The reading for Wednesday includes two essays on the genre of the novel. "Rambler No. 4," published by Samuel Johnson in 1750, is one of the first critical discussions of the then-new genre of the novel. The Preface to the second edition of Frances Brooke's novel, The Excursion, was published in 1777, by which time the novel had become somewhat more established as a significant literary genre (though not necessarily an important one). Laurence Sterne's Tristram Shandy was published in between these two essays, and was generally acknowledged to be something of an outlier, literarily speaking. ("Nothing odd will do for long" Johnson asserted elsewhere, "Tristram Shandy did not last.")
Our assumptions about what novels are for, what makes them worth reading, and why people write them have changed considerably since the later C18. Respond to this post by identifying one of the assumptions that inform Brooke or Johnson makes about novels.
Deadline: Wednesday (2/11), 10am.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Johnson makes it clear in Rambler Number 4, that his view of the novel is clearly based in reality. The novel should not be entertainment of pure fantasy but the goal l is to produce an appealing realism without the fantastic improbabilities of the romance of antiquity.
Johnson states "Its {the novel} province is to bring about natural events by easy means, and to keep up curiosity without the help of wonder".
So, all novels of fiction are not in fact serving the purpose of a novel according to Johnson.
In Rambler No. 4 Johnson writes that representations of good and evil in novels should be kept completely separate. He feels that if an evil character has enough redeeming qualities to make people like him then there is no point in writing him. Novels should instead inspire people towards greatness, and it should be thought that "virtue is the highest proof of understanding" (178).
In Rambler No. 4, Johnson emphasizes the impressionability of the youth and how the novel should protect young people from questionable morals. He argues that novels should be wary of what they portray "to secure them from unjust prejudices, perverse opinions, and incongruous combinations of images" (176).
This is especially important for novels of this period, which as he points out, focus almost exclusively on reality. Previous "romances" created a sense of distance between the reader and the morals, images or ideas depicted in the text because they take place in a world entirely removed from their own: "the virtues and crimes were equally beyond his sphere of activity" (176). As novels move away from this world of giants and shipwrecks, readers are able to connect with the characters as inhabitants of their world and might "hope by observing his behavior and success to regulate their own practices" (176). If the character that a particular reader might wish to emulate is of questionable morals, they too may adopt these socially improper ideas.
While there may have been many differences in the rules of the novel in those days, such as a character must be either good or bad and no where in between, Johnson also brings up what I think are brilliant points that have stood for over thousands of years and still stand today.
"it (writing) requires, together with that learning which is to be gained from books, that experience which can never be attained by solitary diligence, but must arise from general converse, and accurate observation of the living world." This quote is much alike from what Plato wrote in his work "Gorgias" "Experience breeds expertise on the process of human existence." They both mean to say that in order to understand humanity, and in Johnson's case write about it, one must go out and experience the world, not just sit and study it.
Another brilliant thing Johnson wrote is how writers are not to invent new nature, but yet simply observe and then expose it and make it appear in a way so that all may see its beauty. "as a diamond, though it cannot be made, may be polished by art, and placed in such a situation as to display that lustre which before was buried among common stones."
What can be said about The Rambler No. 4? I will start with a personal opinion, and since it is an opinion of an undergrad it holds no weight or importance. I detest reading such works. If one were to talk about theory, style, or philosophies behind writing movements, I am always happy to read them, however when one makes a list of rules on writing, I find it very pretentious. He speaks as if writing is a science, and it is not. Writing is an art, and if one were to put rules on art Picasso would never have explored cubism, Wolff never would have toyed with stream of consciences. Johnson’s belief that writing should be grounded in reality also seems problematic “as a diamond, though it cannot be made, may be polished by art, and placed in such a situation as to display that luster which before was buried among common stones." This is his metaphor for this statement that writers should focus on reality. Again I ask would Poe have written the Raven if he stayed safely planted in reality? To create restriction on something that is free and should remain free is not only a waste of time, but a waste of paper! Shame on you Johnson, shame on you.
Your instructor here. Bozyman, will you please e-mail me so I know your real identity? Thanks!
Interesting disagreement here between Bozyman and Kamron on the issues of whether Johnson is expressing a universal truth or simply not grasping the imaginative possibilities of great literature. What do the rest of you think?
And what about Brooke? Is she broadly in agreement with Johnson, or is she working with a more nuanced conception of fiction?
"In the romances formerly written, every transaction and sentiment was so remote from all that passes among men that the reader was in very little danger of making any applications to himself" (176).
I've always felt the same as Johnson in what fiction should be. If fiction is something to which we can relate, and through which we can learn and experience things vicariously, it cannot take place in distant, removed worlds. I've never been a big fan of Lord of the Rings--primarily for this reason--for although it touches on key issues of light and darkness, good and evil, with strong undertones of Christianity and faith, which I believe are important, it is so sensationalized--so false and unlike the world we know--that all of its messages are easily lost on its human readers.
While I understand that some may believe good literature transports us to other worlds, that it exists as an escape from the harsh world in which we live, and that literature that reinforces that world's harshness should not be read for pleasure, but for pain, I agree with Samuel Johnson that literature has changed to something far more pertinent, and that it can be used to help us cope with that harshness or to better ourselves in spite of that harshness. Literature is extremely valuable in that respect. As I see it, literature as an escape is pointless--for the reality is, it is the real world in which we live, not some far-away fairyland, and it is better for the soul to find art in that which is present rather than create useless art out of nothing.
While you can go through certain experiences through reading, I do still agree with Johnson and Kamron's post about how one must experience for one's self the world. Otherwise, fiction really wouldn't reflect the real world even if it were based in it, because we'd all be shut up in closets reading about the world rather than living in it and therefore progressing it with our own experiences. That's an important point, too.
I must say I agree with Bozyman on this issue. Though I understand Johnson's point of view and his frustrations with authors' detachment from reality, it is often those works that seem the most wonderful. It is also interesting to see that not long after Johnson wrote this "preachy" essay, there were great literary movements that proved his words to be far from a universal truth. Romanticism, for example, placed a great emphasis on the use of the imagination. Without the daring and creativity that comes with imaginative writing, we as readers would be reading the same novel over and over. True, many stories today are just twists on old stories, but those stories are able to push new boundaries and find fresh new details to explore. If they discarded that imagination, today's bestseller list would look awfully bare.
I had the same thoughts as Bozyman when reading Johnson and usually find myself rolling my eyes when reading a piece on what writers should and should not do. It reminds me of reading Wordsworth's preface to Lyrical Ballads last semester and not wishing to be told what poetry is and what kind is the best. I think that each literary movement comes up with its own doctrine of what is right and what is wrong and it can become difficult to hang onto each dogma as writing progresses or changes. I also think that Johnson over simplifies the way one should write, leaving out any sense of imagination and seeing good and evil as black and white. Of course a nice realist novel is a good read every now and then, but I think sticking purely to that sort of writing would begin to slowly and dully wear at the brain. Also, in a realist novel, I don't think that there can be such a clear cut between good and bad. I think his thoughts on that topic are actually rather unrealistic.
Post a Comment