Criticism: A small warning for Mormons who engage in ethical criticism
By Wm | 3.25.06
And that’s pretty much all of us (and it should be, I think, but how it should be is open for discussion).
I’ve begun reading Wayne Booth’s “The Company We Keep: An Ethics of Fiction.” It’s much too early for me to have much of an opinion of the work, or even for me to engage any of his ideas.
But it’s not too early for me to indulge in pedantry and pull a quote from pages 51-52 and wave it around like a terrible banner:
“All critics are tempted to over-generalize, but ethical critics have seemed especially open to the temptation. Having experienced some artistic gift that feels unquestionably valuable, they have leapt to proclaim it the only true gift. Having experienced some offering that feels unquestionably threatening or harmful to the spirit [nudge, nudge -- Wm], they have hastened to damn it as the unfailing source of all artistic evil. The step from intense, ineluctable, personal experience to the proclamation of the truth about art is all too easy.
Anyone who comes to known, in hear or gut, that ‘this thing here before me is good (or evil)’ is almost certain to want to share the good (or protect those from evil).” (italics original except those between the brackets).
Word.
3.25.06 | 9:13 pm | comment permalink |
I liked this post. When I get back to my computer and to editing my blog again I think I’m going to link to your blog, this post decided me.
Posted by Stephen M (Ethesis)
3.26.06 | 8:18 am | comment permalink |
William,
Does Booth give an example of what he means anywhere in the vicinity of this quote? I’d like a little more context, please.
Posted by P. G. Karamesines
3.26.06 | 10:24 am | comment permalink |
Thanks, William. I hope to get to The Company We Keep soon. I found the quote you extracted particularly interesting given some reading I did yesterday: the debate in Richard Cracroft’s review of Harvest: Contemporary Mormon Poems (that in my opinion ventured into the territory of proclaiming “the truth” about art), Bruce Jorgensen’s response, Cracroft’s rejoinder, and Gideon Burton’s attempted synthesis of the two. (All these are available at the Mormon Literature Website, starting here ).
There is a lot to think about in these essays related to Booth’s exhortation to judging wisely and with humilty.
Posted by S. P. Bailey
3.26.06 | 11:47 am | comment permalink |
I hesitate to comment on the quote sans context or to venture into discussion without having read The Company We Keep (maybe we AMVers ought to all read it together and then have a discussion). But as to S.P.’s comment: I see Cracroft’s, Jorgensen’s, and Burton’s remarks as being beginning words in a long conversation about Molitcrit that’s barely begun. I wouldn’t worry at his point about whether or not this critic, that critic, or the other one are establishing parameters for “the truth” about literature–that’s bound to happen in any arena. All discussions begin somewhere, and IMO Mormons have come late and young to the literature and literary criticism banquet table; what matters is that they join the feast heartily. Some Mormon litcrits are more familiar with the offerings than others, but eventually everyone will come to better awareness of what makes for good table manners at this important community gathering.
Cracroft’s concerns about Mormon literature reflect a certain kind of consciousness–a worried bishop or stake president’s consciousness, maybe–about the nature of his flock. The narrative boundaries he appears to work within are a few of the important words in the opening discussion of Mormon literary dialogue. BTW, Cracroft and Jorgensen sat together in good companionship at our literal lunch table at the February AML Conference–that’s how I think this works.
I don’t mean to say that when it comes to literary criticism anything goes. If, for instance, someone like Booth comes to be table, I think we all ought to shutup for a minute and listen to him then see what happens to the conversation. But we ought to take words we get from such critics as Cracroft, Jorgensen, and Burton as being valuable to the discussion; they are forming the narrative which, if you take the long view, is still in its nascent stage and has great promise. Furthermore, good literature is irrepressible; as guest of honor at this feast upon the word ultimately literature, also in a state of becoming, will be what stimulates the discussion.
Since we’re throwing quotes out of context open to debate, here’s one from D.H. Lawrence. I know D.H. Lawrence has hardly any credibility with Mormons when it comes to how they ought to form even one jot of their culture, but here it is:
“A critic must be able to feel the impact of a work of art in all its complexity and its force. To do so, he must be a man of force himself, which few critics are. A man with a paltry, impudent nature will never write anything but paltry, impudent criticism … A critic must be emotionally alive in every fibre, intellectually capable and skillful in essential logic, and then morally very honest.”
This is from “John Galsworthy,” in Phoenix (London 1936), p. 639.
Okay, let’s tuck in!
Posted by P. G. Karamesines
3.26.06 | 1:37 pm | comment permalink |
I didn’t mean to imply that Cracroft had nothing important to say–or even that he wasn’t right. I am still digesting the whole conversation to which I referred and my initial impression is that all made valid points. “First words” sounds right to me: perhaps most interesting about the debate was the extent to which the conversants talked past each other. Many arguments on the opposite side went entirely unacknowledged.
