Style 1998

8/10/2019 Style 1998

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/style-1998 1/200

Volume 32,

Number2

Summer 1998 Todd F. Davis and Kenneth Womack

Introduction: Reading Literature and the Ethics of

Criticism / 184

Marshall W. Gregory

Ethical Criticism: What It Is and Why It Matters /

194

Daniel R. Schwarz

he Ethics of Reading Elie Wiesels !ight / ""1

Adam achary !ewton !othing #ut $ace o %ell &ith 'hiloso(hy):

Withold *om+ro&ic,- #runo .chul,- and the

.candal of %uman Countenance / "4

Kathleen "#ndeen

Who %as the Right to $eel): he Ethics of Literary

Em(athy / "01

$harles Altieri Lyrical Ethics and Literary E(erience / "2"

Todd F. Davis and Kenneth Womack

.aints- .inners- and the 3icensian !o5el: heEthics of .torytelling in 6ohn Ir5ings he Cider

%ouse Rules / "98

%ames &helan

.ethes Choice: #elo5ed and the Ethics of Reading /

18

G. Thomas $o#ser Maing- aing- and $aing Li5es: he Ethics of

Colla+orati5e Life Writing / 4

Wayne $. 'ooth

Why Ethical Criticism Can !e5er #e .im(le / 71

Todd F. Davis and Kenneth Woma!, "ntrodution# $eadin% &iterature and the 'this o(

)ritiism * 18+

#y em(hasi,ing the selfreflei5e nature of reading- ethical criticism encourages readers to

consider s(heres of e(erience and cultures +eyond themsel5es- to recogni,e a (lurality of

human conditions and realities rri5ing on the criticaltheoretical scene during an era &hen

(oststructuralism finds itself under siege for its antihumanistic and highly (olitici,ed

inter(reti5e acti5ities- the ethical (aradigm (ro5ides literary theory &ith a means for e5aluating

the status of its ideological criti;ue With its accent u(on literary study and its &ideranging

(ossi+ilities for intellectual and inter(ersonal de5elo(ment- ethical criticism elucidates a great

many of the &ays that the life of the tet intersects the life of the mind hat ethical criticismseems to (romise an enhanced sense of community is itself an encouraging (ros(ect for the

8/10/2019 Style 1998


future of literary studies

arshall W. -re%or, 'thial )ritiism# What "t "s and Wh "t atters * 19+

Most of us cannot e5ade the dee( intuition that identifying &ith characters in stories can eert a

(o&erful influence on the ;uality and content of our o&n li5es o analy,e ho& fictions eertthis influence and to assess its effects is ethical criticisms <o+ What literary criticism needs in

(articular is a theoretical +asis for in;uiries into and <udgments a+out the (otential ethical

effects of literature and narrati5e art in general We need theoretical grounding +ecause

(ractical ethical criticism goes on all the time- often conducted in a most helterselter-

contradictory- and intellectually incoherent &ay .ome contem(orary critics may &ant to insist

that ethical criticism is irrele5ant- +ut ethical criticisms centurylong re<ection in the academy

is matched in sco(e only +y the ceaseless tal a+out ethical issues that goes on inside and

outside of the academy he (ersistence of these issues as foci of constant and (assionate

contro5ersy gi5es the lie to ethical criticisms irrele5ance We may not al&ays no& ho& to li5e

&ith it +ut &e certainly cannot li5e &ithout it Ethical criticism cannot +e e5aded +y

e(istemological relati5ism- +y emoti5ism- or +y the 5ie& of art as mere entertainment- for noneof these 5ie&s engages the o5er&helming e5idence +oth in literature and in life that imitations

of fictional models com(rise an im(ortant source of conduct for most of us much of the time

he aims of ethical criticism are to lead readers to a +etter and clearer understanding of certain

issues: that literary effects are al&ays (otential- ne5er determined= that moral and ethical

criteria are una5oida+le in +oth understanding and e5aluating narrati5es= and that almost all

critical a((roaches rest to some etent on ethical (resu((ositions that may +e silent +ut that are

al&ays (resent he content of ethical criticism rests on certain notions a+out self >ethos? and

self or ethicalde5elo(ment: that human +eings are al&ays negotiating +et&een +etter and

&orst 5ersions of their o&n ethos= that moral character is al&ays in motion- not fied= that the

5icarious imagination is the im(ortant mechanism that maes the actual transfer of ethical

(ers(ecti5es from literary &ors and into the heads of readers= and that the nutritional analogy

>&e +ecome &hat &e consume? offers one &ay to e(lain +oth the ind of contri+ution that

ethical criticism maes and its manner of maing it

Daniel $. Sh/ar0, The 'this o( $eadin% 'lie Wiesels Ni%ht * 221

Readers need to differentiate +et&een an ethic of reading and an ethics &hile reading I (ro(ose

fi5e stages of the hermeneutical acti5ities in ethical reading and inter(retation: >1? immersion

in the (rocess of reading and the disco5ery of imagined &orlds >"? ;uest for understanding >?

selfconscious reflection >4? critical analysis >7? cognition in terms of &hat &e no& I then

turn to Wiesels !ight as an eam(le When &e read !ight- &e are a&are of the s(eaers role as

ethical &itness and the moral role (layed +y Wiesels taut- s(are- (ara+olic style We +ecomeconscious of the recurring (atterns: e5erlasting night as moral death- the disru(tion of father

son ties- hunger- and fire as an image of the crematorium and ultimately the %olocaust itself

Reflecting selfconsciously on the tet and learning a+out its (u+lication history- &e +ecome

a&are of the ethical im(lications of $rans Mauriacs Christian introduction and his misreading

Wiesels o&n editing of the original @iddish 5ersion also raises ethical issues a+out re(resenting

%olocaust memory and trauma $inally- I turn to the ethical im(lications of a (arallel eam(le

of reading %olocaust narrati5e: #ettelheims indictment of nne $rans diary

dam ahar Ne/ton, Nothin% ut FaeTo 4ell /ith 5hiloso6h7# Withold

-ombro/i0, runo Shul0, and the Sandal o( 4uman )ountenane * 2+3%o& can one esca(e from &hat one is- &here is the le5erage to come from) Witold

8/10/2019 Style 1998


*om+ro&ic, &rites Aur sha(e (enetrates and confines us- as much as from &ithin as from

&ithout he (ro+lem that $orm thus introduces is also the (ro+lem of $ace- and facefamiliar

to (hiloso(hers and theorists lie .artre- Le5inas- Lacan- and #ahtin as the (henomenological

site (ar ecellence for human encounter- transference- and ans&era+ility+oth em+odies and

+es(eas a (ermanent scandal- a field of com+at- the modernist metonymic trum( card to

Culture and utonomy alie #runo .chul, disco5ers a dee( (athos in human faces too- +utunlie his fello& 'ole- he lins it to the (athos of meta(hor and figuration generally: a

fundamental (rinci(le of transmigrated form Bsing the tro(e of the facean admittedly minor

feature &ithin a minor modernismthis (a(er suggests ho& &e might use it to read the

simultaneously largerinscale- and thus lin nation &ith narration: Euro(e at midcentury-

nationalism as an al&ays unsta+le fiture of identity- Atherness and the minor as 5icissitudes

and eigencies &ithin Euro(e >or +et&een Euro(es?- too

Kathleen &undeen, Who 4as the $i%ht to Feel7# The 'this o( &iterar 'm6ath * 21

While a sho& of em(athy may enhance ones (rofile in life- it has of late raised sus(icion &hendirected to&ard fictional su+<ects Writers or readers &ho a((ear to em(athi,e &ith anothers

life e(eriences are often accused of arrogating a cultural authority to &hich they ha5e no

natural claim he ;uestion (ersists: to &hat etent is our literary engagement +iologically or

culturally determined) n eamination of $elicia %emanss Indian Womans 3eath.ong re5eals

the (ro+lematic nature of literary em(athy and its ethical conse;uences

)harles ltieri, &rial 'this and &iterar '6eriene * 2:2

ny ade;uate account of the ethical force (otential in literary e(erience needs to focus on

states most clearly (resent in lyric e(erience raditionally- models of ethical criticism deri5e

from the reading of no5els and stress the same (rinci(les of <udgment that a((ly &hen &e

mae assessments of actions in ordinary situations his situation is fine for clarifying ho&moral thining traditionally &ors- and e5en for su((lementing its ca(acity to mae

discriminations or use the force that (athos +rings as an inde of (u+lic concerns #ut such an

a((roach cannot do much to sho& &hy the aesthetic dimension of literary e(erience matters

for ethics- and hence it cannot fully address the &ays that such e(erience can modify our

understanding of ethos and our commitments to s(ecific models of the ;ualities and le5els of

intensity that might also function as as(ects of our <udgements a+out actions .o +y

concentrating on the limitations of re(resentati5e thiners lie Wayne #ooth and Martha

!uss+aum- it may +e (ossi+le to ada(t a modified !iet,schean account of ethical 5alue sha(ed

+y ho& literary e(erience stages 5alue for su+<ects

Todd F. Davis and Kenneth Woma!. Saints, Sinners, and the Di!ensian Novel# The

'this o( Stortellin% in ;ohn "rvin%s The )ider 4ouse $ules * 298

In he Cider %ouse Rules- 6ohn Ir5ing selfconsciously ado(ts the literary form of the

3icensian no5el&ith its multi(licity of characters- its narrati5e mass- its o5ert sense of

sentimentality- and its generic intersections &ith such modes as the detecti5e storyas the forum

for constructing the fictions that intentionally challenge his readers 5alue systems !oting

Ir5ings insistence that the no5el as literary form should address something of human 5alue-

ethical criticism highlights ho& Ir5ings o&n ethics of storytelling transform and determine

many of his narrati5e (ractices- es(ecially his use of the (articular #y chronicling se5eral

ma<or and minor characters histories in his no5el &ith an uncanny (recision and attenti5eness-

Ir5ing creates the ethical construct of charactersca(e- offering inroads into the 5ery human (ro+lem of a+ortion &hile resisting any legalistic conclusion or correct (olitical 5ision

8/10/2019 Style 1998


;ames 5helan, Sethes )hoie# eloved and the 'this o( $eadin% * 318

oni Morrison (resents three different tellings of the central e5ent of #elo5ed- .ethes

instincti5e decision to ill her children rather than ha5e them +ecome sla5es- +ut the

triangulation of those tellings does not lead to any clear signal from Morrison a+out ho& her

audience should <udge that e5ent his unusual treatment transfers considera+le ethical

res(onsi+ility to the audience e5en as it dee(ens Morrisons case a+out the horrors of sla5ery

Morrisons narrati5e strategies- then- are designed to increase the affecti5e and (olitical (o&er

of the no5el= they also esta+lish a s(ecial- al+eit uncommon- ethical relation +et&een im(lied

author and authorial audience

-. Thomas )ouser, a!in%, Ta!in%, and Fa!in% &ives# The 'this o( )ollaborative &i(e

Writin% * 33+

Ethical dilemmas seem to +e +uilt into colla+orati5e life &riting in &ays that are (eculiar to it-

and critics and &riters need to recon more forthrightly &ith the economic- (olitical- andethical dimensions of colla+orati5e life &riting he ethical difficulties of colla+orati5e

auto+iogra(hy are rooted in its nearly oymoronic status he (artners contri+utions are not

only different +ut incommensurate entitieson the one hand- li5ed e(erience mediated +y

memory= on the other- the la+or of eliciting- recording- inscri+ing- and organi,ing this material

We might schemati,e colla+orati5e auto+iogra(hy +y imagining eam(les as lying along a

continuum from ethnogra(hic auto+iogra(hy- in &hich the &riter outrans the su+<ect- to

cele+rity auto+iogra(hy- in &hich the su+<ect outrans the &riter he inherent im+alance

+et&een the (artners contri+utions may +e com(licated +y a (olitical im+alance +et&een them=

often- colla+orations in5ol5e (artners &hose relation is hierarchi,ed +y some differencein race-

culture- gender- class- age- or >in the case of narrati5es of illness or disa+ility? somatic

condition he ethical dilemmas differ according to &here on this continuum a (articularcolla+oration lies Ethical 5iolationsine;uitiesoccur mainly in t&o distinct +ut interrelated

as(ects of the (ro<ectthe (ortrayal and the (artnershi(

Wane ). ooth, Wh 'thial )ritiism )an Never e Sim6le * 3<1

his essay is one of many recent efforts to challenge t&o critical schools (o(ular through much

of this century: those &ho thin ethical <udgments ha5e nothing to do &ith genuine literary or

aesthetic ;uality- and those &ho thin that ethical <udgments a+out stories can ne5er +e

anything more than su+<ecti5e o(inion fter tracing some reasons for the neglect of ethical

criticism- I argue that to ans&er the schools ade;uately re;uires us to acno&ledge the full

di5ersity of &hat stories do to and for us= no one critical method can do <ustice to more than afraction of them Etending .heldon .acss distinction among three inds of fiction >action-

satire- and a(ologue?- I claim that if ethical criticism is to thri5e- critics must recogni,e that

different modes of narrati5e in5ite or res(ond to radically different ethical a((roaches

Introduction: Reading Literature and the Ethics of Criticism. Prema: Davis, Todd F.,

Womack, enneth, !t"#e, $$%&'(%), !ummer&), !ve*ak. %(, +ro (.+a*a

-odataka: cademic !earch Com-#ete.

I/TR0D1CTI0/: REDI/2 LITERT1RE /D T3E ET3IC! 0F CRITICI!4

8/10/2019 Style 1998


The heart of ethics is the desire for communit".

