Re: A Sensibility of Worth

I think that's going to be a tough standard to clearly define, but I
think that's the reason many people study literature to begin with.
It's the archive of what we think and feel about everything that's
important to us, and a mine for ideas about religion, politics, history,
philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology, law, etc. And the
individual in relationship to all these things and more. You could
fairly sum all that up by the phrase, "the human condition," but the
referent for this phrase would be pretty varied.

Of course, we could proceed on the assumption that the human condition
is different everywhere, and still study literature to that end.

Furthermore, I don't think this is ever the only standard among those
who advocate for it. It's usually held in conjunction with literature
as "good language," however that's defined. We can learn about the
human condition from advertisements on television and in magazines.
But we'd rather study Shakespeare or Beowulf (I really liked Lucy Ruth's
post about this too) instead, because their use of language is worth
more attention than the language in television ads.

Jim

L. Manning Vines wrote:

>To add to your suggestions of different "worths," I would propose an
>estimation of it according to how competently, extensively, or thoughfully
>the literature illustrates or explores aspects of the human condition.
>
>-Robbie
>
>

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Mon Dec 15 10:26:53 2003