A Few Final Comments: The Path Ahead

"Morals are open to being altered by literature; so that we find in practice that what is “objectionable” in literature is merely what the present generation is not used to. It is a commonplace that what shocks one generation is accepted quite calmly by the next."
~T.S. Eliot, "Religion and Literature"

“Literature celebrates the health of a culture; it reveals its depth and richness. …[and] when culture is not healthy, literature has a special utility in making a diagnosis of the situation, [although] a sound diagnosis of our condition, though it is necessary to the finding of a proper remedy, is not the same thing as the remedy.”
~Cleanth Brooks, "Community, Religion, and Literature"

Before you read this post, please read my post from May 1. That was supposed to be my final blog, but as you can tell, I'm definitely not done with the topic of literary criticism, and would very much like to find some answers to all the questions that have been raised for me throughout this semester (which really are more than you can begin to think of... call it crisis of reading, crisis of being a human, really, whatever you will...). When I was writing my critical essay, I read a lot of outside sources to adequately try to understand my topic (in a nutshell, "Do Christians have a responsibility to experience that which immediately seems to violate their standard moral values?"), and the topic was as much for my own necessity as it was for the class assignment. This question has been rolling around in my mind throughout this entire semester, and even though I argued for an experience of these things, I am still not done with the topic and want to pursue it further some day. But especially in light of what I wrote yesterday, I decided that I wanted to post a final blog dealing with these two quotes above, because I think they speak to my situation (and maybe some of your own) very well.

When I first read the quote by Eliot, I was taken aback. So simple in its profundity, I had never even realized that this was the truth. But look back at history (and since I am also a music major, I will start with that): Mozart and Beethoven were "crass" and a disgrace to the musical world. No one wanted to hear their music. Beethoven was even banned in many places, including the home, because his music supposedly "made women do things they shouldn't do" (I think your imagination can figure out the rest). But it didn't stop there. I remember my mother telling me stories about how her father told her to turn "that trash" of the Beatles off... seems ridiculous, doesn't it? The three people / groups I have just listed are now seen as the geniuses of the music world. And now, we spend our time trying to emulate them, keeping their music alive, etc. etc. And they were despised by the older generations when they first started out. It was the same with literature, although I do not know that as well as I do music (which I plan on changing quite soon). And it's the same with literature, music, theatre, movies, etc., now. The works of art that the older generation says is "bringing this country down" (yes, I have heard many people say that) are the very things that will be seen as masterpieces by subsequent generations. That's just the way history goes. But then you wonder, are our morals truly being altered by art? Are we necessarily losing our morality when we accept new forms of art? I would never in a million years call Beethoven's music an opposition to my Christian beliefs. In fact, his music not only is in line with anything I would believe as a Christian, but also lets see a glimpse of the glory of God (through his harmonies, his passions, etc... just listen. You'll understand). But what about music or literature today that uses foul language, sexual references (didn't Shakespeare do that too?), and anything else that seems to be offensive to our Christian morality? If we accept that, then are we losing our morality?

I am still thinking about this question, but I think Brooks' quotation above speaks to this topic, or at least a small portion of this topic, when he talks about literature (or any art for that matter) in making a diagnosis of an unhealthy situation. Yes, literature celebrates humanity in all its richness and beauty (we are, after all, the human creations of God Almighty), but it also can diagnose where it's going wrong... if we are astute enough to see that. And that means we have to be critical readers to see where the author is making a commentary on society, or if they are just perpetuating the wrongs. That, I think, involves a lot of prayer and humility on our part as we approach art (literature, music, visual art, etc.) today. Because many artists are actually writing commentaries on the wrongs in our society (and not viewed very highly because of it... the truth does hurt sometimes), even though they may be doing it in "covert ways" so as not to offend from the outset. We have to be discerning (again, with much prayer and humility) of what is a true diagnosis and what is only perpetuating the evil in society (we can't deny that there is evil...). But we can learn to read charitably, as Alan Jacobs promotes... as he says, you must seek to learn the whole truth, not just the good: "If you love a writer, if you depend upon the drip-feed of his intelligence, if you want to pursue him and find him- despite edicts to the contrary- then it's impossible to know too much. You seek the vices as well" (Julian Barnes, "Flaubert's Parrot" as quoted in Alan Jacobs).