55To6in !ie6ers,

The Ethics of Criticism 78&))9

The ver" fact that !t"#e has -u6#ished such an issue as the one that no rests in

the reader;s hands i## 6e distur6ing to some in the <e#d of #iterar" stud". Des-ite

7or more #ike#" 6ecause of9 the fact that numerous ourna#s in the <e#d have

su--orted, through -u6#ication, the e=orts of scho#ars gra--#ing ith the ro#e of

ethics in the act of reading #iterature55P4L and !a#magundi, #ike !t"#e, have

devoted entire issues to the discussion of art and ethics55the cr" from man" in

the academ" is that of 6#as-hem".7 n89 s a disci-#ine that gre in #arge -art out

of a feigned innocence of aesthetics, man" #iterar" scho#ars55even those ho

acce-t or -ractice reading strategies that invo#ve overt#" ethica# 6ases55seem toresist the idea that the #iterar" artifact and its reader have ethica# and mora# #ives

that intersect at times, a re#ationshi- that does not resu#t in mechanica#

res-onses, 6ut rather, as ith those #iving creatures e come to kno in the te>ts

of our #ives, causes us to think in a"s e ou#d not have had e not

encountered them.

In The Com-an" We ee-: n Ethics of Fiction 78&&)9, Wa"ne C. +ooth suggests

that ethica# criticism, 6ecause of its misuse in the -ast to censor and re-ress a##

kinds of #iterature deemed immora# 6" some, fe## on hard times and as re-#aced6" various forma#ist theories that ignored the ver" rea# ethica# or -o#itica# e=ects

of #iterature. In recent decades, hoever, ethica# criticism has eno"ed a reviva#

of sorts, motivated in -art, +ooth argues, 6" the ork of ?feminist critics asking

em6arrassing @uestions a6out a ma#e5dominated #iterar" canon and hat it has

done to the Aconsciousness; of 6oth men and omenB 6" 6#ack critics -ursuing

... @uestions a6out racism in merican c#assicsB 6" neo54ar>ists e>-#oring

c#ass 6iases in Euro-ean #iterar" traditionsB 6" re#igious critics attacking modern

#iterature for its Anihi#ism; or Aatheism;? 7 9. #though much of the modern era

denied the -o#itica# or ethica# nature of #iterature, c#aiming that in some m"stica#

fashion art transcended the 6oundaries of -o#itics or ethics, -ostmodern-hi#oso-h" has demonstrated the fo##" in such a c#aim and argued that art is

indeed -o#itica#, a -roduct of societa# mores and -oer re#ations. The mis-ractice

of ethica# criticism has usua##" invo#ved acts of udgment that in essence im-#"

that a given #iterar" ork is someho inferior 6ecause of its s"stem of mora#it"B

such criticism, reductive in nature, often #eads to censorshi- and -roduces no

fruitfu# scho#arshi-. What +ooth, among others, ishes to esta6#ish is a form of

criticism that e>amines a ork of art in order to discover and make e>-#icit the

mora# sensi6i#it" informing that ork. In 0n 4ora# Fiction 78&)9, Gohn 2ardner

argues that mora# criticism is a6so#ute#" necessar" for the hea#th of Eng#ish

studies, and, des-ite his often see-ing genera#i*ations a6out the va#ue ofcertain artists, 0n 4ora# Fiction must 6e ackno#edged as an im-ortant -recursor

8/10/2019 Style 1998


to the reviva# of contem-orar" interest in ethica# criticism. 2ardner;s rage against

the Eng#ish academ" as fue#ed 6" his 6e#ief that the stud" of #iterature had

6ecome mora##" 6ankru-t and uninterested in hat is most human a6out

#iterature. +efore his untime#" death in 8&)(, 2ardner used his inHuence as a

noted riter of <ction and as a -rofessor of Eng#ish in an e=ort to move the tide

of inte##ectua# thought toard an armation of the m"ster" and 6eaut" of #ife.7 n(9

If e are to acce-t the -ro-osition that #iterature reHects human e>-erience hi#e

at the same time it a=ects it, that #iterature is 6oth a -roduct of the socia# order

and he#-s esta6#ish and maintain it, ethica# criticism, in its desire to e>amine the

mora# and ethica# nature of a ork of art, c#ear#" esta6#ishes an im-ortant 6ond

6eteen the #ife of the te>t and the #ife of the reader. This 6ond, hoever, shou#d

never 6e vieed faci#e#" or reductive#". Patricia 4e"er !-acks contends that hi#e

<ctiona# narratives o=er o--ortunities for ethica# reHection, the" are not

im-eratives for 6ehaviorB rather, according to !-acks, ?-aradigms of <ction

-rovide an o--ortunit" for mora# -#a"fu#ness: cost5free e>-erimentation? 7($%9.

Whi#e it is true that reading o=ers, a6ove a##, the -ossi6i#it" of e>-erience, or

hat !-acks ca##s the ?e>-erience of agenc" or its i##usion? 7($%9, one must never

forget that those e>-eriences ac@uired through the act of reading55a#though

-oerfu# and a=ecting55shou#d neither 6e feared nor re-ressed. Rather, the act of

reading ma" 6e understood as an activit" that a=ords e>-erimentation, the tr"ing

on of ne -ossi6i#ities ithout the <na#it" or conse@uences of #ife outside of the

reading e>-erience. To the detriment of ethica# criticism, too man" critics in the

-ast have used this form of reading as a too# for censorshi- in order to im-rison

orks hose mora# s"stems conHicted ith their on. Reductive and con<ning,

such 6ehavior has no c#ear 6ene<t in the disci-#ine of #iterar" studies. Therefore,

as a resu#t of critics; censorious 6ehavior, e have itnessed a 6ack#ash against

ethica# criticism, an attem-t to constrain this form of #iterar" criti@ue. !ad#", such

e=orts have -revented critics from engaging in an activit" that tenders

-otentia##" -ro<ta6#e readings, readings that connect our stud" of #iterar" orks

ith the -h"sica# or#d 6e"ond the te>t.7 n%9

Ro6ert Co#es, a -rofessor of -s"chiatr" and medica# humanities at 3arvard

1niversit", argues ith great -assion for inter-retive modes that e>amine issues

of an ethica# or mora# nature. !uggesting that such critica# methodo#ogies o=er

im-ortant contri6utions to dai#" #iving 6e"ond the c#assroom a##s, Co#es

contends that ?students need more o--ortunit" for mora# and socia# reHection

on the -ro6#ems that the" have seen at <rst hand. ... !tudents need the chance

to direct#" connect 6ooks to e>-erience? 7J'9. 0f course, even if the" are not

encouraged forma##", a## readers inevita6#" make the connections of hich Co#es

s-eaks during the act of reading. Part of the human condition demands that such

activit" occurs 6ecause e have no other a" of inter-reting sign s"stems and

events e>ce-t through com-arison to that hich e have e>-erienced cognitive#"

and sensuous#" in the -ast. +ecause humans are <nite creatures ho come to

8/10/2019 Style 1998


understand the or#d through 6oth -h"sica# and menta# e>-erience, #iterar"

e>-erience a=ords readers ith o--ortunities that their -h"sica# #ives ma" not.

Those e>-eriences that do occur in the or#d of the #iterar" te>t, hoever, must

sti## 6e eva#uated 6" humans hose #ives are #ived 6e"ond the con<nes of the

te>t. Literar" e>-erience does not m"sterious#" neutra#i*e the ethica# dimension

of human #ifeB as ethica# 6eings e continue to function ith the same ca-acitieshi#e e read a -oem or nove# or -#a" as e do hi#e e ork or vacation. What

ethica# criticism encourages is an aareness of such a condition. Certain#", e

i## a## 6e 6etter readers of the ethica# #ife of a te>t if e are cogni*ant of our on

ethica# s"stems, as e## as those of the riter, the te>t, and the characters in the

te>t. Rather than ignore such dimensions in a given te>t and reading e>-erience,

ethica# criticism dras us toard a dee-er understanding of these dimensions

and the -ossi6i#it" for ethica# reHection in our on #ives.

L"nne Tirre## ascri6es this -henomenon to a form of ?mora# agenc"? in hich

#iterar" te>ts urge us to -roect our va#ue s"stems u-on their narratives. ?It is

through the articu#ation of events, motives, and characters that e 6ecome

mora# agents? Tirre## argues, and ?in te##ing stories one deve#o-s a sense of se#f, a

sense of se#f in re#ation to others, and a ca-acit" to ustif" one;s decisions? 78(9.

+" cha##enging readers to rearm their e>isting mora# sensi6i#ities through their

te>tua# e>-eriences, ethica# criticism encourages -ros-ective students to

consider s-heres of e>-erience and cu#tures 6e"ond themse#ves, to recogni*e a

-#ura#it" of human conditions and rea#ities. +" em-hasi*ing the se#f5reHe>ive

nature of reading, ethica# criticism o=ers a ide arra" of -edagogic -ossi6i#ities

for educators interested in ins-iring their students 6oth to reva#uate their on

va#ue s"stems and to #ook 6e"ond the often insu#ar 6oundaries of the se#f. Whi#e

orking ith students at 4idd#e6ur" Co##ege and ca-ita#i*ing on such connections

in the c#assroom, Ga" Parini e>-#ains that his ?interest has 6een dran to modes

of criticism that attem-t to engage the or#d. In #iterar" studies, hat this often

6oi#s don to is making connections 6eteen hat e read in 6ooks and ho e

6ehave in the so5ca##ed rea# or#d? 7+(9. Christo-her +ut#er adds that deve#o-ing

an ethica# termino#og" for the investigation of #iterar" orks in the c#assroom and

6e"ond i## a##o us ?to make sense of the #ife e actua##" #ive? 7('9.

#though ethica# criticism continues to assert itse#f as 6oth an inter-retive

reading -aradigm and a corrective for the socia# irre#evance of the theoretica#

-roect;s critica# machiner", its detractors often @uestion its ca-acit" for

inte##ectua# endurance, as e## as its usefu#ness as a means for ideo#ogica#

criti@ue. Pau# . +ove;s acer6ic comments in Inte##ectua#s in Poer: 2enea#og"

of Critica# 3umanism 78&)J9 demonstrate the -revai#ing critica# misgivings a6out

humanism and its a--#ication to #iterar" orks. ?Critica# scho#arshi- shou#d sei*e

the -oer function of Atruth,;? he rites, ?and so-histica##" en#ist it for -o#itica#

ork intended not on#" to revea# the dark side of humanism;s o--ression 6ut a#so

to knock the under-innings from humanism and the dominant regimes it

su--orts. Criticism must 6e negative,? he continues 7%$&58$9. +ove;s remarks

8/10/2019 Style 1998


c#ear#" i##ustrate the nature of the theoretica# -roect;s an>iet" a6out humanism;s

ca-acit" for -ostu#ating an" sustained -o#itica# criti@ue. Ket, as 4artha C.

/uss6aum reminds us in The Fragi#it" of 2oodness: Luck and Ethics in 2reek

Traged" and Phi#oso-h" 78&)J9, the ethica# stud" of #iterar" orks -rovides

readers ith a -oerfu# means for inter-reting the ideo#ogica# and inter-ersona#

c#ashes that de<ne the human e>-erience. The ethica# investigation of #iterature,she rites, ?#a"s o-en to vie the com-#e>it", the indeterminac", the sheer

dicu#t" of actua# human de#i6eration? !uch humanistic criticism, she adds,

underscores ?the vu#nera6i#it" of human #ives to fortune, the muta6i#it" of our

circumstances and our -assions, the e>istence of conHicts among our

commitments? 78%58'9. In short, contrar" to +ove;s draconian out#ook, the ethica#

-aradigm su--#ies us ith a usefu# mechanism for inter-reting the -o#itica#

strugg#es that invaria6#" -#ague the human condition.

In addition to +ove;s -essimistic arguments regarding hat he 6e#ieves to 6e the

ideo#ogica# ine=ectua#it" of humanist forms of #iterar" criti@ue, recent

o6servations 6" critics such as 2era#d 2raft and 4orris Dickstein im-#icit#"

-ro6#emati*e the contem-orar" forcefu#ness of ethica# reading -aradigms. Whi#e

in ?The Future of Theor" in the Teaching of Literature? for instance, 2raft #aments

hat he -erceives to 6e the ?fragmented? nature of ?traditiona# humanism?

7(J$9, Dickstein, in his revie of /uss6aum;s Poetic Gustice, -aterna#istica##"

descri6es her ?#ove of #iterature and insistence on its socia# va#ue? as

?refreshing#" o#d5fashioned? 78&9. ma*ing#", and des-ite the recent theoretica#

achievements of ethica# critics such as +ooth, /uss6aum, and G. 3i##is 4i##er,

2raft;s and Dickstein;s comments seem to #ocate the he"da" of humanistic

#iterar" stud" somehere in the distant -ast. !imi#ar#", in his essa" ?The Common

Touch, or, 0ne !i*e Fits ##? !tan#e" Fish unHattering#" com-ares The Com-an"

We ee-, +ooth;s ethica# manifesto, ith the regressive and ethica##"

@uestiona6#e te>ts -u6#ished 6" severa# of the infamous cu#ture arriors,

inc#uding ##an +#oom, Roger im6a##, and Dinesh D;!ou*a. In his discourse on the

ethica# agenda, Fish unfair#" charges riters such as +ooth ith cham-ioning

?mora# re#ativism? and rendering ?the act of udgment? into a ?meaning#ess and

trivia#? e>ercise 7($589. +ut ethica# critics such as +ooth in fact argue that

mora#it" remains decided#" contingent u-on the norms and standards -articu#ar

to the #oca#i*ed -ractices of autonomous se#ves. s !. L. 2o#d6erg -erce-tive#"recogni*es in gents and Lives: 4ora# Thinking in Literature 78&&%9, ?there is no

unritten constitutiona# ru#e a6out hat ever"one shou#d mean 6" Amora#;? 7))9.

