more marginalizing

[Terrance]

barbara100 at jps.net wrote:
> 
> "We have members here who simply don't
> think art and fiction can or should instruct--teach or reveal the truths
> about anything.  That's a very good critical position to have around
> here."
> 
> Please reconsider this statement. It's not a good critical position to have
> period.  Fiction, if it's any good at all, does and should instruct, teach
> and reveal.  Make of it what you will, but don't say it's not there for the
> taking.

I'm suggesting pluralism not marginalism. 



There is  a huge difference between exploring through fiction (reading
and writing) the moral meanings of humans confronting  a world gone mad
-- men, woman, children confronting war-- and the didactic reduction of
that confrontation to moral precept. 

Pynchon's GR, art in general, it has been argued here and elsewhere,
does
not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human
behavior, nor restrain men and women from doing the things men and
women  have always done. 

You are free to disagree with this position. I don't want to marginalize
your aesthetics. Pluralism is encouraged here. 

What is the purpose of literature? Of Art? Does it have some intrinsic
value? Why should we study the Classics? Most don't anymore. The Cannon?
What Cannon? The Humanities? Are there humanities?  Why have a
literature or a philosophy department at our university? Or even a
cultural studies/humanities department? Why teach feminism/literature or
the  philosophy of technology?  Why teach Milton when students prefer
Madonna? Why teach Pynchon's V. when students prefer the film Brazil?
Why
not teach computer science and math and physics and writing and toss
literature and philosophy out entirely?

It's easier to justify tennis instructions and a swimming pool (good
health) than a Shakespeare course and an extension on the library.