In the end, as I have stated before, I am nowhere near finished in my study of literary criticism. Maybe no one else was as profoundly affected as I was... but then again, you take classes to figure out what you like sometimes. Although it was often providing many more questions than answers, Literary Criticism has made me a new reader, ready to see where art diagnoses humanity's faults or celebrates its richness. And it has set me up to be a reader who is informed by my Christian beliefs, even when I can't readily see where these studies will take me.

Again, thanks for listening. It's been a great three months, and really, the journey is just beginning....

A New Reader

"It turned out that you have to know how to read. It is not just a matter of letting your eyes run down the pages. Since Innokenty, from youth on, had been shielded from erroneous or outcast books, and had read only the clearly established classics [of the Marxist-Leninist canon], he had grown used to believing every word he read, giving himself up completely to the author's will. Now, reading writers whose opinions contradicted one another, he was unable for a while to rebel, but could only submit to one author, then to another, then to a third.
~"The First Circle," Solzhenitsyn (as quoted in Jacobs)

Perhaps it's not time for an ending post. Perhaps I still have a few (or many) thoughts dealing with literary criticism. But I read this quote from the Jacobs reading, and felt like it was more of an appropriate ending than anything I've read so far. So let me start with this: I am a new reader. I grew up "being shielded from erroneous or outcast books" (and music, and movies, and many, many other "questionable" things). My parents were just trying to do what was right - and the church backed up their efforts, as talk after talk and magazine after magazine told us that these books, etc., were "bad" and would harm my Christian walk, leading me down the paths of the evil world. I don't blame my parents. But I do oftentimes - especially after this class - wish it were otherwise.

I did grow up believing almost all of what I read in some way or another, because, supposedly, what I read was good and acceptable, so it must be true. Literary Criticism (and a few other English classes I am taking this final semester here), have introduced me to texts I never would have read otherwise, and even some texts that my parents and church would term "bad" (especially in one literature course I am taking right now). In reading all these different views, I have found myself asking what "truth" really is. This discussion has even continued into many different realms of my life, even into my new-found interest in politics. But I have had numerous conversations with people, and the main gist of those conversations is, "who do I believe" among all these conflicting views. And how in the world do I reconcile them with my Christianity without compromising. I have not talked about this in these blogs, first off, because that's personal, and this is a class blog, and second off, I didn't want anyone to misinterpret what I was trying to say. But some of the topics and texts we have covered this semester in all my classes (so this is cumulative now) have made me step back and reassess what I believe, why I believe it, and what I have been taught to believe my entire life. And I don't believe that's a bad thing. But this entire process is just that: a process, something that is really just beginning.

I just want to say that many of these posts had a lot of questions, many of them unanswered, because I don't have an answer. In effect, many of these posts were little essays... and please read them as such. This is my essai, as Bret Lott talks about in his memoir "Before We Get Started." These posts are trials or test runs. I'm still in the middle of figuring it all out, and I think it will take the rest of my lifetime to completely figure it out, especially because I am falling into the same trap of the quoted section above. Sad, yes. Beyond my control, not any more. As I read this, I realized what I had been trying to put words to all semester. I was not able to articulate arguments, even though I loved listening to them in class, but I didn't know what I truly believed about something because I never truly had to defend it before. Or to reassess if what I believed was really in line with the Jesus I serve. Or to get the chance to read things that my parents would say are "liberal," and see for myself what they were really all about. And they have said that to me before about books I have been reading in college. "Just be careful," my mother says. And I want to be careful. I want to weigh everything I read, in effect, being a literary critic throughout everything I do / read / watch, etc. But I also want to be able to "claim the right to evaluate and respond" to what I read (Jacobs 107).

