Ngugi and the Purpose of Literature

In the essay, “On the Abolition of the English Department,” Ngugi expresses his opinion of the purposes of reading and studying literature, more specifically, African literature. His essay is directed towards his fellow Kenyans, and he questions the English Department that the university has now, arguing that a new department with African literature at the center should replace it.

So what does Ngugi think that the purpose of literature is? He believes that “[t]he primary duty of any literature department is to illuminate the spirit animating a people, to show how it meets new challenges, and to investigate possible areas of development and involvement” (NA 2094). For Ngugi, literature is a window to finding identity, particularly cultural identity. Studying African literature is a way to support the culture that one has come from, a way to understand culture and a group of people, a way to face the future.

Ngugi thinks that studying African literature can be a tool for understanding the nation of Africa (NA 2096). What better way to learn about your own nation, its history, its development, and its culture than to read the works of your own people? Understanding can happen more easily when reading works that have endured the history of your nation, and are the very roots of your nation.

I really like Ngugi’s argument that literature is a means of liberation (NA 2095). It offers a “multi-disciplinary outlook,” while enabling the students who study it to learn and see “fresh approaches” to new and different art forms (NA 2095). Literature allows “the student to be familiar with art forms different in kind and historical development from Western literary forms,” therefore broadening the scope of the student (NA 2095) from just the European literary forms to the African art forms as well. Through this, literature becomes a type of forward thinking, and a way to focus on the future.

Hughes and the Author

In his essay, “The Negro Artist and the Racial Mountain,” Langston Hughes addresses the question, “What is the author?” or rather, “What is the artist?”

Hughes believes that the Negro artist faces racial challenges, especially Negro artists like the young Negro poet that he describes in the beginning of the essay. The poet is a Negro, and he wants to be a poet, but a White poet, not a Negro poet, as a result of Caucasian racial influences both inside and outside of his home (NA 1313-1314). Hughes seems to believe that the author is shaped by what they are taught, and agreeably so. “..[H]ow difficult it would be for an artist born in such a home to interest himself in interpreting the beauty of his own people. He is never taught to see that beauty. He is taught rather not to see it, or if he does, to be ashamed of it when it is not according to Caucasian patterns” (NA 1314). How can the artist recognize what he is not taught to recognize? How can he even know that the beauty of his people exists, when White influences are all he knows? How can the artist see that he has beauty to communicate, or a truth to communicate, if such truths are always stifled? For Hughes, he is sorry for this poet, this artist (NA 1313), because he is approaching African American artistry in the wrong way.

Hughes also believes that the Negro artist, or any artist, “must be free to choose what he does, certainly, but he must also never be afraid to do what he might choose” (NA 1317). I agree with Hughes on this point, that artistic freedom should be available, but that the artist should never feel ashamed of what they choose to produce, or what they choose to reveal. According to Hughes, artists can be “free within [them]selves” (NA 1317), they can reach the truth because it is accessible within their very being.

Woolf: Serving the Reader

In her essay, A Room of One’s Own, Virginia Woolf writes of the notion of the androgynous mind, that is, when the mind encompasses both sexes, and they correspond together. Woolf views this mind as a type of spiritual cooperation, with both sexes within the mind working together, “united in order to get complete satisfaction and happiness” (NA 1025). When reading this, I was thinking what?! How in the world is somebody supposed to accomplish this? How does Woolf suggest that people become this way? Are we to train our minds to think “man-womanly,” or “woman-manly?” (NA 1026).

Although Woolf does not specifically address my questions, she does describe what this androgynous mind should look like, and says that the androgynous mind “is resonant and porous; that it transmits emotion without impediment; that it is naturally creative, incandescent and undivided” (NA 1026). This type of mind should resound with everything both male and female, and, with this type of capability, should be able to communicate any type of emotion to any type of reader without any problem because it transcends the singular, gendered mind.

It seems to me that Woolf believes that with this type of mind, the one who is author will be able to emotionally serve every type of reader, and will be able to reach both male and female readers. Woolf cautions the female reader against reading books by Mr. Galsworthy and Mr. Kipling because, within their pages, the female reader will not find what she is looking for (NA 1028). But what is the female reader looking for? What is it that she so desperately needs to find?

I think that Woolf would say that the female reader is seeking an intimate, emotional connection that non-androgynous minds simply cannot provide, and, without this androgyny, the reader cannot be properly served.

Bourdieu and Taste

In the very beginning of his essay, Distinction, Pierre Bourdieu raises a point of how culture and education work together to determine taste. He claims based upon surveys that “scientific observation shows that cultural needs are the product of upbringing and education” (NA 1809). Whatever people decide that that they need, or whatever their culture determines what they need is based specifically on class distinctions, as upbringing and education are two major factors affected by class distinction.

Bourdieu then goes on to say that specific tastes of art rely on class distinctions or are a result of class distinctions, and that with the “socially recognized hierarchy of the arts…corresponds a social hierarchy of the consumers” (NA 1809). Certain consumers, depending on their social status, are taught which types of art to like, and know how to appreciate such kinds of art simply because that was exactly how they were raised.

This idea is somewhat frightening to me. It makes sense, but I don’t necessarily want to believe it. Do we like things not because we truly, genuinely like them, but because we have been told to like them and taught to like them? Before I was an English major at Messiah College, I really did enjoy books like The Catcher in the Rye and Crime and Punishment, but was it only because the public schooling aspect of our culture chose to teach them to me and therefore I liked them? When I began to study English at Messiah, there were poets and authors that I had not liked before I studied them, but then I learned to like them because I learned how to appreciate them, so do I like them just because I know how to appreciate them, or because I genuinely enjoy their work? I’m not even sure that these things can be separated…comments?

Ohmann and Culture

Before reading Ohmann, I had never thought before of exactly how much culture and society influences the books that we read. We read things because we are told to read them, and so that we can participate socially with what we’ve read.

Ohmann really hits the nail on the head when he states that “culture is itself a core industry and a major source of capital accumulation” (NA 1889) because, and this goes for any type of culture, we as humans buy into culture; we see what culture presents, and we want to be a part of it and want to participate in it. When it comes to our literary culture, we hear the books that are being raved about, or the books that are presenting great controversies, and so we read them to be active in the industry of culture.

Ohmann also says that culture “is inseparable from the making and selling of commodities” (NA 1889), that is, commodities practically fuel culture, and are completely engrained in the culture that we live in. Books as commodities was something I had never thought twice about, but they are marketed to the general public in a certain way, targeting specific audiences for profits, just like any other commodity. I never before realized that this would affect the literary canon, and Ohmann proves that it does.

Also on culture, Ohmann states that we have a “rapidly changing cultural process that calls for new and flexible ways of thinking about culture” (NA 1889). In what kinds of ways do we need to be thinking about culture, especially literary culture? Ohmann is obviously making a call to action, and he argues that we need to think differently about social classes and Marxist ideas to begin to understand this new, changing culture that is based on the buying and selling of commodities (NA 1889).

On Storytelling

In the first section of “The Storyteller,” Walter Benjamin immediately argues that the storyteller “has already become something remote from us and something that is getting even more distant,” and declares “that the art of storytelling is coming to an end.” Why is this happening? Benjamin thinks an obvious reason is that “experience has fallen in value.”

While the culture that we live in today is certainly not an oral culture with traditions of stories being passed down, and while our culture doesn’t really offer a career deemed “Storyteller,” I would have to disagree with some of Benjamin’s initial arguments.

Benjamin says that “more and more often there is embarrassment all around when the wish to hear a story is expressed.” I think this statement is ridiculous; the majority of the way people communicate is through telling stories, and asking somebody to tell a story is very commonplace. Now I know that people don’t just walk up to each other and say, “Please tell me a story.” But people do say “Remember that time when…” and “So this thing happened Saturday night…” and “This is what happened then, this is what needs to happen now…” etc. Even if people don’t realize it, they tell stories on a daily basis, and need to hear stories on a daily basis for more than just entertainment.

Back to Benjamin’s main argument: “experience has fallen in value.” Does Benjamin mean that what we experience is no longer valuable, or that the value of our experiences has lessened? Experience “that goes from mouth to mouth” seems to be the important kind of experience for Benjamin, but does that mean if our experiences don’t necessarily happen that way, that they are less of an experience? Is Benjamin saying that because we don’t experience something through a story, that experience loses value? Comments?

