Leavis overreaches. To say there are only four (maybe five if you include Lawrence) “great” English novelists worth reading about is to limit yourself in the extreme. I understand his early point that “It is necessary to insist, then, that there are important distinctions to be made, and that far from all the names in the literary histories really belong to the realm of significant creative achievement” (653). Bad literature has been written; we know it; we have read it but to limit ourselves (and subsequently our canon) to only a minor set of very few authors as Leavis does is an injustice to other authors who might have more merit in our eyes then do Austen or Eliot or James. Leavis was a little too driven by the general dissatisfaction of his era. Reacting to the void modern life had become in the 1920s, he wants to accuse future writers of having no inherent value to offer in their works. They are not “worth reading” in his eyes. And yet, what does he give us other than his opinion that these four authors are the ones that should be written? He seems to have picked the names of Austen, Conrad, James and Eliot out of an arbitrary hat since he does not offer us either generalized criteria but mere subjective opinion: “Disraeli[‘s]….interests as expressed in [his] books…are so mature” (Footnote 1 653). I confess myself very dissatisfied with his argument overall.
Emily Franzen12/2/07
Long time, no post--reaching back to Leavis
This is reaching back a little bit into the past since I have had this blog writen for some time now but computer troubles / my own hopelessness with infernal machines like computers have bungled up my postings. So, if you will excuse me for going back to Leavis, this is my two cents.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Emily, I understand your frustration. I find myself frustrated with any discussion of great literature, or what belongs in the canon that is extremely narrow. These extremely small groups seem to be self-perpetuating, they just reinforce what is already considered great, placing them as the ideal. These works seem to be beyond criticism and we just continue to analyze them to find new elements.
But at the same time, as many of our class discussions illustrate, I really don't know how anyone can make these decisions about the cut off for great literature or great authors. Just as we seem to approach a line, something comes up that moves the line to somewhere else. There seems to be an overall sense that there must be some distinction between objectively good literature, and subjectively someone's favorite. However, I'm less and less sure that we can ever see that distinction
As a group, we could probably never see a true distinction of what is good and what is bad, but I believe as individuals we truly think we know what is "good" and what is "bad." Maybe it is about something inside of us that craves this simplification of all of the material we are given. It makes more sense to look at the societal reasons why certain people look at certain texts as better than others. Is the woman reading Tolstoy on the subway wealthier than the woman reading People Magazine? What books have you read--do they tell your social status, or what you perceive that status to be? Also, is someone reading Tolstoy more intelligent than someone reading People? Do you perceive them as such? People read things for reasons that are so complex they don't understand, and the public judges them based on these choices. Do you enjoy a book because it is really pleasurable, or just because it should be?!
I agree with Brian that there is something inherent in an individual that makes us need a distinction between good and bad. The problem comes when that individual tries to impose their personal distinction on others. I confess, I have read certain books that are considered classics and claimed to love them. But when I think back on my reading experience, I don’t think I can distinguish whether I loved them because they truly moved me or because I knew as I was reading that it is generally considered a “great” work and has been touted as one for years. Instead of trying to define the distinction between good and bad, it makes sense to just accept that everyone has their own opinion, and then analyze the root of the differences in opinion. Also, it would be interesting to analyze why there is this basic need for a true distinction in the first place. Looking at the societal reasons, as Brian suggested, would certainly be fascinating. This would also lead to more invigorating discussions because there wouldn’t really be a right or wrong answer to search for.
Post a Comment