So please excuse my questions and my ethical debates (even though those went on much more behind the scenes than you probably would like to believe). Please excuse my inarticulations and my gropings in the dark. But really, this is where I want to be. If I don't take the risk, how will I ever find out anything?

So thank you, to those who listened, and to those who helped put things in perspective (especially through class discussion, but also through your own blogs and some of your comments here too). Perhaps you will see me on here again (and perhaps soon). But at any rate, thank you for sharing in my questions, and for letting me ask those questions in the first place.

The Languages of the Bible

"Against unknown literal signs the sovereign remedy is a knowledge of languages. And Latin-speaking men, whom we have here undertaken to instruct, need two others for a knowledge of the Divine Scriptures, Hebrew and Greek, so that they may turn back to earlier exemplars if the infinite variety of Latin translations gives rise to any doubts. ...For there are some words in some languages which cannot be translated into other languages. And this is especially true of interjections which signify the motion of the spirit rather than any part of a rational concept. ...[a knowledge of this] is necessary on account of the variety of translations."
~Augustine, "On Christian Doctrine"

I really am fascinated by this new section of Christian theory / hermeneutics that we are studying in class, one that I think is so often neglected when studying the Bible in general. I thought of this quote when we were discussing the question of Biblical interpretation. Someone actually brought up the fact that when we interpret the Bible today for ourselves, we are actually "interpreting an interpretation," since the Bible wasn't originally written in English, but translated from the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin (not necessarily in that order - see, I don't even know how our English translation came about!). Therefore, choices were made when interpreting words and phrases from language to language, since Augustine himself talks about the discrepancies sometimes found between languages. And from this short talk on the topic, I was left with a lot of questions and thoughts on Biblical interpretation.

First off, let's just think about one of the questions we discussed in class as a spin-off from this main theme: Do all readers have authority to interpret a text, or do scholars have greater authority based on their greater expertise? From looking at the above context, it seems that only scholars would have the means to go back to the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin to see what the original texts actually said. Then they are able to aid us in our present-day interpretive quandaries. But the common person is not fluent in any of these languages, and therefore cannot even begin to see their original meanings. And with meanings also comes connotations to words. Each society attaches connotations to words and phrases, and different meanings come about for words as the years go on (just look at where a word like "gay" has come from over the centuries, and what it means now). So words and phrases that mean something to us now meant something totally different to the Biblical writers, hence where many of our interpretational difficulties come from. Now, commentaries are available for the common person who does not go to school for Biblical studies or for languages such as the ones mentioned above, but really, let's be honest, when was the last time any of us picked up a commentary or concordance when we read the Bible. I'll be honest: I never have, unless I had to for a class. And I've forgotten most of what I learned there.

I took my last Bible class last semester, and I will never forget something the professor said. Our study was going deep into historical contexts and into many other areas that I had never heard of in the church. The professor said that the average preacher would not know half of these things, for they do not go to school and study all the same things that Biblical professors study... their classes are different for the different degrees (I'm sure I'm grossly misquoting, but the point was that Biblical scholars often "know more" than the average preacher, and if they do know the same amount, there is no way they can cover such intense and obscure topics as we are talking about here in a Sunday sermon - they'd lose half the audience!). That leaves us with scholars who know more about the Bible, or can talk more about the Bible in different ways than the average preacher can on a Sunday morning, and therefore they have authority to help us interpret in ways we couldn't do because of lack of knowledge.

