Literature: Reliable or Unreliable?
From Paul de Man’s essay “Semiology and Rhetoric” in Donald Keesey’s Contexts for Criticism, page 373:
“Literature as well as criticism—the difference between them being delusive—are condemned (or privileged) to be forever the most rigorous and, consequently, the most unreliable language in terms of which man names and modifies himself.”
Although this final line in the article is probably the sort of disclaimer that deconstructivists usually provide in order to uphold their own theories, I think that it is somewhat untrue. Yes, literature and criticism are “rigorous;” however, I do not see how this causes either to be unreliable. I would instead say that multiple interpretations of the same work would cause it to be unreliable.
Learning and changing oneself based on literature may be unreliable at times, but it can also be very successful. People learn from the past, which is of course recorded in literature, people get through difficult times in their lives through self-help or religious literature, people read books about hiking, diving, etc. to help them to complete these activities in their own lives, children read textbooks in order to learn almost everything learned in school today, people read critical essays in order to understand how to critically evaluate works themselves-- the list continues forever. It is a simple fact that people learn more about themselves, about what they hope or have to accomplish, and about other people from reading literature and criticism, so to say that it is unreliable is a gross generalization. I’m sure that every literate person in the world has been in some way positively influenced by a piece of written literature or criticism, and I also bet that most of the illiterate people in the world have been influenced by literature or criticism that has been presented orally.
And, if literature and criticism is “the most unreliable language” for people to sometimes rely for self-modification, then what language is reliable? And if it does not have this purpose, what then is its purpose?
2 Comments
Leave a comment
Recent Comments
Derek Tickle on Literature: Reliable or Unreliable?: Hi Erica! I just got finished
Hi Erica!
I just got finished reading Bethany's blog entry and see commented on the same quote that you did! Here is the link: http://blogs.setonhill.edu/BethanyMerryman/2009/04/you-say-condemned-i-say-privil.html
I agree with you when you argue that literature is reliable. I think that it is, but sometimes I question if the criticism is reliable? Any thoughts?
When people learn from the past, then we can associate it with structuralism and how we base our opinions off of the structures that were created in the past. This seems very reliable to me because we can continue a train of thought that has been proven to be very effective. On the other hand, a post-structuralist would argue against my opinion and say that there is no specific structure to relate to. New ideas create new knowledge that leads to new discoveries within literature.
I liked how you focused, at the end, on "language" and it being "unreliable." In agreement with you, if language was so unreliable, then why do we bother to learn it and study it? Well, as you would agree, language is what has formed our society and is how we communicate on a daily basis.
You did a fine job at holding an opposition towards de Man's essay.
In response to Derek’s question regarding reliability in criticism, I think it is hard to truly know if anything is reliable. When Al Young spoke at Seton Hill last semester, he said that everything is fiction. I think we can never know if a source is reliable. Even history becomes distorted over the years, so we cannot always rely on it to back up criticisms.