Saturday, March 31, 2007

poetic justice

It's been one week since I posted on this blog, and, as BNL so adeptly put it, "You have a drumstrick and your brain stops tickin.'" (The drumstick in this analogy is the sense of complacency I've settled into after finding a job, an apartment, and a lazy disdain for things like getting out of bed, doing reading responses, arriving to lectures on time, wearing shoes that I have to bend over and tie, etc.)

Fortunately, there are still articles out there that grease the hands of my mental grandfather clock, like this thought-provoking piece in the New York Review of Books by everyone's favorite Norton Anthology editor, Stephen Greenblatt (lately, it seems like the Bard's the word--April's Harper's cover promises to tell us "How Shakespeare conquered the world"). He opens his piece with a too-good-to-be-true anecdote featuring former Prez Bill Clinton, who, according to Greenblatt, recites lengthy soliloquies from Macbeth and drops intelligent commentary on Shakespearean drama without batting an eyelash (cinematically speaking, he's either characterizing Clinton as an impassioned English teacher at an inner city high school or a devious super villain).

But Greenblatt is, of course, more concerned with the intentions and ideas of another Bill. Demonstrating his admirable grasp of the canon, the New Historicist turns to Shakespeare's work and elicits myriad examples of villains who have willfully sought power, heroes who have wrestled with its consequences, and intelligentsia who have shied away from it. As an astute critic of Shakespeare, Greenblatt transcends high-school aphorisms (power...corrupts) and penetrates the author's deeply nuanced viewpoint--often, his deliberate unwillingness to express a single-minded attitude at all--towards issues like the sanctity of kingship, the utility of democracy and elections, and the plausibility of an ethically-sound system of governance.

This purposeful ambiguity, according to Greenblatt, is intended to encourage a context-bound assessment of morality. He writes:
"The conclusion towards which these stories tend is not the cynical abandonment of all hope for decency in public life, but rather a deep skepticism about any attempt to formulate and obey an abstract moral law, independent of actual social, political, and psychological circumstances."
Greenblatt supports this stance, which is firmly entrenched in New Historicism,
with beautiful examples such as the story of Brutus, the righteous protagonist in Julius Caesar who participates in the assassination of the titular dictator, his close friend. Brutus' failure, writes Greenblatt, isn't that he was coerced into believing the act was morally justified, but rather than he believes he's ethically autonomous; the Roman senator fails to apprehend the social influences and consequences that precede and follow his deed, waves of events and relations that ripple far beyond his self-contained conception of good and evil (are you listening, George W?). Whether or not one has this awareness, according to Greenblatt, is the true determinant of the relationship--positive or negative--between morality and power.

Therefore, New Historical critics are the ideal inheritors of the throne.

Like any good critical essay, "Shakespeare and the Uses of Power" presents a moderately specific question--how does the Bard approach the issue?--that evokes Big Questions about the relations between ethics, political power, and literature. The article stimulated a quasi-interesting discussion about the first two terms on The New Republic's blog, but it's the association between 1 and 3--ethics and literature--that has occupied my interest as of late, especially after reading an infuriating (this is how I know I've officially become a nerd--I call academic essays "infuriating") piece by Richard Posner, "Against Ethical Criticism."

Rather than delving into all of the unsubstantiated points in Posner's piece (which is intended to argue against the inclusion of literary criticism of law), I'll boil his argument to its core argument: Literature cannot be morally instructive, because writers and their characters are hardly moral paradigms, fiction doesn't spur us to do anything, and Martha Nussbaum's cognitivist approach--the idea that identification may induce us to sympathize with individuals in different situations--is both weak and ethically culpable (we identify with evil and corrupt characters). Tonal, stylistic, and logical problems aside, I think I find arguments like Posner's infuriating because they pose needless ultimatums (Is literature THE correct means of ethical instruction?). Similarly, I find essays like Greenblatt's piece enlightening because they debunk such totalizing queries.

