|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
The Unclean Lips
| Article
# : |
12108 |
|
|
Section : |
MODERN THOUGHT
|
| Issue
Date : |
12 / 1987 |
5,377 Words |
| Author
: |
Andrew Lytle
|
One way to begin the discussion of the ethics of literary criticism is a negative one. To judge a poem or novel from the critic's political or religious convictions is unethical. A critic who does so is not addressing himself to the subject: a work of art. He is using the rules of one discipline to determine the value of another, or in some cases, sad to say, an author's reputation. This is the fallacy of the Consequent or Non Sequitur. For many years (and possibly now as well) literature suffered in another but comparable way. The author's affairs, his public and private lives, were substituted for examination and estimation of his work (Byron's swimming the Hellespont, his incest with his half sister; the man from Porlock and Coleridge). This type of criticism is an easy way out, and it has been made even easier, and seemingly more authoritative, now that the distinction between what is public and what is private is failing. For example, Cleanth Brooks did much to expose the inadequacy of such attention to the author's life. Ethical judgment requires a close reading of the text. Obita dicta such as opinion won't do either. This is the vulgarity of taste. It is irrational. Everybody has taste and prejudice. The first thing a critic should do is examine his own and restrain both, so as not to complicate his reading.
Is ethics possible in literary criticism? At least the question can be asked in this day and time. The Western world has lost its vision of a divine order. We worship, at least follow, the philosophies of materialism. Ethics must consider the whole, not just the husk. It demands belief in some power outside itself, a god or gods. Without Christianity our sense of morality would fail us; that is, we are not Mohammedans, although many cults abide among us. They demonstrate the need for a common belief such as prevailed in every state of Christendom. Each mind has been set free to think on its own. No matter the effort to be just, understand, and compare, a private belief in the autonomy of the mind is bound to be prejudiced. In those who rule the state it is bound to be dangerous. There is no way for the human mind to discover the entire truth. Nor can religious hierarchy interpret fully the divine intention. But what they do learn well is power.
The schism in the old Church resulted from the extraordinary temptation of power. The prelates, certain popes or those who seized the Triple Crown like Hildebrand, were unable to keep a balanced mind. As God's overseers, with the Apostle's power to bind or loose, they neglected the source. All the while the cardinals' red hats rotted where they hung upon the wall.
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
