[lit-ideas] Re: Marxism and Political Correctness
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:22:19 -0800
I used what Wilson wrote about Marxism to infer that literary excellence cannot
be made to order by a system (or an ism). Wilson admired what Marx, Engels &
Lenin said about literature. But their followers in attempting to make a
Party-Line System (as the American Communist Granville Hicks did) to guarantee
great literature had the opposite effect and not only that discouraged writers
potentially capable of great literature from pursuing such a goal.
Wilson was sympathetic to Marxism and the USSR until the Stalin Show Trials;
which occurred in 1936 & 1937. I previously said this essay was published in
1948 based on the copyright info in the front of my book (the Library of
America), but Wikipedia says this essay was first appeared in 1938. I’m
inclined to think Wikipedia correct. Wilson was contemptuous of the Literary
“party line” mandated by Stalinism and Granville Hicks, but not of the views of
Marx, Engels or Lenin.
No ism can mandate great literature. The writer must be free to write whatever
he wants, and if a writer has written something great (for “great” consider the
classics or the lists appearing in Bloom’s The Western Canon), the greatness
judges the critic, not the other way around. Critics don’t make great
literature. If the critics are worthy of that title, they will recognize
greatness when they see it.
Wilson’s point back in 1938 can be seen as an apology for the direction
Communism had taken Marxism on the subject of literature. Marx, Engels and
Lenin (Wilson tells us) knew better than to try and force Political Correctness
down the throats of Russian artists, but Stalin hadn’t the sensitivity or
cultural acumen to follow suit. Stalin and the critics that answered to him,
having the power, mandated political correctness and the result, Wilson tells
us, was ludicrous. Mandated Political Correctness didn’t produce great
literature in Stalinist Russia nor the Third Reich. It isn’t likely that it
will do any better in 21st Century America.
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Andy
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 4:10 PM
To: lit-ideas
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Marxism and Political Correctness
From: Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Lit-Ideas <Lit-Ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 12:39 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Marxism and Political Correctness
Summarizing Wilson's comments and substituting an analogy in brackets:
“. . . Marxism [plumbing] by itself can tell us nothing whatever about the
goodness or badness of a work of art.”
"... if Marx and Engels [Joe and Fred Plumber] and Lenin and Trotsky [Sam and
Dave Electrician] are worth listening to on the subject of books, it is not
merely because they created Marxism [are expert plumbers and electricians], but
also because they were capable of literary appreciation.”
“Marx and Engels [Joe and Fred Plumber] never attempted to furnish
social-economic formulas by which the validity of works of art might be
tested."
“. . . the man who tries to apply Marxist [plumbing] principles without real
understanding of literature is liable to go horribly wrong.”
“The Leftist critic [Lenny the Grocer] with no literary competence is always
trying to measure works of literature by tests which have no validity in that
field.”
Where is Wilson going with this? What 'ism' does he think would do a better
job of explaining literature? Who, if anyone, is Wilson talking about?
Andy
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4837 - Release Date: 02/28/12
Other related posts:
