American Literature:
It's a small small world.
As demonstrated in "American Literature," In the ninteenth century, the "literary world was very small indeed, so small that each of the writers of the period knew each other" (106). This of course, implies that the literary world was strongly influinced by the writngs of other authors. Some literature was even a mere immitation of earlier literature, and some authors had "legions of immitators"(335). The literary world almost relied on immitation. What does this say about society today? Is modern literature a mere immitation of the past? Is the American Literary tradition the same tradition that it was a century ago?
Although our modern literature does have many elements that were influinced by the literature of the past, I do believe that the American Literary Tradition becomes altered as years and generations go by. For instance, "Sex and Sexual Roles" in literature were often vague, if there at all, at a time where "sex was banished from all magazines and most books" (343). In modern times, sex in literature is almost a symbol of expression, and American pop culture.
Just like the ideas of transcendentalism in the 1800's, believe there will always be new movements in literature that define a current epoch. As transcendentalism was influinced by romantisism, and even Platonism, our movements will be influinced by a new way of thinking; ultimately giving bith to a new era.
Rebecca, your thoughts immediately made me think of T.S. Eliot and his “Tradition and the Individual Talent.” I think Eliot would agree that literature throughout history has not been simply imitation of previous works. Rather, the process of writing is a take-and-give. Writers take what they know and what has already been thought and established by their predecessors, and (because every mind is unique) they re-interpret—if only slightly—those ideas, creating something “original.” I say “original” because for anyone’s work to be just original (without quotation marks) would mean that they were the first person to conceive the thought and channel it to the world. In this way, writers leave their marks on the American literary tradition.
ReplyDeleteSo when a writer engages in the creation of new work, he realizes an aesthetic "ideal order," as it has been established by the literary tradition that has come before him. The introduction of a new work alters the cohesion of this existing order, and causes a readjustment of the old in order to accommodate the new. Thus, the inclusion of the new work alters the way in which the past is seen, elements of the past that are noted and realized. In Eliot’s own words: "What happens when a new work of art is created is something that happens simultaneously to all the works of art that preceded it." Eliot refers to this organic tradition, this developing canon, as the "mind of Europe." The private mind is subsumed by this more massive one.
So will modern writers “give birth to a new era”? Absolutely. It would be impossible for them not to because today’s world is so focused on progression that immobility is just not an option. Things do not and will never stay the same, because there are millions of people who devote their lives to finding and providing for change. Also, we live in a time where “original” thought is not at all discouraged. The man who “knows that power is in the soul… throws himself unhesitantly on his thought” (Emerson 453), even if he is wrong, is more respected that he who repeats what he hears.
Like Thoreau said, “every man is tasked to make his life… worthy of the contemplation of his most elevated and critical hour.” In our thoughts, and our coming thoughts is an infinite expansion of American literature’s time line. In our contribution to it, and that of our successors, the American literary tradition will never end, never halt, and never be exactly the same.
Responding to the question you asked: Is modern literature a mere immitation of the past? Is the American Literary tradition the same tradition that it was a century ago?, I think that in some ways modern literature has to have a relationship with works of the past, however, I also think that the American Literary Tradition changes as the years and times change.
ReplyDeleteIn T.S. Eliot's "Tradition and the Individual Talent," he classifies a work of literature as traditional in that the "historical sense compels a man to write not merely with his own generation in his bones ,but with a feeling that the whole of the literature of Europe from Homer and within it the whole of the literature of his own country has a simultaneous existence and composes a simultaneous order. This historical sense, which is a sense of the timeless as well as of the temporal and of the timeless and temporal together, is what makes a writer traditional"(Eliot 1). He then goes on to state that a writer must also acknowledge "his place in time" and of his "contemporaneity"(1). I think T.S. Eliot explains the idea of tradition and its importance to writing in all stages perfectly in that one must be aware of themselves in history as well as those who come before them.
In "Self-Reliance," Emerson also acknowledges the influences of past works on what one writes, however he emphasizes the importance to rise above the traditional ideas and thoughts that those before him have taught society to conform to. Emerson writes, "To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart, is true for all mean, - that is genius"(Emerson 437). Emerson focuses more-so on individualism and how people should not cower under the thoughts of others and how they should instead assert themselves in the literary world.
