The Novelist's Responsibility

[deguonis]

The Indian Express - Mar 24, 1941


The Novelist's Responsibility

By Robert Lynd

Dr. Inge in the latest of his books speaks of the modern novel as not so much reflecting as influencing the life of the time. There are modern novels of a kind which he frankly dislikes and the influence of which he believes to be mainly, if not wholly, evil. It is an interesting question how far imaginative literature affects human character. If people say that the effect is enormous, we feel like asking them why in that case men have not changed a great deal more for the better under the influences of the noble literature of the past.
Has a reading of Othello ever persuaded a naturally jealous lover to damp down his jealousy? Has the wretched fate of Macbeth ever taught a naturally ambitious man the folly of ambition? There is enough morality in the great plays and novels to have infected the world with the noblest ideals of conduct; but the world seems to have been curiously insensitive to it, and a man may be a great reader without being immune from the vices of his illiterate neighbour.


SHAPED BY BIBLE
On the other hand, if someone says that literature has no influence on character, one particular book, more than anything else, seemed to help to shape lives of the men and women among whom we grew up. The Bible did not magically convert all Christians with Christians. Many of them remained rogues and hard-faced men in spite of all the fine passages from the Scriptures to which they listened in church on Sundays. At the same time, who can doubt that the world, as a result of being steeped in the Literature of the Bible, was governed by ideas of justice, mercy and righteousness to an extent that would have been impossible if the Old and New Testaments had never been written? I cannot, for one.
The virtues of Puritanism—and perhaps, some of the vices—were the creation of this book. Cruelty and other forms of evil survived, but they were vices of human nature not monopolized by Bible-readers. Human nature, torn between good and evil, has so far proved to be incapable of perfection. All that one can say dogmatically is that the Bible has exercised as great an influence on conduct as on painting and music. Most painting and most music have remained mediocre, as most conduct has remained mediocre, but how much worse they might have been, how much poorer in the genius that reaches after perfection, but for the inspiration of the book?


INFLUENCE OF ENTERTAINMENT
It may be argued, however, that religious literature exists on a different plane from secular literature, and that we turn to plays and novels, not for teaching, but mainly for entertainment. I agree that most people do not go to the theatre in the same mood in which they go to church; and I think they always rightly go to the arts, not in search of lessons but in search of pleasure. I do not think I have ever taken up a novel as non-professional reader except for the purpose of enjoying myself. This does not mean, however that plays and novels do not influence conduct, or, at least our ideas of conduct.
Even the popular entertainment called sport is generally supposed to have an influence of this kind. Orators have often told us the effect of sport in creating the team spirit and inculcating in the young the ideal of fair play. How far it does this, I do not know. I have seen many a brilliant selfish player who had about as much of the team spirit as a hungry seagull. I have seen others who kept within the bounds of fair play only so long as the referee was watching them. At the same time, I think the ideal of fair play is much more widespread than it would have been but for the popularity of sport. I do not believe that the phrases “playing the game” and “It's not cricket” are entirely can. The ideal sportsman is, of course, a much finer human being than the ordinary sportsman; but he is influential as a model to which the ordinary sportsman knows in his bones that he ought to conform.


DO FILMS ALTER CHARACTER?
If an entertainment with so little didactic purpose as sport can influence character in this way, it seems reasonable to believe that other entertainments equally frivolous may also help to shape the course of our lives. According to some authorities, the cinema has already had a marked effect on civilization and its ideals. I always keep an open mind about small boys who were turned into thieves as a result of seeing films, since I do not believe that any normal small boy with a normally decent home-training was ever affected in this fashion by the cinema. At the same time, films have undoubtedly a superficial influence on many people.
There are young women who do their best to make up like the vamps of the screen, and who talk in that husky sort of voice that is either deliberately assumed by the vamps or which is the result of a flaw in the machinery of recording voices that prevents the natural female voice from coming through. Imitation is one of the instincts and pleasure of youth, and a girl may be forgiven for seeing herself as a star of Hollywood. But I wonder, whether any girl whose character is altered by addiction to films had any character worth talking about to being with. We are often given to blaming some outside influence for what is really our own weakness.


DICKENS'S ATTRACTIVE DRUNKARDS
As for novels, I have met one man of the younger generation who declares that his life was changed as a result of his reading a novel by D. H. Lawrence. In my own generation I never met a man whose life, so far as I know, had been changed by a novel. I once knew a boy who said to me that, when he read about Newman Noggs in Nicholas Nickleby, he could not help wanting to be a drunkard; but he grew I up and he has not become a drunkard—not even in order to be like Newman Noggs.
Possibly, the association of selflessness with drunkennes in Sidney Carton has fired other boys with the same ideal. But the ordinary boy, after the first flush of enthusiasm, soon realizes that it is possible to drink too much without being selfless. Hence, I fancy, Dickens's attractive drunkards have been responsible for creating new drunkards in real life.
The influence of fiction, it seems to me, is rarely direct. Is it insensible and accumulative. Dickens had an enormous influence on the English outlook on life, but is there any evidence that he ever converted a flesh-and-blood Scrooge into a Father Christmas? What he did rather was to create an atmosphere of charity, good humour and justice that was in the end to help to transform society. Greed, cruelty, and passing by on the other side continued even while he was a national idol; but he stripped them of some of their respectability. He undermined much that is evil, and so helped to prepare the way for a transition to a kindlier world. There are still Gradgrinds and Murdstones in existence, but I am sure that there are fewer of them and that they are less respected, than if Charles Dickens had never written.


