Literary Criticism Part 1
In the March issue of National Education fascist “an article by Argo, in which he argues with Paul Nizanom (see his article” Ideas on the other side of the border “) is the concept of the new literature, which may arise as a result of the full intellectual and moral renewal.
Nizan, apparently correctly raises the question when determining what constitutes a complete upgrade of cultural backgrounds, and limits the area of research. The only valid objection Argo is a matter of inability to skip national, autochthonous stage of development of new literature and the “cosmopolitan” risk concept bottom. From this point of view should be revised many of the provisions of Article Nisa, critical of the group of French intellectuals – from the “Nouvelle Revue fraisez”, “populism” and so on until the group “Le Monde”. Revise they should be, not because [politically], this criticism does not get a point, but precisely because it is impossible that a new literature has not found a “national” expression in various more or less “hybrid” combinations and alignments. Recycle objective analysis and study should be all over in general. However, in regard to the relationship between literature and politics, it is necessary to bear in mind the following criteria: the writer necessarily less accurate and a vision than a politician, he should be less “sectarian”, so to speak, but not without “controversy”. For every policy of “fixed” a priori image is reactionary, he considers all in formation. The artist, by contrast, must represent an image of a “fixed”, the final form. A politician is a man as he is, and at the same time – as it should be to achieve a certain goal; work policy is just that and is to lead people into a movement to bring them beyond their current state, that they may have acquired the ability to achieve through collective goal, that is “conform” with her. The artist depicts the inevitable “what is” at the moment, [a personal matter not subject to adjustment, etc.] depicts realistically. Therefore, in terms of political policies will never be satisfied with the artist and can not be satisfied: he always finds that the artist is dragging behind, anachronistic, lagging behind the real progressive movement.
If history is a continuous process of liberation and development of self-consciousness, it is obvious that every stage of history, but in this case, cultural history, will quickly transcended and cease to cause concern. I think that this should be considered when assessing the judgments Nizan of various literary groups.
But from an objective point of view, just as Voltaire, even today “relevant” for certain segments of the population, just might be relevant – and, moreover, are such – and these literary groups in combination, in which they appear. An objective point of view in this case means that the process of intellectual and moral renewal does not occur simultaneously in all social strata. Quite the contrary: even today, and it is useful to remember, many are supporters of Ptolemy, not Copernicus.
(There are many “ways to adapt, many species of the struggle for new ways to adapt, as well as various combinations of the fact that in many ways already exists, that is in the making, with much effort devoted to this purpose.) Embark on a point of view , that there is one, “only” line of progressive development and that, consequently, every achievement is approved and becomes a prerequisite for new developments will be a serious mistake. For not only are many lines of evolutionary development. But even the path of “greatest” progress knows retreat. In addition, Nizan unable to raise the issue of so-called “popular literature” – that is, the success enjoyed by the masses among the literature printed in the form of a novel application (adventure, detective, etc.), a success that contributed to film and print. And this is a question which is an important part of the problem of the new literature, ie literature, reflecting the process of intellectual and moral renewal. Only readers of literature such as novel application, you can select the audience, appropriate and necessary to create a cultural foundation of the new literature.
It seems to me that the problem is: how to create a corps of writers, which, by their artistic quality would be in the same relation to the authors of literary novel applications, as his time in Dostoevsky belonged to Sue and Soulie, or as Chesterton in the detective novel to Conan Doyle and HG Wells, etc.? For these purposes would have to abandon many prejudices, and especially must remember that not only impossible to achieve a monopoly, but that obstacle is a powerful organization that kept publishing interests.
The most common prejudice, though the new literature should be identified with the art school, which has roots in the purely intellectual circles, as it was with futurism. Background of the new literature can not be rooted in history, politics, and popular traditions. This literature should strive to develop what already exists, polemical or otherwise – does not matter, it is important to ensure that it is rooted in the rich soil of folk culture – so what she is, her tastes, trends, etc. with its moral and intellectual world, even backward and conditional.
Natural, unnatural, artificial, etc. What is the assertion that a certain action, a lifestyle, a certain behavior or practice “natural” or, alternatively, that they are “unnatural”? Everyone in his heart believes that he knows exactly what that means, but if you need a specific and reasonable answer, then reveals that this question is not so straightforward as it might seem. It must be borne in mind that the “according to nature” can not be spoken of as something immutable, unchanging and always bearing the objective. Then you notice that the “natural” almost always means something “right and normal, consistent with our prevailing at the moment, the historical consciousness. But most people are not aware of the historical implications, and considers their way of thinking eternal and immutable.
Some fanatical adherents of the “natural” reasoning as follows: the actions that our minds seem “unnatural” for them “natural” because they committed the animals, but animals are not really “the most that neither is naturally occurring in the world”? In some quarters it is an opinion expressed frequently, especially when it comes to matters related to sexual relations. Why, for instance, incest should be perceived as something “unnatural”, if it is so often found in “nature”? Meanwhile, even when such statements relate to animals, they are not always correct, as it is about observations on those animals that were domesticated by man for selfish interests and are forced to carry the image of the existence of an “unnatural” for them, but the corresponding end of man. Moreover, even if it would be true that certain phenomena are observed among animals, how important can it be for a man? Why should derive from this a certain standard of behavior? “Nature” of man is the totality of social relations, which determines a certain historical consciousness, and only this consciousness may indicate that the “natural” and what “unnatural”. Next: set of social relations at any given time contradictory and is under constant development, so that the “nature” of man is not something consistent for all people at all times.
It is often said that the habit has become “second nature”, but whether the “first nature” is actually “first”? Do not mean it in this statement, dictated by life’s meaning, an allusion to the historicity of “human nature”?
About the Author
Lia Smith