A Passage from Pope

This week for outside reading, I read Alexander Pope’s “An Essay on Criticism,” which is on pages 441-458 of the NA. I wanted to focus on a particular passage of his, and dissect it a bit:

Nature to all things fix’d the Limits fit,

And wisely curb’d proud Man’s pretending Wit:

As on the Land while here the Ocean gains,

In other Parts it leaves wide sandy Plains;

Thus in the Soul while Memory prevails,

The solid Pow’r of Understanding fails;

Where Beams of warm Imagination play,

The Memory’s soft Figures melt away.

One Science only will one Genius fit;

So vast is Art, so narrow Human Wit:

Not only bounded to peculiar Arts,

But oft in those, confin’d to single Parts.

(Pope, lines 52-63, NA 442)

The argument that Pope is making through this passage seems deeply grounded in Romanticism, and, although Emerson is born after Pope has already passed, they write of the same ideas. Pope says “Nature…wisely curb’d proud Man’s pretending Wit” (lines 52-53) to possibly mean that nature has sort of brought the human mind back down to earth, that is, nature has humbled the human mind because the mind is limited. And so the connection can be found to Emerson because he argues that the mind, through poetry, will always fall short. Pope blatantly brings out this notion of the fall of the mind by saying “The solid Pow’r of Understanding fails” (line 57). Emerson would also argue that poetry itself has fallen away, but it can, however, point to the ideal world that poets can never reach. Pope would agree, saying that our “narrow Human Wit” (line 61) is “confin’d to single Parts” (line 63). Having said that, I find it interesting that Pope used an actual poem to express his feelings on the human mind and the ideal world, which poets can never reach, according to Emerson.

Foucault and the Third Scenario

Since we never got to discuss the third scenario that Dr. Powers gave to us in class, I thought I would make a blog out of it.

So in a nutshell, this third scenario is about a writer who achieved great success, and after his death, scholars found out that he plagiarized his plots, some of his actual language, and that some of his passages were products of collaborative exchanges with other artists.

My instinctive reaction? Well, he plagiarized, so the ideas were not his own and his language was copied. Based on this, he should not still receive credit for those works which include those violations. But for his passages that were products of collaborative exchanges, I do not think those should be discredited, because learning happens from collaboration all the time. If someone else’s idea caused him to write more of his own ideas, then write on (no pun intended).

But what about Foucault’s reaction to this scenario? Well in the text, Foucault offers the example of texts that we have deemed “literary” such as folk tales and epics that never even had an author’s name pinned to them. They “were accepted, circulated, and valorized without any question about the identity of their author. Their anonymity was ignored because their real or supposed age was a sufficient guarantee of their authenticity” (1628 NA). With that example, I think Foucault would argue that since some texts that we consider literary don’t even have authors pinned to them, why should it matter about what this writer did? His ideas were still important, they are even used in schools.

To stem from the fact that his ideas, whether original or not, are still important in schools and within culture, Foucault would still say that the fact that he plagiarized doesn’t matter simply because the ideas on which he wrote were worthwhile. Foucault states “the author is a particular source of expression who, in more or less finished forms, is manifested equally well, and with similar validity…” According to these criteria, the writer is still an author because even though he expressed other people’s ideas, he still expressed them. Although the language was not original or his most important passages taken from collaborations, they were still manifested equally well, and each work was valid.

On Subjectivity in “Structural Analysis of Narrative”

Ok, so I’m an English major, and one of my wonderful roommates is a Christian ministries major with a minor in business. Just the other day as she was doing some reading that she had to digest and make sense out of for homework, she said, “I wish I could just be doing math problems right now. Then I would know there was a right answer. This reading is all subjective.”

For AGES, math/science-type people have always been commenting to literature-type people that our work is easier; we don’t have to arrive at an exact answer like they do because anything goes when you’re just reading and interpreting a book.

If my roommate had expressed this to Todorov, he would’ve told her that her idea was “untenable” (NA 2102). He would certainly disagree with this idea, and he also disagrees with the popular argument against using scientific principles in literary analysis (NA 2102), that “…science must be objective, whereas the interpretation of literature is always subjective” (NA 2101). Todorov argues by saying that “ [t]he critic’s work can have varying degrees of subjectivity; everything depends on the perspective he has chosen. This degree will be much lower if he tries to ascertain the properties of the work rather than seeking its significance for a given period or milieu.”

