I was reading the following article in Dissent
(http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=425)
on the current state of obscenity prosecutions when I ran
across the following section on literature and moral harm. I
immediately thought of the semi-recent debate over
Stansberry's The Confession, how some critics (and many who
hadn't even read it) equated simple depiction of evil deeds
-- SPOILER ALERT (but one known by anyone at all exposed to
the debate) -- from the perspective of the evil doer
--SPOILER ALERT OVER -- with an endorsement of those
deeds.
Now I'm on record saying I didn't think Stansberry was
entirely successful in this book (but think his Last Days of
Il Duce was great and am looking forward to Chasing the
Dragon, which I have on deck), but I had no problem with the
depiction of evil. Actually, I find its depiction from the
viewpoint of the perp especially interesting and
entertaining. However, no matter how cool I think Parker is,
I don't think there's much chance of my going out and pulling
a heist, much less casually killing anyone who gets in my
way.
Mark
Anyway, here's the (pretty long) excerpt:
When we try to think through how literature causes moral
harm, matters become more complicated. In his book The
Company We Keep: An Ethics of Fiction, Wayne Booth developed
a sophisticated account of the moral effects of literature.
As we read, "a large part of our thought-stream is taken
over, at least for the duration of the telling, by the story
we are taking in." The reader is invited to view the world in
the same way that the narrative does. Literature is good for
us when it teaches us to view the world, and particularly
human interaction, subtly and sensitively. The "facts" that
we take in when we read a narrative are of two kinds, Booth
argues. One is "nonce beliefs," which the reader embraces
only for the duration of the story: "Once upon a time there
was a farmer who had the good fortune to possess a goose that
laid a golden egg every day . . ." But any story will also
depend for its effect on
"fixed norms," which, Booth notes, are "beliefs on which the
narrative depends for its effect but which also are by
implication applicable in the 'real' world." When Aesop
concludes the goose story with the claim that "overweening
greed loses all," the reader is meant to keep thinking that
once the story is over. And the point applies to all fiction,
whether or not it has overt moral lessons as Aesop's does.
Morally bad literature is literature that promulgates morally
bad fixed norms. Just as good literature invites us to
perceive the world subtly and empathetically, it is possible
-indeed, it is common-for novels or films or television shows
to view the world crudely and insensitively, and to spin out
self-aggrandizing fantasies that invite self-centeredness and
cruelty. There is a lot of that stuff in our culture. It is a
huge problem. Will censorship make matters better? It's
unlikely. . . . Even with portrayals of sexual violence that
make the violence appear attractive, matters are complicated.
There may be valid moral reasons for such portrayals. One of
the most vivid literary treatments of sexual cruelty is
Vladimir Nabokov's 1955 novel, Lolita, which is told from the
point of view of the eloquent and witty pedophile Humbert
Humbert. For half a century critics have debated whether
Nabokov went too far in letting Humbert's voice dominate the
novel. Forced Entry [an extremely explicit rape/murder porn
film at the center of current cases questioning obscenity
laws] isn't Lolita, of course. Lolita is a literary classic,
and Forced Entry-to put it gently-is not. And this matters,
because under the Miller test material can't be obscene if it
has substantial literary value. IF YOU'RE CONCERNED about
moral harm, however, literary value may just make matters
worse. Humbert's perspective is presented with dazzling
skill. A sample: "I do not intend to convey the impression
that I did not manage to be happy. Reader must understand
that in the possession and thralldom of a nymphet the
enchanted traveler stands, as it were, beyond happiness. For
there is no other bliss on earth comparable to that of
fondling a nymphet. It is hors concours, that bliss, it
belongs to another class, another plane of sensitivity." Gee,
that sounds great. I have not seen Forced Entry, but I will
bet that it doesn't make the case for the delights of
committing rape nearly as well. Many readers will not notice
how Nabokov subtly subverts his narrator's ingenious
apologetics. The same problem is present in any narrative
that makes the appeal of evil actions intelligible, such as
that of John Milton's heroically defiant Satan in the early
pages of Paradise Lost.
RARA-AVIS home page: http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rara-avis-l/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
rara-avis-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 25 Aug 2006 EDT