(The comic is unrelated, but hilarious) Roughly, Marx, discussed also in reflection 6, believed every person was a product of history. Roughly, the 'New Historicist' movement believes that history should not be considered when studying literature. These two views contradict almost perfectly.I respect the New Historicist movement for what they try to do - that is, understand a work of art on only the terms of the work, and nothing else. They seek the true essence of a work that makes it good or bad literature, without being tainted by the biases of the real world. However, I can't help but think that it's at least unfair on the moral level.
Not everyone can write freely, removed from the world. In the most extreme case, it may be even illegal to do so. Consider authoritarian societies where writing that does not express a certain view is suppressed, censored, or destroyed. Are those writers who conform to the authoritarian viewpoint simply bad writers because, removed from history, they all express the same uncreative view? It would be morally wrong for us to judge those writers for doing something they have no control over. To truly understand such literature would absolutely require the authoritarian historical context, so that we may realize at least the restrictions put on the author and thus the work itself. This would seem to favor a Marxist view on literature.
No comments:
Post a Comment