Rather than attem-ting to articu#ate an" codi<ed s"stems of 6ehavior, ethica#

criticism 6oth strives to address the manner in hich individua#s arrive at their

decisions and a#so assesses ho the resu#ts of those choices a=ect the #arger

human communit" in hich e #ive.7 n'9

+ecause of its inherent#" interdisci-#inar" nature, ethica# criticism -roves further

i##uminating as a reading methodo#og" for a host of other <e#ds of stud",

inc#uding feminist criticism and rhetorica# stud".7 n9 The recent emergence of

8/10/2019 Style 1998


ethica# criticism as a via6#e reading methodo#og" ma" "et -rove 6ene<cia# to the

fractious contem-orar" #ife of the theoretica# -roect as e##. rriving on the

critica#5theoretica# scene during an era hen -oststructura#ism <nds itse#f under

siege for its anti5humanistic and high#" -o#itici*ed inter-retive activities, the

ethica# -aradigm -rovides #iterar" theor" ith a means for eva#uating the status

of its ideo#ogica# criti@ue. s Ro6ert !cho#es reminds us, ?To have an ethics meansto have standards, canons, -rotoco#s? 78'9. Ethica# criticism, ith its em-hasis

u-on the o6servation of inter-retive norms and the va#ue s"stems of readers,

furnishes critica# theorists ith a meaningfu# conte>t for addressing the direction

of #iterar" stud" as the ne centur" ra-id#" a--roaches. ?n" critica# act is an

e>-ression of va#ues,? Christo-her C#ausen argues in The 4ora# Imagination:

Essa"s on Literature and Ethics 78&)J9, and ?much conservative criticism is

overt#" or covert#" mora#. !o is most radica# and feminist criticism,? he continues,

?even if often disguised as ideo#ogica# criti@ue? 7((9. The infusion of an ethica#

im-erative into the various su6genres of critica# theor" during this #ate5

-oststructura#ist moment might indeed -rovide scho#ars ith a usefu# discoursefor conte>tua#i*ing the theoretica# -roect;s current interna# reassessment of its

va#ue s"stems and inter-retive norms.

The contem-orar" -reoccu-ation ith ethica# concerns a#so underscores the

ethica# -aradigm;s va#ue as a -rogressive and -#ura#istic means of direction for

the future of #iterar" stud" in a c"nica# era of institutiona# 6udget restrictions and

shrinking em-#o"ment o--ortunities in higher education. It shou#d hard#" 6e

sur-rising, then, that the ethica# reva#uation of #iterar" theor" emerges during a

-eriod in -ost5secondar" education characteri*ed 6" its adherence to a 6ottom5

#ine menta#it" and the necessit" of se#f5usti<cation. incent P. Pecora further

attri6utes the a-otheosis of ethics to ideo#ogica# Huctuations on the internationa#

-o#itica# scene. ?It is -erha-s no accident that at a time hen the -ossi6i#it" of a

via6#e adversar" -o#itics in Western Democracies ... has 6een once again

reduced to mere neurotic fantas"? Pecora rites, ?ethics shou#d return to critica#

discourse? 7($'9. Regard#ess of the reasons for its recent incarnation as a reading

-aradigm, ethica# criticism su--#ies its -ro-onents ith an inte##igi6#e -ar#ance for

articu#ating the va#ue of #iterar" stud" to a Western -o-u#ace in signi<cant need

of a critica# methodo#og" that e#evates cu#tura# -#ura#ism and communa#

res-onsi6i#it" over c"nica# and monocu#tura#ist theoretica# agendas. In ?Is Therean Ethics of ReadingM? G. 3i##is 4i##er concedes that ?sure#" no one can 6e

e>-ected to master the intricate rigor of the deconstructive a" of reading and

a--#" it ha6itua##". We need to get on ith it,? he adds, referring to the 6usiness

of ethica##" reinvigorating our e>isting methods of #iterar" criti@ue 7)$9. +"

demonstrating the usefu#ness of secu#ar humanism and contem-orar" mora#

-hi#oso-h" to #iterar" stud", ethica# criticism high#ights the -edagogic and

interdisci-#inar" va#ue of #iterar" stud" to an increasing#" diverse and e>-anding

g#o6a# communit". ?Phi#oso-h" is the chi#dhood of the inte##ect? Thomas /age#

arns us in The ie from /ohere 78&)J9, ?and a cu#ture that tries to ski- it i##

never gro u-? 78(9. With its accent u-on #iterar" stud" and its ide5ranging-ossi6i#ities for inte##ectua# and inter-ersona# deve#o-ment, ethica# criticism

8/10/2019 Style 1998


e#ucidates a great man" of the a"s that the #ife of the te>t intersects the #ife of

the mind. That ethica# criticism seems to -romise an enhanced sense of

communit" is itse#f an encouraging -ros-ect for the future of #iterar" studies.

The essa"s in the -resent vo#ume o=er a ide range of -ers-ectives on ethica#

criticism and its a--#ication to #iterar" inter-retation. In ?Ethica# Criticism: What It

Is and Wh" It 4atters,? 4arsha## W. 2regor" e>-#ores the ?ethica# signi<cance?

that readers ascri6e to the arra" of te>ts that the" consume. 2regor" argues that

the ethica# consideration of #iterature not on#" matters, 6ut is an ?inesca-a6#e?

as-ect of our humanit". Ethica# criticism, 2regor" rites, a##os us 6oth to #ook

outard at our societ" and inard at ?our on sou#s.? Danie# R. !char*;s ?The

Ethics of Reading E#ie Wiese#;s /ight? usefu##" di=erentiates 6eteen an ethics of

reading and an ethics hi#e reading. In addition to ma--ing out the hermeneutic

activities invo#ved in ethica# reading and inter-retation, !char* investigates the

ethica# im-#ications of reading Wiese#;s <ctiona#i*ed auto6iogra-hica# memoir of

the 3o#ocaust. In ?A/othing +ut Face;55ATo 3e## ith Phi#oso-h";M: Wito#d

2om6roic*, +runo !chu#*, and the !canda# of 3uman Countenance,? dam

Nachar" /eton e>amines the various ?si#houettes? of the se#f in orks 6"

2om6roic* and !chu#*. /eton devotes -articu#ar attention to the ?inter5

su6ective s-aces? inherent in the human countenance, or ?the face that 6egets

other faces as e## as the face of human encounter that trans-oses into the face

of reading.? ath#een Lundeen;s ?Who has the Right to Fee#M: The Ethics of

Literar" Em-ath"? discusses the ironic u>ta-osition of em-ath": in #ife, it is

-raised as a virtue, hi#e the or#d of #iterar" criticism often sees it as a form of

cu#tura# arrogance. 1sing Fe#icia 3emans;s ?Indian Woman;s Death5!ong,?

Lundeen e>-#ores the -ro6#ematic nature of #iterar" em-ath" and its ethica#

-ossi6i#ities.

In ?L"rica# Ethics and Literar" E>-erience,? Char#es #tieri addresses the centra#it"

of the #"rica# as a means for measuring our emotiona# and ethica# res-onses to

#iterar" e>-erience. #tieri -ro6#emati*es ethica# criticism;s ro#e in the theoretica#

-roect, arguing that our surrender to its inter-retive aims ma" succeed in

esta6#ishing -assive strictures of mora#it" and the su6#imation of our ca-acit" for

rendering sound aesthetic udgments. Todd F. Davis and enneth Womack;s

?!aints, !inners, and the Dickensian /ove#: The Ethics of !tor"te##ing in Gohn

Irving;s The Cider 3ouse Ru#es? e>-#ores the Dickensian nove# as a narrative

mode ith de#i6erate ethica# goa#s. Davis and Womack argue that in their

narratives nove#ists such as Dickens and Irving fashion ethica#

?charactersca-es?55the descri-tion of s-eci<c incidents that reHect the inner #ife

of a given character;s -ersonhood. In ?!ethe;s Choice: +e#oved and the Ethics of

Reading,? Games Phe#an dras u-on a rhetorica# frameork in his ana#"sis of

4orrison;s nove# in order to account for !ethe;s decision to ki## her chi#dren and

s-are them the traumas of s#aver". Phe#an argues that this centra# crisis in

+e#oved esta6#ishes an ethica# re#ation 6eteen im-#ied author and audience. In

?4aking, Taking, and Faking Lives: The Ethics of Co##a6orative Life Writing,? 2.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


Thomas Couser e>amines the ethica# dicu#ties inherent in the act of

co##a6orative auto6iogra-h". 1sing such te>ts as Ruth !ienkieic*54ercer and

!teven +. a-#an;s I Raise 4" E"es to !a" Kes, Couser encounters a variet" of

ethica# issues in his stud", -articu#ar#" regarding hierarchies of race, cu#ture,

gender, c#ass, age, and i##ness or disa6i#it". Fina##", Wa"ne C. +ooth;s ?Wh" Ethica#

Criticism Can /ever +e !im-#e? e>-#ores the ?undenia6#e? -oer of narrative tochange our #ives55for good or i##. In addition to noting that ethica# udgments are

inevita6#" ?controversia#,? +ooth underscores the va#ue of ethica# criticism as a

means for understanding narrative;s ca-acit" for registering an ethica# and

aesthetic im-act u-on the human condition.

/otes

7n89 The inte##ectua# ske-ticism regarding the theoretica# re#evance of the #atest

incarnation of ethica# criticism is 6est e>em-#i<ed 6" Richard . Posner;s recent

argument against the mora# eva#uation of #iterature in ?gainst Ethica# Criticism.?

Posner contends that ethica# criticism advocates the disavoa# of #iterar" orks

that confront us ith -ro6#ematic images or va#ue s"stems that ma" 6e

dramatica##" di=erent from our on. In his essa", Posner a#so charges ethica#

criticism ith ?assigning? #iterature ?the ro#e of making the reader a more mora#

individua#.? Ethica# criticism ?gives #iterature too so#emn and even -uritanica# an

air,? he adds 7($9.

7n(9 !ince 2ardner;s 0n 4ora# Fiction a--eared in 8&), man" other critics have

entered the de6ate over the via6i#it" and -ro<ta6i#it" of ethica# criticism. Perha-ssur-rising#", one of the most voca# advocates of ethica# criticism is G. 3i##is 4i##er.

In The Ethics of Reading 78&)9 and ersions of P"gma#ion 78&&$9, 4i##er

e>amines the ethica# nature of reading from a deconstructive -osition, arguing

that hat is ethica# or mora# cannot 6e understood or confronted direct#":

?!tor"te##ing is the im-urit" hich is necessar" in an" discourse a6out the mora#

#a as such. ... There is no theor" of ethics, no theor" of the mora# #a ...

ithout stor"te##ing? 7Ethics (%9. +ecause the range of critics ho ork in the

<e#d of ethica# or mora# criticism is indeed diverse, it comes as no sur-rise to <nd

di=erent theoretica# ideas 6eing -roduced in a disci-#ine that has heretofore 6een

neg#ected and no "ie#ds a tru#" im-ortant harvest. critic of note in the <e#d of

ethica# criticism is Terrence Des Pres, ho, #ike E#ie Wiese#, the riter he most

admires, concentrates on the e=orts of certain artists, es-ecia##" Geish riters,

ho use their craft as a means of -rotest and thera-" against the tragic and

heinous events of the 3o#ocaust. 0ther critics rethinking and recreating the <e#d

of ethica# criticism inc#ude Frederick G. ntc*ak, hose ork focuses on the ethica#

nature of rhetoricB 4artha C. /uss6aum, hose stud" centers itse#f on mora#

-hi#oso-h" and uses #iterature se#ective#" to 6etter understand ?rea# #ife? ethica#

conundrumsB !usan Resneck Parr, hose research dea#s e>c#usive#" ith the

e=ects of ethica# criticism on -ractices in secondar"5education c#assroomsB and

Christo-her C#ausen, hose riting fo##os the more traditiona# -atterns of

#iterar" stud" as -racticed 6" Wa"ne C. +ooth, among others. +ecause their

e=orts have c#ear#" contri6uted to ethica# criticism;s recent renea#, the" mark a

8/10/2019 Style 1998


signi<cant addition to #iterar" studies. Recent scho#ar#" monogra-hs such as

David Parker;s Ethics, Theor", and the /ove# 78&&'9 and im L. Worthington;s !e#f

as /arrative: !u6ectivit" and Communit" in Contem-orar" Fiction 78&&J9 further

the e>amination of the ethica# #ife of the te>t es-oused 6" theorists such as

+ooth, /uss6aum, and 4i##er.

7n%9 In Love;s no#edge: Essa"s on Phi#oso-h" and Literature 78&&$9, /uss6aum

e>-#ains that hen she <rst 6egan to investigate the re#ationshi- 6eteen ethica#

stud" and #iterar" stud", she ?rare#" found an"thing 6ut contem-t for ethica#

criticism of #iterature? 78%9. Ironica##", the academ", in its attem-ts to com6at the

negative e=ects of ethica# criticism, name#" censorshi-, found itse#f censoring

academic freedom. !uch censorious 6ehavior has most certain#" #ed to the #oss of

man" -ro<ta6#e readings. Ironica##", a#though /e Critics attem-ted to argue that

art in some fashion transcends the ethica# or mora#, the" actua##" ere

-artici-ating in a s"stem of va#uation that as itse#f ethica#. Postmodern critics

argue that the transcendence /e Critics c#aim for art is an im-ossi6i#it",

unattaina6#e in this or#d 6ecause of the nature of e>istence: a## acts are ethica#

and -o#itica#.

