Do the personal virtues or vices of writers and thinkers affect our historical evaluation of their intellectual or literary achievements?
Printable View
Do the personal virtues or vices of writers and thinkers affect our historical evaluation of their intellectual or literary achievements?
Doubtfull, a victor hugo or tolstoy are held in just as much regards as a Rimbaud or baudelaire even though from an ethical standpoint they are near diametrical opposites.
Has not history been equally fair for the great sinner and inconstant and tempestous being that was carravagio as the wise and hardworking and peacefull da vinchi ?
Character and genius seem rather separate.
It does appear to be reasonably straightforward, but does not someone's moral character have an influence on the way they think? So why would you value the thoughts of a child abuser?who plainly has no regards for the rights of other people.
What is special about writing a book or painting a picture that says we need take no notice of how someone lived their life? After all we wouldn't employ a burglar in a position of trust, so why value the thoughts of a murderer or a thief?
As I see it, you're asking two very different questions here: 1. Do their vices affect their product? 2. Should they affect our perception of them. Historically, I think there's an established public track record of not knowing, forgetting, or not caring about an artist's personal life/behavior. Why? Because most often there's no relationship; it's nearly impossible to educe anything conclusively about a creator's character from a work of art. Sure is the case for me. Waugh is one of my favorite writers and Wagner my favorite composer. One writes beautiful prose and the other can take your soul apart with notes. That sure makes it easy to forgive personal vice. How many of us stare at the Carravagio's in Rome and think, "gee, what a jerk." But hey, maybe I'm wrong. I'll admit I'm in no hurry to read O.J. Simpson's autobiography.Quote:
Originally Posted by vagantes
That mentality seems limited to me, an individual is so incredibly omplex and diverse and full of contradictions that to labe a man with one quality reaveals nothing about him in fact it only obscrues us from the truth. There is no such thing as a child buser, there is suh as a man who abuses children. By your logic why would we value the literary critique of a Banker, yt using tht labling system of individuals you could defie t.s eliots ntire being as simply A Banker. Carravagio could jut be a murderer, but he was not just a murderer he was carravagio. I could sum up your entire existance as A Online Forum Member, yet does this defenition reveal the nature of your being or the ignorance and close mindedness of my being?Quote:
So why would you value the thoughts of a child abuser?who plainly has no regards for the rights of other people.
Do you live in an isolated mountain? Or have you never seen a goverment or bank before? And no this is not sarcasm I am serious. In italy if you steal 100 euros from a shop you will go to jail for a year. If you are in the goverment nd steal 20 million all you get is a nation telling you that they are disapointed in you.Quote:
After all we wouldn't employ a burglar in a position of trust, so why value the thoughts of a murderer or a thief?
Heidegger was a terrible person, a high-ranking Nazi, but his philosophies on Being, Time, and Language are amazing and have influenced so many throughout the 20th-21st century.
So no, I think when all is said and done, it is possible to ignore the writer and take what is written as it is.
I'd say absolutely [not]. Conrad's Heart of Darkness is now often viewed as a disturbing look into the heart of a racist, but still a classic nonetheless. And insight into the lives of James Joyce, William Faulkner, and Thomas Mann adds another layer of meaning that would have otherwise been missing from their works of genius, however flawed.
At the back of these replies is a point of view summed up by Auden:
Time that is intolerant
Of the brave and the innocent,
And indifferent in a week
To a beautiful physique,
Worships language and forgives
Everyone by whom it lives;
Pardons cowardice, conceit,
Lays its honours at their feet.
Time that with this strange excuse
Pardoned Kipling and his views,
And will pardon Paul Claudel,
Pardons him for writing well.
I can see the reasoning behind such views but had in mind something like the connection between morality and Literature.
J S Mill cured his nervous breakdown for instance by reading Wordsworth.
Ruskin was much in demand as speaker especially by the manufacturing class. He was usually fawned on after his speech to which he would rejoin: "But, did it do you good"?
At the moment I am engaged in a project of reading the whole of Trollope's novels in the order they were written, mainly because I want to experience what it felt like to be a Victorian reader. I am greatly surprised by the moral truths I constantly find as I read.
If it does not matter about morality then we may as well say goodbye to the idea of Society. And if it does matter then why should writers be exempt. If literature is a source of moral truths then it should matter about the moral worth of a writer.
