The Singer or the Song?

[stlukesguild]

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.

[Desolation]

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.

"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 Gaddis

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.

[dysfunctional-h]

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.

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.

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.

[vagantes]

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?

[hawthorns]

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.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I just saw The Hunger Games. I thought it was pretty good . . . a bit better than the book, actually. What'd you guys think?

[vagantes]

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

[miyako73]

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.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

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

So you didn't like The Hunger Games, then?

[hawthorns]

So you didn't like The Hunger Games, then?

No but I saw Twilight! It was SO kewl!

--"benighted" dolt

[vagantes]

My apologies, I thought this was a site for grown up people who like to think now and again.

It would appear I have made a mistake.

[stlukesguild]

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?

So in other words... if some individuals here question... or worse yet, openly reject the ideas that you have put forth, then obviously they are simply mindlessly following the fashionable thinking of the time and unable to think beyond the usual stock response?

And this does not strike you in any way as presumptuous?

[stlukesguild]

My apologies, I thought this was a site for grown up people who like to think now and again.

It would appear I have made a mistake.

OK... let's look at the lack of thinking here. You threw out the following statement of "fact":

My point is that there is a link between literature and moral well being...

I countered this with the following post:

Is there? And how does this apply to artists/authors whose moral stances are diametrically opposed?

Did you make any attempt to prove your point? No... rather you made a sweeping dismissal of my questions and a snide comment presuming my lack of intelligence of education:

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.

It seems rather pretentious to assume that all those who disagree with you are inherently less intelligent or less educated than yourself. I tend to avoid making such assumptions until I know a person for a period of time, but perhaps you are gifted with a greater degree of insight.

Rather than repeatedly throwing out such presumptive and insulting comments as:

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.

... perhaps you might consider the possibility that there are more than a few members here who may just have as much (or far more) experience and mastery in literature, reading, and reading comprehension as you... and yet who have (gasp!) come to an opposite point of view from yourself. Rather than tossing out the repeated insults which have been tolerated up to the present, perhaps you might do better to delve deeper into explaining and proving your assertions concerning the links between literature and morality and how examples such as Gesualdo, Caravaggio, Rimbaud, Baudelaire, Verlaine, etc... are irrelevant.

[hawthorns]

My apologies, I thought this was a site for grown up people who like to think now and again.

It would appear I have made a mistake.

No problem--It's clear you have no interest in doing any. It's also clear that you're quick to disparage and insult senior board members whenever they, or anyone else, offer opposing viewpoints. I'm afraid that doesn't surprise me. Typical of egotistical narcissists. If you talked to people like this where I live you'd be six feet under.

[hawthorns]

No but I saw Twilight! It was SO kewl!

--"benighted" dolt

BTW--sorry for that.

I guess I'm as thin-skinned as the OP. But being called "benighted" after graduating from a top-tier university in molecular biology was just about the limit.