7n'9 In Find Kou the irtue: Ethics, Image, and Desire in Literature 78&)9, Irving

4asse" argues that readers a#so engage in the ethica# investigation of #iterar"

orks in order to #ocate the mora# structures unavai#a6#e to them ithin the

6oundaries of their rea# #ives. ?Even in this -ost#iterate, -ostaesthetic, and-ossi6#" -ostethica# age, e a## continue to seek out art, ith its unnamea6#e

ethica# satisfactions, am6iguous as the ver" status of ethics itse#f ma" 6e. If

ethics 6e a de#usion,? he adds, ?it is at #east a de#usion shared 6" saints and

sinners a#ike? 78)&9.

7n9 In ?4ora# 1nderstandings: #ternative AE-istemo#og"; for a Feminist Ethics,?

for instance, 4argaret 1r6an Wa#ker e#a6orates u-on ethica# criticism;s va#ue to

feminist criticism. ?Feminist ethics c#ari<es the mora# #egitimac" and necessit" of

the kinds of socia#, -o#itica#, and -ersona# changes that feminism demands inorder to end ma#e domination,? she rites, ?or -erha-s to end domination

genera##"? 78J9. Likeise, in ?Teaching Rhetoric and Teaching 4ora#it": !ome

Pro6#ems and Possi6i#ities of Ethica# Criticism,? Frederick G. ntc*ak discusses

ethica# criticism;s contri6utions to contem-orar" rhetorica# stud". ?We can teach

our students,? ntc*ak o6serves, ?ho to see ethica# issues taking sha-e in and

sha-ing the most im-ortant materia# for the constitution of their characters, the

most im-ortant medium for their ethica##" signi<cant choosing, acting, and

#iving55that is, for their rhetoric? 7((9.

Works Cited

8/10/2019 Style 1998


ntc*ak, Frederick G. ?Teaching Rhetoric and Teaching 4ora#it": !ome Pro6#ems

and Possi6i#ities of Ethica# Criticism.? Rhetoric !ociet" Ouarter#" 8& 78&)&9: 85((.

+ooth, Wa"ne C. The Com-an" We ee-: n Ethics of Fiction. +erke#e": 1 of

Ca#ifornia P, 8&)).

+ove, Pau# . Inte##ectua#s in Poer: 2enea#og" of Critica# 3umanism. /e Kork:

Co#um6ia 1P, 8&)J.

+ut#er, Christo-her. ?The Future of Theor": !aving the Reader.? Cohen ((&5'&.

C#ausen, Christo-her. The 4ora# Imagination: Essa"s on Literature and Ethics.

Ioa Cit": 1 of Ioa P, 8&)J.

Cohen, Ra#-h, ed. The Future of Literar" Theor". London: Rout#edge, 8&)&.

Co#es, Ro6ert. ?Putting 3ead and 3eart on the Line.? The Chronic#e of 3igher

Education '8 7(J 0ct. 8&&'9: J'.

Des Pres, Terrence. Writing into the Wor#d: Essa"s, 8&%58&). /e Kork: iking,

8&&8.

Dickstein, 4orris. Revie of Poetic Gustice: The Literar" Imagination and Pu6#ic

Life, 6" 4artha C. /uss6aum. /e Kork Times +ook Revie 8 -ri# 8&&J: 8&.

Fish, !tan#e". ?The Common Touch, or, 0ne !i*e Fits ##.? The Po#itics of Li6era#

Education. Ed. Darr"# G. 2#ess and +ar6ara 3errnstein !mith. Durham: Duke 1P,

8&&8. ('85JJ.

2ardner, Gohn. 0n 4ora# Fiction. /e Kork: +asic, 8&).

2o#d6erg. !. L. gents and Lives: 4ora# Thinking in Literature. Cam6ridge:

Cam6ridge 1P, 8&&%.

2ra=, 2era#d. ?The Future of Theor" in the Teaching of Literature.? Cohen ($J.

4asse", Irving. Find Kou the irtue: Ethics, Image, and Desire in Literature.

Fairfa>: 2eorge 4ason 1P, 8&).

4i##er, G. 3i##is. The Ethics of Reading: ant, de 4an, E#iot, Tro##o-e, Games, and

+enamin. /e Kork: Co#um6ia 1P, 8&).

55555. ?Is There an Ethics of ReadingM? Reading /arrative: Form, Ethics, Ideo#og".

Ed. Games Phe#an. Co#um6us: 0hio !tate 1P, 8&)).&58$8.

55555. ersions of P"gma#ion. Cam6ridge: 3arvard 1P, 8&&$.

/age#, Thomas. The ie from /ohere. 0>ford: 0>ford 1P, 8&)J.

/uss6aum, 4artha C. The Fragi#it" of 2oodness: Luck and Ethics in 2reek Traged"and Phi#oso-h". Cam6ridge: Cam6ridge 1P, 8&)J.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


55555. Love;s no#edge: Essa"s on Phi#oso-h" and Literature. /e Kork: 0>ford

1P, 8&&$.

Parini, Ga". ?Rekind#ing the !-irit of the ;J$s.? The Chronic#e of 3igher Education

7(J -ri# 8&&J9: +85+(.

Parker, David. Ethics, Theor", and the /ove#. Cam6ridge: Cam6ridge 1P, 8&&'.

Parr, !usan Resneck. The 4ora# of the !tor": Literature, a#ues, and merican

Education. /e Kork: Teachers Co##ege, 8&)(.

Pecora, incent P. ?Ethics, Po#itics, and the 4idd#e oice.? Literature and the

Ethica# Ouestion. Ed. C#aire /ouvet. /e 3aven: Ka#e 1P, 8&&8. ($%5%$.

P4L. !-ecia# issue. ?Ethics and Literar" Criticism.? 88'.8 7Ganuar" 8&&&9.

Posner, Richard . ?gainst Ethica# Criticism.? Phi#oso-h" and Literature (8

78&&9: 85(.

!a#magundi. !-ecia# issue. ?rt and Ethics: !"m-osium.? 888 7!ummer 8&&J9.

!cho#es, Ro6ert E. Protoco#s of Reading. /e 3aven: Ka#e 1P, 8&)&.

!ie6ers, To6in. The Ethics of Criticism. Ithaca: Corne## 1P, 8&)).

!-acks, Patricia 4e"er. ?The /ove# as Ethica# Paradigm.? Wh" the /ove# 4atters:

Postmodern Per-#e>. Ed. 4ark !-i#ka and Caro#ine 4cCracken5F#esher.

+#oomington: Indiana 1P, 8&&$. 8&&5($J.

Tirre##, L"nne. ?!tor"te##ing and 4ora# genc".? The Gourna# of esthetics and rt

Criticism ') 7!-ring 8&&$9: 885(J.

Wa#ker, 4argaret 1r6an. ?4ora# 1nderstandings: #ternative AE-istemo#og"; for a

Feminist Ethics.? E>-#orations in Feminist Ethics: Theor" and Practice. Ed. Eve

+roning Co#e and !usan Cou#tra-54cOuin. +#oomington: Indiana 1P, 8&&(. 8J5

.

Worthington, im L. !e#f as /arrative: !u6ectivit" and Communit" in

Contem-orar" Fiction. 0>ford: C#arendon, 8&&J.

+" Todd F. Davis and enneth Womack

/as#ov: Ethica# Criticism: What It Is and Wh" It 4atters. Prema: 2regor", 4arsha##,

!t"#e, $$%&'(%), !ummer&), !ve*ak. %(, +ro (.+a*a -odataka: cademic !earch

Com-#ete.

ET3ICL CRITICI!4: W3T IT I! /D W3K IT 4TTER!

8/10/2019 Style 1998


Introduction

?Change the name and it;s a6out "ou, that stor".? Thus in his !atires 7I. 8.J&5$9

3orace e#egant#" and succinct#" de<nes the imaginative trans-osing 6" hich

readers identif" ith <ctions. Te##ing and consuming stories is a fundamenta# and

universa# human activit". From the time e are 6orn the sound of stor"

accom-anies us #ike the co##ective heart 6eat of humanit", and none of us reects

the o--ortunit" to en#arge ourse#ves 6" ?tr"ing on? the #ives and fee#ings of

<ctiona# characters. We ma" not a## consume a stead" diet of hat co##ege

cata#ogues sometimes ca## ?great 6ooks,? 6ut our interactions ith stories in one

form or another55in commercia#s, T -rograms, movies, song #"rics, sermons,

#egends, fair" ta#es, nove#s, dramas, and so on55is constant and ongoing. The

famous command in the o-ening #ine of 4o6" Dick, ?Ca## me Ishmae#,? is an

invitation to the reader not on#" to identif" a character, 6ut to identif" ith a

character: ?Imagine "our name to 6e Ishmae# and it i## 6e a6out "ou, this stor".

Kou i## #earn to see the or#d through m" e"es, to fee# the or#d through m"

nerve endings. During the time e s-end together "ou i## #earn to #ive as if m"

heart 6eat in "our chest, as if "our ears ansered to m" name.?

Trans-ositions 6eteen readers and <ctiona# characters carr" o6vious ethica#

signi<cance. Des-ite current theories in -hi#oso-h" and criticism a6out the

inesca-a6i#it" of re#ativism, most of us cannot evade the dee- intuition that

identif"ing ith characters in stories can e>ert a -oerfu# inHuence on the @ua#it"and content of our on #ives. It is this -ers-ective55stories as an inHuence on

ethos, or ho e 6ecome55that makes ethica# criticism necessar". To ana#"*e ho

<ctions e>ert this inHuence and to assess its e=ects is ethica# criticism;s o6. What

the humanities in genera# need is an ethica# criticism that is inte##ectua##"

defensi6#e, not to re-#ace or dis-#ace other critica# a--roaches 6ut to

com-#ement them. What #iterar" criticism needs in -articu#ar is a theoretica#

6asis for in@uiries into and udgments a6out the -otentia# ethica# e=ects of

#iterature and narrative art in genera#.7 n89 We need this theoretica# grounding

6ecause -ractica# ethica# criticism goes on a## the time, often conducted in a most

he#ter5ske#ter, contradictor", and inte##ectua##" incoherent a". <rmer

theoretica# grounding cou#d he#- us do -ractica# ethica# criticism more

thoughtfu##" and res-onsi6#".

+oth ithin the academ" and ithin societ" as a ho#e, someone is a#a"s

c#aiming that a given nove#, movie, or T -rogram is either u-#ifting or degrading,

ins-iring or demeaning, shou#d 6e read and seen 6" ever"one or shou#dn;t

disgrace either video airaves or the she#ves of the -u6#ic #i6rar". Ever" time a

feminist e>-oses 3eminga";s com-#icit" ith the -atriarch", or ever" time an

frican5merican critic recommends the retrieva# of s#ave narratives 6ecausesuch narratives shame our -ast and he#- us sha-e the future, and ever" time a

8/10/2019 Style 1998


Gudith Fetter#e", a Terr" Eag#eton, or a 4iche# Foucau#t decries the dehumani*ing

e=ects of master narratives on su6ect5readers, such critics are dee-#" engaged

in im-ortant versions of ethica# criticism that are not at a## diminished in

ro6ustness for 6eing disguised as an" kind of discourse 6ut ethica# criticism.

The truth of m" c#aim that ethica# criticism goes on constant#" in the academ" is

not o6vious. What is o6vious is that for the #ast 8$$ "ears55from the time of the

?art for art;s sake? movement to the -resent55most #iterar" critics have strong#"

o6ected to ?ethica#? as an adective for either ?#iterature? or ?criticism.? Inside

the academ", ethica# criticism seems immediate#" to conure images of P#ato

-acking the -oets out of his re-u6#ic, or the memor" of 4atthe rno#d ta#king

a6out ?the 6est that has 6een thought and said,? or the menta# image of F. R.

Leavis intoning on and on a6out ?the great tradition.? T*vetan Todorov

summari*es contem-orar" criticism;s reection of ethica# criticism, 6ut in doing so

he a#so o--oses that reection on the sim-#e grounds that #iterature and mora#it"

cannot 6e se-arated even if e desire to do so:

Literature and mora#it": ?ho disgustingQ? m" contem-orar" i## e>c#aim. I

m"se#f, discovering around me a #iterature su6ordinated to -o#itics, once

thought it as essentia# to 6reak ever" #ink and -reserve #iterature from an"

contact ith hat is not #iterature. +ut the re#ation to va#ues is inherent in

#iteratureB not on#" 6ecause it is im-ossi6#e to s-eak of e>istence ithout

referring to that re#ation, 6ut a#so 6ecause the act of riting is an act ofcommunication, hich im-#ies the -ossi6i#it" of understanding, in the name of

common va#ues.7 n(9 78J'B em-hasis added9

Whi#e Todorov is right55?the re#ation to va#ues is inherent in #iterature?55it is

unfortunate#" true that ever" accusation against ethica# criticism and ethica#

critics7 n%9 can 6e historica##" and concrete#" su6stantiated 6" the

inudiciousness, e>tremism, shri##ness, or dogmatism of some ethica# critic or

other.7n'9 3istorica##", and unfortunate#", man" of the cons-icuous e>am-#es of

ethica# criticism in action -resent images of dogmatic mora#ists, *ea#ousre#igionists, or 6e##igerent 6urghers tram-#ing art, to#erance, and free s-eech in

the dust ith a nast" kind of se#f5satisfaction.