You're making the mistake that I read to hear ALL the thoughts of a murderer or a thief. Is it not possible to read for their artistic thoughts? I mean, read for the quality of writing, their ability to draw and create memorable characters or situations and so on? That can have very little to do with them being a murderer and a thief. An authors personality influences a work, but not ALL of the personality necessarily goes in there.Quote:
Originally Posted by vagantes
Quote:
Originally Posted by vagantes
Who on earth said literature was a source of moral truths? I mean, if you want literature to be viewed so narrowly, go ahead. I view literature as a whole bunch of words on a page constructed in a particular way and I believe some construct those words on the page more brilliantly then others. 'Moral truths' (whatever the hell they are) don't come into for it me.
Furthermore, if I start judging the moral character of every writer I like or want to read throughout history, then I may as well not bother reading anything before the 20th century because a great many of the classic writers certainly wouldn't conform to what I view as 'ethical' by today's standards.
And how, exactly, do we go about enforcing that? A creator's guide to "acceptable" vs "unacceptable" vices? I'd bet a healthy percentage of the greatest writers, composers, artists were nuttier than fruitcakes. Yet, look what they gave us. It would seem the realities of history controvert your argument. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for morals and virtue--I graduated from a religious college. The idea that the brilliant among us are Mother Theresa and Moses in their personal lives is warm and fuzzy. Unfortunately it isn't consistent with reality. In my experience, genius is more often than not associated with extreme oddities/quirkiness/eccentricities, so it makes sense that they'd often include "vices" in some form or another.Quote:
Originally Posted by vagantes
Again, by what standard do we hold moral truth for the purposes of accepting or rejecting a creator's work? Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your statement here. Personally, I find censorship of ideas/viewpoints a very scary thing. This has caused quite a ruffle in our extended family's political discussions. One side thinks they have the moral imperative and all the "correct" facts; the other side is labelled as "dangerous" when they counter with opposing viewpoints founded on equally substantiated facts.:frown2:Quote:
Originally Posted by vagantes
LOL by my standard, as that is often what moves me most about a work. XD And that in the end is what matters most about a work, how moving it was? Idk. Maybe it depends on what you mean by "moral truth." If you mean identification with particular character's situation and the way they react to it (such as i found in Faulkner and Joyce with Quentin and Stephen), then absolutelyQuote:
Originally Posted by hawthorns
Anyways, I can't believe I didn't mention Lolita~ That work just shows you how powerful good prose is in a work EVEN IF YOU LOATHE THE NARRATOR. So sometimes the moral scruples of a work do little to explain why it is so powerful. But then again, it has a more subtle moral meaning, regarding why people do crazy things, which cannot be ignored.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVW8GCnr9-I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md4HB96MY-U
These two examples of music... quite appropriate to the season... rank among the greatest musical achievements of the Renaissance. Gesualdo pushed the limits of traditional tonality to the breaking point... and then pulled back... achieving an unsettling sense of harmony.
Gesualdo the man, on the other hand, was a violent and brutal individual:
In 1586 Gesualdo married his first cousin, Donna Maria d'Avalos, the daughter of the Marquis of Pescara. Two years later she began a love affair with Fabrizio Carafa, the Duke of Andria. Evidently, she was able to keep it secret from her husband for almost two years, even though the existence of the affair was well-known elsewhere. Finally, on October 16, 1590, at the Palazzo San Severo in Naples, when Gesualdo had allegedly gone away on a hunting trip, the two lovers took insufficient precaution at last (Gesualdo had arranged with his servants to have keys to the locks of his palace copied in wood so that he could gain entrance if it were locked). Gesualdo returned to the palace, caught them in flagrante delicto and murdered them both in their bed. Afterward, he left their mutilated bodies in front of the palace for all to see. Being a nobleman he was immune to prosecution, but not to revenge, so he fled to his castle at Venosa where he would be safe from any of the relatives of either his wife or her lover.
Details on the murders are not lacking, as the depositions of witnesses to the magistrates have survived in full. While they disagree on some details, they agree on the principal points, and it is apparent that Gesualdo had help from his servants, who may have done most of the killing; however, Gesualdo certainly stabbed Maria multiple times, shouting as he did, "she's not dead yet!" The Duke of Andria was found slaughtered by numerous deep sword wounds, as well as by a shot through the head. When he was found, he was dressed in women's clothing (specifically, Maria's night dress). His own clothing was found piled up by the bedside, unbloodied.
The murders were widely publicized, including in verse by poets such as Tasso and an entire flock of Neapolitan poets, eager to capitalize on the sensation. The salacious details of the murders were broadcast in print, but nothing was done to apprehend the Prince of Venosa. The police report from the scene makes for shocking reading even after more than four hundred years.
Accounts on events after the murders differ. According to some sources, Gesualdo also murdered his second son by Maria, who was an infant, after looking into his eyes and doubting his paternity (according to a 19th century source he "swung the infant around in his cradle until the breath left his body"); another source indicates that he murdered his father-in-law as well, after the man had come seeking revenge. Gesualdo had employed a company of men-at-arms to ward off just such an event. However, contemporary documentation from official sources for either of these alleged murders is lacking.
By 1594, Gesualdo had arranged for another marriage, this time to Leonora d'Este, the niece of Duke Alfonso II... The relationship between Gesualdo and his new wife was not good; she accused him of abuse, and the Este family attempted to obtain a divorce. She spent more and more time away from the isolated estate. Gesualdo wrote many angry letters to Modena where she often went to stay with her brother.
Late in life he suffered from depression. Whether or not it was related to the guilt over his multiple murders is difficult to prove, but the evidence is suggestive. According to Campanella, writing in Lyon in 1635, Gesualdo had himself beaten daily by his servants, keeping a special servant whose duty it was to beat him "at stool", and he engaged in a relentless, and fruitless, correspondence with Cardinal Borromeo to obtain relics, i.e., skeletal remains, of his uncle Carlo, with which he hoped to obtain healing for his mental disorder and possibly absolution for his crimes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Gesualdo
Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, known commonly as Caravaggio, was one of the greatest and most influential artists in the whole of Western art history. He can virtually be credited with giving birth to the Baroque era... rejecting the artifice and extreme stylization of Mannerism, and returning to the naturalism of the Renaissance, yet infusing this with an unheard-of drama:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...vaggio_069.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._di_Cristo.jpg
Caravaggio began his career pandering homoerotic images of "pretty boys" to high-ranking clergy:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ncet_Omnia.jpg
Caravaggio was involved in an endless string of street brawls, gambling, and excessive drinking. He had a long police record that included numerous fights, the battering down of a door of a private home, the wounding of a police officer, the serious wounding of a knight, and the killing of one Ranuccio Tomassoni... reportedly as part of a duel over a dispute at a tennis match. His violent behavior led to his been repeatedly banished from one city-state to the next and the repeated loss of influential patrons. Toward the end of his life, at least one assassination was made, leaving him disfigured, and the high lead content in the bones presumed to be of the artist suggest he may have been the victim of poisoning... although lead was a major component in oil paint and an artist who was not careful could certainly ingest toxic levels.
In both instances I am able to embrace the artist's achievements... the art... while condemning the artist as an individual. The reality is that many other artists in any field of artistic endeavor were less than ideal human beings. Beethoven and Michelangelo could be jerks. Picasso was a real a**hole. Rimbaud and Verlaine were both idiots. But this in no way affects my appreciation of their art.
Anyways, I can't believe I didn't mention Lolita~ That work just shows you how powerful good prose is in a work EVEN IF YOU LOATHE THE NARRATOR.
Which Narrator? Nabokov? Or his fictional narrator, Humbert?
LOL Humbert obviously. He's always rationalizing and fantasizing and lying and being generally shifty so yeah, I can't really say I like him... and yet throughout the book I find myself sort of cheering him on. O_oll lol I'm only halfway thru it tho so ehhh i can't really quite claim to know everything about it. XD
I guess then that doesn't really apply to the question in word, if it does in spirit. But I still think my comments on Joyce and Mann are applicable. I should have mentioned our Uncle Benjy Britten and Uncle Lenny, and Comrade Shostakovich and Comrade Prokofiev too. They were a moral enigma if I've ever known one. And don't even get me started on The Birth of a Nation...
The Birth of a Nation...?
What about Triumph des Willens and Olympia?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6-0Cz73wwQ
I saw those top two! Among my favorites.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I was going to mention Caravagio, but stlukes beat me to it, of course.
I think the OP's answer depends on how much the author's/artist's views effect his art. Look at Orson Scott Card--he wrote some excellent stuff early in his career. But as he got older more and more f his political message infested his stories, and, no surprise, it is not at all liked by most.
Same thing happened with John Le Carre. Went from incredible to intolerable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
First of all it is not a question of valuing writers because of an implied message.