UNCONSCIOUS REFORMERS
The novelist who is a good man, indeed, necessarily raises standards. He does so even though he has no propagandist and no particular desire to reform his kind. In Sir Walter Scott several generations of readers found standards of chivalry and courage which must have influenced their imaginations, whether they lived up to them of not. And a hundred years later we had Conrad preaching in a most unpreacher-like fashion the gospel of courage in another form. In the maintenance of ideas literature has manifestly always played a great part, even if unconsciously and even if opposition to other ideals considered to be orthodox. Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre and George Eliot's Adam Bede were once considered dangerous works by some of the orthodox; but in both there are standards that made for tolerance. Thomas Hardy later encountered a great deal of intolerance by raising the same standard of tolerance in Tess of the D'Urbervilles. It is, perhaps, one of the incidental functions of literature to spread an atmosphere of tolerant humanism in a world in which the orthodoxies, religious, political, and economic, have sometimes forgotten that men and women are human.
In the present century, some of the novelists have been more consciously preachers than their predecessors in Victorian and pre-Victorian times. In Mr. H. G. Wells and in D. H. Lawrence we find a strong desire, not merely to describe the conduct of men and women in the contemporary world. Whether they have actually influenced conduct it is hard to say. Ideas of right conduct have been changing in any case as a result of the decline of orthodoxy, and it may be—that the novelists have been the mouthpieces, rather than the makers, of their generation.


WHY BLAME THE WRITERS?
There are some people who impute all the changes of which they disapprove to the novelists and dramatists. They seem to think that nobody would say “Lousy” and “Oh, hell!” and such things if the dramatists had not shown them the way by producing dialogue full of that sort of stuff on the stage. They accuse these dramatists of setting a bad example to the weak-minded by showing young men and women on the stage slapping each other and behaving in a fashion that even an unorthodox Victorian would have considered grossly ill-mannered.
It is not possible, however, that it was the last war and neither literature not the drama, that introduced new standards of conduct—both in morals and in manners—or, at least, that popularized them?
In any case, modern fiction is not all of a pattern, but is as varied as modern life. If it must be held responsible for the conduct which a man dislikes in the age, it should also be held responsible for the things of which he approves. There is enough fortitude, good humour and love of justice and mercy in the world to make the novelists proud to have been their creators. Perhaps they have been in a measure. I for one should not be disposed to question it.

[cafolini]

Interesting subject, no doubt.

[AuntShecky]

The novelist has no responsibility other than to write.
It's not fair to ask literature -- or any other of the arts -- to install moral values, to affirm the status quo, to promote a social, economic, or political agenda, to serve as a teaching tool or to fulfill any kind of practical purpose.
Ars pro gratia artis.

[Ecurb]

The novelist has no responsibility other than to write.
It's not fair to ask literature -- or any other of the arts -- to install moral values, to affirm the status quo, to promote a social, economic, or political agenda, to serve as a teaching tool or to fulfill any kind of practical purpose.
Ars pro gratia artis.

What about child pornographers who (although they don’t abuse real children directly) pander to and titillate pedophiles? And if we grant that writers have a “responsibility” to avoid titillating pedophiles, isn’t it also true that they might have other, less obvious moral responsibilities as well?

I haven’t formed my opinion on this issue; I’m just postulating a possible exception to “ars gratia artis”.

[PeterL]

My position falls between that of the horrible essay that the OP posted and Auntshecky's opinion.

Works of fiction are not textbooks. Authors usually have something to convey (if they didn't they wouldn't waste the effort), but the author's ideas need not be uplifting or supportive of existing social mores. Fiction is one of the few ways that someone can express unusual or new ideas in ways that might garner support. A work of fiction should be mlooked at as what it is, rather than expecting it tpo be something educational or uplifting. We can just hope that our ideas will be understood and accepted by readers.

[JBI]

What about child pornographers who (although they don’t abuse real children directly) pander to and titillate pedophiles? And if we grant that writers have a “responsibility” to avoid titillating pedophiles, isn’t it also true that they might have other, less obvious moral responsibilities as well?

I haven’t formed my opinion on this issue; I’m just postulating a possible exception to “ars gratia artis”.
Many skilled Greek and Roman writers contain such elements. As hard as it is to say, this anti-pedophilia, regardless of how noble, right, and true it is, is a product of our time period.

It sounds sick to think of, but we see the traces of such a tradition from antiquity to the present, and in many of the most prized works of literature. Are we to burn them then?