The Inesca-a6i#it" of Ethica# Criticism

+ut even after the most discrediting facts a6out the histor" and -ractice of

ethica# criticism have 6een du#" marked, recorded, and a-o#ogi*ed for, it remains

untrue that ethica# criticism has to 6e or that it has a#a"s 6een dogmatic and

-ious. !ome contem-orar" critics ma" ant to insist, hoever, that even hen

ethica# criticism is udicious it is certain#" irre#evant. Indeed, their insistence

ou#d 6e irrefuta6#e if, in fact, no one in our societ" as ever interested inmaking mora# or ethica# udgments a6out #iterature and other forms of art. +ut

8/10/2019 Style 1998


our centur"5#ong reection of ethica# criticism is matched in its sco-e on#" 6" the

cease#ess ta#k a6out ethica# issues that goes on inside and outside of the

academ". There e>ists a #arge and diverse range of issues a6out <ctions that 6oth

citi*ens in genera# and #iterar" -rofessiona#s in -articu#ar argue a6out in a

manner that is not on#" dee-#" -assionate, 6ut that is a#so e>-#icit#" ethica# and

mora#. These issues and arguments, hich go on a## the time, inc#ude 6ut are not#imited to the fo##oing:

character formation: ho -oems, T -rograms, movies, nove#s, song #"rics, and

so on inHuence readers; 6e#iefs, imagination, and fee#ingsB

#earning a6out #ife: ho <ctions teach ?#essons? a6out ever"da" #ifeB

imitation of va#ues: ho readers and vieers imitate the attitudes and va#ues of

characters from #iterature, T, movies, and other narrativesB

socia# attitudes: ho <ctions inHuence -eo-#e;s understanding ormisunderstanding of, s"m-ath" ith, or detachment from, such socia#

constituencies as ethnic grou-s, racia# minorities, non5Euro-eans, non5mericans,

omen, and handica--ed -ersonsB

civics and civi#it": ho te#evision and ra- #"rics inHuence "oung -eo-#e;s vies

a6out -u6#ic civi#it", honest", vio#ence, authorit", socia# and -o#itica# institutions,

omen, race re#ations, the environment, and the #aB

histor" and c#ass: ho <ctions inHuence readers; vies a6out histor", c#ass,

democrac", commercia#ism, and so on.

s foci of constant and -assionate controvers", these issues give the #ie to ethica#

criticism;s a##eged irre#evance. We ma" not a#a"s kno ho to #ive ith it, 6ut

e certain#" cannot #ive ithout it. We don;t even tr" to #ive ithout it. Wh" is it

that e cannot esca-e @uestions of mora#it" and ethicsM +ecause human actions

are imagined and chosen rather than -rescri6ed or -rogrammed. +ecause there

is a dimension of choice to a#most a## forms of human conduct, conduct is a#a"s

su6ect to mora# and ethica# eva#uation. !ince 3omo !a-iens is the on#" s-ecies

that creates mora# categories and since a## cu#tures and individua#s em-#o" mora#

categories as guides for directing and eva#uating #ife ith others, the ver"ca-acit" for making and enforcing mora# categories55#ike the ca-acities of

reasoning, #anguage, aesthetics, and imagination as e##55#ies c#ose to the center

of hatever it means to 6e human in the <rst -#ace.

Games O. Wi#son argues that a mora# sense is the inevita6#e -roduct of an innate

human dis-osition to 6e socia#: ?The innate socia6i#it" of the chi#d is the vita#

em6r"o in hich a ca-acit" for s"m-ath" and an inc#ination to generosit" can 6e

found? 7'9. This c#aim hard#" constitutes a com-#ete argument 6ut it does o=er a

dee- insight. +ecause human 6eings are as fundamenta##" socia# in nature as

8/10/2019 Style 1998


ants and 6ees, 6ut 6ecause the forms of our socia6i#it" are chosen and cu#tura#

rather than -rogrammed and genetic, ethica# and mora# considerations inevita6#"

arise ithin the socia# ne>us. 0ur need to 6e a--roved of 6" our fami#" mem6ers,

our need to 6e -rotected and served ?ust#"? 6" 6oth our fami#" and 6" others,

and the grou-;s need to create socia# mechanisms of sta6i#it" and ustice ithout

hich the grou- cannot endure55these needs a## contri6ute to the creation ofmora# categories as not mere#" contingent 6ut as integra# to human e>istence.

This is not to sa" hat the content of those categories is or shou#d 6e, 6ut it is to

sa" that mora# categories themse#ves are 6oth -ersistent and necessar"

e#ements of socia# e>istence55the on#" kind of e>istence avai#a6#e to human

6eings. In the ords of 4ar" 4idg#e", our -roc#ivit" for integrating mora#it" into

the ver" fa6ric of human #ife is a tendenc"

that e take so dee-#" for granted ... that e scarce#" notice it55name#" a sense

of continuit" ith the -ast, a rootedness in ear#ier socia# contracts hich can

make it dee-#" shocking to murder others or to desert a friend in dicu#ties. We

shou#d not, of course, forget that human 6eings sometimes do these dee-#"

shocking things too. +ut that is something ver" di=erent from never <nding them

shocking at a##.

This sense of continuit" through time55this need to have some coherent image of

onese#f and one;s -o#ic"55is sure#" hat accounts for the fact that humans have

6een driven to deve#o- mora#it", and have given it so much -rominence in theirvarious cu#tures. If e ask hat is the source of the authorit" of mora#s, e are

not #ooking outard for a sanction from the ru#ers, or for a contract. We are

#ooking inard for a need, for some -s"cho#ogica# fact a6out us that makes it

dee-#" distressing to us to #ive sha-e#ess#", incoherent#", discontinuous#",

meaning#ess#"55to #ive ithout standards. 78%9

If e cannot endure #iving ithout standards in rea# #ife, it fo##os55since most

<ctions re-resent rea# #ife55that e cannot endure to read <ctions ithout

6ringing standards into -#a" there as e##. The forma#istic vie that nove#s area6out #anguage, not a6out #ife, fai#s to e>-#ain h" -eo-#e get so caught u- #iking

and dis#iking di=erent <ctiona# characters or h" the" dee-#" desire s-eci<c

reso#utions to certain <ctiona# -#ots and situations. If ethica# @uestions arise as a

natura# conse@uence of <rst5hand interactions and socia6i#it", then the" i## a#so

arise as e meet and interact ith <ctiona# characters. When e meet ne

-eo-#e, e form our im-ressions of them 6" asking ourse#ves @uestions a6out

them rooted in mora# and ethica# -ers-ectives, such as ?is this -erson goodM,? ?is

this -erson trustorth"M,? ?is this -erson kind, #ika6#e, generous,

com-assionateM,? and so on. These ethica# categories com-rise the most

im-ortant -art of our ?reading? of ne ac@uaintances. /ot using these categoriesou#d make other -eo-#e a--ear to us most#" as 6#anks, mere uti#itarian counters

8/10/2019 Style 1998


#ike chess -ieces or too#s, devoid of a=ective or ethica# signi<cance. /one of us

can imagine #iving this a". I don;t mean on#" that none of can imagine #iving

ha--i#" this a"B I mean that none of us can imagine #iving this a" at a##. !uch

an e>istence ou#d not 6e human 6ecause it ou#d 6e a kind of e>istence that

4idg#e" is sure#" right to sa" that e cou#d not 6ear: a #ife #ived ?sha-e#ess#",

incoherent#", discontinuous#", meaning#ess#"55a #ife ithout standards.? +ut ifthis is so, then it fo##os that e i## 6ring our standards into -#a" in a## of our

socia# re#ations, inc#uding those e conduct ith <ctiona# characters. Whether

ta#king a6out the characters and events of #iterature or #ife, a## of us turn to such

criteria as 6etterSorst, goodS6ad, honestSdishonest, fairSunfair,

#i6eratedSo--ressed, ustSunust, inc#usiveSe>c#usive, kindScrue#,

humaneSinhuman, generousSse#<sh, se#f5contro##edSse#f5indu#gent, and man"

others 6ecause a## such criteria are rooted in assum-tions 7either e>-#icit or

im-#icit9 a6out such fundamenta##" ethica# categories as mora# agenc", the

?oughtness? or ?rightness? of certain socia# and -o#itica# -ractices, or such

?shou#d56es? of the e>istentia# condition as ?individua#s shou#d 6e a##oedfreedom of s-eech and free choice of se>ua# -artners.?

If our e>istence as socia# creatures e>-#ains here ethica# criticism comes from, it

fo##os that this same socia# nature a#so e>-#ains h" mora# considerations never

go aa" or #ose their re#evance. +ecause e never sto- 6eing socia# creatures,

the mora# dimensions of #ife are 6oth inevita6#e and -ermanent. 3uman #ife is

saturated ith mora# considerations, mora# udgments, mora# categories, and

-ractica# mora# reasoning. 3ard#" an" of our thoughts a6out re#ations ith others

are mora##" neutra#. 0ur thoughts a6out re#ations ith other -eo-#e are dee-#"

co#ored 6" s-ecu#ations a6out the im-ression e are making, a6out the a--rova#

e seek, and a6out the im-ression on us that other -eo-#e make, 6eginning

-rimari#" ith the im-ressions that e a## give and receive as mora# agents:

im-ressions a6out such mora# features, for e>am-#e, as honest", trustorthiness,

com-assion, kindness, generosit", se#f5contro#, and fairness. We ma" admire

-eo-#e for 6eing strong, c#ever, 6ri##iant, or ta#ented, 6ut e trust them and #ove

them on#" hen e think the" are, at most, tru#" good or, at #east, not ma#icious.

The -ortraits e dra of other -eo-#e in our minds; e"e55the -icture that te##s us

hether and ho much e can a=ord to trust and #ove them55are -ortraits dran

a#most entire#" in ethica# and mora# co#ors.

Deciding ho is the trustorth" reci-ient of a secret or an honor, deciding ho is

orth" of the o=er 7or the acce-tance9 of a marriage -ro-osa#, deciding ho to

rear chi#dren and hen or if the" shou#d 6e -unished for rong5doing 7not to

mention deciding hat constitutes rongdoing9, or mere#" deciding hether to

agree ith the movie Prett" Woman that the Gu#ia Ro6erts character has attained

the highest -innac#e of fema#e ha--iness 6" 6eing #ifted from her #ife as a -u6#ic

-rostitute in order to 6ecome the -rivate -rostitute of a ea#th" man55a## are

ethica# decisions. Whenever e -ro-ose a theor" of ?oughtness? a6out ho to

#ive and a #ine of reasoning a6out ho to achieve #ife;s di=erent ?goods? e are

8/10/2019 Style 1998


engaging in ethica# criticism. +ut since the various arguments a6out the various

goods and their status are not se#f5ranking, e are forced to rank them ourse#ves.

We must a#a"s cha##enge one set of goods against another set of goods. 4ora#

-ositions must a#a"s 6e arguedB there is no a" the" can sim-#" 6e invested

ith the -oer to ork on their on. We must make the case, 6oth in terms of

the coherence of the theor" and the mora# reasoning themse#ves. !uchargumentation is nothing short of a com-ressed a" of res-ecting others as

rationa# 6eings. 0ne a" e demonstrate that res-ect is 6" assisting others, at

the same time e re#" on their assistance, to 6ecome more fu##" -ossessed of the

fundamenta# human -oers of socia6i#it", #anguage, imagination, and ethica#

reasoning that e a## share. In the ords of mora# -hi#oso-her Ro6ert Louden,

4ora# considerations have u#timate im-ortance not 7as man" -hi#oso-hers have

argued9 6ecause the" form a tight#" -ackaged set of interests that can 6e shon

to #ogica##" ?override? a## other com-eting sets of interests 6ut rather 6ecause

the" concern va#ues to hich the -ursuit of an" and a## interests, inc#uding

scienti<c and technica# ones, must anser. 4ora#it" is not ust one narro -oint of

vie com-eting against others. ... Its u#timate im-ortance is a function of its

-ervasiveness. 4ora# considerations #itera##" a--ear a6#e to -ervade or -ermeate

... more areas and as-ects of human #ife and action 7and once the" gain entr",

to have, someho, the <na# ord9 than do an" other kinds of considerations 7($9.

## as-ects of human #ife over hich e e>ercise at #east some degree of

vo#untar" contro# have indirect mora# re#evance 7&9. 4ora#it";s fundamenta#

im-ortance stems not from its ?standing a6ove? ever"thing e#se 6ut rather from

the fact that it #itera##" surrounds ever"thing e#se, #ies underneath ever"thing

e#se, and is continua##" em6edded in ever"thing e#se. 7)$9

The -o-u#ar contem-orar" vie that em-#o"ing ethica# and mora# categories is

mere#" a historica#, contingent, or discretionar" choice55a choice most#" co5o-ted

6" societ";s ru#ing -oers for kee-ing -otentia# cha##engers in #ine55is a sha##o

vie that ignores the dee-#" com-e##ing necessit" for ethics and mora#it"

em6edded in 6oth the nature of socia# re#ations and in our on e>istentia# drive

to make sense out of our or#d, in -art, 6" ho#ding standards.

