User:Sherrilledwards/sandbox: Difference between revisions

Line 14:

=== The Rhetoric of Modernism ===

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|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.

We start with Hemingway and ''In Our Time.''{{sfn|Hemingway|1925}} At the end of chapter two’s vignette, we read three sentences: “There was a woman having a kid with a young girl holding a blanket over her and crying. Scared sick looking at it. It rained all through the evacuation.”{{sfn|Hemingway|1925|p=21}} The impact of war, fragmenting of form, juxtaposing of birth and death, distancing of trauma, the phrase ''scared sick looking'' stripped of its subject, the absence of any clear antecedent to the pronoun ''it,'' the naturalistic symbol of rain—combine in Hemingway’s language. Shaped by modern warfare, in a collage of disturbing images, here is Hemingway’s innovative rhetoric. In its way, ''In Our Time'' is as significant culturally as T. S. Eliot’s ''The Waste Land'' (1922), published three years earlier. Matthew Stewart suggests that this “remains the most insistently experimental of all his books because it is the product of the one {{pg|332|333}}period of his life when he participated intently in a literary scene, and the temper of that milieu was distinctly modernist.”{{sfn|Stewart|2001|p=12}}

Line 33:

useful guides, as is Kucich (2001).}} But it cannot be undone.

For Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud onwards,“disenchanting” the world spelt the end of religion—the “death” of God—a process thought to be inevitable. The journey begins with Martin Luther in 1517, or earlier in Renaissance humanism. The rise of modern science, symbolized by ''On the Revolution of the Celestial Spheres'' by Copernicus in 1543, is crucial: science advanced as it was able to provide mathematical explanations for phenomena attributed to God ~~ormagic~~. That reality is the heart of disenchantment. Skepticism, a rationalistic response to ~~theWars~~ of Religion, was also significant. No wonder Popkin says, “Luther had indeed opened a Pandora’s box."{{sfn|Lewis|2004|p=15}}

For Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud onwards,“disenchanting” the world spelt the end of religion—the “death” of God—a process thought to be inevitable. The journey begins with Martin Luther in 1517, or earlier in Renaissance humanism. The rise of modern science, symbolized by ''On the Revolution of the Celestial Spheres'' by Copernicus in 1543, is crucial: science advanced as it was able to provide mathematical explanations for phenomena attributed to God or magic. That reality is the heart of disenchantment. Skepticism, a rationalistic response to the Wars of Religion, was also significant. No wonder Popkin says, “Luther had indeed opened a Pandora’s box."{{sfn|Lewis|2004|p=15}}

During the Enlightenment, the American and French revolutions attacked the Divine Right of Kings.While their respective revolutionary documents retain a “veneer of religion,"{{sfn|Brown|1969|p=39}} this effectively begins the modern secular state. In 1843, Karl Marx, following Feuerbach in arguing that “Man makes religion,"{{sfn|Marx|1975|p=243}} in memorable phrases described religion as “the heart of a heartless world” ~~and“the~~ opium of the people."{{sfn|Marx|1975|p=244}}{{efn| “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the ''opium'' of the people."{{sfn|Marx|1975|p=243-244, emphasis in original}}}} After 1917, the Soviet Union mandated the “death” of God. A host of epistemological challenges—Descartes, Hume, Kant, Darwin, Einstein, Heisenberg—obviously contributed to this process we call modernity.

During the Enlightenment, the American and French revolutions attacked the Divine Right of Kings. While their respective revolutionary documents retain a “veneer of religion,"{{sfn|Brown|1969|p=39}} this effectively begins the modern secular state. In 1843, Karl Marx, following Feuerbach in arguing that “Man makes religion,"{{sfn|Marx|1975|p=243}} in memorable phrases described religion as “the heart of a heartless world” and “the opium of the people."{{sfn|Marx|1975|p=244}}{{efn| “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the ''opium'' of the people."{{sfn|Marx|1975|p=243-244, emphasis in original}}}} After 1917, the Soviet Union mandated the “death” of God. A host of epistemological challenges—Descartes, Hume, Kant, Darwin, Einstein, Heisenberg—obviously contributed to this process we call modernity.

=== Notes ===

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 === The Rhetoric of Modernism ===
-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|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.
 We start with Hemingway and ''In Our Time.''{{sfn|Hemingway|1925}}  At the end of chapter two’s vignette, we read three sentences: “There was a woman having a kid with a young girl holding a blanket over her and crying. Scared sick looking at it. It rained all through the evacuation.”{{sfn|Hemingway|1925|p=21}} The impact of war, fragmenting of form, juxtaposing of birth and death, distancing of trauma, the phrase ''scared sick looking'' stripped of its subject, the absence of any clear antecedent to the pronoun ''it,'' the naturalistic symbol of rain—combine in Hemingway’s language. Shaped by modern warfare, in a collage of disturbing images, here is Hemingway’s innovative rhetoric. In its way, ''In Our Time'' is as significant culturally as T. S. Eliot’s ''The Waste Land'' (1922), published three years earlier. Matthew Stewart suggests that this “remains the most insistently experimental of all his books because it is the product of the one {{pg|332|333}}period of his life when he participated intently in a literary scene, and the temper of that milieu was distinctly modernist.”{{sfn|Stewart|2001|p=12}}
@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 useful guides, as is Kucich (2001).}} But it cannot be undone.
-For Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud onwards,“disenchanting” the world spelt the end of religion—the “death” of God—a process thought to be inevitable. The journey begins with Martin Luther in 1517, or earlier in Renaissance humanism. The rise of modern science, symbolized by ''On the Revolution of the Celestial Spheres'' by Copernicus in 1543, is crucial: science advanced as it was able to provide mathematical explanations for phenomena attributed to God ormagic. That reality is the heart of disenchantment. Skepticism, a rationalistic response to theWars of Religion, was also significant. No wonder Popkin says, “Luther had indeed opened a Pandora’s box."{{sfn|Lewis|2004|p=15}}
+For Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud onwards,“disenchanting” the world spelt the end of religion—the “death” of God—a process thought to be inevitable. The journey begins with Martin Luther in 1517, or earlier in Renaissance humanism. The rise of modern science, symbolized by ''On the Revolution of the Celestial Spheres'' by Copernicus in 1543, is crucial: science advanced as it was able to provide mathematical explanations for phenomena attributed to God or magic. That reality is the heart of disenchantment. Skepticism, a rationalistic response to the Wars of Religion, was also significant. No wonder Popkin says, “Luther had indeed opened a Pandora’s box."{{sfn|Lewis|2004|p=15}}
-During the Enlightenment, the American and French revolutions attacked the Divine Right of Kings.While their respective revolutionary documents retain a “veneer of religion,"{{sfn|Brown|1969|p=39}} this effectively begins the modern secular state. In 1843, Karl Marx, following Feuerbach in arguing that “Man makes religion,"{{sfn|Marx|1975|p=243}} in memorable phrases described religion as “the heart of a heartless world” and“the opium of the people."{{sfn|Marx|1975|p=244}}{{efn| “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the ''opium'' of the people."{{sfn|Marx|1975|p=243-244, emphasis in original}}}} After 1917, the Soviet Union mandated the “death” of God. A host of epistemological challenges—Descartes, Hume, Kant, Darwin, Einstein, Heisenberg—obviously contributed to this process we call modernity.
+During the Enlightenment, the American and French revolutions attacked the Divine Right of Kings. While their respective revolutionary documents retain a “veneer of religion,"{{sfn|Brown|1969|p=39}} this effectively begins the modern secular state. In 1843, Karl Marx, following Feuerbach in arguing that “Man makes religion,"{{sfn|Marx|1975|p=243}} in memorable phrases described religion as “the heart of a heartless world” and “the opium of the people."{{sfn|Marx|1975|p=244}}{{efn| “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the ''opium'' of the people."{{sfn|Marx|1975|p=243-244, emphasis in original}}}} After 1917, the Soviet Union mandated the “death” of God. A host of epistemological challenges—Descartes, Hume, Kant, Darwin, Einstein, Heisenberg—obviously contributed to this process we call modernity.
 === Notes ===