My point is that there is a link between literature and moral well being and because of that link it may well be that we should consider the moral character of a writer when we are evalating their work.
As a slight aside I would mention Bibliotherapy which is a way of using literature to deal with mental health problems. In fact the more I think about it, it is not an aside at all , but something rather central.
My point is that there is a link between literature and moral well being...
Is there? And how does this apply to artists/authors whose moral stances are diametrically opposed?
...it may well be that we should consider the moral character of a writer when we are evalating their work.
So we are to evaluate or judge a work of art based upon an issue that has nothing to do with art and is based upon our own moral values or standards. Thus a strict orthodox Jew or Christian should dismiss the work of a writer or painter or architect who was homosexual?
As a slight aside I would mention Bibliotherapy which is a way of using literature to deal with mental health problems. In fact the more I think about it, it is not an aside at all , but something rather central.
Oh no... another variation on Art Therapy.:frown2:
It might be to the point if the ideas promoted were discussed instead of flippantly and somewhat shallowly dismissing points raised.
On the other hand this may well be an illustration of how education appears to have failed.
Ah, herein lies the issue. It's fine to believe this - I'm not going to tell you what to believe - but this is not "an accepted fact", and I think many who have posted on this thread would disagree with this claim - at least in a general sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by vagantes
I don't believe that there is a link between literature and moral well being an a way that produces any insight. Person A reads a book and becomes a serial killer. Person B reads a book and devotes his life to philanthropy. What moral well-being is literature supporting?
Ruskin thought there was. So did Mill. That's the purpose of my examples.
It's not that there's a causal link between reading and actions, but rather that by reading there is an effect, which in simple terms does you good and is more or less so proven.
Now if moral truths can be gained from Literature it would almost inescapably follow that moral worth is important when we evaluate particular writers. It therefore might be considered important if a particular writer llived in a way which was seen to be untrustworthy.
In that case I consider Mill untrustworthy. I like his writing, but he was too far removed from the world itself for me to take anything from his ethical philosophy.
Or maybe it's that a number of us don't agree with your assertions about literature and something as open to interpretation as 'moral truths'.Quote:
Originally Posted by vagantes
And it might help if you tone down the patronizing attitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by vagantes
Mill cured his nervous breakdown by reading Wordsworth.
Now how did he do that?
Curious that you are evaluating Mill by your opinion of his character.
I worry about some comments on here which appear to indicate that basic reading skills are not being taught in schools.
What seems to be taught instead is to value commonplace opinion and the ability to make snap judgements based on rigid mindsets.
Accepted critical thinking is to place value on the text.
But who owns the text?
And if the text belongs to the reader, who can place meaning where they will, then what determines worth. If it is because the reader gains something from the text then is not he or she finding truths within the text placed there by the writer? The author needs to be respected. If they are to be respected then how they lived, thought and behaved has an importance.
Glib, slipshod second-hand opinions do not provide satisfaction.
My comment on Mill was partially a joke....but he was indeed removed from the world.
Also, there is a line somewhere that has to be drawn. If we are discussing moral philosophers, or socio-political philosophers, then I agree with you 100% that we should be looking at their character when reading their work, because their work is quite literally imposing their views on us and telling us how to live. This is not so explicitly the case in "literature" - by which I understand as fiction - or even in metaphysical, epistemology, or aesthetic philosophy.
So if we are talking about Mill, or Kant - then yes, we must look at the author's character. If we are talking about Dickens and Hemingway - not necessarily.
Or maybe it would help if you actually offered a bit of elucidation on your points instead of throwing single sentences out there and expect people to respond thoroughly (or ignore someone's point if it doesn't directly adhere to what you wanted to discuss). You throw out that bilbiotherapy is a relevant point. Why? How?Quote:
Originally Posted by vagantes
You complain about the forums reading skills? I think the problem is your writing skills.
I have to admit, the classics have been therapeutic for me. Proust was a literary anti-depressant for 18 months. A lot cheaper than pills.Quote:
As a slight aside I would mention Bibliotherapy which is a way of using literature to deal with mental health problems. In fact the more I think about it, it is not an aside at all , but something rather central.
But how is this related to moral truths or a writer's character? I think I missed something. Happens a lot...:smile5: Proust for the most part was an extreme reclusive, odd, and (amoral?) individual. Not exactly someone I'd want to emulate. And yet his insights on the human psyche, memory, etc. spoke to me.