Ethica# Criticism and Postmodern Pers-ectivism

If #ife and #iterature are indeed saturated ith mora# considerations, then ho

does the academ", hich is saturated ith e-istemo#ogica# re#ativism, avoid

dea#ing ith themM It doesn;t, of course, 6ut it does tr" to disguise its dea#ing

ith them, most#" 6" -retending that its mora# discourse is -o#itica# discourse. +"

a #inguistic and conce-tua# s#eight5of5hand, the academ" makes the #anguage of

-oer, co#oni*ation, or margina#i*ation re-#ace the #anguage of good, ought, and

6ad. !uch s#eight5of5hand doesn;t rea##" re-#ace mora# considerations, of course,

for -o#itica# arguments against the o--ression of the -ro#etariat 6" the6ourgeoisie or against the Western co#oni*ation of -eo-#e of co#or are not on#"

8/10/2019 Style 1998


#inked to ethica# vies, 6ut e>-ress vies that are fundamenta##" ethica# to their

core. !uch vies constitute ethica# arguments 6ecause their main 6urden is

ethica# udgments a6out 6etter and orse a"s of #iving and acting. What these

arguments de#iver are not ust ana#"ses of -oer 6ut mora# udgments a6out

-oer: udgments that -oer ought to 6e recon<gured and that rest on the

authorit" of the fre@uent#" uns-oken 6ut a#a"s -resent mora# assum-tion thatthe desired recon<gurations of -oer ou#d make the or#d a 6etter -#ace for

someone or some grou-.

Poststructura#ists ho 6ur" ethica# criticism 6eneath an e-istemo#og" of

-ers-ectivism inadvertent#" -u## the rug from under their on reformist socia#

agenda. Theorists ho take -ers-ectivism serious#", for e>am-#e, are #ogica##"

entai#ed to concede to in theor" hat the" i## never concede to in fact55that

-o#itica# 6ruta#it", ethnic c#eansing, racia# genocide, and so on must a## 6e taken

as e@ua##" serious -ositions a#ong ith democratic reform sim-#" 6ecause the"

are ?-ers-ectives.? That is, from the stand-oint of e-istemo#ogica# -ers-ectivism,

the" are #egitimate #ogica##". That no one, inc#uding -ostmodern -ers-ectivists,

thinks the" are #egitimate mora##" means that underneath e-istemo#ogica#

-ers-ectivism #ie at #east a fe dee-#" #odged commitments that -#a" the ro#e of

a6so#utes even if the" cannot 6e -roven to 6e a6so#utes. cts of genocide, for

e>am-#e, are usua##" descri6ed as ?crimes against humanit",? not ust crimes

against ethnicit". To sa" that the 3o#ocaust as a crime 6ecause it destro"ed on#"

Ges im-#ies that a ho#ocaust that destro"ed some other ethnic or racia# grou-

might 6e #ess o6ectiona6#e or even #audator". 0ur dee- im-u#se to de<ne hat

the /a*is did to the Ges in 2erman" or hat the +osnian !er6s recent#" did to

the 4us#ims in former Kugos#avia as a crime against human 6eings as such

c#ear#" im-#ies that e vie some mora# standards as genuine#" su6stantive and

authoritative, not ust as rhetorica# -#o"s or cu#tura# contingencies.

If a## discourse rea##" is on#" ?mere rhetoric,? then the reformers; o--osition to the

rhetoric of the ascendant -oer grou-s can on#" 6e more of ust the same thing55

that is, more mere rhetoric55for it has no a" of sorting out the right or rong of

s-eci<c issues and no a" of demonstrating the su-eriorit" of the

-oststructura#ists; -ro-osed changes. To tr" to -roduce a or#d ith #ess

o--ression and 6ruta#it" in it on the grounds that such a or#d ou#d 6e a 6etter

or#d than the one e no have is to a--ea# to a ?6etter? 6e"ond the -a#e of

mere rhetoric or -artia# -ers-ectives. Ethnic o--ression, the margina#i*ation of

omen, and racia# discrimination are not rong 6ecause the" are -o#itica#

-ositions 6ut 6ecause the" are mora##" o=ensive, and it is their mora#

o=ensiveness that makes them -o#itica##" o6ectiona6#e, not the other a" round.

4aking -o#itica# arguments a6out the recon<guration of -oer cannot 6e made

ithout the arguer assuming that at #east some mora# udgments and mora#

arguments are intrinsica##" and not ust contingent#" com-e##ing. 0therise the

mora# authorit" of arguments 6ecomes moot and arguers are #eft ith on#" the

authorit" of hatever is or the authorit" of hatever has enough musc#e to

8/10/2019 Style 1998


dis-#ace hatever is. Thus e see that a## arguments a6out -o#itics and -oer

are su6sets of mora# arguments, for a## -o#itica# udgments are of necessit"

derived from mora# and ethica# assum-tions a6out such issues as 6etter, 6est,

and ust, terms that #itera##" make no sense outside of an ethica# frameork of

discussion. s 2eo=re" 3ar-ham makes c#ear, this c#aim is true even for those

-oints of vie that most em-hatica##" insist on the -rimac" of cu#ture andcontingenc".

!triking#" sa"s 3ar-ham, it is hen cu#ture is ana#"*ed from a 4ar>ist

-ers-ective as a se#f5transforming, se#f5discovering, se#f5de<ning 6od" -o#itic, that

the -ure#" socia# necessit" of mora#it" emerges most -oerfu##". For hen

cu#tura# va#ues are unorth", uncertain, or dis-uted, on#" an a--ea# to some

im-erative that convincing#" transcends cu#ture and -rivati*ed conce-tions of

interest can #egitimate action. In a societ" that ho#ds s#aves and disem-oers

omen, e>-#oitation and misog"n" e>-ress shared va#ues, and those ho ho#d

these va#ues ho#d them ith con<dence. n" e=ort to @uestion these -ractices, or

indeed the autistic tendencies of an" #oca#ism, must 6ase itse#f on some va#ue or

standard that #ies55again, convincing#"5outside the cu#tura# hori*on. 7%9

Whi#e !tan#e" Fish attem-ts to get at a -ostmodern -o#itics of reform through the

door of rhetorica# ana#"sis, Fish;s c#aim that ?ever"thing is rhetorica#? 7(89 inds

u- 6eing, in -ractice, far too c#ose to ?might makes right? to 6e considered tru#"

reformist. Fish ants to c#aim 7and does9 ?that the radica##" rhetorica# insight of/iet*scheanSDerridean thought can do radica# -o#itica# ork? 7(89, 6ut he seems

unaare that his ?ever"thing is rhetorica#? vie is -o#itica##" reactionar": it

undercuts ?radica# -o#itica# ork? since ?ever"thing is rhetorica#? ro6s ?radica#

-o#itica# ork? of an" a6i#it" to e>-#ain h" radica# reform i## -roduce a 6etter

societ" than it -ro-oses to re-#ace. Fish cannot esca-e from this -ro6#em 6"

sa"ing that the ?6etterness? of freedom over o--ression is sim-#" se#f5evident,

6ecause to do so ou#d take him out of the ?ever"thing is rhetorica#? or#d and

into the or#d of se#f5evident <rst -rinci-#es, the #ast -#ace a rhetorica# re#ativist

ants to <nd himse#f. /either Fish, Rort", Derrida, nor an" of the other

-ro-onents of the ?radica##" rhetorica# insight? can esca-e the -arado> that this

insight not on#" undercuts the authorit" of their socia# agenda 6ut nu##i<es it. If

-oststructura#ists c#aim that there are no transcendent or universa# -rinci-#es

against hich to discredit an"one e#se;s rhetorica# messages, then the" must

concede a## domains of -oer to hoever has the most might, not to those ho

are right. +ut since the might of hat is is -recise#" hat -oststructura#ist

reformers don;t ant, the" must further concede one of to things. Either the"

must concede that their discontent ith things as the" are is inte##ectua##"

incoherent 76ecause it -resumes a 6etter that their on e-istemo#og" of ?mere

rhetoric? denies9 or the" must concede that the" are indeed invested in an

authorit" that #ies 6e"ond mere rhetoric. The -oststructura#ist attem-t to

disconnect -o#itics and mora#it" cri--#es their a6i#it" to e>-#ain h" #iterar" and

other <ctiona# re-resentations of -oer, -o#itics, and race, c#ass, and gender are

8/10/2019 Style 1998


so im-ortant. If e disconnect the -assion that informs these issues from the

mora# and ethica# considerations that generate that -assion, then it 6ecomes

hard to sa" hat a## the fuss is a6out.

4oving in the o--osite direction from -ostmodernism;s reection of ethica#

criticism, Wa"ne +ooth is the #eading contem-orar" critic ho has done most to

reha6i#itate the #anguage and -ractice of ethica# criticism. In The Com-an" We

ee-: n Ethics of Fiction, +ooth;s #eading @uestion is ?What kind of com-an"

are e kee-ing as e read or #isten or atchM What kind of com-an" have e

ke-tM? 78$9. +ooth;s o-erating assum-tion is that the com-an" e kee- as e

read, atch, or #isten to <ction can 6e assessed for its -otentia# inHuence on our

hearts and minds ust as #egitimate#" as e can assess rea# #ife -otentia#

inHuence of the friends and ac@uaintances ho inHuence our hearts and minds.

## of our friends have a -otentia# inHuence on our ?virtues,? sa"s +ooth, ho

uses ?friends? as a meta-hor for <ction;s a--ea# to our desire for the intimate

com-anionshi- of others, and ?virtues? in its o#der sense of referring not ust to

our -raiseorth" tendencies 6ut to something more genera#, such as, he sa"s,

?the ho#e range of human A-oers,; Astrengths,; Aca-acities,; or Aha6its of

6ehavior.; Thus an Aethica#; e=ect here, as in -re5modern discourse, can refer to

an" strengthening or eakening of a Avirtue,; inc#uding those that "ou or I ou#d

consider immora#B a given virtue can 6e em-#o"ed vicious#"? 78$9. This crucia#

-ositioning of the terms ?friend,? ?ethica#,? and ?virtue,? then, a##os +ooth to

formu#ate the fo##oing de<nition of ethica# criticism:

If ?virtue? covers ever" kind of genuine strength or -oer, and if a -erson;s ethos

is the tota# range of his or her virtues to 6ehave 6ad#" or e##, then ethica#

criticism i## 6e an" e=ort to sho ho the virtues of narratives re#ate to the

virtues of se#ves and societies, or ho the ethos of an" stor" a=ects or is a=ected

6" the ethos55the co##ection of virtues55of an" given reader. 7889

+ooth;s incisive c#ari<cation gives us a chance to gain some rea# traction on the

re#ationshi- 6eteen -o#itics and mora#s, as e## as he#-ing us avoid themurkiness and se#f5contradictions foisted on us 6" -ostmodernism;s 6utter5

<ngered gri- of these same issues.

Emotivism, Entertainment, and Ethica# Discourse

Pers-ectivism, hoever, is not the on#" o6stac#e facing ethica# criticism in toda";s

societ". Even though various socia#, -o#itica#, and re#igious grou-s in our societ"

engage in a#most non5sto- mora#istic mud5s#inging, and even though there is

hard#" an" kind of criticism our societ" engages in more often than ethica#

criticism, there is a#so hard#" an" kind of criticism more discredited and more

resisted. This inconsistenc" -oints to dee- confusions. friend of mine e##5knon in the <e#d of educationa# theor" used to sa" to me in conversation that

8/10/2019 Style 1998


?hen "ou see smart -eo-#e doing dum6 things "ou kno "ou;re in the -resence

of -oerfu# forces.?7n9

What -oerfu# forcesM #asdair 4acInt"re o=ers a keen insight into this situation

hen he identi<es emotivism as ?the doctrine that a## eva#uative udgments and

more s-eci<ca##" a## mora# udgments are: nothing 6ut e>-ressions of -reference,

e>-ressions of attitude or fee#ing, insofar as the" are mora# or eva#uative in

character? 7889 and then avos that ?emotivism has 6ecome em6odied in our

cu#ture? 7(89. What vieer of te#evision -rograms or teacher of undergraduates

cou#d den" the accurac" of these o6servationsM What 4acInt"re ca##s ?emotivism?

is hat soa-5o-era characters and man" students sim-#" ca## ?ever"one deciding

hat;s right or rong for themse#ves,? a vie of mora#it" reiterated ith 6i##6oard

sim-#icit" ever"here in contem-orar" cu#ture. If, at one end of the inte##ectua#

s-ectrum, doctrinaire dogmatism ki##s mora# discussion, hat ki##s it at the other

end of the inte##ectua# s-ectrum is emotivism;s conHation of su6ective

-reference and mora# c#aims, as if mora# c#aims had no more genera# authorit"

than Gane;s -reference for vani##a ice cream or +i##;s taste in c#othes. Whether

-eo-#e are ta#king a6out socia# issues or a6out the ethica# signi<cance of

#iterature and the other arts,7nJ9 emotivism em-ties mora# discussion of an" rea#

content.

!ince emotivism cannot give us traction on mora# issues, it attem-ts to -retend

that such issues are rea##" nonissues 6" re#egating them to the domain ofentertainment rather than mora#it", as if entertainment com-rises a categor" of

e>-erience that someho #ies 6e"ond mora# e>amination. co##eague of mine

ho s-ends a #ot of c#ass time -ointing out to her students ho man"

re-resentations of omen in #iterature sho the evi#s of the -atriarch" is the

same -erson ho atches Prett" Woman over and over ?ust for entertainment.?

n ethica# critic, hoever, i## ant to interrogate c#ose#" the -otentia# e=ects of

entertainment, hen it is c#ear that hen high#"5educated and high#"5inte##igent

-eo-#e think the" don;t need to em-#o" their critica# -oers 6ecause the" are

?mere#" 6eing entertained,? then it fo##os that those are the ver" moments

hen their s"m-athies, fee#ings, and mora# udgments are most vu#nera6#e to

inHuence. Ethica# criticism i## attem-t to he#- readers understand that there is

no such thing as 6eing ?mere#"? entertained, that even at the #oest -ossi6#e

#eve# of engagement, the inte##ectua# and a=ective e>ertions that are re@uired

ust to understand the content, sha-e, and direction of a stor" in fact invo#ve a

com-#icitous agreement to #et the stor" have its on a" ith their 6e#iefs and

fee#ings55at #east for the time 6eing. s Wa"ne +ooth sa"s, ?The energ" I

e>-end in reconstructing the <gure of a <ction is someho transferred to

retaining the <gure itse#f and 6onding ith its maker. ... <gure used not on#"

ca##s for the recognition that a <gure has 6een used 6ut for a s-ecia# kind of re5

creative engagement ith the <gurer? 7(&&9. When readers 6egin to see, then,

that the <gures of <ction <gure the mind, the" can 6e 6rought to take serious#",

8/10/2019 Style 1998


indeed to e#come, the insights of ethica# criticism. The a" entertainment

-rovides ethica# mode#s for direct imitation is discussed 6e#o.

