In response to Corey Sloane's post "The Moral Vehicle of Literature" (April 11, 2012):
I agree that literature is a useful medium through which minority groups can communicate their viewpoints. However, due to the optional anonymity of authors, literature (about characters belonging to minority groups) can also be a way for members of majorities to inaccurately portray minority groups and thus actually contribute to their oppressive or marginalised situations. As such, I wonder if one say that an author of books regarding a minority group, who actually belongs to that group, has a moral obligation to inform readers of their affiliation with the group, in order to help legitimatise their work and perhaps discredit the work of authors who portray the group badly.
On reflection, however, I do not think that such information is necessary. Because of the flexibility of authorial personas, authors who wish to portray members of minority groups badly can simply pretend to belong to those groups, rendering the information useless. Also, members of majority groups may sometimes be quite able to portray minority group members accurately, due to acquaintance or research, and invalidating their writings simply because they do not belong to a particular group is, I think, wrong.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Friday, April 13, 2012
Q&A 7, Second Answer
The basic form of my question is: Has literature ever contributed to other forms of human understanding?
I think so, yes. Some of the greatest works of literature have also been brilliant studies in human nature, which may help sociologists and psychologists develop theories of behaviour at later dates. Science fiction works have on more than one occasion provided inspiration for technological innovations. Some books, such as religious texts, have certainly influenced human development to a huge degree, but I am less certain about whether or not they have contributed to human understanding - if the religions found in the texts are true, then I suppose they would have.
I think so, yes. Some of the greatest works of literature have also been brilliant studies in human nature, which may help sociologists and psychologists develop theories of behaviour at later dates. Science fiction works have on more than one occasion provided inspiration for technological innovations. Some books, such as religious texts, have certainly influenced human development to a huge degree, but I am less certain about whether or not they have contributed to human understanding - if the religions found in the texts are true, then I suppose they would have.
Q&A 7, First Answer
My question is: Should we consider religious texts literature?
It depends upon the specific texts in question. Some religious texts are essentially lists of what one should or should not do, and I would not consider these literature. Others, like the Dhammapada or the Quran, are undeniably poetic in style, and in fact often acknowledged by their own followers to be forms of art - many Muslims consider the Quran to showcase the most beautiful use of the Arabic language at any time, and in fact strive to emulate its style in other literary works. Cases like the Bible are trickier; while some parts of the Bible are somewhat poetic, and (debatably) many of the stories therein are metaphorical, Christians often find the idea of referring to the Bible as literature insulting. This may be because many people in contemporary times have come to think of the term 'literature' as referring only to fictional works.
It depends upon the specific texts in question. Some religious texts are essentially lists of what one should or should not do, and I would not consider these literature. Others, like the Dhammapada or the Quran, are undeniably poetic in style, and in fact often acknowledged by their own followers to be forms of art - many Muslims consider the Quran to showcase the most beautiful use of the Arabic language at any time, and in fact strive to emulate its style in other literary works. Cases like the Bible are trickier; while some parts of the Bible are somewhat poetic, and (debatably) many of the stories therein are metaphorical, Christians often find the idea of referring to the Bible as literature insulting. This may be because many people in contemporary times have come to think of the term 'literature' as referring only to fictional works.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Q&A 6, Second Answer
The basic form of my question is: Can certain (plausible) interpretations of texts be wrong for moral reasons, because they are in obvious opposition to the interpretation the author intended? An example of this might be someone interpreting a clearly conservative piece of literature as highly liberal.
I do not think that such an interpretation would be actually immoral, so long as the interpreter recognised (and freely admitted) that the original author would disagree with the interpretation. This way, the interpreter is making no false assertions about the true meaning of the text; they are merely suggesting alternate meanings, which are untrue but not ridiculous or contradictory.
Despite the above paragraph, I am not at all sure of my conclusion. I can imagine many highly controversial examples of someone interpreting a text in such a manner - saying that the Bible could actually, in theory, support atheism would doubtless cause a huge outcry over much of the world. While mass disagreement is not always enough to condemn a theory, it does hint that the theory may not be right; as such, I would welcome any comments on the above issue.
I do not think that such an interpretation would be actually immoral, so long as the interpreter recognised (and freely admitted) that the original author would disagree with the interpretation. This way, the interpreter is making no false assertions about the true meaning of the text; they are merely suggesting alternate meanings, which are untrue but not ridiculous or contradictory.
Despite the above paragraph, I am not at all sure of my conclusion. I can imagine many highly controversial examples of someone interpreting a text in such a manner - saying that the Bible could actually, in theory, support atheism would doubtless cause a huge outcry over much of the world. While mass disagreement is not always enough to condemn a theory, it does hint that the theory may not be right; as such, I would welcome any comments on the above issue.
Response: Interpreting Out of Context
In response to Jacob Wheeler's post "Q&A 10 - Question 1: Interpretation" (April 8, 2012):
I agree that most interpretations of literary works only address parts or aspects of the works. In addition to this, I was wondering about the possibility of, rather than simply focusing on one part or aspect of a work, intentionally isolating a particular section or chapter and interpreting it independently of the rest of the text. If the chapter interpretation contradicted something found in the rest of the text, it would still be valid, because it was an interpretation of only that one chapter, set apart from the rest of the work.
This idea would certainly create a much wider range of possible interpretations, but I wonder if it actually has value; simply creating more interpretations has no worth if the interpretations are worthless. Would interpreting individual chapters differently from in the context of a work taken as a whole actually be a good thing?
I think that it could be. Sometimes, a work contains chapters which seem at odds with the rest of the work, whether this is a result of the author making a stylistic choice or of mere bad writing. These chapters, if taken alone as something like short stories in their own rights, may yield unique and valuable interpretations which could not exist in the context of the greater work. While I do not think that interpreting separated pieces of a text is more valuable than interpreting the text as a whole, I do think that it can be useful in some situations.
I agree that most interpretations of literary works only address parts or aspects of the works. In addition to this, I was wondering about the possibility of, rather than simply focusing on one part or aspect of a work, intentionally isolating a particular section or chapter and interpreting it independently of the rest of the text. If the chapter interpretation contradicted something found in the rest of the text, it would still be valid, because it was an interpretation of only that one chapter, set apart from the rest of the work.
This idea would certainly create a much wider range of possible interpretations, but I wonder if it actually has value; simply creating more interpretations has no worth if the interpretations are worthless. Would interpreting individual chapters differently from in the context of a work taken as a whole actually be a good thing?
I think that it could be. Sometimes, a work contains chapters which seem at odds with the rest of the work, whether this is a result of the author making a stylistic choice or of mere bad writing. These chapters, if taken alone as something like short stories in their own rights, may yield unique and valuable interpretations which could not exist in the context of the greater work. While I do not think that interpreting separated pieces of a text is more valuable than interpreting the text as a whole, I do think that it can be useful in some situations.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)