Going back to the beginning, the study of languages opens up a whole new arena for Biblical interpretation, because we are seeing the original language and what those words really were. And if we go into the historical context, we see what those words really meant to the people of that day. My Bible professor last semester often gave us the Greek interpretation of the passage we were reading, focusing on what the words really meant for the people then. It was an awakening for me. But in the end, that's as far as it went. I haven't researched any deeper into it (mostly for lack of time and energy, since life takes over with all its busyness). And that leads me to not be as much as an "authority" as my professor, since I do not know all that he knows. Yes, it is at my disposal with the advent of such a large dissemination of print texts, but I also need the time to go and find those books... and then read them.

In the end, I completely agree with Augustine, and even though I think we are all able to interpret texts in some fashion (isn't all of life an interpretation of sorts?), we cannot do it on the level that authorities can...

The Bible as Literature

"The writing, no matter how good it is, expresses something that (to non-Christians) is not true, so it seems like to them it would be impossible to appreciate the Bible in the way they would any other literary work. They would be left, as Pesta expresses, with merely studying the influence the Bible has had on history. The Bible is not literature; it is a course in culture." ~Danielle Sahm, April 19 Blog

As I was reading through blogs tonight, I was struck by Danielle's blog. I had actually talked a little bit about the Bible as literature, but I didn't really have the words to express everything fully. I thought Danielle did a great job and brought up a bunch of good points, and I'd just like to make a few of my own comments. In the above quote from her blog, she talks about the study of the Bible as literature in the secular arena only being a course in culture. She brings up the question of if we can study the Bible just for its genres and influence on history while ignoring its content, and also its Author.

Really, I agreed with her, but I will play devil's advocate for a few minutes. The Bible IS literature. It is a written word that has been passed down for generations. Can we deny the fact that it is literature? I don't think so. But to Christians, the Bible is much more than just this. It is the inspired word of God. We study it for its wisdom, for the word of God speaking directly to us. We read God's love letters to us through the Bible. It is our sacred book. Sacred literature. But what does that mean when we teach it as just literature? I have heard countless arguments saying that studying the Bible as literature takes away the sacredness of the book and relegates it to the status of any other work of literature. And in a way, I think it does. But it doesn't have to. Knowing that the Bible has literary elements in it (poetry, prose, parable, etc.) adds to the richness of the Bible. It is not just one book filled with the same type of writing, but a multitude of different writings that speak to every single aspect of the human condition. For Christians, I think studying this aspect of the Bible is not wrong or diminutive, but helpful.

Yet bringing that into secular settings may pose the problem. As Danielle said, it could become a study in cultural influences, which in and of itself may not be wrong. But ignoring the content, especially when it is seen as a holy book for a vast number of people, seems very wrong. And then I thought, do we study other religions' texts in the same way? Do we look at the Koran as only literature? Do we remember when doing this that other people view this as their sacred text? What really is going on here, and how far should we go in discussion the Bible as literature? And can we really discuss it without acknowledging the sacredness of this book to people and also the wisdom in its pages from God?

Reading and Writing: A Look at the Present

"...My colleagues and I have remarked on the increasing numbers of students that we have in our writing emphases, many of whom declare forthrightly that they really love writing but don't like to read so much. This, combined with the steady growth of creative writing programs across the country has led me to muse openly with my provost that we seem to be living and teaching at a moment when everyone wants to express themselves, but no one really cares to read much of anything being expressed."
~Pete Powers, "Reading Ethnic Literature Now"

I know this paragraph is not necessarily the focus of this essay (since it deals more with reading ethnic literature now... hence, of course, its name), but this section struck me quite readily as I was reading. Being a writing emphasis student, I wanted to comment on this... and I will start with my childhood. I was a very avid reader when I was younger. I could finish 300+ page books in less than 2 days. I remember curling up on my living room couch and reading all day long. My mom had to force me to take breaks from reading, because she said my eyes needed a break from 5-6 straight hours of staring at the page. I got lost in those worlds, though. I loved fiction. I didn't read much non-fiction, but that was ok. I was reading, and loving it. And then I finally entered middle school, high school, and eventually college. And my reading-for-pleasure days were over. Inundated with thick college textbooks and reading deadlines, I read just to survive.

