User:Sherrilledwards/sandbox: Difference between revisions
Citations in endnote 3 |
Finish citations in Endnote 3 |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
The epigraphs speak of the role of fiction in our lives. For Mailer, paradoxically, good fiction nourishes “our sense of reality.” For Hemingway, fiction “may throw some light” on the facts. The strange relationship between fiction and fact seems linked with Modernism—and the problematic nature of “reality.” I call this the rhetoric of Modernism. But is that rhetoric—seen in the Modern novel—necessarily linked with secularization? Pericles Lewis suggests that it may be the following: | The epigraphs speak of the role of fiction in our lives. For Mailer, paradoxically, good fiction nourishes “our sense of reality.” For Hemingway, fiction “may throw some light” on the facts. The strange relationship between fiction and fact seems linked with Modernism—and the problematic nature of “reality.” I call this the rhetoric of Modernism. But is that rhetoric—seen in the Modern novel—necessarily linked with secularization? Pericles Lewis suggests that it may be the following: | ||
<blockquote>If the novel is indeed the art form of secularization, “the representative art-form of our age” in Lukács’s words, and if modernity is indeed a secular age, then we could expect the modern novel to be doubly secular. {{sfn|Lukács|1971|p=93}} Many major novels of the early twentieth century do in fact seem to represent a “world that has been abandoned by God,” inasmuch as virtually none of their characters expresses any concrete religious faith and no gods intervene in the course of the action.{{sfn|Lewis| | <blockquote>If the novel is indeed the art form of secularization, “the representative art-form of our age” in Lukács’s words, and if modernity is indeed a secular age, then we could expect the modern novel to be doubly secular. {{sfn|Lukács|1971|p=93}} Many major novels of the early twentieth century do in fact seem to represent a “world that has been abandoned by God,” inasmuch as virtually none of their characters expresses any concrete religious faith and no gods intervene in the course of the action.{{sfn|Lewis|2004|p=673}}{{efn|“Novels of the period that do address theological themes more directly seem to be excluded from the modernist canon precisely because of their express interest in religion . . .”{{sfn|Lewis|2004|p=690}}}} </blockquote> | ||
But does the novel represents a world “abandoned by God”—or is this statement more hyperbole than argument? Either way, how do we explain these vestiges of God-language? Is this merely etymology—like using ''Wednesday'' without necessarily invoking the god ''Woden?'' I suggest that God language has more significance than that. But what is the rhetoric of Modernism? Here are two samples. | But does the novel represents a world “abandoned by God”—or is this statement more hyperbole than argument? Either way, how do we explain these vestiges of God-language? Is this merely etymology—like using ''Wednesday'' without necessarily invoking the god ''Woden?'' I suggest that God language has more significance than that. But what is the rhetoric of Modernism? Here are two samples. | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
=== Modernity and Disenchantment === | === Modernity and Disenchantment === | ||
Lewis says the modern novel is “doubly secular,” representing a world vacated by God.{{sfn|Lewis|2004 |p=673}} The representation is both thematic and formal. Much has been written about the changing status of religion in the era of | Lewis says the modern novel is “doubly secular,” representing a world vacated by God.{{sfn|Lewis|2004|p=673}} The representation is both thematic and formal. Much has been written about the changing status of religion in the era of Modernity—a period, shall we say, from roughly 1900 to the present day—and many{{pg|333|334}} concepts have been used, such as secularization, loss of faith, ironic cultures, cognitive minorities, the disenchantment of the world, the sacred and the profane, and modernist literature as religion substitute. As one might expect, the literature is considerable.{{efn|Owen Chadwick{{sfn|Chadwick|1975}} is a useful introduction to ''secularization.'' Modernity and Christianity are discussed in Hans Küng.{{sfn|Küng|1980}} Spirituality and modern man are the focus of Carl Jung.{{sfn|Jung|1933}} ''Ironic cultures'' are dealt with by Ernest Gellner,{{sfn|Gellner|1974}} while ''irony'' as a product of the Great War is in Paul Fussell.{{sfn|Fussell|1975}} ''Cognitive minority'' is used by Peter Berger,{{sfn|Berger|1969}} while Berger & Luckmannuse terms such as ''deviance, heresy,'' and ''symbolic universe.'' {{sfn|Berger and Luckmann|1966|p=98-100}} ''Disenchantment of the world'' goes back to Max Weber in the 1940s. Weber, ''sacred'' and ''profane,'' and modernism as ''religion substitute'' are described in Lewis.{{sfn|Lewis|2004}}}} After all, Modernity and the disenchantment of the world is a thing of complexity.{{efn|Secularization in England, for instance, involves Darwin’s ''The Origin of Species'' (1859) and the literary responses: including Tennyson’s ''In Memoriam'' (1850), Arnold’s ''Dover Beach'' (1867), and the novels of George Eliot such ''Silas Marner'' (1861) and ''Middlemarch'' (1871–72). Eliot translated two works of German radical theology, D. F. Strauss’ ''Life of Jesus'' (1835, ET 1846) and Feuerbach’s ''The Essence of Christianity'' (1841, ET 1854). Willey (1964), Brown (1969) and Chadwick (1975) are | ||
useful guides, as is Kucich (2001).}} But it cannot be undone. | useful guides, as is Kucich (2001).}} But it cannot be undone. | ||