Ethica# Criticism and Direct Imitation of Literar" 4ode#s

If, then, neither emotivism nor e-istemo#ogica# re#ativism gets us o= the hook for

taking mora# and ethica# considerations into account and if such considerations

do indeed saturate #ife, then it fo##os that ethica# criticism can c#aim a natura#

and im-ortant function in the stud" and eva#uation of #iterature. +ut sa"ing this

does not anser in concrete terms the @uestion of hat im-ortant ork ethica#

criticism does. I recent#" had a co##eague sa" to me, ?!o, as an ethica# critic "ou

ou#d o6ect to a nove# that gives a vivid and s"m-athetic -ortra"a# of an a>

murderer on the grounds that reading it might turn me into an a> murderer,

rightM? We##... no. I;m not orried in her case that an" <ction she reads cou#d ever

turn her into a murderer. +ut, in -rinci-#e, she has a -oint. Direct imitations of

<ction do occur and c#ear#" have mora# and ethica# conse@uences. I venture to

assert, moreover, that e a## imitate <ctiona# mode#s much more fre@uent#" than

e think. The reason e think that e;re the ones ?a6ove? such inHuence is that

e #arge#" think of direct imitation on#" as it occurs in its most sensationa#istic

and gross forms. We think of the hood#ums in /e Kork ho, immediate#" after

the re#ease of 4one" Train, ki##ed a man 6" imitating the movie;s horri<c scene in

hich a su6a" ticket se##er is s@uirted ith gaso#ine and 6urned to death in his

to## 6ooth. 0r e remem6er the to 6o"s ho accidenta##" ki##ed themse#ves in

/e Gerse" in 8&& hen, right after the re#ease of The Program, the" tried #"ing

don in the midd#e of the freea", intending #ike the movie heroes to #et the cars

stradd#e them harm#ess#". 0r e remem6er the #arge num6er of "oung -eo-#e

ho, after reading 0n the Road in the 8&J$s, 6ought o#ksagen 6uses and

struck out for the higha"s and 6"a"s of merica in direct imitation of Gack

erouac. In a## of these cases e undou6ted#" think, ?3o gu##i6#e, ho immature,

ho uncritica#, ho un#ike me. I cou#d never 6e #ike that.?

+ut it a## de-ends on hat ?#ike that? means. 0ur con<dence in the immova6i#it"

of our character ma" 6e com-#acent and -remature. We a## do the same thing as

the -eo-#e in these -revious e>am-#es, not, to 6e sure, 6" committing such

immora# or direct#" imitative actions, 6ut e do imitate #ess o6vious#" tangi6#e

features of <ctions such as va#ues and attitudes. In the end, of course, va#ues and

attitudes inHuence action 6ut at such a remove of distance and time as ma"

#eave us unaare of ho dee-#" our actions are rooted in <ctiona# mode#s. 0ne of

the most incisive, vivid, thoughtfu#, and deve#o-ed i##ustrations of the ethica#

criticism of narrative ro#e mode#s is conducted 6" 2ustave F#au6ert in 4adame

+ovar".7n9 Throughout the nove# Emma +ovar" is shon to 6e a de#ighted and

o6sessive consumer of sick#" romantic nove#s that -rovide her ith mode#s55

<ctiona# friends and com-anions55ho accom-an" her thoughts a## through her

#ife and ho, in their shimmering and sha##o a##ure, do much to -revent Emma

from ever groing into a mature and ethica##" sensitive -erson. F#au6ert does not

ask us to 6e#ieve, nor does he himse#f seem to 6e#ieve, that Emma;s #ife is ruined

6" nove# reading a#one, 6ut at the same time he not on#" takes narrative

8/10/2019 Style 1998


mode#ing as crucia##" im-ortant in Emma +ovar";s deve#o-ment, he a#so takes

serious#" the ethica# criticism of those mode#s. F#au6ert;s descri-tion of the

contents of the contra6and nove#s that Emma receives from an o#d mending

oman -rovides a detai#ed account of ho s-eci<c images carr" a=ective and

ethica# freight. The nove#s given to Emma 6" the o#d maid

ere a## a6out #ove, #overs, seethearts, -ersecuted #adies fainting in #one#"

-avi#ions, -osti#ions ki##ed at ever" re#a", horses ridden to death on ever" -age,

som6er forests, heart5aches, vos, so6s, tears and kisses, #itt#e 6oat rides 6"

moon#ight, nightinga#es in shad" groves, gent#emen 6rave as #ions, gent#e as

#am6s, virtuous as no one ever as, a#a"s e## dressed, and ee-ing #ike

fountains. ... I##ustrations in kee-sake 6ooks shoed such scenes as a "oung

man in a short c#oak, ho#ding in his arms a "oung gir# in a hite dress ho as

earing an a#ms56ag at her 6e#tB or there ere name#ess -ortraits of Eng#ish

#adies ith fair cur#s, ho #ooked at "ou from under their round stra hats ith

their #arge c#ear e"es. ... 0thers, dreaming on sofas ith an o-en #etter, ga*ed

at the moon through a s#ight#" o-en indo ha#f dra-ed 6" a 6#ack curtain. The

innocent ones, a tear on their cheeks, ere kissing doves through the 6ars of a

2othic cage. 7(J5(9

I have omitted a good -ortion of this -assage, 6ut there sti## remains a great

ea#th of concrete detai# to feed the imagination of a <fteen "ear5o#d Emma

#ooking for ro#e mode#s to sho her the 6ehaviors55the facia# e>-ressions, theattitudes, the gestures, the -ostures, the dresses and hats and ho to ear

them55that -romise her a #ife of hir#ind e>citement, e>@uisite sensi6i#it", and

thunderous -assion. What makes F#au6ert;s criticism of these images55and their

ethica# inHuence55so incisive is that F#au6ert on#" shos Emma doing hat e a##

do. In order to come into our humanit", in order to take a -#ace in societ" and to

6e recogni*ed as -ersons, e kno that e must assume ro#es, and e therefore

#ook for mode#s to sho us the ?#ook? that e>-resses our 6eaut", the -osture that

communicates our sensi6i#it", or the a#k that conve"s our -oer and se#f5

con<dence. If no one in rea# #ife shos us mode#s of thoughtfu#ness or

reasona6#eness or se#f5contro# or generosit", e i##, #ike Emma, sett#e for

hatever <ctiona# mode#s e can <nd and never kno hat e are missing55or

hat e are 6ecoming.

/one of us remains una=ected as mora# agents 6" the mode#s e choose,

hether the" come from rea# #ife or from <ctions. s chi#dren e tie toe#s

around our necks so e can 6e as -oerfu# as !u-erman. s adu#ts e disguise

our !u-erman ca-es as carefu##" se#ected conference ear. !i#k ties revea# our

so-histicated tasteB thick5so#ed ork 6oots e>-ress our -o-u#ist s"m-athiesB

?-oer suits? assert our aggressive -rofessiona#ism. We do a## of this ith deftnoncha#ance, ith more or #ess conscious aareness. In our c#assrooms such

8/10/2019 Style 1998


teaching mode#s as 4r. Chi-s, 4r. 2radgrind, Gean +rodie, the C#erk of 0>enford,

or our favorite co##ege or grad5schoo# teacher hover over our -edagog" #ike

ghosts. We cannot he#- 6ut 6e inHuenced, for good or i##, 6" those e have taken

into our hearts, and the ?-eo-#e? e imitate come ust as often from second5hand

<ctions as from <rst5hand e>-erience. It fo##os, then, that the ethica# ana#"sis of

<ctiona# mode#s, those hom e acce-t as ?friends? 7see cha-ters J and of+ooth;s Com-an"9, is not on#" as -ermissi6#e as the ethica# ana#"sis of rea#5#ife

mode#s and friends, 6ut, for a## those ho rea##" care a6out the @ua#it" of their

#ife, ust as necessar". 0ur friends, 6oth rea# and <ctiona#, -#a" im-ortant ro#es in

our formative deve#o-ment. To sa" this returns us to the necessit" of ethica#

criticism and to the @uestion of ho ethica# criticism conceives of its ork.

ims of Ethica# Criticism

Reader#" 1nderstanding of Potentia# Literar" E=ects. The aims of ethica#

criticism do not inc#ude thought contro#, censorshi- of #iterature, or the

management of others; conduct. Ethica# criticism addresses readers of #iterature

7or, more accurate#", consumers of <ctions 6oth #iterar" and non5#iterar"9 ith the

aim of he#-ing them see, understand, and a--reciate the -oerfu# a"s in hich

<ctions invite them into s-eci<c a"s of fee#ing, thinking, and udging. In

addition, ethica# criticism tries to he#- readers see that if these invitations are

acce-ted, es-ecia##" on a re-eated 6asis, one ver" #ike#" conse@uence is a

-ermanent inHuence on readers; hearts and minds. 1nti# readers understand that

their res-onses to stories occur on a continuum ith their res-onses to rea# #ife55

unti# the" understand that their res-onses to <ction are in some im-ortant sense

a kind of -ractice at forming res-onses to rea# #ife5the" are #ike#" to dismiss the

ethica# signi<cance of their re#ationshi- to <ction.

Whi#e ethica# criticism he#-s readers gain 7or -erha-s regain9 a sense of the

ethica##" formative -oer of stor" and thus 6ring them 6ack in touch ith the

reasons h" reading and #iterature are not on#" entertaining 6ut im-ortant, it a#so

o=ers the insight that the formative e=ects of stor" are a#a"s -otentia# rather

than determined. Literature invites res-onses 6ut cannot coerce them. 0nce e

?agree? to #et a stor" have its a" ith us55an agreement that is genera##"

granted ithout much critica# thought, 6ecause it is the foundation for an"

-#easure the stor" "ie#ds55then e can indeed 6e, if not coerced, at #east #ed, 6ut

this is neither coercion nor hosti#e takeover. We can a#a"s refuse to 6ecome

engaged, or e can 6e too tired or too distracted or too ignorant of the contents

or setting of a ork, in hich case the consideration of -ossi6#e e=ects 6ecomes

moot 7see Ra6inoit* on ho the 6e#iefs and -revious e>-eriences of our #ives

inHuence our degree of engagement ith #iterar" te>ts, es-ecia##" hat he has to

sa" a6out genres as ?-ackages of reading ru#es? 89. 0n the other hand,

ethica# criticism ants readers to understand that more often than not the" do

agree to acce-t the <ction;s invitations55e#se there is no -a"o=55and that, once

acce-ted, the means 6" hich the <ction gets de#ivered from the author and

com-rehended 6" the reader constitute -oerfu# sha-ings of the mind.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


8/10/2019 Style 1998


or origina# ideas in themse#ves, 6ut the use to hich ethica# criticism -uts them

is, if not origina#, striking#" unfami#iar toda". I am e## aare that 6" con<dent#"

ta#king a6out ?se#ves? instead of em-#o"ing one of -ostmodernism;s -referred

terms of dis-#acement for it, such as ?su6ect? or ?su6ect -osition,? I have

vio#ated a common-#ace dictum to hich most -ostmodern theorists

automatica##" su6scri6e. To authors in recent issues of Hagshi- ourna#s in thedisci-#ine of Eng#ish suggest the e>tent to hich -ostmodern notions of ?the

su6ect? rather than ?the se#f? are not on#" taken for granted 6ut ust ho much

of hat is taken for granted is e>-#icit#" o--osed to notions of the se#f genera##"

advanced 6" the traditiona# humanities. s Pame#a Caughie sa"s in a recent issue

of P4L, ?Poststructura#ist theories ... have revea#ed the humanist su6ect to

6e a sham insofar as it is the e=ect, not the origin, of re-resentation? 7(JB

em-hasis added9. Likeise, Ge=re" /ea#on, in a recent issue of Co##ege Eng#ish,

reinforces the unassai#a6i#it" of the -ostmodern vie of ?se#f? as not a sta6#e

center of kno#edge a6out itse#f or the or#d, 6ut as an unsta6#e -roduct created

at the site here #anguage, cu#ture, histor", and -o#itics intersect. In /ea#on;sords, ? certain criti@ue of the humanist or En#ightenment su6ect remains

<rm#" in -#ace. Whi#e there is a great dea# of s"m-ath" for rethinking notions of

su6ectivit" in the current theoretica# <e#d, no one ants an"thing to do ith the

a--ro-riating instrumenta# rationa#it" of the 6ourgeois su6ect. In fact, virtua##"

a## critica# cam-s ... remain a#igned in their attem-ts to criti@ue a su6ectivit"

that ... understands the other as sim-#" A#ike the se#f;? 78(& em-hasis added9.

