If I may suggest a slightly different approach to this
discussion of morality and writing. Tom Nolan, in a review of
crime fiction in the WSJ discusses the relationship between
private eye fiction and the era that produces it. After
discussing Hammett, Chandler, Spillane and Macdonald, he says
of our times "A lot of detective stories in the first years
of the new century show wobbly emotion and crippling
self-doubt ...they depict several types of ambiguity." This
is interesting. It may even be true. However, this kind of
observation suggests, rather than discussing whether fiction
has to be moral (or is immora) or better stated amoral), we
should be discussing what the inevitable moral implcations of
fiction tell us about the times we live in (or past writers
write in.)
Tim
On Feb 22, 2007, at 4:55 PM, Michael Robison wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>
> And as a minor matter I certainly wouldn't turn
to
> Oscar Wilde for advice on morality of any sort
let
> alone the uses or morality in literature.
>
> **********
> Haha. What was his comment? Something about
books
> being neither moral nor immoral? I can see
two
> reasons for this. First, since art is open
to
> multiple interpretations, its meaning is
sufficiently
> ambiguous to preclude an objective moral or
immoral
> character. Second, since art does not act itself,
it
> can't be moral or immoral because morality
involves
> action.
>
> Now I don't view either of these reasons as being
the
> most silly thing I've ever heard, but neither do
I
> find them entirely satisfying. As far as the
first
> reason, it is true that art is to an extent open
to
> personal interpretation, but I disagree with
the
> reader-response theory that a book means whatever
a
> reader wants it to. It's a small step from the
idea
> that a book can mean anything to it meaning
nothing.
> With meaningful interpretation strapped with at
least
> some kind of limitation, it's not unreasonable
to
> assume that the range of interpretation may all
lay
> within either a moral or immoral zone. As far as
the
> second reason limiting moral nature to actions,
I
> would note that words express ideas and ideas
have
> consequences which are pretty damned close to
actions.
>
>
> miker
>
>
__________________________________________________________
> Any questions? Get answers on any topic at
www.Answers.yahoo.com.
> Try it now.
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 22 Feb 2007 EST