Let me switch gears slightly... I have been in so many writing classes where the above quoted scenario has played itself out. I personally know many people who say they are English majors, but qualify it by saying they have a writing emphasis, and therefore do not read much, and then further qualify this by saying, "I'm not your normal English major." As if not reading makes you a "bad" English major, and writers want to be "bad" English majors, because that sets them apart from all the people who just sit and read all day, and then talk about what they read at night. No, we are writers, for goodness sakes, and we actually do something with our lives.

Perhaps I grossly exaggerate. Yes, I really probably do. But I have heard talk like this so many times before... and I would just like to conjecture something... I really do love reading. I could read for hours, and never get tired of soaking up the world through books. But do I do it on a regular basis, especially in addition to normal schoolwork? Not at all. I reached a record high last summer when I read about 8 books throughout ten weeks (you readers are saying, "That's it???"), and I had goals of keeping up extracurricular reading throughout this year. And you guessed... that definitely didn't happen. And I would never say I don't love reading, but I would say that the college lifestyle takes a toll on you... that such intensive study can sometimes make you lose the love you once had for reading (or anything else for that matter). With deadlines and reading of things others choose for us (however good those things may eventually be for us), it's sometimes hard to think of reading as anything else but another thing on the endless to-do list.

But what about those writing students? Because we are so focused on writing our own ideas about the world... with our profound need to express ourselves and assert our own individuality (which is done by most everyone at the college level to some capacity)... we forget that others have things to say too... things that will foster our own thoughts and creativity. But we are so burnt out with keeping up with deadlines and trying to write things that will get us good grades in this grade-conscious society of ours that we feel we have no time to read. And if we have no time, it slips to the sidelines. And soon we think we don't need to read, because we're doing so good without it anyway (our grades are telling us so) and perhaps we say, well, we don't have much of a desire to read anyway. We are writing, and that's what we want to do for the rest of our life.

Along with exaggerating, perhaps I also grossly over-generalize such things. But I think the intensity of college (and even high school) life forces reading (except for those things we must read as dictated by our professors) to the sidelines... and perhaps that is why we don't want to read. We're burnt out, and just trying to keep up with the writing and necessary reading we have to do in class... just something to ponder as we're reaching the end of yet another semester...

Oral Literature (Yet Another Take)

"The study of the oral tradition at the University should therefore lead to a multi-disciplinary outlook. ...Spontaneity and liberty of communication inherent in oral transmission - openness to sounds, sights, rhythms, tones, in life and in the environment - are examples of traditional elements from which the student can draw. More specifically, his familiarity with oral literature could suggest new structures and techniques; and could foster attitudes of mind characterized by the willingness to experiment with new forms, so transcending 'fixed literary patterns' and what that implies - the preconceived ranking of art forms."
~Ngugi, Liyong, and Owuor-Anyumba, "On the Abolishment of the English Department"

I looked at oral literature way back with lectures from Peter Wasamba, and I argued (or at least perhaps tried to argue) for the credibility of oral literature classes as he saw them. I didn't think much about that since then, until we read Ngugi's proposal for class today. And I thought his arguments were quite sound and rational. I know he was talking to primarily the Universities of Africa, but I would like to take some "artist liberties" and extend this a little farther into the Western realm.