I'm talking about that innovative (if horribly racist and ultimately evil) DW Griffiths film which Woodrow Wilson called "lightning in a bottle" and helped spark the second rise of the KKK. o_o It was a great work of art in the service of an absolutely evil cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
LOL I'm Episcopalian and homosexual. I still find the relationship between moral truth and religion in something to be important to its premise. The moral truth of something is both inextricably linked entirely separate from its respective religion in word. Take for example, the Birth of a Nation, which claims to be Christian but in reality embraces violence and polarization as opposed to brotherly love... The only way the religion of the author is particularly relevant to our debate is the level of congruence the message of the work shows with the author's particular spirituality, either shedding light on their hypocrisy, as in the case of Griffiths and Conrad, or their immense guilt, spiritual angst, and depth of thought, as in the case of Faulkner, Gesualdo, Dostoevsky, Joyce, Britten, Nabokov, Mann, and countless other true artistic geniuses.
Ruskin thought there was. So did Mill. That's the purpose of my examples.
Ruskin also had some serious sexual hang-ups (among other mental issues) that would seemingly make him an unreliable source.
It's not that there's a causal link between reading and actions, but rather that by reading there is an effect, which in simple terms does you good and is more or less so proven.
Nobody has ever denied that Sigismondo Malatesta, the Lord of Rimini, had excellent taste. He hired the most refined of quattrocentro architects, Leon Battista Alerti, to design a memorial temple to his wife, and then got the sculptor Agostino di Duccio to decorate it, and retained Piero della Francesca to paint it. Yet Sigismondo was a man of such callousness and rapacity that he was known in his life as Il Lupo, the Wolf, and so execrated after his death that the Catholic church made him (for a time) the only man apart from Judas Iscariot officially listed as being in Hell—a distinction he earned by trussing up a papal emissary, the fifteen-year-old Bishop of Fano, in his own rochet and publicly sodomizing him before his applauding army in the main square of Rimini.
-Robert Hughes- Art, Morals, and Politics
It is but wishful thinking to suppose that the appreciation of the finest art, music, and literature will result in producing an individual of high moral or ethical values. Of course this was the belief of many late 19th century artists and thinkers... Ruskin included. Unfortunately, history suggests otherwise. Hitler certainly had immaculate taste when it came to music: he loved Wagner and Mozart; his favorite living composer was Richard Strauss; his favorite conductor was Wilhelm Furtwangler; his favorite soprano was Elizabeth Schwarzkopf... fine choices all. But none of this served to turn him into a high-minded, moral individual.
I'm talking about that innovative (if horribly racist and ultimately evil) DW Griffiths film which Woodrow Wilson called "lightning in a bottle" and helped spark the second rise of the KKK. o_o It was a great work of art in the service of an absolutely evil cause.
I knew fully well what you were referring to... which is why I offered Leni Riefenstahl... film-maker to the Nazi's... as an example of film perhaps even more morally tainted.
Now if moral truths can be gained from Literature it would almost inescapably follow that moral worth is important when we evaluate particular writers. It therefore might be considered important if a particular writer llived in a way which was seen to be untrustworthy.
The key word in this first sentence is CAN: Moral truths CAN be gained from literature. Moral truth is not the goal of all literature. Moral truths vary from individual to individual... in which case Oscar Wilde seems ever more prescient:
The artist is the creator of beautiful things.
To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim.
The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a new material his impression of beautiful things.
The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography.
There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.
The moral life of man forms part of the subject-matter of the artist, but the morality of art consists in the perfect use of an imperfect medium.
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.
All art is quite useless.
I agree with Harold Bloom who suggested that these words should be carved over the entrance archways to every university literature campus.
"What is it they want from the man that they didn't get from the work? What do they expect? What is there left when he's done with his work, what's any artist but the dregs of his work, the human shambles that follows it around?" - William GaddisQuote:
My point is that there is a link between literature and moral well being and because of that link it may well be that we should consider the moral character of a writer when we are evalating their work.
As a rule, I don't care about an artist's personal life unless it somehow informs the work, or if they've done something really horrible. Everyone has a right to privacy, and a weird private life. I don't particularly care about the moral character of the cashier at the grocery store, so why should I care about the moral character of whoever wrote the book I'm reading? It's none of my business.
