Reading:
Things about literature
Defenders of literature usually attempt to justify it in one of two
ways. Some follow a utilitarian approach and contend that reading does
us good, makes us more intelligent and teaches us things we would have
otherwise never known. Others prefer an ethical-moral argument and
conceive of literature as a path to turning readers into better human
beings. Let us revisit these positions in our attempt to determine why
literature matters.
Literature is good for you
I recently started an undergraduate class that focused on Brazilian
novels in English translation by asking students why they read
literature. Their improvised answers amounted to a catalogue of the most
salient points on the
"literature-is-good-for-you" side of the debate.
Unsurprisingly, students were unanimous in saying that reading
literature was crucial for their education (after all, they were sitting
in a literature class and were most likely eager to be in the good
graces of the professor).
Many students believed that reading would give them a better command
of the language and improve their competence as writers. Several
commented that the textual analysis and interpretation skills they
acquired by reading and discussing works of literature would be useful
in other fields of study and in their future professional lives. A few
also mentioned that literature offered them insights into other cultures
and epochs, in this particular case, 19th and 20th-century Brazilian
society. In short, students thought that literature was good for them in
that it honed their interpretive, argumentative and critical thinking
skills and broadened their knowledge.
At a time when literature is forced to compete with other forms of
entertainment, arguments such as the ones my students vocalised have
become common currency. Literature advocates stress that, in reading, we
combine pleasure with learning and therefore make the most of the time
allotted to relaxation in our busy schedules. But if literature is
nothing more than a way to acquire skills and knowledge, could it not be
replaced, say, by documentaries or by educational videogames?
Another widespread argument made in defence of literature points to
its ability to turn readers into better human beings. Those who espouse
this view postulate the existence of an intrinsic - though rather
mysterious - link between enjoying good poetry or classical novels and
making the right moral decisions. Yet, the apology of literature on ethical and moral grounds has been
contested at least since Ancient Greece. To be sure, for Aristotle,
literature, and especially tragedy, made us morally better, in that it
purged us of negative emotions and impulses in a process known as
catharsis.
However, Plato, Aristotle's teacher, was of a different opinion. He
thought that poets and the fake images of reality they spun in their
texts were noxious to society, so much so that he unceremoniously
banished them from his ideal city.
What does literature have to say for itself on this matter? How have
writers depicted the effects of their craft? Seen through the eyes of
its own creators, literature has been judged rather harshly.
For instance, in
Don Quixote, Miguel de Cervantes' 17th-century
opus magnum,
literature neither makes you good nor is it good for you. In fact,
Quixote goes mad from reading too many of the chivalric novels popular
at the time and from trying to emulate the deeds described in these
writings. More than two centuries later, Gustave Flaubert's most famous
heroine, Emma Bovary, is driven to adultery and later suicide, partly
due to the negative influence of romantic novels, where she read about
handsome lovers and a glamorous lifestyle that contrasted starkly with
the dullness of her own existence.
Reading has myriad effects
But if literature does not necessarily make you good and is certainly
not the only form of entertainment that is good for you, what is it
really for? Does literature still matter and, if so, why?
The problem with most arguments in the debate about reading is that
they posit literature as an instrument used to achieve a certain goal:
either the good of the individual (it is good for you) or the good of
society (it makes you good). Leaving aside the issue of deciding whether
what makes you good is not, ultimately, good for you, a more
fundamental question arises: why does literature need to be defended at
all?
The anxiety to justify literature is symptomatic of our age, when all
activities should have an easily identifiable objective. The difficulty
with literature, as well as with music or the fine arts, is that it has
no recognisable purpose or, in Immanuel Kant's elegant formulation, it
embodies "purposiveness without purpose". Reading certainly has myriad
effects, but it is difficult to pinpoint exactly how it influences each
person and harder still to translate this impact in terms of
quantifiable gains.
Literature breaks the continuum of the everyday and makes us stop and
think. The linguistic experimentation that is the hallmark of the
literary estranges us from the most commonplace of tools, our language,
while the fictional elements of novels, plays and poems offer us a
glimpse into a reality that is not our own. In doing so, reading affords
us an essentially human of experience: the realisation that what is
does not necessarily need to be, that things can be different and that
another world is possible. The struggle with or the embrace of a work of
literature shapes our hopes and fears, dreams and ambitions. Literature
matters, ultimately, because it makes us who we are.
Info taken from the web page http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/201341564843772137.html
After reading this, let me know. What do you think about literature?