The artist has no responsibility toward the law. It is the institution that delivers and distributes art that has a sort of responsibility based on its prescribed cultural values.

[stlukesguild]

What about child pornographers who (although they don’t abuse real children directly) pander to and titillate pedophiles? And if we grant that writers have a “responsibility” to avoid titillating pedophiles, isn’t it also true that they might have other, less obvious moral responsibilities as well?

It seems to me that the artist's highest responsibility is to me true to his or her passions... obsessions... vision. Can pedophilia be art? What of Donatello's David:

http://aliar.iics-k12.com/files/2012/09/Donatello-David.jpg

Bronzino's Allegory:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3ue8bCgNq1rtl3xko1_1280.jpg

Parmigianino's Cupid:

http://es.wahooart.com/Art.nsf/O/8XZSWK/$File/Parmigianino-Cupid.JPG

What of the numerous examples of art and poetry from Greece and Rome?

Now I am not suggesting that artists stand above morality as dictated by the law. If artists break the law, they are as much liable to be held accountable by the legal authorities as anyone else. But at the same time... isn't "morality"... and thus the law fluid? I doubt most of us today would support Oscar Wilde's prosecution. What of Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Verlaine, Joyce, Gustav Klimt, Egon Schiele... all of whom pushed the legal limits of eroticism and the use of "vulgar" language/images. What to we make of Leni Riefenstahl:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leni_Riefenstahl

Riefenstahl made films in support of a political system we all likely find repugnant... but does that make the Art also repugnant?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6-0Cz73wwQ

The Renaissance artists, poets, writers, architects, composers, etc... all worked for some of the most blood-thirsty, petty dictators imaginable...

[mona amon]

What about child pornographers who (although they don’t abuse real children directly) pander to and titillate pedophiles? And if we grant that writers have a “responsibility” to avoid titillating pedophiles, isn’t it also true that they might have other, less obvious moral responsibilities as well?

I haven’t formed my opinion on this issue; I’m just postulating a possible exception to “ars gratia artis”.

Child pornography is a criminal offence, and no artist is above the laws of the land. The artist does have social responsibility like every other citizen, no more, no less. It becomes more a question of what ought to be allowed and what should not, which of course cannot be decided by the artist alone.

I've come across child porn freely available on the internet in the form of cartoon porn, hentai, Harry Potter fanfiction etc. all drawn, painted or written about, as opposed to photographic or filmed porn. None of it caused me to raise my eyebrows too much. Thank goodness I've never bumped into any films or photos involving children. That would have destroyed me, but for some reason anything goes when I know that no actual people were harmed in the production of that particular bit of porn. I also think all this cartoon sex must have a much wider audience than just pedophiles. It's most probably kids themselves who are the target viewers.

[Scheherazade]

R e m i n d e r

The topic of this thread is "The Novelist's Responsibilities".



Deguonis> What are your views on this issue? Are you sharing an article that was published 72 years ago here?

[Darcy88]

The novelist has no responsibility other than to write.
It's not fair to ask literature -- or any other of the arts -- to install moral values, to affirm the status quo, to promote a social, economic, or political agenda, to serve as a teaching tool or to fulfill any kind of practical purpose.
Ars pro gratia artis.

I agree totally. Could not have said it any better myself.





Now I am not suggesting that artists stand above morality as dictated by the law. If artists break the law, they are as much liable to be held accountable by the legal authorities as anyone else.

Can a novel break the law other than by hate speech? I can't think of anything else legally prohibited in literature.

[hannah_arendt]

The writer can`t be responsible for what the reader will di after reading the novel. Literature is a fiction so I don`t think anything should be forbidden.

[cacian]

I agree totally. Could not have said it any better myself.



Can a novel break the law other than by hate speech? I can't think of anything else legally prohibited in literature.

I would have thought if the book is printed/published then by law it is allegeable and lawful. If something goes wrong upon reading the book then the law must go and look at its printing laws. The writer can only be advised but normally printing and publishing is I would have thought what make a book permissible or not.

[jayat]

Well, some of the meanings that arise from the main text brings up the eternal division between pamphletarian writings and true literature. I, personally, try to read books from the latter and avoid losing my time with rubbish from the former.

The question maybe should be formulated as follows: can any pamphletarian idea, proposal, etc. become good literature through talented fiction, well-worked figures of speech and the rest of literary paraphernalia or, on the contrary, these sort of ideas make banish good literarure automatically.
In other words, one thing is beauty through words and the other is speeches selling ideas, attitudes, ways of behaviour as well as thinkings and a long etcetera.

[Ecurb]

I'm not suggesting that we ban "Lolita" (or Donatello's "David" which might be "sexy" to some people, but isn't "pornographic". Nudity does not constitute pornography by modern standards). Nor does "responsibility" necessarily suggest "legal obligation". We can have moral responsibilities that are not legal obligations. In addition, morals are situational and culturally constituted. They help build a sense of community necessary to hyper-social humans. The fact that the Romans had "fondles" and were not adverse to sex with children (or child pornography) is irrelevant to our current moral situation, just as failing to respect Jupiter would be irrelevant today, but might get you crucified in ancient Rome.

