Its own particular perfection?
Apr 7, 2013 20:40:13 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2013 20:40:13 GMT -5
Mr. Karshan is a lecture in Literature at the University of East Anglia, and is busy writing a book-length essay on undelivered letters. "Is the novel a development from the model of the essay," he cries, "or does the form of the essay admit of its own particular perfection? Why should even a perfected form not give rise to another form?"
What a profound question that is for æsthetical history! He is not saying that the work of Art itself requires in its perfection a history, but that it might nevertheless be possible to trace influences. Could there have been a Brahms without a Beethoven?
Mr. Karshan is deeply troubled not only by all that but also by the national character of England. "In America the right of each individual to their [sic] own experience and opinions is constitutional," he asserts. [It is utterly utterly untrue, but evidently that is what some father - or more likely mother - figure has dinned into him and he believes it.] "In England, however," he goes on, "the national embarrassment of talking about oneself has been exploited by the ideology of professionalism, with its authoritarian insinuations that only experts can build structured ideas from their reading. The result is to turn intellectual work into something most of us can access only passively, and also to trivialize it by isolating each sphere of intellectual life; even an expert is an amateur outside their [sic again] own field. If, as Chesterton said, the essay is the joke of literature, it can do what good jokes do, and keep open boundaries: between the various disciplines; between expertise and experience; and between literature and life."
I think he needs a "but" in front of that "if, as Chesterton said" - but anyway, do our respected members think that Mr. Karshan is right in saying that Englishmen access intellectual work only passively? And do "good jokes" keep boundaries open? Being a serious person I very much doubt it.
What a profound question that is for æsthetical history! He is not saying that the work of Art itself requires in its perfection a history, but that it might nevertheless be possible to trace influences. Could there have been a Brahms without a Beethoven?
Mr. Karshan is deeply troubled not only by all that but also by the national character of England. "In America the right of each individual to their [sic] own experience and opinions is constitutional," he asserts. [It is utterly utterly untrue, but evidently that is what some father - or more likely mother - figure has dinned into him and he believes it.] "In England, however," he goes on, "the national embarrassment of talking about oneself has been exploited by the ideology of professionalism, with its authoritarian insinuations that only experts can build structured ideas from their reading. The result is to turn intellectual work into something most of us can access only passively, and also to trivialize it by isolating each sphere of intellectual life; even an expert is an amateur outside their [sic again] own field. If, as Chesterton said, the essay is the joke of literature, it can do what good jokes do, and keep open boundaries: between the various disciplines; between expertise and experience; and between literature and life."
I think he needs a "but" in front of that "if, as Chesterton said" - but anyway, do our respected members think that Mr. Karshan is right in saying that Englishmen access intellectual work only passively? And do "good jokes" keep boundaries open? Being a serious person I very much doubt it.