Posted by S. P. Bailey
3.26.06 | 2:36 pm | comment permalink |
Okay, just wondering, Shawn.
In my experience reading critics I’ve thought that most present their ideas in their best language but that such language, being specific to the critic, requires interpretation in order to get at a critic’s particular meanings. In the discussion Cracroft and Jorgensen are developing they do seem to speak two different languages. But do you think their talking “past each other” hurts the conversation somehow?
Posted by P. G. Karamesines
3.26.06 | 8:13 pm | comment permalink |
Yes, I suppose so, to the extent that they are not truly engaging each others’ best arguments. Parties to a disagreement can only get so far shouting to each other from across a conceptual gulf. At a certain point, a shift from adversarial to conciliatory rhetoric (my lawyer’s mind is thinking of the different tools used in trying and settling cases) seems appropriate.
Posted by S. P. Bailey
3.27.06 | 10:50 am | comment permalink |
At a certain point, a shift from adversarial to conciliatory rhetoric (my lawyer’s mind is thinking of the different tools used in trying and settling cases) seems appropriate.
Neat. It might be interesting to post on whether the legal model for settling disputes (as you summarize it here) applies to the conversation that goes on in literary criticism. Or what about the scientific model: propose a hypothesis, test hypothesis, revise hypothesis?
Posted by P. G. Karamesines
3.27.06 | 12:28 pm | comment permalink |
Yeah, I would first have to think that through much more fully. I will keep your suggestion in mind! For now, I would simply say that a trial attorney must be pragmatic when deciding whether to exacerbate differences by attacking or attempt to work them out more peacefully. I can’t see why the same wouldn’t be true in literary criticism. Thus, two critical positions may be so fundamentally at odds that there is nothing to be gained by abandoning polemics. But, depending on the circumstances, the opposite might also be true—and I suspect this may be the case in the conversation at issue.
Posted by S. P. Bailey
3.27.06 | 5:05 pm | comment permalink |
Great discussion.
In terms of the context, well, Booth himself admits in a footnote that it could be claimed that he is generalizing beyond his evidence.
The quote comes in Chapter 3 where he examines the “logic” of ethical criticism, that is the methods by which ethical criticism is often engaged in and why he thinks these methods lead to unhelpful criticism.
The quote itself is found in the section titled “The Overly-Ambitious Logic of Critical Evaluation.” Booth claims that most often “overtly ethical critics from Plato to (John) Gardner have sought general rules of judgement or even single standards of true excellence.”
Earlier in the chapter, he quotes passages from F.R. Levis and Yvor Winters where they overgeneralize, where they make claims for all literature based on their evaluation of one or two particular works.
I don’t know that this helps much, and I would encourage anyone who is interested in this topic to pick up the book, but certainly, I have encountered examples of this tendency — both among literary critics and Mormon consumers of art.
——–
Shawn:
Interesting that you should point to the Mormon Literaturstreit. I started a series on it here , but then never completed it — in part because I had mixed feelings about how to approach Cracroft’s reply to Jorgensen. I wrote parts of that post three times and none of the approaches worked for me. And the major reason, I think is exactly what you identify above — the cross-talk going on. Perhaps what I should do is just link to the debate and we can hash it out a bit.
Or maybe (eventually) set up a wiki or other editable online forum where we can comment on the text itself.
——-
I like what little you have to say of conciliatory rhetoric and I too hope to see you write more about it. Certainly Gideon Burton tries to use that rhetoric in his response to Jorgensen and Cracroft. That approach has some virtues, but I think that examining the pragmatics of the Mormon literaturestreit would be quite interesting.
Posted by William Morris
3.29.06 | 10:24 am | comment permalink |
Wm, Thanks for providing some context. Based on what you say Booth appears to be warning critics against committing a common logical fallacy called hasty generalization . Always good advice, no matter what the subject.
But gee, fellas, I guess I don’t feel the same need to settle the conversation between Jorgensen and Cracroft that you do. The value of their discussion (for me) lies in their opening up possibilities, ways for talking about literature in the Mormon context. I look forward to critical POVs to come that expand the conversation further.
For me, the value of such texts isn’t in what they say to each other (though of course that’s interesting) but in what they stimulate in me (the reader-writer) and then in how I happen to join the conversation … say, by thinking a thought or by writing a poem or a passage of prose I might not have written before.
You disagree? Well then gentlemen, how about fountain pens at high noon below Delicate Arch? Twenty pages, turn and fire. I’m warning you, though–I will come armed with a Parker snake pen. So beware!