Morals are traditionally more complicated than simply protecting others from harm in a fair manner: they also involve respect for authority (as in the Jupiter case), respect for the group (as in refusing to eat pork, if one lives in Iran, or refusing to view child pornography in public here in the U.S.), or respect for notions of purity (as in isolating oneself during menstruation in many societies, or, again, eschewing child pornography). I attended a lecture by moral psychologist Jonathon Haidt the other night. Here's one of his articles on the subject: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt07/haidt07_index.html

In part, pornography is defined by its lack of "artistic" value. However, that opens another can of worms. "Artistic value" is always problematical.

Here are some other forms of literature that may or may not be irresponsible (not all are novels):

1) Intellectually dishonest works of science or history, in which the data are intentionally distorted to mislead the reader into accepting the thesis of the writer. Is that "irresponsible"?

2) Diatribes designed to incite violence, murder and mayhem.

3) Fiction designed to belittle groups of people or incite bigotry. "Merchant of Venice" (or other even more egregiously anti-Semitic plays, I vaguely remember one by, I think, Marlowe) reflected the times, of course. Prejudice against Jews was the norm -- they'd been kicked out of Spain and (I think, trying to remember my history) England. So I neither think that "Merchant of Venice" should have been banned, nor should be banned today. However, it would be reasonable to call a modern author "irresponsible" or "immoral" for producing a work that pandered to the baser prejudices of his audience.

I like Leni Reifenstahl's movies. They are well done. But isn’t Reifenstahl morally responsible for their content and the effect they had? Would making propaganda movies that incited the Hutus to massacre the Tsutsis in Rwanda be "morally responsible"? Which is more morally acceptable, a terrible movie designed to incited genocide (which fails miserably in its design), or a good movie designed to incited genocide (which actually DOES incite genocide)?

[stlukesguild]

I'm not suggesting that we ban "Lolita" (or Donatello's "David" which might be "sexy" to some people, but isn't "pornographic". Nudity does not constitute pornography by modern standards).

Well that opens up a whole new can of worms, doesn't it? And a can we have discussed in some depth not long ago: "How do you define Pornography?"

Nor does "responsibility" necessarily suggest "legal obligation". We can have moral responsibilities that are not legal obligations.

But what other "responsibilities" are enforced? Some believe that the artist has a responsibility to act as the voice of dissent against the status quo. Others believe the artist has the responsibility to employ his or her talents in support of the struggling masses or populace as a whole. Still others would argue that the artist's only responsibilities are to him or herself.

In addition, morals are situational and culturally constituted. They help build a sense of community necessary to hyper-social humans.

Perhaps... but do the artists... novelists... have any responsibility to support the morals and standards of a given community beyond that which is legally dictated?

In part, pornography is defined by its lack of "artistic" value. However, that opens another can of worms. "Artistic value" is always problematical.

Here are some other forms of literature that may or may not be irresponsible (not all are novels):

1) Intellectually dishonest works of science or history, in which the data are intentionally distorted to mislead the reader into accepting the thesis of the writer. Is that "irresponsible"?

Perhaps... but don't we see such all the time? And is this not more of a problem when it comes to the mass-media which in the past was held to far more stringent expectations of objectivity?

3) Fiction designed to belittle groups of people or incite bigotry. "Merchant of Venice" (or other even more egregiously anti-Semitic plays, I vaguely remember one by, I think, Marlowe) reflected the times, of course. Prejudice against Jews was the norm -- they'd been kicked out of Spain and (I think, trying to remember my history) England. So I neither think that "Merchant of Venice" should have been banned, nor should be banned today. However, it would be reasonable to call a modern author "irresponsible" or "immoral" for producing a work that pandered to the baser prejudices of his audience.

The problem her is that I would question whether the primary motive of fiction like The Jew of Malta or The Merchant of Venice was to denigrate or incite bigotry. As you suggest, the authors merely reflected the beliefs of the times. And even this is open to debate. Is Shakespeare or Marlowe antisemitic... or is this merely a personality trait and failing of specific characters? Is Mark Twain racist... or is this rather a trait of a number of his characters? Are we to assume that Nabokov must have had some pedophile leanings to have invented a character such as Humbert Humbert? What I am suggesting is that literature is laden with characters with all sorts of base failures and character flaws. Certainly there will always be those who misinterpret these.

I like Leni Reifenstahl's movies. They are well done. But isn’t Reifenstahl morally responsible for their content and the effect they had?

Perhaps. But what effect did they have? What proven effect? And are we to blame an individual for supporting the political system in control in the nation they live in? Every nation of any real power and cultural significance has more than a fair share of blood on its hands. Perhaps this is one reason I balk at any utilitarian concept of art... art in support of the aims of the state.