According to Thoreau, "Most men...are in strange uncertainty about it, whether it is of the devil or of the God, and have somewhat hastily concluded that it is the chief end of man here to 'glorify God and enjoy him forever'"(Thoreau 776). It is evident that Thoreau believes that man is conforming to society in all aspects of their lives, whether it be organized religion, or simply waking up with an alarm clock. Like Emerson, Thoreau believes that one should seek other forms of influence, like that from nature.
All in all, I think that it is necessary for tradition to be a part of the American Literary Tradition, however, I think that such a tradition has never been a "mere imitation of the past," but has been influenced by American literature from the past. The American Literary Tradition is not the same as it was a century ago simply because it has changed just as the times that the writers who contributed to it lived in have changed.
Tradition is something undeniable; we base our actions of of the actions before us, whether it is in writing, or in every day life. No matter what the idea is, we automatically assume it is right because we fear disagreement means that we're wrong. Like Emerson says, we are "ashamed of that divine idea which each of us represents" (Emerson 438). According to Emerson, tradition deters us from taking the initiative to think for ourselves. We are scared from self-trust because of consistency, and "a reverence for our past act or word, because the eyes of others have no other data for computing our orbit than our past acts, and we are loath to disappoint them" (Emerson 441). In his essay, Emerson discusses the influence of society upon man, and how tradition relates to the fact that we are so quick to believe that the word of man before us is the only correct answer.
ReplyDeleteOn the same note, Thoreau argues against the influences of society, instead believing that we should take influence from nature and original thought. He says, "I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived" (Thoreau 775-776). The greatest source of inspiration is amongst nature, and it is there only that we can "live deliberately" and realize our full potential as people and as thinkers. Like Emerson, Thoreau does not agree with society's influence, urging his readers to live among "simplicity" (Thoreau 776) and take advantage of the isolation of nature. Tradition should come from individual thought and the passing of brilliant and profound ideas, not from the greedy, advanced nature of society.
Both Emerson and Thoreau argue that tradition from society should not play so much of an impact in our daily lives. They add a scope to the idea of tradition that ultimately causes it to change; as we read more and open ourselves up to different opinions, we carry out these opinions in our writing. The American Literary Tradition therefore changes constantly, given the fact that new ideas circulate every day; no two works will ever be the same. Tradition from society is inevitable, but whether or not it is beneficial to writing, it does play an important role in tradition. As society changes, literature changes as well: tradition is therefore never a "mere imitation of the past". The influences of authors, society, nature, and individual thought all play a role in the creation of tradition, and the spread of unique thought that resonates throughout the years.
While I agree that American literature is strongly influenced by tradition, I don't believe that modern day literature, or even 19th century literature is merely just an imitation. Thoreau mentions that "I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach" (775). Here, he is retuning to his roots, to learn again. He is reverting back to a age old tradition of self-reliance that has taken place since man first appeared.
ReplyDeleteHowever I think that it is important that Thoreau is only separating himself "deliberately" as an experiment and not as a "resignation" (776 ) into this tradition. Rather, it is the opposite: Thoreau uses this method of separation in order to "such out all the marrow of life...to drive life into a corner and...get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the world" (776). Thoreau wishes to communicate to the public, his "learnings" from experiencing this shift back towards self-reliance. This way, he is drawing on, rather then relying on, tradition to enhance his works-to create something much more poignant in order to give what Thoreau calls, "a true account" (776).
I think the American Literary Tradition is very much based on the past and imitaion. However, I think deciphering the past is key to developing one's individuality in the future as expressed in T.S. Eliot's Tradition and the Individual Talent. To truly think for oneself one must have the courage to "re-evaluate any institution" (711). To re-evaluate something the past must be revisted, failures and successes analyzed, before new opinions can be formed.Old ideals can still apply today. Americans are not pushing to reform that beloved Lockian idea of the right to"life, liberty, and property (the pursuit of happiness)". Literature can make such ideas relavent without being shameful imitation. Thoreau believes a man should be pushed foward by "an infinite expectaion of the dawn" (775). But,Perhaps embracing the past is more satisfying than fruitlessly searchingfor a new day. The common man searches for happiness and success, in this way he lives more simply than any of the transcendentalists. Could fancying oneself solely as an individual be arrogance whether than brilliance?
ReplyDelete