Dean
28th January 2010, 14:03
Literature is an important communication medium whose analysis can provide a deeper understanding of the interests, lives and perceptions of those who read and write it.
I say “read and write” because I think that mode, degree and focus of the consumption of literary works is perhaps more important than the actual creative process – that is, the ideas and perceptions which cause someone to write a piece of literature, as well as the method and character of that production. When journalists report on issues, it is a lot more meaningful (in regards to the study of literature as a cultural phenomenon, at least), for instance, what papers are being read rather than the specifics of what is being reported. An unpopular journalist may indeed provide a much clearer, honest expression of the issue s/he discusses, but if their articles are largely being ignored, they can only provide a valuable asset to understanding the issue, not the character of literature in society.
Subsequently, I would say this of literature: while it is a very real expression of the lives and thoughts of those who write it, I would be wary of investing much trust in the medium in general. History, for instance, is almost uniformly understood through the eyes of specific historians and authors who documented their own ideas. It is for this reason that ancient and classical history especially suffer from a very narrow perspective provided solely from a few, crucial and overbearing sources. In turn, contemporary literature suffers from a similar bottleneck, which occurs more through the presence of mainstream media and the uniformity of primary education, as well as the honing of the perceived interests of the American people through other forms of social and economic conditioning.
As an American, and for the aforementioned reasons, literature can be a serious asset or a serious hindrance in the furtherance of our own interests as a people. To study historical sources in our society, be they fiction or nonfiction, is to have a certain one-way relationship with a viewpoint which has passed, and the social, educational and economic conditions which created these viewpoints may or may not continue to present themselves in society. It is my opinion, therefore, that as American people we should be consistently and reiteratively studying and criticizing all major forms of communication. Those who have serious criticisms of literature should be heard and understood, because all democratic function relies on the fundamental respect and understanding of those who present an attack on the established social norms.
Above all else, though, the interests of those who participate in the production and consumption of communications, especially those involved in the possession of the assets needed to produce such communications, should be intimately understood, and all communications derived from these sources must be judged from this perspective. If this is not achieved, which I don’t think it is to any serious, widespread degree, we will have what Adam Smith would describe as “a conspiracy against the public” by those who control the resources needed to produce and widely disseminate communication, especially literature.
I say “read and write” because I think that mode, degree and focus of the consumption of literary works is perhaps more important than the actual creative process – that is, the ideas and perceptions which cause someone to write a piece of literature, as well as the method and character of that production. When journalists report on issues, it is a lot more meaningful (in regards to the study of literature as a cultural phenomenon, at least), for instance, what papers are being read rather than the specifics of what is being reported. An unpopular journalist may indeed provide a much clearer, honest expression of the issue s/he discusses, but if their articles are largely being ignored, they can only provide a valuable asset to understanding the issue, not the character of literature in society.
Subsequently, I would say this of literature: while it is a very real expression of the lives and thoughts of those who write it, I would be wary of investing much trust in the medium in general. History, for instance, is almost uniformly understood through the eyes of specific historians and authors who documented their own ideas. It is for this reason that ancient and classical history especially suffer from a very narrow perspective provided solely from a few, crucial and overbearing sources. In turn, contemporary literature suffers from a similar bottleneck, which occurs more through the presence of mainstream media and the uniformity of primary education, as well as the honing of the perceived interests of the American people through other forms of social and economic conditioning.
As an American, and for the aforementioned reasons, literature can be a serious asset or a serious hindrance in the furtherance of our own interests as a people. To study historical sources in our society, be they fiction or nonfiction, is to have a certain one-way relationship with a viewpoint which has passed, and the social, educational and economic conditions which created these viewpoints may or may not continue to present themselves in society. It is my opinion, therefore, that as American people we should be consistently and reiteratively studying and criticizing all major forms of communication. Those who have serious criticisms of literature should be heard and understood, because all democratic function relies on the fundamental respect and understanding of those who present an attack on the established social norms.
Above all else, though, the interests of those who participate in the production and consumption of communications, especially those involved in the possession of the assets needed to produce such communications, should be intimately understood, and all communications derived from these sources must be judged from this perspective. If this is not achieved, which I don’t think it is to any serious, widespread degree, we will have what Adam Smith would describe as “a conspiracy against the public” by those who control the resources needed to produce and widely disseminate communication, especially literature.