, there is yet a place for you! Edited February 18, 2012 by thestage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now