So Todorov is saying that yes, there can be an amount of subjectivity when a work is being critiqued, but if you take a structuralist perspective, the amount of subjectivity will lessen as opposed to if you tried to critique a work based on its context. I would agree with this point that Todorov is making. Whenever I get the “reading is all subjective” comments, my instinct is to think no it isn’t, and to say that there are certain components that a work is critiqued on; one can’t get away with saying just anything in their interpretation of literature.

But then Todorov says, “On the other hand there is no social science (or science whatsoever) which is totally free of subjectivity.” So how does this make sense, and how does this help the structuarlist argument he is trying to make?

Well Todorov is saying that science itself is also subjective because choosing theoretical concepts require a subjective decision, and then he defends literary analysis by scientific principles by saying “[t]he economist, the anthropologist, and the linguist must me subjective also; the only difference is that they are aware of it and they try to limit…[it]” (2102).

Reading and "The Affective Fallacy"

When we were discussing “The Affective Fallacy” by Wimsatt and Beardsley in class yesterday, Karen raised the question that if we cannot base the meaning of the poem off of the intent of the poet, then is it completely legitimate to have a million different interpretations of a poem, and say that the poem really does mean what I think it means, and what someone else thinks it means, and so on and so forth?

One of the ways that Wimsatt and Beardsley would field this question would be to say that

“[t]he more specific the account of the emotion induced by a poem,

The more nearly it will be an account of the reasons for emotion, the

poem itself, and the more reliable it will be as an account of what the

poem is likely to induce in other—sufficiently informed—readers.

It will in fact supply the kind of information which will enable readers

to respond to the poem.” (NA 1398-1399)

So, according to Wimsatt and Beardsley, if a poem’s emotion is specific enough, then there really should be no problem in finding out what it means, if you are a “sufficiently informed reader,” that is. If the poem is good enough, it will give the reader the information they need to figure out what it means, and these interpretations will be similar to other readers’ interpretations.

We discussed this quotation in our small group, and we came to the agreement that Wimsatt and Beardsley would say that the form of the poem, even down to the way the words are situated on the page, will be enough for the reader to determine meaning. The concreteness of the poem will be how you find the meaning.

What strikes me is how Wimsatt and Beardsley describe the reader: “sufficiently informed” (NA 1399). Am I a sufficiently informed reader? I would certainly hope so, but, say, for instance, someone was reading a poem, and was not “sufficiently informed,” would their interpretation of the poem be illegitimate, even if they could properly justify their argument? And is poetry too high a form of reading to be read by everyone, informed or not? Someone can do their best to critically read, and perhaps not be “sufficiently informed,” so does that mean their response should not be taken into account?

Eliot & The Catalyst

I wanted to sort of flesh out Eliot’s analogy of the catalyst because I find myself questioning Formalism in general based on a poet writing from their own context and their own experience, and, before I get into my questions, I’m going to map out what Eliot is saying with his catalyst idea.

Eliot believes that the poet’s mind is a catalyst (NA 1095); the poet fills his mind with both tradition and experience, and then, as Dr. Powers explained to us in class, the mind works as a catalyst to bring these two things into relationship with one another, thus creating something different from both tradition and experience: the poem.

So the poem is the end result, and I understand that it is something different and separate from both tradition and experience, but this is where I begin to question the Formalist argument because tradition and experience still had to be used to create the poem; they were still very necessary elements to get to the end result of the poem.

I think that Eliot would agree that tradition and experience are important elements to create the poem, but he goes on to argue that the whole point of a poet writing a poem is that they have “a particular medium” to express, and not a “personality” (NA 1096).

But why would a poet want only to express this medium, and not write to express their emotion, or their feelings, or their experience? Eliot says that a poet does make use of “impressions and experiences” (NA 1096), so much that they are able to combine them to create and give the reader “a new art emotion” (NA 1097). He argues that the poet uses what they know and what they feel to evoke a brand new emotion for the reader to feel.

So I completely understand the logic of Eliot’s argument here with the catalyst, and even though he would agree that tradition and experience are important in the making of the poem, he argues that when the poem is being read, the reader cannot connect with the author. I simply just don’t understand this. Am I missing something?? How can the reader not be allowed to connect with the author when the poem they are reading indirectly resulted from the poet’s very own experiences?