[Ecurb]

In the thread on “Greatest Culture” I linked a Pauline Kael review of “A Clockwork Orange”. Here’s the link again:

http://visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0051.html

The essence of Kael’s negative critique is that Kubrick manipulates his audience into empathizing with the murderer and rapist, while holding the victims in contempt. Kael finds this morally abhorrent. Nonetheless, her final condemnation of the movie (and her critique is excellent whatever we think of “A Clockwork Orange”) is, “The movie's confusing -- and, finally, corrupt -- morality is not, however, what makes it such an abhorrent viewing experience. It is offensive long before one perceives where it is heading, because it has no shadings. Kubrick, a director with an arctic spirit, is determined to be pornographic, and he has no talent for it”

That’s the problem with both pornography and propaganda, is it not? Both tend to lack depth and shading. If they had depth and shading, they would (however sexy or however patriotic) fail to be merely pornography or propaganda.
Since you mention Mark Twain, “Injun Jim” is clearly a stereotyped caricature. Nonetheless (as luke hinted) the stereotyped caricature makes sense in “Tom Sawyer”, because for children ALL adults are stereotyped caricatures.

Jonathon Haidt (whom I mentioned earlier) divides morality into five categories: ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity, as well as on the universally employed foundations of harm/care and fairness/reciprocity. Modern liberals (i.e. most of us) emphasize the last two. However, we probably care about the first three (more often associated with religious thinking) more than we think we do. We wouldn’t look at pornography in public not because it violates any notion of fairness or harm, but because it violates notions of loyalty and purity. We might object to Tolstoy's criticism of Beethoven and Shakespeare as in opposition to "authority/respect".

One function of art (of course) is to question culturally constituted norms in all five categories. However, when such questioning becomes manipulative, simplistic, jingoistic or overbearing, the result is lousy art. Kael’s objections to “A Clockwork Orange” are not merely moral objections, but artistic objections. She objects to being manipulated into empathizing with morally repugnant characters, and it ruins the movie for her. I’d suggest that most of us would agree (perhaps not about “A Clockwork Orange”, but about some other work of art).

This is a complicated issue, of course. The history of painting includes masterpiece after masterpiece commissioned by the Church, and designed to be (basically) propaganda. To what extent is moral shading or ambiguity essential to differentiating between the masterpieces and the schlock propaganda? I’m not sure. Certainly some of the masterpieces gain that status from complex characterizations; others, however, toe the party line, and are masterpieces of composition, color, and (whatever else art experts talk about). Countless paintings of Mary and Baby Jesus don't seem to concentrate on characterization, but on capturing a moral mood through light, color, and composition. I'm getting out of my depth here, however. Perhaps luke can chime in.

[PeterL]

I have a big problem with anyone who thinks that "A Clockwork Orange" is confusing.

It is the reader's responsibility to consider what the author has written, and it is not a good idea for readers to look at criticism, especially by critics who find "A Clockwork Ornge" comfusing, and never by critics who would misidentify a character in "Tom Sawyer".

[Ecurb]

Sorry, I meant "Injun Joe". I was typing too fast. What does "confusinf" mean, by the way? And what is a "rader"?

From Kael's review:
Burgess gave us society through Alex's eyes, and so the vision was deformed, and Kubrick, carrying over from Dr. Strangelove his joky adolescent view of hypocritical, sexually dirty authority figures and extending it to all adults, has added an extra layer of deformity. The "straight" people are far more twisted than Alex; they seem inhuman and incapable of suffering. He alone suffers. And how he suffers! He's a male Little Nell -- screaming in a straitjacket during the brainwashing; sweet and helpless when rejected by his parents; alone, weeping, on a bridge; beaten, bleed- ing lost in a rainstorm; pounding his head on a floor and crying for death. Kubrick pours on the hearts and flowers; what is done to Alex is far worse than what Alex has done, so society itself can be felt to justify Alex's hoodlumism.

This is "confusing" because the moral vision of the movie is so opposed to normative morality. Kubrick is attempting to manipulate the viewer into holding moral views that the viewer does not hold, which creates confusion.

[PeterL]

S I was typing too fast. What does "confusinf" mean, by the way? And what is a "rader"?

I don't know either.

[Ecurb]

All in good fun.

[stlukesguild]

Kael’s objections to “A Clockwork Orange” are not merely moral objections, but artistic objections. She objects to being manipulated into empathizing with morally repugnant characters, and it ruins the movie for her. I’d suggest that most of us would agree (perhaps not about “A Clockwork Orange”, but about some other work of art).

The problem with this criticism is that it might be equally applied to other works of art that are almost universally recognized as masterpieces. Lolita immediately comes to mind. Are we not led to empathize with Humbert?

Personally... coming from a formalist/art pour l'art approach to art... I don't look to art works for profound meanings or to reinforce my personal moral/ethical/political/social beliefs. I look to art for the journey it takes me on. Perhaps this is not unlike life itself... it is the journey... not the end... the destination... the "meaning" that is important.

While Oscar Wilde must always be taken with a pinch of salt, there is much of value in his Preface to Dorian Gray:

The artist can express everything. Thought and language are to the artist instruments of an art. Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art... All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors.

