I agree. One should be able to justify literature (and other arts) without recourse to religious concepts like 'soul' or 'communion,' and treat the matter with less solemnity. Mere liking, however, is also not enough in many contexts. One can legitimately refuse utility assessments, but a lack of clarity won't win over anyone not already persuaded.
That is an absolute banger of an essay. Thanks for posting it. This 100%: "If we are transitioning away from the Gutenberg age of mass literacy, out of the world of Dostoyevsky and Eliot into one where books once again become the preoccupation of a select few, I can’t stop that from happening. But we will be the poorer for it, our lives a little more flattened and emptied. After all, what in the end will all this efficiency and optimization have been for? If we cease to see the point of reading, what are we going to do with all that time freed up by our devices?"
what stories would you want to share with your kids even if all your political goals came true and they could mindlessly follow the experts? those are the stories you should assign to students
I think of it by analogy with food. We all need nutrients as a fundamental component of human life. While you can live and prosper on a diet of fast food and ultraprocessed junk, no doctor or nutritionist would recommend doing so. And besides the obvious health benefits, there is immense (though often *acquired*) pleasure to be gained by eating a well-rounded diet. Many people choose not to do so, for many different reasons, but generally people who eat better food are happier, and if you are trying to make improvements to your life, this is an obvious place to focus on.
So, by analogy: we all need stories; frameworks and inspirations for our Being. One can live and flourish without literature/art, or by consuming the commercial entertainment that exists. But it is like the junk food above: not toxic in moderate doses, but certainly not recommended as your sole source of calories. Literature (and art broadly construed) opens up new pleasures and new vistas that are unavailable to those who don’t partake of them. For anyone trying to make improvements in his or her life, it’s a good and relatively easy thing to try. It certainly works for many of us, even if the benefit can’t be quantified — but then again, neither can many of the best things in life.
Reading Austen in your 20s rather than reading AI-summaries, is like watching Nickelodeon Avatar rather than watching Live Action Avatar. You get real characters rather than knockoffs
I agree. One should be able to justify literature (and other arts) without recourse to religious concepts like 'soul' or 'communion,' and treat the matter with less solemnity. Mere liking, however, is also not enough in many contexts. One can legitimately refuse utility assessments, but a lack of clarity won't win over anyone not already persuaded.
The heart asks pleasure first, but it also asks for a few other things
Well, that sounds quite romantic to my ears. However, I agree that art goes beyond mere concepts and touches us emotionally.
Spot on, Henry.
Thanks! It bugged me
I think the argument we need to make for reading is that it's fun, not that it's medicine. I started my Substack with that very premise here: https://clairelaporte.substack.com/p/dickens-dracula-and-djinni-literature
That is an absolute banger of an essay. Thanks for posting it. This 100%: "If we are transitioning away from the Gutenberg age of mass literacy, out of the world of Dostoyevsky and Eliot into one where books once again become the preoccupation of a select few, I can’t stop that from happening. But we will be the poorer for it, our lives a little more flattened and emptied. After all, what in the end will all this efficiency and optimization have been for? If we cease to see the point of reading, what are we going to do with all that time freed up by our devices?"
I thought it was lame!
Oh come on! We will be the poorer for not reading? I thought you'd be all over that.
what stories would you want to share with your kids even if all your political goals came true and they could mindlessly follow the experts? those are the stories you should assign to students
once the written word is gone . . .
there is nothing left for us to weep or curse, or bless, or break our hearts upon.
-Dark Magic by M.A. Seiffert, 1922
I think of it by analogy with food. We all need nutrients as a fundamental component of human life. While you can live and prosper on a diet of fast food and ultraprocessed junk, no doctor or nutritionist would recommend doing so. And besides the obvious health benefits, there is immense (though often *acquired*) pleasure to be gained by eating a well-rounded diet. Many people choose not to do so, for many different reasons, but generally people who eat better food are happier, and if you are trying to make improvements to your life, this is an obvious place to focus on.
So, by analogy: we all need stories; frameworks and inspirations for our Being. One can live and flourish without literature/art, or by consuming the commercial entertainment that exists. But it is like the junk food above: not toxic in moderate doses, but certainly not recommended as your sole source of calories. Literature (and art broadly construed) opens up new pleasures and new vistas that are unavailable to those who don’t partake of them. For anyone trying to make improvements in his or her life, it’s a good and relatively easy thing to try. It certainly works for many of us, even if the benefit can’t be quantified — but then again, neither can many of the best things in life.
Reading Austen in your 20s rather than reading AI-summaries, is like watching Nickelodeon Avatar rather than watching Live Action Avatar. You get real characters rather than knockoffs
What do you get from reading Paradise Lost that you can't get from watching it? When you can answer that, you will ensure reading lives on