Formalism and Messiah College's English Department

As we have been discussing Formalism in class this week, I can’t help but begin to assess our own learning that happens in our very own department at our very own college. I’ve been asking myself all week if Formalist ideas influence the way we learn, and the ways that our professors teach.

The reason that I ask this question has stemmed from Eliot’s idea that when you read a poem, you are not in touch with the poet, and from Wimsatt and Beardsley’s idea that the object of reading a poem is to pay attention to the poem itself, not the author’s psyche or history.

Dr. Powers first brought up this notion of the poet being separate from the voice of the poem when we were asked to read “We Wear the Mask” by Paul Laurence Dunbar and figure out what it meant before and after we knew part of Dunbar’s biographical history. Dr. Powers said that, when reading poetry, most readers will assume that the poet is the narrator within the poem, that readers tend to assume that the voice within the poem is that of the poet’s.

During my career at Messiah College, I have taken Intro to Creative Writing, and am now in Poetry Workshop, both taught by Dr. Roth. In both of these classes I have workshopped poetry, and, when workshopping, Dr. Roth always has us ask 3 important questions, one of which is “What is the poem saying?”

So immediately we are asked to infer meaning from the poem, and, right now in Poetry Workshop, it is a rule that, when we are workshopping, we are not allowed to assume that the voice of the narrator in the poem is the author of the poem; we must read the poem assuming that the voice or experience in the poem is separate from the poet.

To me, this is blatantly Formalist because, as Dr. Powers explained, Wimsatt and Beardsley argue in “The Intentional Fallacy” that the poem is not ascribable to the poet, and that the quest after author’s intent is wrong.

I can certainly see how studying poetry in a Formalist light can strengthen the mind of the reader because you are forced to critically read a poem and become a student of the poem. However, I’m not sure if I agree completely with Formalism because if the poet authored the poem in the first place, then they wrote it with intent and within a certain context, and, because of the poet’s own experience, their words and meaning cannot help but to be affected; experience affects everything, so I have a hard time just discounting it.

So is it wrong to study poetry just through the lenses of Formalism? I would like to get some responses on this, and I’m curious if people have had a similar experience to mine, or just thoughts in general.

Just for a reference, here's the English Department's Mission Statement.

Emerson's "Art"

For outside research this week, I read Emerson’s essay entitled “Art” from www.rwe.org, the same website that “The American Scholar” is from. I was interested particularly in this article because when we were discussing the meaning of authorship for the first time in the first week of class, some of us defined the author as an artist, and I wanted to get Emerson’s opinion on artists to see how it compared with his opinions of the poet.

In the very first sentence of the essay, Emerson addresses the soul and how it progresses, and immediately begins to talk about the other world beyond this world, referring to it as “a new and fairer whole” (Art 1). He goes on to say that “in our fine arts, not imitation, but creation is the aim” (Art 1), just as he said about poetry and imagination. Emerson believes that, like the poet, the artist has an “englarged sense” of the world and the symbols around him, and that in order for the artist to create art, he must “form…[it]…out of the old” (Art 1).

So Emerson basically has the same viewpoint of the artist as he does of the poet, but what about the reader and the person who studies art? Does Emerson think that art is meant only for inspiration, like books? Is he suspicious of those who study art in the same way that he is hesitant about the motives of the reader? Unfortunately, Emerson does not discuss the man who studies art, but he does discuss the extent of art, sort of like the extent of poetry.

When I say “extent,” I mean how far can art go? How far can it take us? For Emerson, “we must end with a frank confession, that the arts, as we know them, are but initial” (Art 4), that is to say, the arts are only the beginning. Once again, with a finite mind, the artist can attempt to reach truth through his art, but it is just the beginning of an attempt that will always fail. In the same way as Emerson’s idea of poetry, art will not suffice to reach truth.

Values of Formalism in Eliot

Just based on Eliot, the first primary value of formalism that I can notice is a positive stance on reading. Eliot says that

criticism is as inevitable as breathing, and that we should be none the worse for articulating what passes in our minds when we read a book and feel an emotion about it, for criticizing our own minds in their work of criticism. (NA 1092)

Eliot is simply asserting that when a person reads, they can’t help but to critique what they are reading, to analyze it, to think about it. And when one does think about their reading, it is not a bad thing to think on one’s thoughts in relation to reading. It is fair to conclude that Eliot believes that contemplating what we read and “criticizing our own minds in their work of criticism” (NA1092) is a good thing.

Eliot’s positive opinion of reading differs from the Romantic viewpoint greatly; the Romantics believe just the opposite, in fact. They are quite suspicious of reading, as Emerson’s The American Scholar portrays, and believe that reading is only for inspiration. Any kind of thinking about reading is allowing someone else’s thoughts to pervade one’s own, thus hindering one’s imagination.

Another primary value of formalism that Eliot addresses is that literature is literature. Eliot argues that

[t]he business of the poet is not to find new emotions, but to use the ordinary ones and, in working them up into poetry, to express feelings which are not in actual emotions at all…Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion… (NA 1097)

The poet is not trying to discover more emotions, or even express emotions at all, rather the poet is articulating feelings that are not even within emotions. The poet deliberately escapes from emotion this way, and thus the poet is not expressing his own emotion or using poetry as a medium in which to articulate what he or she is feeling.

This value of formalism differs from the values of the Romantics because the Romantics believe that the poet is indeed trying to express what others cannot, including emotions. The poet tries to express ultimate truth, and uses poetry to get as close to truth as possible, where as for formalists, literature is literature, it is a work of art, and nothing else.

On Reading: Emerson vs. Pre-test

On my pre-test, I gave a general definition of what I thought reading was, and then began to explain my thoughts on reading as a form of communication. I said that when someone is reading effectively, they are understanding and comprehending what they are seeing, and because of that understanding, knowledge, etc. that they are gaining, the writer is then communicating to the reader.

According to his speech, “The American Scholar,” I think that Emerson would agree that the writer is indeed accomplishing communication as the person is reading the text. Emerson thinks that the scholar is greatly influenced by “the mind of the Past,” and that books themselves best serve this purpose, as well as “perhaps…[a way to]…get at the truth” (American Scholar 3). So for Emerson, the thoughts of the people that wrote before us serve as a way for people to reach the truth.

However, Emerson is sure to bring up his opinion of reading, one issue which is not included in my own definition of reading because I never would’ve thought of it on my own. While Emerson might think that the thoughts of authors before us serve as a way for people to attempt to reach truth, his main opinion comes in through how reading allows for people to attempt to reach truth. Emerson does not think that readers should read to adopt the views of the authors before them in order to find truth, but they should read only for illumination for their own new ideas, because to Emerson, books “are for nothing but to inspire” (American Scholar 4).

This viewpoint, as we have learned in class, is typically Romantic because if reading is meant only for inspiration, then we can conclude that Emerson believes that truth has not yet been found; it is still lurking out there, in another world beyond this one, that we cannot seem to reach. The authors that have already recorded haven’t found it yet, but perhaps by reading, people will be inspired to keep searching through their own writing. Emerson argues that reading is only for “the active soul;” reading is used only for creation (American Scholar 4) because “[o]ne must be an inventor to read well” (American Scholar 5). Reading is only actual reading when it is used to inspire and compose new ideas.

While Emerson approaches his argument in a convincing fashion, I’m not sure that I completely agree with it. Dr. Powers said in class this past Tuesday that Emerson believes that reading makes you an imitator, that reading allows for someone else’s imagination to be in charge of your own. But if reading allowed someone else’s imagination to take over your own, then how could it possibly inspire you? Imagination is a large part of inspiration, and if another’s imagination takes over the reader’s, how will the reader ever create?

Arnold, Literature, and the Will of God

Only two paragraphs into his excerpt from Culture and Anarchy, Arnold begins to discuss the motives behind culture, or literature: the scientific passion and social motivations (Norton Anthology 826). Arnold even goes so far to say that because of the social motivations behind literature, “[c]ulture is then properly described…as having its origin in the love of perfection; it is a study of perfection” (NA 826). This “a study of perfection” phrase really threw me; never before have I thought of reading literature as a pursuit of what is perfect, because nothing is truly perfect apart from the divinity of God.