The part of Ngugi's article which I quoted above talks about the study of oral literature leading to a multi-disciplinary outlook. Ngugi proceeded to mention how many different disciplines this study would affect: literature, music, linguistics, Sociology, Anthropology, History, Psychology, Religion, Philosophy. And then I thought about any liberal arts colleges (Messiah College to be specific, since that is what I know). We are supposed to take general education classes, the goal being that we receive a well-rounded education. I really do think Messiah does a wonderful job of that... but then I read this article, and thought about how much more we could potentially do. In theory, Ngugi called for one discipline that arched over the entirety of disciplines. Is there any thread that connects all of our disciplines here at Messiah? Perhaps it is the thread of Christianity (although that is not necessarily in every class). But other than that, there seem to be very distinct, separate disciplines with no overarching themes, such as the theme of oral literature studies that Ngugi proposed. And really, are there any threads -besides that of Christianity - that bind each discipline together. Are we asked to look at Sociology in its relation to linguistics on a consistent basis? Or psychology as connected to history? Perhaps it is just me, but I see each separate discipline as just that - separate and distinct from each other. Do we ever truly make an effort to see how each discipline is related to the others, and how each gives us a fuller picture of humanity, our day to day lives, and ultimately, our God?

And I know I put more of the quote up there, so let me just touch on that a little. The rest of the quote, in my roughly summarized terms, talks about how oral literature can open us up to new ways of seeing the world and eventually help us break free from "fixed literary patterns." And I really see his point. New experiences open new viewpoints. New literatures open new stories and discourses... and ultimately conversation. And I want to end with something I hope I can tie into this. Today in chapel, Native Americans spend the 45-minutes telling us about their rich heritage, their rituals, and if I may be so bold, their oral myths too. At the end of the talk, Richard Twiss asked us to stop thinking of Native Americans as a mission field, and to instead see the richness of their past and present. And I think that is also what Ngugi was asking for... that we stop thinking of them as the "other," and start seeing the beauty of their culture. I say all this to bring it back to this: in opening ourselves up to oral literature, we open ourselves up to seeing the culture for what it is, and not what we want it to be (and in doing so, see its beauty), and we therefore open ourselves to seeing how we can break free from using only European literary patterns, which in and of themselves are not bad, but are just not complete without the whole picture of the rest of humanity's cultures... just as each discipline from above is really not complete without the others...

Canonized

"An established canon functions as a model by which to chart the continuities and discontinuities, as well as the influences upon and the interconnections between works, genres, and authors. That model we tend to forget, however, is of our own making. It will take a very different shape, and explain its inclusions and exclusions in very different ways, if the reigning critical ideology believes that new literary forms result from some kind of ongoing internal dialectic within preexisting styles and traditions or it, by contrast, the ideology declares that literary change is dependent upon societal development and thereby determined by upheavals in the social and economic organization of the culture at large."
~Annette Kolodny, "Dancing through the Minefield"

I loved reading Kolodny so much that I had to put another post up here. When I first read this passage, even thought I know she's talking about the literary canon, I first thought of the Bible and its canonization. The canonization that is "inspired." Now, I truly believe it is inspired, and that the men who put it together (ah... the men who put it together) were prayerful and attentive in their decision of what to include in the Bible and what not to include. They were informed on what best served the needs of God's community, and what best showed the character of God. But then there is the Protestant and the Catholic canon. The Catholics include more books (why do Protestants reject so outrightly these books?), and they teach through them. So even within the Church, the canon is disputed. But the entirety of it is still called inspired.

I am fascinated by this notion of canonization, whether it be in the sacred or secular realms. But I really would like to focus on the sacred for a little. Kolodny says that literary change is dependent upon societal development. While this is true of the secular canon, the Biblical canon has not undergone any significant changes (except, perhaps, for using inclusive language) for hundreds of years. This could of course be that nothing is being written now that is in any way close to the Biblical writings of centuries ago. But then again, there are a lot of Christian books out there, too, books that hold their own wisdom... but they are based solely on the wisdom of the Bible (and inspiration that comes from this). So these books are following from the tradition of the Bible, and also responding to changes in society while being informed by the wisdom of the Bible. And this would be why this one book has lasted for so many centuries... and also because of the pluralities of its interpretations (like Kolodny spoke of in regards to women's theories and literature in this same essay).

In my last few posts about Feminism, I talked about some of the Christian approaches I've heard to this discipline... but perhaps Feminist theories are not so far off from our Biblical perspectives, as some would like to think...