Is literature the perfect, self-constitutive vessel for a moral education? No. Can fiction demonstrate and transmit shaky notions of right and wrong? Of course. But does this mean the medium is totally incapable of conveying such lessons? The sympathetic imagination, which is most readily activated by fiction, is completely fallible, corruptible, and not always strong enough to spur literal action, but so is
any cognitive process that drives judgment and alignment. If nothing else, we can depart from a work of literature having learned, as Greenblatt demonstrates, the loss of ethical autonomy that accompanies the acquisition of power; what we choose to do with this knowledge lies in our hands.


Mr.Wrongway said...

interesting angle on rod's mom.

becki said...

mr. wrongway has been waiting to write that comment since he got out of line at the bagel shop

becki said...

mr. wrongway has been waiting to write that comment since he got out of line at the bagel shop

Mr.Wrongway said...

hit publish twice.

Josh/Notwithabang... said...

An interesting counterpoint to Greenblatt's argument can be found in Tad Friend's essay "The Case for Middlebrow," which was featured in a 1992 issue of The New Republic. Although the essay is concerned with stylistic and societal mores more than with ethical ones, its thesis -- that good literature both instructs and entertains -- resonates well with your posting.

Beneficent Allah said...

You write me acrostics, you blog about Posner...I'm trying to dislike you, ERC, I'm trying...but you make it so hard.

sebastian said...

what job did you get?

yayce said...

don't you ever feel the need to tell a "that's what she said" joke?

in other news i find the similarity in the titles of our most recent posts... refreshing... great minds, erc... great minds... i think the mere fact that i just compared my smarts to yours will cost you 5 nights of sleep and drive you into the bowels of sml for an additional 20 hours a week. and i don't mean "starr reading room sml"... i'm talking "4th wing annex catacombs sml"

elmrockcity said...

Re: the Tad Friend article: I just downloaded it through Academic Search (thanks, Yale). The table looks priceless--thanks for the suggestion.

Re: my job: Girl Friday!

Re: Yayce's comment: I can't even think of anything to put in this box.

That's what she said, right?

Anonymous said...

Do You interesting how to [b]Buy Viagra per pill[/b]? You can find below...
[size=10]>>>[url=][b]Buy Viagra per pill[/b][/url]<<<[/size]

[b]Bonus Policy[/b]
Order 3 or more products and get free Regular Airmail shipping!
Free Regular Airmail shipping for orders starting with $200.00!

Free insurance (guaranteed reshipment if delivery failed) for orders starting with $300.00!

Generic Viagra (sildenafil citrate; brand names include: Aphrodil / Edegra / Erasmo / Penegra / Revatio / Supra / Zwagra) is an effective treatment for erectile dysfunction regardless of the cause or duration of the problem or the age of the patient.
Sildenafil Citrate is the active ingredient used to treat erectile dysfunction (impotence) in men. It can help men who have erectile dysfunction get and sustain an erection when they are sexually excited.
Generic Viagra is manufactured in accordance with World Health Organization standards and guidelines (WHO-GMP). Also you can find on our sites.
Generic [url=]buy generic viagra online in canada[/url] is made with thorough reverse engineering for the sildenafil citrate molecule - a totally different process of making sildenafil and its reaction. That is why it takes effect in 15 minutes compared to other drugs which take 30-40 minutes to take effect.
[b]aeroflot open view topic order viagra
how to safely buy viagra online
natural herbs used as viagra
Buy Generic Viagra Viagra
venereal viagra florida retirement
Viagra And Cialis
viagras advanced guestbook 2.4
Even in the most sexually liberated and self-satisfied of nations, many people still yearn to burn more, to feel ready for bedding no matter what the clock says and to desire their partner of 23 years as much as they did when their love was brand new.
The market is saturated with books on how to revive a flagging libido or spice up monotonous sex, and sex therapists say “lack of desire” is one of the most common complaints they hear from patients, particularly women.

Anonymous said...

xanax no prescription xanax 2mg price - xanax 25 mg

Anonymous said...

cheap alprazolam maximum xanax dosage per day - xanax bars bad

Anonymous said... - [url=]site[/url] site

Anonymous said... - [url=]site[/url] site