On the other hand...I refuse to watch any of Roman Polanski's movies because of the whole rape thing...Same with the novels of William S. Burroughs, who shot his wife, neglected his son to the point of abuse, and had his way with small boys (and wrote about it). So, there is a line...But it usually comes down to the fact that I'm not inclined towards giving money to rapists unless they're pointing a gun at me.
Of course, I'm not really much of a film buff, mainly getting my knowledge of movies from watching "Ebert Presents: At the Movies" then viewing the films discussed for myself, and reading my AP US history book (an even more convoluted source), so I didn't get those particular references, tho i suppose I should have googled them before I responded. XD oh well. But I'm sure you get my point... I have to slightly disagree with Wilde, as the best art often serves to incriminate the artist instead of concealing them, as Wilde, Faulkner, Mann, Fitzgerald, and Joyce's novels do, even sometimes on purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I've read Bloom's Biocritique of Faulkner and honestly didn't get much out of it I didn't already know, so i've not really solidified my opinion of him yet... I personally enjoyed Alan Warren Friedman's far more. Just a personal preference.
This is obviously a very subjective topic, so I draw no judgement on the people who views I disagree with. I just happen to think art often reveals more than the artist intended about both him and the society around him.
I am inescapably reminded of I A Richards' discussion about the difficulties some folk have with criticism ( by which I mean reading).
Stock responses: where a button is pushed and away the responder goes on subjects, which are completely independent of what was written.
Or perhaps, mnemonic irrelevances, where readers are reminded of some personal remembrance which have nothing to do with the piece of writing under discussion.
Not to mention what he calls difficulties with the making out of the plain sense in the writing.
What is being put forward is the notion that the writer and his production are linked. Because they are linked, how can we value something if the producer is tainted in some way?
Or do writers have an excuse me card which means their moral worth is not of account?
And if they do, why should it apply to others?
A reading of literature can be demonstrated to do you good. It instils what I call moral truths in the reader.
How are these transmitted?
And if the source is in some way corrupt then should this matter?
Uhhhhh...Ok. I think you've received some good answers and some even better questions. Personal anecdotes have been introduced in an attempt to answer your question, not evade it. Sorry, but you're starting to remind me of my family's other half--petulant, superscilious, and quick to label opposing viewpoints as uneducated and provocative. It sounds like you want a scientific answer to a very complex question. So...I'll give you mine.
can we value something if the producer is tainted in some way?
YES
Because said product may save humanity's backside. Would you work by candlelight and refuse vaccination if you discovered that Thomas Edison and Edward Jenner were jerks or subscribed to "moral truths" inconsistent with your own (which you've never defined or expounded on either)?
Or do writers have an excuse me card which means their moral worth is not of account?
OF COURSE NOT--no more/less than any other artform
St.luke and others have already exhaustively demonstrated that there's little relationship between the value of creative genius and morality of its creator. More importantly, why do you assume that nothing of value can spring from the mind of an immoral/amoral deviant? What about histories greatest emperors/conquerors? Should we destroy their writings/memoirs because of their murderous savagery?
How are these transmitted?
They're not, necessarily. One of my favorite books was Big Joe's Trailer Truck. Is there a moral message there?
And if the source is in some way corrupt then should this matter?
That's up to the individual. For the purposes of public censorship? OF COURSE NOT. If history has shown anything, it's that "immoral" genius is just as capable (if not more) of creating a masterpiece as a moral mind is of creating a turd.
I just saw The Hunger Games. I thought it was pretty good . . . a bit better than the book, actually. What'd you guys think?
Presumably asking someone their opinion of a book as opposed to a film has a relevance to the matter under discussion?
On the other hand it could simply be seen as a form of childish petulance as could ad hominem slurs.
I appreciate the viewpoint put forward runs counter to received wisdom and is thus highly unfashionable, but it might have been rewarding if members would have tried to think beyond the stock response.
Or is that what is expected in these benighted times?
To find such an urgent and compelling need to conform on a site like this is very poor indeed
There is no exact answer to this question? I started questioning Postmodernism after knowing that Foucault died from AIDS in which, to my view, Postmodernism has no value and Poststructuralism cannot deconstruct. I also appreciate the beauty of Rimbaud's symbolist poetry without considering his rebellious tendencies, scandalous bisexuality, and deadly syphilis.
So you didn't like The Hunger Games, then?Quote:
Originally Posted by vagantes
No but I saw Twilight! It was SO kewl!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
--"benighted" dolt :hat: