The Novelist's Responsibility

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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/critic...?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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

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

---

Yes, it is a deterministic universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuntShecky

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuntShecky

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.