627 / 676
800 KS
629
sh,all be there only becaus@ of its literary merit. This is plausible enough.
But what do they mean by literary merit or quality?
The "potency" of literature, they say, "derives from both its
rational and its irrational components, including an indefinable one
called 'art'." This is a rather vague definition. And though the theory
that art is indefinable has its defenders, a flat -statement of this sort, in
a book where so much rests on a clear understanding of what is meant
by literary quality, lets us down completely. Apparently all one can
do is to define literature ostensively, and this our authors make a
stab at by giving us lists of writers who might
be
included in a satis–
factory anthology. However, we are left with an uncomfortable feeling
that they do have certain unexpressed criteria which determine their
choices, and that if these were brought out, they would probably re–
semble those by which tired old lists of "great books" are made up.
One curious consequence of this conception of what it is to be
literary is that our authors deplore the repeated suggestions to students
that, in learning the art of writing, they practice by writing about their
own experiences. This, it seems, is a form of narcissism. The prohibition
will surprise readers of many of the authors on the approved li-sts as well
as many who, unhappy with the notion of art as simply inaefinable, are
struggling with a possible theory of art as expression. While one must ad–
mit that many of the topics suggested are phrased in what approximates
baby-talk, still there seems
to
be
no justification for letting the pendulum
swing to the opposite extreme, where we "led David call Bob's mother
not to find out what Bob is doing, but to find out how Bob interprets the
conduct of Brutus in his quarrel with Cassius." This kind of preciousness
w0uld have been incomprehensible to both Brutus and Cassius. Ironically,
Messrs. Lynch and Evans seem to have ignored their own prohibition.
Under the guise of an objective study of high school textbooks, they
have presented us with a theory of what should be taught and what
should not, with no defense of their own prejudices or definition of
their criteria. They have picked away at some of the more obvious
weaknesses of present teaching materials without grasping the main
point, which is that when textbooks are used as a substitute for teach–
ing, they must always stumble and fall. What emerges from this study
is a kind of literary never-never-Iand, where the English language would
be used primarily for the purpose of discussing what other people have
written. It never seems to occur to its authors that
if
this were all that
English writers ever did, there would be little material left worth
discussing.
Mason W. Gross