“American must be as independent in literature as she is in Politics, as famous for arts as for arms; and it is not impossible but a person of my youth may have some influence in exciting a spirit of literary industry.”
If there were ever a mantra for people in the field of literary studies, this is it. I cannot speak for everyone, but when I think about the role of an educator, specifically in the artistic fields, it is to do just what the young Noah Webster was referring to—inspire in others the societal significance of the arts.
In my first two blogs, I’ve done a lot of comparing and contrasting between the America of the early modern period, and the America of today. And in doing so, I think I’ve had a bit of a condemning tone when writing about our current society. I don’t want to give the impression that I’m this anti-American rebel that wants to pick up and move to Canada because we’re all going to hell in a hand basket. I love America, and as I write this post on the eve of September 11th, I know that I have good reason to be more patriotic than ever. But in reading these 150 pages of Starr, I’ve done a lot of thinking about the ways in which literature has seen a declining role in our country in recent years. It’s tough not to view the period Starr writes about without filtering it through the lens of present-day society.
Starr quotes an American publisher that references the ways literature changed from the late 18th century into the early 19th. This publisher notes how people no longer approach books and newspapers with “reverence” and “awe”…”How the world has changed.” I can’t even count the number of times I've had those same thoughts about current American society when reading Starr.
I’ve found one overarching theme that connects the two periods: America was then, and is now, in a period where the value of literature was competing against a number of other societal values. The key difference, though, is that during the early modern period, literature was competing to find its place in American culture. On the other hand, literature today is fighting to maintain its very existence. In short, I envision two different worlds: one where literature was on the rise, and the other where literature is on the decline.
Webster’s quote has it’s meaning in both the time it was written and today. But in both instances, people are having to learn or re-learn the value of literature. Try to imagine a world where people saw the novel as a dangerous, manipulative, and wicked weapon against a functioning society. That’s giving some serious authority to power of books. Today, when I even mention to some of my friends and family that I am studying literature, I get this blank stare that seems to say, “Why the hell would you want to study that?” Meaning, a good portion of society doesn’t place a great deal of value on literature and the impact it has on a society.
For all of the fault’s we’ve found in class with Starr’s American “Exceptionalism,”—and there are plenty—I find that he does a great job of portraying the way the written word can greatly impact a society. One element that struck me was how the popularity of literature in the 19th Century was able to break down the “traditional hierarchy of taste” that previously existed. To me this relationship between popular lit and its effects on societal hierarchy are fascinating, and it’s an element of these few chapters that I would like to research a little further.
But as we come to the end of our reading of Starr, I’d like to know what other people think about the role literature should have in our society. We’re all studying lit for a specific reason, but I’d like to think it's because we believe it has some type of importance beyond stimulating the senses. I guess you could say the theme of my blog over the past three weeks has been how we’re developing into a society that is obsessed with authenticity and FACT. So the question I pose to you all is this: is that a bad thing, and what role should the arts (I’m thinking more towards lit, film, and music) play in a modern society?
PS-You don’t have to answer. It’s just something to think about.
Hi Klay, First, thanks for all three of your blog posts. All three are exceptionally interesting and germane. And all three raise relevant questions, particularly about our social, cultural, and political directions now as a nation. I can't help but make many of the same comparisons between then and now. How ironic that the what the early political thinkers thought were so innovative and essential are now under attack or ready to go under, such as public education, free press, and the Post Office. I confess one of the reasons I set this seminar up was to compare then and now. Your last question above has no simple answer--is it a bad thing. I try not to apply labels like good and bad when confronted with large, inevitable, and inescapable change. I have been arguing for several years that the whole concept of literacy is rapidly evolving, and what we know as print culture is indeed disappearing. But there will always be literature; there will always be the very human impulse to tell stories, and to engage the imagination. But in decades to come all this will take place online. It will not be a world I am familiar with, or comfortable with, but I can't call it good or bad. Reading is changing. Most of our students now think that reading any text, especially a traditional book, over 20 minutes is arduous work. Writers are adapting to this now. Some of the writers you have read and liked, Raymond Carver among others, have experimented with the new minimalist style. This is still increasing in popularity now that we have "flash fiction." The future? "Books" will be electronic, multi-media with lots of images, interactive, and self-profiling. This latter idea frankly scares me. Interesting ideas to consider. I can easily imagine a future where people like us will resemble medieval monks, and out universities as the new monasteries. Most of our students are now trained to scan more than read deeply. Good or bad? I think a mixture of the two, though I lament the loss of traditional print culture. dw
ReplyDeleteKlay,
ReplyDeleteI agree that print culture changing, and those of us in this profession are carrying more of a burden to defend our choice and our values. Still, I think that constantly evaluating the worth of any pursuit actually makes that pursuit more valuable individually and hopefully that value translates to others.
I still wonder, though, how much Starr avoids class issues when discussing the rise of literature. He talks about the cheap press that offered "crime narratives and other popular journalism" which was most likely read more than say the poetry of Edgar Allan Poe. Literary appreciation was and still is, whether we like it or not, a form of elitism. Even when it comes to movies--Twilight vs. The Tree of Life--which one is more accessible? Which one is influencing society more? I'd say the former; yet, I'm sure the more educated would feel that the latter is more beneficial to study.
It sometimes makes me question how I feel about the "myth" of democratic education as being the best for all. Just some thoughts--I'm not laying out a philosophy here. :-)