The Purpose of Literature
In his introduction to the new anthology, Vital Signs: Essential AIDS Fiction (a very good collection, BTW), Dale Peck drops this line:
"It's important to remember that literature doesn't facilitate understanding but rather empathy, which is a very different proposition; and for some people the mere fact of a book's existence can effect extraordinary personal change."
I remember a lot of English teachers telling us that we read to learn and understand about other people and cultures, but Peck's assertion above seems to be more to the point.
Any thoughts?
"It's important to remember that literature doesn't facilitate understanding but rather empathy, which is a very different proposition; and for some people the mere fact of a book's existence can effect extraordinary personal change."
I remember a lot of English teachers telling us that we read to learn and understand about other people and cultures, but Peck's assertion above seems to be more to the point.
Any thoughts?
Labels: Dale Peck, literature, Vital Signs, Vital Signs: Essential AIDS Fiction
posted by Neil Ellis Orts at 10:58 AM
2 Comments:
I was still stuck on the "prescriptive" vs. "descriptive" dichotomy, and I found the latter not enough of a purpose but the former too scary (visions of propaganda arise). The idea of eliciting empathy is a beautiful alternative for me. BTW, greetings from a former LSPS classmate, now planning on moving on into writing.
okay, that's just not enough information. :)
Which classmate? What writing? Send me an email at neilellisorts (at) yahoo (dot) com.
As to the prescriptive/descriptive notion, I can say "yes" to both, though with a constant warning for either. I once heard that literature (or maybe it was art in general) was to show us the world not only as it is, but also as it can be. I think that also gets at the prescriptive/descriptive dichotomy, at least a little bit. To misquote Ecclesiastes, there is a time to tell it how it is, and a time to tell how it can be. To only describe can make lovely work. It can even allow the reader to come to his/her own conclusion---but the author/artist has to be comfortable that the possibility that the conclusions reached are not the author's/artist's. For example, a detailed description of slum life might lead one to create a food kitchen, another to create jobs in the neighborhood, another to say "let's just set the whole place on fire and start fresh." With prescriptive approach, one might suggest the correct path to take in response to the description. I personally think subtlety is better than a sledge hammer approach, but not everyone would agree (obviously).
I also think some of the work of a prophet is to have a foot firmly planted on each side of the dichotomy: Truth-telling and inciting to a vision of what can be.
I would also suggest that most dichotomies are nearly inherently false and that there is usually a "third way." Therein lies a holy tension. But I'm starting to wax theological, if only because you've identified yourself as a theologian. :)
And I've waxed enough for now. Must now go wane. Or something.
-Neil
Post a Comment
<< Home