I am always wary of moral criticisms of art. On one side of the political spectrum we have those who would expect art to tow the party line, on the other hand we have the dangerous idea that thoughts and feelings that make us uncomfortable... or that we disagree with should be swept under the carpet where they fester and grow.

[Ecurb]

I’m not sure Kael’s main criticism of “A Clockwork Orange” is that it is morally depraved. Instead, it is that we are crudely manipulated into empathizing with a morally depraved character. Alex’s victims are portrayed not as real people, but as unsympathetic stereotypes. She thinks the film is juvenile and jingoistic: “The film can work at a pop-fantasy level for a young audience already prepared to accept Alex's view of the society, ready to believe that that's how it is.” This same criticism could be made of “Ol’ Yeller” or “Pollyanna”, movies in which the morality is perfectly acceptable.

I agree that we don’t want art to merely reinforce our personal world view. However, when our emotional reactions are crudely manipulated, suspension of disbelief becomes difficult. Instead of feeling the emotional impact of the work of art, we rebel against the manipulation. It is when the art is subtle enough that we are unaware of “manipulation” that art is most effective.

When the hero enjoys crushing small animals to death (as Alex did in the book, although not in the movie) we tend to object to being manipulated into identifying with him. I know (for example) some readers with good, standard taste in literature who hate “Jane Eyre” because Mr. Rochester is a liar, a wife abuser, a libertine, and, in general, a jerk. That’s a reasonable response. If, in a romance, we are asked to identify with a heroine who is in love with a complete loser, this can create a cognitive dissonance that ruins the novel for us.

Here’s Kael again about “Clockwork”: “Kubrick's martinet control is obvious in the terrible performances he gets from everybody but McDowell, and in the inexorable pacing. The film has a distinctive style of estrangement: gloating closeups, bright, hard-edge, third-degree lighting, and abnormally loud voices. It's a style, all right -- the movie doesn't look like other movies, or sound like them -- but it's a leering, portentous style.”

To the extent that great works of art should have a congruence of style and content – both working together to create the emotional response – it’s surely reasonable to suggest that “style” for its own sake is hollow, or "leering and portentous".

I haven’t seen “A Clockwork Orange” for a couple of decades. I remember liking it (although I also remember thinking the endless close-ups of Alex’s suffering during his indoctrination were cloying and annoying). Nonetheless, surely pointing out the moral implications of the film, and the techniques by which they are delivered, is one function of a critique (even if not the most important function in terms of judging how “good” a work of art is). What else are critics supposed to write about? Isn't Kael's reaction to the movie reasonable and interesting? If it is, what more do we want in a critique?

[PeterL]

I don't see any moral problem with "A Clockwork Orange" at all. Nor do I see a problem with Kubrick presenting the movie in a way that is sympathetic to Alex. There are excellent reasons for Alex being shown as a character who is worthy of sympathy, because he is. I believe that the purpose of "A Clockwork Orange", both the novel and the movie, was to show that people are often forced into positions where they do nasty things; that it is largely out of their hands whether they do anything good or useful or evil. If one doesn't like the concept that one's path in life may be out of one's hands, then I can understand unhappiness with the theme, but I be lieve that we live in a predetermined universe, so I can sympathize with someone ending up in less than pleasant situations that the person might or might not like being in.

I think that the world would be a better place if Kael had written a piece that simply said: I didn't like it, because it disagrees with my opinion of what life should be.

[Ecurb]

I think that the world would be a better place if Kael had written a piece that simply said: I didn't like it, because it disagrees with my opinion of what life should be.

That would have been a bizarre critique. The critique she did write was (at least) controversial (many people think Clockwork is a great movie) and interesting (she discusses the techniques Kubrick uses to create the desired emotional response). In fact, she specfically addresses your concern: she says that in the novel: "Alex the sadist is as mechanized a creature as Alex the good." However, the movie turns this around (acc. Kael): " Stanley Kubrick's Alex (Malcolm McDowell) is not so much an expression of how this society has lost its soul as he is a force pitted against the society, and by making the victims of the thugs more repulsive and contemptible than the thugs Kubrick has learned to love the punk sadist. The end is no longer the ironic triumph of a mechanized punk but a real triumph. Alex is the only likable person we see -- his cynical bravado suggests a broad-nosed, working-class Olivier -- more alive than anybody else in the movie, and younger and more attractive, and McDowell plays him exuberantly, with the power and slyness of a young Cagney."

In other words, it appears to be Kubrick who disagrees with your view of the universe, not Burgess (the author of the novel) or Kael. The irony of the novel is in the notion that Alex is "conditioned" both before and after treatment, the triumph of the movie is that the punk sadist is finally "free".

[Pierre Menard]

And yet, I didn't feel crudely manipulated at all. The problem with Kael's criticism is that it is so dependent upon that point. If one didn't feel manipulated in a crude way, then there really isn't much of Kael's 'critique' that is interesting or really worthwhile. Even the times she discusses things that are actually important (i.e form/style) it seems only to be in relation to that first highly personalised response to the film she had. One can call it an 'artistic' critique if they like, but it really seems no different than any other 'moral critique' I see...like a feminist or neo-Marxist critique. Generally, I think it's a pretty nothing criticism. Then again, I don't have a lot of time for Kael.

[Ecurb]

And yet, I didn't feel crudely manipulated at all. The problem with Kael's criticism is that it is so dependent upon that point. If one didn't feel manipulated in a crude way, then there really isn't much of Kael's 'critique' that is interesting or really worthwhile. Even the times she discusses things that are actually important (i.e form/style) it seems only to be in relation to that first highly personalised response to the film she had. One can call it an 'artistic' critique if they like, but it really seems no different than any other 'moral critique' I see...like a feminist or neo-Marxist critique. Generally, I think it's a pretty nothing criticism. Then again, I don't have a lot of time for Kael.

I agree that SIMPLY giving one’s personal opinion of a work of art doesn’t constitute a critique. It’s self-centered and boring. The critic’s responsibility (since we’re talking about responsibilities) is to discuss the work of art in an interesting manner. However, since stluke mentioned Oscar Wilde, I’ll point out that Wilde in “The Critic as Artist” suggested that criticism is itself an artistic endeavor, beyond feigned objectivity, and necessarily subjective.

Chatty, informal critiques (a style at which Kael was a master) mention the critic’s personal response, but (if they are any good) do so in the context of discussing the work. It seems to me Pierre could make his complaint about ANY critique with which he disagreed. Personally, I think Kael exposes the shallowness of (some of) Kubrick's art. There's plenty of sizzle, but no steak. Obviously (since Kubrick is a highly respected film director) most educated movie-goers disagree.

In any event, rating a critic based on whether he or she has standard, canonical taste (or, simply, the same taste as we do) seems silly. Don’t we admire critics (just as we admire novelists or film makers) who have a unique (but interesting) point of view?

I also don't see what you have against feminist or neo-Marxist criticism, Pierre. They may not constitute the best way to judge the quality of a work of art -- but why should that be the only important value of a critique? Isn't it interesting to look at works of art from a variety of perspectives? (Anything can get boring when overdone, of course.)

As far as Pierre’s “not feeling crudely manipulated” – I wonder what his reaction was to the endless close-ups of Alex being tortured in his re-conditioning program. I still remember (decades later) sitting in the theater thinking, “Enough, already. We’ve been watching these manipulative close-ups of Alex’s suffering face for hours." It seemed like hours, anyway.

[PeterL]

That would have been a bizarre critique. The critique she did write was (at least) controversial (many people think Clockwork is a great movie) and interesting (she discusses the techniques Kubrick uses to create the desired emotional response). In fact, she specfically addresses your concern: she says that in the novel: "Alex the sadist is as mechanized a creature as Alex the good." However, the movie turns this around (acc. Kael): " Stanley Kubrick's Alex (Malcolm McDowell) is not so much an expression of how this society has lost its soul as he is a force pitted against the society, and by making the victims of the thugs more repulsive and contemptible than the thugs Kubrick has learned to love the punk sadist. The end is no longer the ironic triumph of a mechanized punk but a real triumph. Alex is the only likable person we see -- his cynical bravado suggests a broad-nosed, working-class Olivier -- more alive than anybody else in the movie, and younger and more attractive, and McDowell plays him exuberantly, with the power and slyness of a young Cagney."

I don't really know anything about Kael, except what is in the review, but I suspect that person is a fairly committed Christian.


In other words, it appears to be Kubrick who disagrees with your view of the universe, not Burgess (the author of the novel) or Kael. The irony of the novel is in the notion that Alex is "conditioned" both before and after treatment, the triumph of the movie is that the punk sadist is finally "free".

I disagree. I think that Kubrick set it up as Alex being in a situation over which he had no control, regards of whether it was a situation that he enjoyed. Burgess certainly built it as a predetermined world, and Kubrick did nothing to change that; although I believe that there was somewhat more in the novel.

[Ecurb]

I read about 2/3 of Pauline Kael's biography, "A Life in the Dark", before accidently leaving it on an airplane, and never bothering to find a new copy. I don't remember her being a Christian, and (based on her lifestyle as a proud, unmarried, single mother) I very much doubt she was.

[PeterL]

I read about 2/3 of Pauline Kael's biography, "A Life in the Dark", before accidently leaving it on an airplane, and never bothering to find a new copy. I don't remember her being a Christian, and (based on her lifestyle as a proud, unmarried, single mother) I very much doubt she was.

SHe had the Christian moral point of view anyway.

Why did anyone write a biography of her? I am reasonably sure that I have had a more interesting life, so far, and no one suggested the idea of someone writing a bio of me until earlier today. (Yes, I was talking about starting a journal with a fake enumeration _vol. 35_ on it to make biographers think that the rest had been lost.)

[Ecurb]

Kael was an important figure in Amrican culture. Her biography was a good book (as much as I remember of it). Here's a link to an article about her, from the magazine she wrote for, THE New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2011/10/24/111024crat_atlarge_heller?currentPage=6

I don't think Kael had a Christian moral perspective. Her books all had slangy, double entendre titles, which epitomize her style: “I Lost It at the Movies,” “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang,” “Going Steady,” “Reeling,” “When the Lights Go Down,” “Hooked,” and, “Deeper Into Movies.”

Here are a couple of exerpts from the linked article. The first talks about how Kael changed criticism:


Another theory suggests that Kael changed the rules of criticism, setting up a new way of evaluating popular art, without concern for prestige or self-conscious sophistication: in her view, a freshly entertaining or arresting movie was successful, and a movie that seemed tired or required unpacking was a flop.

Here the article responds to Pierre's critique of Kael's critique (Pierre was correct that Kael's style was personal and opinionated):


Kael didn’t just say, This is a bad movie because it fails to turn me on. Instead, she strung movies loosely together, as if mapping out the lines of tradition, and weather-tested them against a couple of things: authenticity of experience and the proved canon of noncinematic art. “Hiroshima Mon Amour,” “The Misfits,” and “La Vérité” failed the first test by moralizing and pathologizing what happened onscreen; certain clued-in viewers were supposed to feel virtuous for watching those films, she thought, which was a contrived and contingent experience. “La Notte,” “Last Year at Marienbad,” and “La Dolce Vita” failed the second test, because their anomie lacked the unmistakable logic of, say, Chekhov’s. (“At a performance of Chekhov’s ‘Three Sisters,’ only a boob asks, ‘Well, why don’t they go to Moscow?’ We can see why they don’t.”) Kael was often accused of watching for plot and character more than for technical craft, and it is not hard to see why. Plot and character communicate effortlessly across time. The finer points of cinematic grammar require cultural education to be appreciated. She cared about audiences’ raw responses—amazement, laughter, recognition—because those responses indicated whether a movie could speak for itself in the long run. She was dowsing for film classics with her nervous system as a guide.

[PeterL]

Kael was an important figure in Amrican culture. Her biography was a good book (as much as I remember of it). Here's a link to an article about her, from the magazine she wrote for, THE New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2011/10/24/111024crat_atlarge_heller?currentPage=6

I don't think Kael had a Christian moral perspective. Her books all had slangy, double entendre titles, which epitomize her style: “I Lost It at the Movies,” “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang,” “Going Steady,” “Reeling,” “When the Lights Go Down,” “Hooked,” and, “Deeper Into Movies.”

Here are a couple of exerpts from the linked article. The first talks about how Kael changed criticism:

.

Here the article responds to Pierre's critique of Kael's critique (Pierre was correct that Kael's style was personal and opinionated):

.

So she was a made to order celeb. Interesting, I'll have to see about getting set up that way.

[Ecurb]

So she was a made to order celeb. Interesting, I'll have to see about getting set up that way.

Don't bother. There's nothing you can do about it. It's either your destiny, or not.

[PeterL]

Don't bother. There's nothing you can do about it. It's either your destiny, or not.

Yes, it is a deterministic universe.

[AuntShecky]

Yes, it is a deterministic universe.

Not really, though the system is definitely rigged in favor of nepotists and insiders. Not to imply that Ms Kael was either, but the path to success seems less bumpy when one "knows somebody who knows somebody" who can smooth the way.

But you know what? We've gone way off the track in our discussions of one movie and a critic's view of that movie. The original posting was "The novelist's responsibility."

[PeterL]

Not really, though the system is definitely rigged in favor of nepotists and insiders. Not to imply that Ms Kael was either, but the path to success seems less bumpy when one "knows somebody who knows somebody" who can smooth the way.

But you know what? We've gone way off the track in our discussions of one movie and a critic's view of that movie. The original posting was "The novelist's responsibility."

No, part of Burgess' theme was that the universe and Alex' life were predetermined. Alex had no choice, and Kubrick rubbed that fact in our faces.

[Ecurb]

Not really, though the system is definitely rigged in favor of nepotists and insiders. Not to imply that Ms Kael was either, but the path to success seems less bumpy when one "knows somebody who knows somebody" who can smooth the way.

But you know what? We've gone way off the track in our discussions of one movie and a critic's view of that movie. The original posting was "The novelist's responsibility."

That's true. However, movie-makers and novelists (we can assume) have similar moral responsibilities (if any). My point (and the reason I linked the Kael review) is that moral responsibilities and artistic responsibilities are not so easy to separate. Novels (or movies) that appear to advocate an abhorrent moral position or that invite readers to identify with morally abhorrent characters invite a negative reaction on the part of the reader (as “A Clockwork Orange” invited such a reaction from Kael). So even if the “responsibility” of the author is not “moral” ipso facto, artistic responsibilities (the responsibility to entertain the reader or viewer) may have a moral component.

Another general point, if, as Keats suggests, "truth is beauty, beauty truth", and if there is a moral value to "truth", then we can assume there is a moral value to beauty. If the sole point of art is to create works of beauty, that (given Keats) may still involve a moral component.