Posted by P. G. Karamesines
8.11.08 | 5:27 pm | comment permalink |
(Always the latecomer…)
I agree with Patricia here: for me the real value of the conversation between Jorgensen and Cracroft “lies in their opening up possibilities, ways for talking about literature in the Mormon context.” Each critic posits some extremely interesting and important points about Mormon literature’s past, present, and future. I’m thinking off the top of my head about Cracroft’s thoughts that Mormon writers and critics should use Christian metaphors when speaking to their audiences because doing so becomes a witness of the place where the writer/critic is standing and it opens fruitful avenues for interpretation. Or of Jorgensen’s thoughts that Mormon writers/readers/critics should be more inclusive in our quest to find anything of good report or praiseworthy, even if that means entertaining or experiencing strange people and ideas. He’s led me to ask myself on several occasions, “What would Mormon literature look like if we treated our stories, essays, poems, novels, etc. like we’re supposed to treat our neighbors? What if we excluded every sinner and their catalog of sins from our religion just as many think should be done with our literature?” Or of Burton’s response to this dialogue, which employs both ideas to articulate a fruitful way of looking at the purpose and promise of Mormon literature and literary criticism–should not all our gifts be used in some way and in conjunction with other gifts to build a Zion culture?
If Cracroft and Jorgensen hadn’t started the discussion, would Burton have developed the POV he did? And where would the discussion be now?
8.11.08 | 7:46 pm | comment permalink |
Great questions, Tyler. I like that you bring out some value in all the responses.
I think that what continues to concern me is that a) the two schools/approaches continue to talk past each other and b) that the discourse doesn’t always seem quite as grounded in criticism and c) that neither a) nor b) is all that important because it seems like not a whole lot has happened since that whole literaturstreit. Certainly we have had some great conversations here at AMV, and there have been some interesting conversations in other places as well, but I’m not personally aware of any more formal conversations that have added to the field of Mormon literary criticism in quite the same way that these did.
8.12.08 | 9:31 am | comment permalink |
I see where you’re coming from, Wm, and though I do see value in in all the responses, I also share some of your concern: Neither critic (Cracroft or Jorgensen) seems to take on the other’s argument whole or even to try to get at the other’s central point. They seem to simply take little bits from each other and then go running off in their own directions, undercutting any possibility of coming together, of transcending the polemic because, perhaps, they were each too set in their own intellectual and spiritual ways and too afraid of compromise to find let alone alone build a Mormon criticism on common ground. And though Burton tries to do just that in his response to both of them, I’ve wondered why neither of the original talkers ever said anything back or why no one has really approached the dialogue anywhere else?
Michael Austin touches the debate briefly in “How to Be Mormo-American,” but then draws his hand away quickly as if the issue is too hot to handle. I like what Austin has to say about the “ongoing project of defining the boundaries of a Mormon literary criticism” and the possibilities of greater literary inclusiveness, but I still find something lacking. Maybe it’s that the ongoing project he speaks of seems to have ended a decade or so ago. If not, where are all the critics? Has the rising generation been prepared enough to take up the baton carried so well by the likes of William Mulder, Eugene England, Karl Keller, Lavina Fielding Anderson, Cracroft, Jorgensen, etc? (Burton seems extremely busy with his academic undertakings at present and I haven’t heard anything from him since his 2004 AML Presidential Address on “Our Mormon Renaissance-the one year’s proceedings I’ve been able to find access to.) If so, where is the formal conversation taking place (admittedly, due to the fact that I’m a poor student, I don’t subscribe to Dialogue or Sunstone and I don’t have access to copies of the AML conference proceedings–so I might be missing it that way)? And how can I get in on it?
Do enough people even care to preserve it anymore? Or has the digital world, though an excellent place to start and to give access to many, become enough?
8.12.08 | 10:02 am | comment permalink |
I too wish I had copies of the AML conference proceedings. I think the lack of such access hampers development of the critical conversation. After all, we only have the works mentioned above because Gideon took the time to publish them on the Mormon Literature Web site.
I’m cautiously optimistic that something may happen to make some of the more recent AML proceedings available in the near future. Which would be great.
Now if only we could also get them back to the ’80s in a searchable, online database.
8.12.08 | 10:38 am | comment permalink |
“And though Burton tries to do just that in his response to both of them, I’ve wondered why neither of the original talkers ever said anything back or why no one has really approached the dialogue anywhere else?”
I believe both Jorgensen and Cracroft have continued their conversation in different settings. For instance, some years back, I attended a presentation Cracroft gave that was shaped around the paper cited here. Bruce Jorgensen was in the audience and when the Q&A rolled around challenged Cracroft on some point. Sorry I can’t remember exactly what the point was; unfortunately, memory does not serve me better here.
