 |
| Johnson by Sir Joshua Reynolds |
Samuel Johnson's Rambler No. 4 was the one of the first efforts by a literary critic to define and assess the then-new genre of the novel.
To what extent do Johnson's assumptions about fiction track with our 21st century understanding? What points would most readers today share with him, and where does the 21st century reader part company with him?
Deadline: Friday (2/11), 1pm.
6 comments:
Johnson's novel is a representation of real life in current times, not of ancient heroes and heroines that lived hundreds of years before the author wrote. He thinks the novel should represent nature, but not fully. Since people look at the characters in novels as interesting or influential, they might want to imitate their behaviors. For this reason, Johnson argues that the novel should not contain "promiscuity," "passion," or "wickedness." Instead, it should "distinguish those parts of nature which are most proper for imitation." In Johnson's view, a novel should only be produced if it inspires morals in its readers. "Smut," in his view, should never be printed. Today, we completely disagree. "Smut" is some of the most popular literature, and novels about promiscuity, law-breaking, etc. are the most widely produced novels.
I think the part of Johnson's essay that today's readers (and I) would find most unreasonable is his assertion that, in "the romances formerly written," readers wouldn't apply the "virtues and crimes" of the works' characters to themselves. Johnson mentions this in order to bring up the danger of his more realistic fiction -- namely, that if characters are more leveled with the rest of the world, young people will pay more attention and emulate the examples they are given.
What makes his reasoning most egregious is his mention of young people. While it isn't terribly clear exactly which age bracket is being mentioned here, I think that in our day and age, it's far more likely that "young" people will be more impacted by fantastic characters in unrealistic settings in literature and other forms of media than they'll be impacted by realistic characters from the same sources. The impact of a character such as, say, Harry Potter outweighs the impact of any number of characters from realistic settings. This may be because characters such as Harry Potter are very realistic and are just placed in unrealistic settings, and it's possible that Johnson didn't consider this possibility.
I feel as though 21st century readers would agree with what Johnson describes the task of his present day writers; that learning should be gained from books, experience is gained from conversations, and that observation is gained from what one sees in the world around himself. Current day readers gain knowledge from everything around them, not just one area such as books, an in return all of the knowledge they gain through their many experiences assists them in everyday life.
I feel as though 21st century writers drift from Johnson in his ideas that mankind knows there is both good and evil but they will focus on only one of these aspects and ignore the other. I think that readers see both of these aspects in real people as well as fictional characters and thus can and do see both human aspects in everyone. I do not feel as though 21st century readers completely ignore one virtue for another. At the same time, I do agree that sometimes either good or evil is seen more strongly in one character/person than another but all people have aspects of both angels and devils inside of them. It all depends on which aspect they decide to show more strongly.
I feel like Johnson's view of what a novel should accomplish is an interesting one, but the point of division between his idea and the reality of the 21st century becomes apparent in the way our successful modern novels go out of the realm of the ordinary. That is, fantasy, science fiction, and other supernatural genres tend to dominate our readership, particularly among young people. I do, however, think these works do stay in line with Johnson's ideas to an extent. I have yet to find a fantasy or adventure story in which the protagonist is devoid of morality or good sense; on the contrary, despite unrelatable settings and such, the heroes possess good judgment and act in accordance with how people should act today to be good people. I think everyday situations are indeed better at expressing this, but the profitability of the supernatural genres tells me that I shouldn't hold my breath waiting for a change.
What struck me about Johnson's essay, or rather, what I found to be a rather unfair generalization, was that "these books," as he so deems them "are written chiefly to the young, the ignorant, and the idle, to whom they serve as lectures of conduct, and introductions into life" (176). While this may have been more true of the 18th century audience he's writing about, I think today that argument falls a bit flat (and can almost be read as a bit insulting). I think what Johnson fails to notice that while this "realistic fiction" was written for a certain reader (young, idle), that's not the ONLY reader it's attracting.
I don't think the charm or appeal of a book is or should be limited to a certain age group; sure, there are some books that can be considered extremes on both ends of that spectrum, but in out 21st century world, people are going to read what they want to read. And it's the possibility of a more varied audience that downplays Johnson's argument that such fiction has the tendency to influence its readers.
Obviously if someone is more educated and well-informed (regardless of their age), they'll have the understanding that what they're reading is fiction and they'll know to keep it at that distance; they'll be aware that what they're reading doesn't necessarily imitate life (even if the narrative at hand is an accurate representation of it), and they'll be aware of the fact that their consumption of it is merely for purposes of entertainment, not as "lectures" or "introductions to life" as Johnson puts it. And while, yes, I agree that a younger, more susceptible audience may be inclined to imitate some of the things they read (or in our society, see), I think that in the right environment and with the proper instruction, be it from parents, teachers, peers, etc., they'll know better than to interpret what they're reading as REAL, and I don't think that Johnson really takes that into consideration; it's there that he leaves us behind.
I agree with the previous comments that the job of a contemporary writer is much different than writers of the 18th century. Today, writing is all about its entertainment value and creating fantasized versions of reality for average people. I feel like writing from previous centuries was more devoted to informing more common people about life and philosophy. Rambler No. 4 says, "The task of our present writers is a very different; it requires, together with that learning which is to be gained from books, that experience which can never be attained by solitary diligence, but must arise from general converse, and accurate observation of the living world." The depiction of life and fiction has varied greatly over the centuries. There is a large difference between the content of novels and fiction, but also how themes are depicted to the reader. Johnson shows that the current reader has more of a responsibility to decipher meaning through characters and fiction.
Post a Comment