Mike wrote:
And as a minor matter I certainly wouldn't turn to Oscar
Wilde for advice on morality of any sort let alone the uses
or morality in literature.
********** Haha. What was his comment? Something about books
being neither moral nor immoral? I can see two reasons for
this. First, since art is open to multiple interpretations,
its meaning is sufficiently ambiguous to preclude an
objective moral or immoral character. Second, since art does
not act itself, it can't be moral or immoral because morality
involves action.
Now I don't view either of these reasons as being the most
silly thing I've ever heard, but neither do I find them
entirely satisfying. As far as the first reason, it is true
that art is to an extent open to personal interpretation, but
I disagree with the reader-response theory that a book means
whatever a reader wants it to. It's a small step from the
idea that a book can mean anything to it meaning nothing.
With meaningful interpretation strapped with at least some
kind of limitation, it's not unreasonable to assume that the
range of interpretation may all lay within either a moral or
immoral zone. As far as the second reason limiting moral
nature to actions, I would note that words express ideas and
ideas have consequences which are pretty damned close to
actions.
miker
____________________________________________________________________________________
Any questions? Get answers on any topic at
www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 22 Feb 2007 EST