But over the years, I’ve heard undertones — and, indeed, strong overtones — in Jorgensen’s presentations and articles that maintain his theme of letting the stranger say, etc. I can’t be more specific without doing research to list sources, which I don’t have time to do right now. Cracroft I haven’t followed as closely, but I have some confidence that he has continued to pursue his own steadfast course.
Anyway, my point is that in the course of my own spotty attention to this conversation I have heard both men address their POVs in other arenas.
8.12.08 | 11:08 am | comment permalink |
I see an AMV Projects for some of us. Or maybe we can recruit Gideon Burton as well. But I’d love to put together a list of works that strongly relate to or are directly inspired by this particular conversation. And where possible, to provide links to (or republish) the works themselves.
I’d also love to follow up with Micahel Austin. I vaguely recall him expressing some not exactly embarrassment but not full endorsement of his Mormo-American term several years later.
8.12.08 | 11:08 am | comment permalink |
I don’t doubt that they’ve continued to address their own POVs in different arenas, but I think that’s what concerns me and Wm (am I right in assuming that?) about the dialogue: when each party adheres so strictly to their own perspectives, it seems to negate any movement toward resolution (which would in turn lead to different, perhaps more enlightened or enlightening perspectives–not that they’re views aren’t enlightening) or mutual understanding. With each so uncompromising, IMO they seem to forget that maybe compromise isn’t the only avenue to understanding. By essentially talking past each other, they undercut any possible third alternative, transcendent views.
Not being privy to their continuing efforts, I can’t say whether this is the case or not. But from what you suggest, it seems to me that each has just become more rooted in their own pole and, thus, IMHO the possibility of dialogue is dead.
8.12.08 | 11:11 am | comment permalink |
…at least dead between the two originating parties.
8.13.08 | 12:00 pm | comment permalink |
I admit to being behind in the current reading relevant to this discussion but have faith that much has happened in Mormon arts that is directly or indirectly related to it. For instance, both these men have students — that is, younger generations that they have influenced, with some not-so-young-anymore students among them such as myself. I took classes from both men and count Jorgensen as a creative writing “progenitor,” in that he was the first creative writing instructor who encouraged me to keep writing. He was also the first to attempt to teach me the necessity for discipline and craft in creative writing. Sometimes discussions go on in not-so-obvious ways, influence coursing through the years and fanning out as it sometimes does.
Again, I don’t see the need for resolution where these two views are concerned any more than I would require red and blue to wrap up the whole spectrum into a tidy, transcendent band of purple. I take into this account the wavelengths that lie outside the visible spectrum, such as ultraviolet and infrared. (I might be operating in my own writing in the ultraviolet wavelength — that is, my relation of my writing to one or both of these men is not immediately apparent, though it is there.)
Since a few years ago I attended an AML luncheon where I sat at the table where these two men sat together, chatting together as friends, I tend to see the whole discussion between them in that way: Two rather different, thoughtful men sitting at the same table, eating, generally speaking, the same food (probably fajitas, an AML staple) and talking things over.
8.13.08 | 2:18 pm | comment permalink |
I see where you’re coming from, Patricia, and sense, as you point out, that these teachers have definitely influenced a whole generation of their students. I also recognize how the conversation between them continues, perhaps more casually or as an undercurrent, in the lives and work of their students, reaching far beyond their printed dialog. What I’m wondering, however, is where the formal, academic conversation has been taking place, if at all. All the more formal resources I’m aware of relating to the discussion and development of Mormon literary criticism–at least those that seem to have had a noticeable impact on the way we talk about the discipline today, those that come from the likes of Eugene England, Richard Cracroft, Bruce Jorgensen, Gideon Burton, etc.–are, at their youngest, nearly a decade old.
I guess the real questions at hand, at least in my mind, are these: where is the formal critical discourse taking place? How has it developed over the past ten or so years and who is developing it? What role do/will online critical discussions (at AMV, the AML discussion board, etc) play in this overall development? And how do we add some cogency to the numerous critical threads unraveling at any given time in cyberspace and thus work together to move the field of Mormon Letters to its prophesied and promised future?
8.13.08 | 4:07 pm | comment permalink |
“I guess the real questions at hand, at least in my mind, are these: where is the formal critical discourse taking place? How has it developed over the past ten or so years and who is developing it? What role do/will online critical discussions (at AMV, the AML discussion board, etc) play in this overall development?”
Maybe I’ll just go out, turn over a few rocks, and see what’s squirming around. :)
8.13.08 | 4:41 pm | comment permalink |
Let me know what you find and what type of rock you looked under to find it. I might have a few poking out of the flower garden in my backyard. I always did like getting dirty! :)