All art is "moral", if by that you mean "the imposition of a
point of view". Maybe that's the only really workable
definition of "art", "an imposition of a point of view".
Unfortunately such a definition is so vague as to be
meaningless, which is usually a sign one's off on the wrong
track.
After all, that's not the *interesting* thing about art.
Readers aren't drawn to POSTMAN because of it's playing
around with Christian themes of Sin and Damnation, or it's
prefiguring of existentialism, or it's misogyny, or whatever.
Well, I guess some are, in a student kind of way, but that
wasn't the intent of the book -- to be studied -- and I think
we're drifting off the reservation again if we start
borrowing that artificial, odd system of reading we all
learned in English 101.
Ultimately the point of the book...is the book. POSTMAN is
about...POSTMAN. Art is experiential, it only has meaning
within itself, and if this or that artwork fails -- and most
do -- they fail within themselves, they present incoherent
experiences.
So I side with "it's an uninteresting question".
doug
>
> My point is that once we have established that
we
> oppose censorship
> of writing and a sanctimonious imposition of
the
> "correct" moral view
> on writers, we need to proceed to the
more
> interesting point: What
> the writer is trying to say about the
human
> condition, what that
> writer thinks about that condition, and how
this
> changes in changing
> times.
>
> Tim
>
> On Feb 23, 2007, at 2:04 PM, Robert Elkin
wrote:
>
> > There is no morality, good, bad, or ugly, in
the
> > book--the morality occurs only when someone
with a
> > specific set of beliefs about right &
wrong
> perceives
> > & judges the book according to those
beliefs.
> > (IMHO, of course.)
> > Rob
> > ---
DJ-Anonyme@webtv.net wrote:
> >
> > > Enough with the abstract discussion, if
art is
> moral
> > > or immoral, what
> > > makes it so? Where is the morality or
immorality
> > > found? Is, say,
> > > Postman Always Rings Twice moral or
immoral? Do
> we
> > > look at all of the
> > > actions in the book and judge it immoral,
or do
> we
> > > look at the ending
> > > and call it moral? Does a moral lesson at
the
> end
> > > overpower all of the
> > > sin that came before? Related, which do we
read
> it
> > > for? Do we immerse
> > > ourselves in, and possibly enjoy
vicariously,
> the
> > > immorality? Or do we
> > > side with the morality lesson at the end?
Do we
> > > have to choose between
> > > the two?
> > >
> > > And what do you do with something like the
book
> > > Postman is said to have
> > > inspired, Camus's The Stranger? Moral
or
> immoral?
> > > Is it real that
> > > simple?
> > >
> > > Mark
Doug Bassett
dj_bassett@yahoo.com
____________________________________________________________________________________
TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on
Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 23 Feb 2007 EST