Re: [acornlive] Millenniel challenge
Marc Goldin (acornlive@dublinwriters.org)
Sat, 02 Jan 1999 12:19:58 -0800
At 12:04 PM 1/1/99 -0000, you wrote:
>Dear list members
>
>A very happy New Year to you all - One of my new year's
>resolutions [I've already broken the one to not make any] is to stir
>up the kind of impassioned debate on this list that we are currently
>seeing in our messaging forum.
>
>One of our most recent contributions suggested that some writers'
>reputations depend almost entirely on their antiquity, and that if we
>cooly examined them in the light of contemporary standards, they
>wouldn't really make the cut. Shakespeare [ahem] was quoted as
>an example.
>
>What do people make of this general point? Do we automatically
>revere the ancients because posterity has conferred on them
>credibility, and are we thus overly suspicious of contemporary
>writers because we lack the benefit of hindsight? Is it possible to
>truly evaluate the quality of today's writers without knowing whether
>they'll be even remembered by our grandchildren? Do we trust our
>own critical faculties, or do we depend on a small intellectual clique
>to tell us who we should and shouldn't like?
>
>Anybody got any views on this one?
>
>Once again, best wishes for 1999 to everybody here -
>
>Nessa O'Mahony
>DWW
Nessa and All,
This is a really fascinating concept for me and as a very amateur
historian, one that I have spent a lot of hours pondering. I think that
seeing certain literature through a sort of soft focus retro haze can
sometimes cloud the perception with regard to how "good" a piece of writing
really is. This is true of culture in general as witnesed by the huge
nostalgia trends. One attaches a quaintness to a work that can enhance its
charm. This is actually a natural societal reaction and I find it reassuring
to see earlier examples of it. I read a bit of 18th century Anglo Irish lit
and have observed writers talking about the quaintness of those that came
before them.
I think that anybody that reads a lot and knows what
good and true literature feels like, should be able to remove the historical
blinders and decide what's what. Those that don't have their own literary
convictions run the risk of letting a coterie of "those in the know" decide
the current taste. I also think that sometimes this is unavoidable for all
of us. I know that I have my literary "heroes and idols" and sometimes find
myself following their lead.
All in all, this is a confounding topic and would be
interested in hearing other observations with regard to this.
A Joyous New Year to All,
Marc Goldin