So how is studying and reading literature the study of perfection? Arnold thinks that Bishop Wilson says it best: “ ‘To make reason and the will of God prevail!’ ” (NA 827). The will of God is certainly perfect, and I think that Christians should strive to acquire the reasoning necessary in order to determine the will of God for their lives, so in this sense, I think I am beginning to understand Arnold’s argument of literature…

But how exactly will reading literature lead someone to understanding the will of God? This seems much too easy. Arnold addresses this by saying that oftentimes we are “overhasty” because the reason behind searching for the will of God is “the passion for doing good” (NA 827). As Christians, we naturally want to please God and want to honor him, and so we act on these desires, without thinking of “all the imperfections and immaturities of this…basis of actions” (NA 827). So then what are we supposed to do if we are not supposed to act on the “passion for doing good,” and how does literature even play into this?

Arnold states that literature “…can remember that acting and instituting are of little use, unless we know how and what we ought to act and institute” (NA 827). Literature will not mislead the reader to acting frivolously and instituting what they should not, rather, it will serve as a guide to aid the reader in understanding what they should act on, and what they should employ in their life. Arnold believes that literature acts as a catalyst to help the reader grasp God’s will because it presents new ideas (NA 827). It does not allow the reader to just let “their old routine pass for reason and the will of God” (NA 827), but pushes them to learn these new ideas and to know that they must put these actions into practice; they must “make it prevail” (NA 828).

Hopefully more on this later…

Shelley and Ethics

Today in class, we had a small range of discussion over whether or not the reading of literature enables us to be more ethical persons according to Shelley. The second paragraph on page 700 of our anthology was brought up in order to answer this question, and Shelley would indeed say yes, reading literature does enable us to be more ethical persons.

Shelley begins his argument by stating that poetry “awakens and enlarges the mind” (Norton Anthology 700). In regards to ethics, we broke this down in class to say Shelley argues that reading poetry develops imagination, and imagination is the foundation of ethics. So we had to ask why imagination is the foundation, and Shelley answers that you need imagination to understand what someone else feels and experiences; you have to inhabit another person’s way of thinking (Norton Anthology 713).

Shelley also presents another argument as to why we are more ethical persons from the reading of literature: the poets before us. If poets such as Petrarch, Shakespeare, or Chaucer (to name a few) had never authored their works, or if the poetry in the Bible had never been interpreted for us to read, then the moral quality of our world would be so much lesser than what we have now (Norton Anthology 712). Why would this be the case? Simply because the wisdom of the poets before us yielded exactly what we need to know. According to Shelley, “[w]e have more moral, political and historical wisdom that we know how to reduce into practise.” We need to learn to work with the amount of knowledge that we already have because “we have eaten more than we can digest” (Norton Anthology 712). How does reading the poets before us make us more ethical persons? Through our minds being “awakened to the invention of grosser sciences,” we can apply what we know to how we participate in society (Norton Anthology 712).

On Authorship: Emerson vs. Pre-test

“What is an Author?” When pondering this question on my pre-test during the first week of classes, I evaluated an author in a very literal sense. I defined an author as one who writes or composes at any level, and they create a work so they, or someone else, can read it, interpret it, and understand it.

Luckily for me, this class commenced and immediately began to broaden the definition of authorship. We threw the idea around in group discussion of how an author is like an artist, and we tried to put our fingers on the purpose behind authorship. My guess was that an author writes in order to find meaning and in order to gain understanding. I would say that Emerson would disagree with me, for he believes that the poet is one who already understands the world around them, or at least thinks they do, and so the poet’s purpose goes much further. They write to articulate the symbols of the world because they have the ability in which to do so (Norton Anthology 730).

So as Emerson writes of the poet’s articulation in the third paragraph on page 730 of our anthology, he writes to answer the question, “How can poets articulate the symbols of the world better than anybody else?” Emerson would think this question important because, for him, authorship is a result of a “better perception” (730) and so this gives the poet the right, and the authority, to express how they interpret the symbols of the world. Poets interpret such symbols through their ability to “turn…the world to glass” and to “see…the flowing or metamorphosis” of nature (730).

In regards to the class discussion we had today on Emerson’s ideas of the fall, Emerson’s assertions leave me asking why, exactly, can a poet know the “true science” (731) of the world if poets always fall short with their interpretations?