With a## due res-ect to /ea#on;s see-ing55and, dare I add, smugM55con<dence

that ?no one ants an"thing to do ith? the o#d notions of a humanist se#f, I must

disagree. The se#f hose e>istence I assume in this essa" is e>act#" the se#f that

/ea#on sa"s I cannot assume 7+ecause /ea#on;s com-#acent certitude curious#"

essentia#i*es a## of those anon"mous ?no ones,? he e>-resses an inte##ectua#

rigidit" that a#most a#a"s accom-anies dogma rather than thoughtfu#ness.9

Though the see-ing c#aim that human 6eings are the -roduct of #anguage and

cu#ture is certain#" right in man" res-ects, it is a#most a#a"s insisted on not on#"

in its most e>treme version55as if human 6eings are entire#" created 6" cu#ture

rather than inHuenced 6" it556ut is a#so insisted on as a dogma rather than

advanced as a h"-othesis. If "ou;re not a ?constructionist,? the dogma goes, then

"ou;re an ?essentia#ist,? and if "ou;re an essentia#ist then ma" the Transcendenta#!igni<ed 6e ith "ou, "ou -oor s#o6, 6ecause no one e#se in the humanities i##

s-eak to "ou.

+etter and Worse !e#ves. The <rst -ro-osition a6out se#fhood that ethica#

criticism rests on is the assum-tion that there are ethica##" 6etter and orse

versions of our se#ves a#a"s -ending and a#a"s 6eing rea#i*ed. Even though e

are a## surrounded 6" a #ot of ver" #oud and fre@uent#" re-eated ta#k a6out the

inevita6i#it" of mora# re#ativism, e a## e>-end a great dea# of energ" and time

tr"ing to decide ?the right thing to do? in a ho#e variet" of circumstances.

4oreover, e make this e>-enditure as if ?the right thing,? such as 6eing honest

8/10/2019 Style 1998


rather than #"ing or 6eing res-onsi6#e rather than irres-onsi6#e, ere matters of

o6ective rea#it" rather than mere su6ective -references. I have not noticed that

-oststructura#ists ho adhere strong#" to e-istemo#ogica# -ers-ectivism and

mora# re#ativism are an" #ess #ike#" than the rest of us to take serious#" their

ethica# commitments to students, co##eagues, and fami#". When the" see -eo-#e

not taking those commitments serious#", the" don;t sa", ?We##, ever"one has tomake u- his or her on mind a6out ethica# issues.? We a## sa", instead,

humanists and -oststructura#ists a#ike, that ?se>ua# harassment is rong,?

?cheating on tests is rong,? ?ha6itua##" shoing u- to teach c#asses un-re-ared

is rong,? ?humi#iating students the teacher doesn;t #ike is rong? ?not carr"ing

one;s fair #oad of de-artmenta# duties is rong,? ?cheating on s-ouses is rong,?

?6eating chi#dren is rong,? and on and on. I have 6een ama*ed over the "ears to

see that in genera# there seems to 6e such #itt#e interest in this curious 6ut te##ing

discre-anc" 6eteen -oststructura#ists; theories and -oststructura#ists; conduct.

To m" mind nothing is more suggestive of the inade@uac" of an"one;s theories

than the fact that the -ro-ounders of them cannot #ive 6" them. If-oststructura#ist theories of e-istemo#ogica# re#ativism are good enough on#" for

our ritten -a-ers and 6ooks 6ut not good enough to guide the a" e dea# ith

our students, our co##eagues, and our fami#ies, then hat in fact are the" rea##"

good enough for at a##M In academe man" of us ma" 6e re#ativists in our theories

6ut e are @uite mora# and, indeed, @uite mora#istic, in our conduct. The

strictures of mora#it" and ethics that e o6serve so scru-u#ous#" in our conduct55

and no matter ho fre@uent#" the" are vio#ated e never give them u-55c#ear#"

im-#" that e a## have some notion, -erha-s most#" im-#icit 6ut there

nonethe#ess, of 6etter and orse ethica# se#ves that e ma" 6e and that e ma"

6ecome. We don;t -a" ourse#ves the disres-ect of assuming that hat e do inour -ersona# and -rofessiona# re#ations does not matter. We think it matters a

great dea#, and if e fai# ourse#ves or others e fee# shame, e a-o#ogi*e, or e

reso#ve to55to hatM55e reso#ve to do ?6etter.? Kes: e reso#ve to 6ecome

ethica##" im-roved versions of ourse#ves.

4ora# Character #a"s in 4otion. To the ethica# critic, mora# character is a#a"s

in formation, never <>ed. Ever" choice e make in #ife is 6oth a reHection of the

se#f e are and a creation of the se#f e are 6ecoming. This means that as #ong

as e retain command of our inte##ectua# facu#ties e remain -ermanent#" and-otentia##" o-en to ethica# inHuences from a variet" of sources. It a#so means that

6ecoming a se#f is something e do, not ust something e are. s ristot#e sa"s,

?Life consists in action, and its end is a mode of action, not a @ua#it"? 7J(9. It

a#so means that 6ecoming a se#f is not ust a conse@uence of the actions that are

done to us 6" cu#ture, histor", #anguage, master narratives, gender, c#ass, race,

or 6ourgeois masters, 6ut is a conse@uence of the actions that e choose. This is

not to sa" that actions e>erted on us from the outside are not formative, 6ut it is

to sa" that the se#f does not react to these forces ith no intervention from

inside, i.e., from the individua#;s i## or consciousness. I am not necessari#"

assuming the e>istence of some com-#ete#" sta6#e, com-#ete#" atomistic se#f. Iam mere#" assuming that -oststructura#ist vies of an entire#" constructed se#f

8/10/2019 Style 1998


?6ui#t u-? at the site of cu#tura# intersections is either an im-#ausi6#e h"-othesis

or, at 6est, an e>aggerated truth. To make such assertions as are common in

contem-orar" criticism55#anguage s-eaks us, cu#ture creates us, histor" sha-es

us, gender determines us, or to make 4ar>;s c#aim that the materia# and -o#itica#

forms of socia# e>istence determine consciousness55asserts hat is on#" ha#f true.

We are never so situated that e are fu##" formed and forever <>ed. We are notse#ves ust -assive#" mo#ded or sha-ed 6" cookie5cutter forces of #anguage or

histor". We actua##" negotiate our se#ves through time 6" forms of individua#

resistance, acce-tance, and sus-ension of udgment.

The evidence for this #ast c#aim #ies in our conduct. Ever" time e check an

im-u#se, a-o#ogi*e to someone for having "ie#ded to an im-u#se, 6ite our tongue

to -reserve socia# harmon", choose to vote our conscience rather than our

interest, or de#i6erate#" choose an act or e>-ression of charit" toard another

even hen e fee# unust#" used, e arm our freedom to choose ho e i##

6ecome as mora# agents. chi##es "ie#ding the 6od" of 3ector to Priam, !ocrates

dec#ining his friends; o=er to rig a #ife5saving esca-e from -rison, tticus Finch

6eing s-at on 6ut not s-itting 6ack, !idne" Carton going to the gui##otine in

Char#es Darna";s -#ace, civi# rights orkers in the 8&J$s -racticing -assive

resistance rather than terrorism, a tired teacher ho is eager to go home taking

o= her coat and s-ending e>tra time to counse# a frightened freshman a6out his

#o grades on hard5orked essa"s: such acts of -atience, for6earance,

forgiveness, generosit", com-assion, and kindness ma" 6e inHuenced 6" 6ut the"

are certain#" not acts of #anguage, histor", cu#ture, or gender. The" are the acts of

individua#s choosing. +ecause in each case the mora# agent cou#d have 6ehaved

otherise, in that ?cou#d have? #ies freedom, the moment of mora# choice, the

moment e choose this ethos rather than that ethos and thus decide not on#"

ho e are 6ut ho e are to 6ecome. Ethica# criticism takes the e>-erience of

these moment56"5moment choices as mora# character in formation. It insists on

our status as -ersons ho are 6ecoming rather than <nished. Into the s-ace

created 6" the distance 6eteen hat e no are and hat e ma" "et 6ecome,

<ction 7a#ong ith a great man" other forces9 <nds room to e>ert its inHuence.

The ethica# critic is the ta>onomist ho eager#" categori*es the forms and kinds

of that inHuence as e## as ana#"*es the mechanisms 6" hich it does its ork.

Ethos and the icarious Imagination. nother idea a6out the formation of se#ves

that ethica# criticism 6rings to the ta6#e is the im-ortance of the vicarious

imagination in determining character. The vicarious imagination gives us the

-oer to identif", to e>-erience others; fee#ings and ideas and e>-erience55their

entire mode of 6eing55as if the" ere our on. Without reference to the vicarious

imagination, e cannot e>-#ain ho <ctiona# re-resentations get out of the te>t

and into our heads. We kno 6" 6oth descri-tion and e>-erience that

identi<cation not on#" ?orks,? 6ut that it determines for us much of the @ua#it"

of our e>istence. 3o identi<cation orks seems tied, once e take the craft of

the artist for granted, to the a" our imagination, acting as a 6ridge, a##os us to

8/10/2019 Style 1998


#eave the 6oundaries that make u- our on sense of se#f, #ike -assing through

some marve#ous#" -ermea6#e mem6rane 6eteen sou#s, in order to take on other

senses of se#ves. !igni<cant#", this tem-orar" and imaginative merging of se#ves

-roduces c#arit" rather than confusion. In #iterar" e>-erience e are given the gift

of identi<cation ithout the -atho#og" of de#usion.

When e read or see a stor", e a--#" for tem-orar" foreign citi*enshi- in other

times, -#aces, and modes of 6eing. We 6ecome citi*ens of the or#d that the

#iterar" characters inha6it. It is such a common thing that e think too se#dom

a6out hat a -rofound#" moving and -otentia##" formative thing it is. !ven

+irkerts descri6es ?the s#o and meditative -ossession of a 6ook? as ?dee-

reading?: ?e don;t ust read the ords,? sa"s +irkerts, ?e dream our #ives in

their vicinit"? 78'J9. !tories take us not ust to other -#aces the a" a freea"

takes us to other -#aces: *i--ing us through the s-ace of otherness ithout our

fee#ing or a6sor6ing an" of it. 0n the contrar", stories take us to other -#aces that

get vivid#" rea#i*ed in our heads, -#aces a6out hich e ?kno? the detai#s, their

aromatic essence, the tacti#e and emotiona# fee# of the tota# environment. The

mechanism for this is the vicarious imagination. In the ords of Eva +rann:

?That seems to 6e, in sum, the nature of the fee#ing -ecu#iar to the imaginative

state: It is the fee#ing of that image, 6e it <gure or scene, and of no otherB it is its

sou# or genius #oci55at once unarticu#a6#e in its -articu#arit" and archet"-a# in its

signi<cance, fascinating in its fami#iarit" and e#usive in its candor? 7J&9.

icarious imagining is a -oerfu# and im-ortant form of #earning, and, o6vious#",

#earning is a -oerfu# and im-ortant constituent of character, for hat e kno

is a #arge -art of ho e are. In ver" 6asic terms, the <rst and foremost thing e

a## need to #earn is ho to 6e a human 6eing, hatever the socia# conte>t in

hich e <nd ourse#ves 6orn and reared. !ince e are not 6orn ith this

kno#edge -rogrammed into our genes, e have to #earn it from others, 6ut #ife is

so #imited in its -edagogica# resources that no one can or does re#" on <rst5hand

e>-erience a#one. The most o6vious#" #imiting feature of <rst5hand #ife is the a"

it re@uires us to #ive at one -oint in s-ace and time at a time hen our education

ou#d 6e vast#" #arger if e cou#d #ive in di=erent times and other s-aces

simu#taneous#". This constraint is made even more stringent 6" #ife;s 6revit", 6"

the fact that e sim-#" don;t #ive #ong enough to move across the ho#e range of

#ife;s categories.

Enter stories. !tories are sure#" human kind;s most imaginative anser to the

constraints of 6revit" and #inearit". Ever" human cu#ture has deve#o-ed an

im-ortant, universa#, and dee- a" of reHecting on the human condition that

c#ever#" and -rofound#" transcends the #imitations of <rst5hand #ife: the a" of

stories. In <ction e can #earn a6out the @ua#it" of #ives and the manner of #ivingin times, -#aces, and conditions not our on. This activit" gives us those in5de-th

8/10/2019 Style 1998


vies of the human condition that e>istentia# richness re@uires, 6ut that the

short5armed gras- of <rst5hand e>-erience is never ca-acious enough to -rovide

on its on.

The ethica# im-#ications of #iterar" e>-erience shou#d no 6e more c#ear. We

6ecome the ethica# and mora# agents that e are through the e>-erience of

?taking in? from the or#d around us data, mode#s, ideas, fee#ings, motives,

udgments, and so on. The strands of such kno#edge e take in are #ike threads

of the or#d running one a" and threads of #ife running the other a". We take

these crossing threads and eave them into the ever5changing fa6ric of that

thing e ca## our se#f, a fa6ric and a -attern that are a#a"s in formation, never

com-#ete, never ?done.? Life and #iterature 6oth #ead us to form reactions that I

#ike to ca##, after +e##ah, ha6its of the heart: the t"-ica# -atterns of our

inte##ectua#, emotiona#, and ethica# res-onses.

The /utritiona# na#og". The third idea that ethica# criticism 6rings to the ta6#e

of discussion is an ana#og" to the c#aim of nutritionists that ?e are hat e eat.?

For nutritionists, ?e are hat e eat? is a thum6nai# a" of sa"ing that our

regu#ar diet is an im-ortant factor in our overa## hea#th. For ethica# critics, a

simi#ar assum-tion is that readers; regu#ar imaginative diet55the consistent

consum-tion of <ctiona# images55is an im-ortant constituent of mora# and ethica#

hea#th 7or i## hea#th9. ccording to the o-erations of the vicarious imagination and

the terms of the ana#og", our #iterar" diet he#-s deve#o- ithin us such ethica#features as emotions, attitudes, va#ues, 6e#iefs, as-irations, and -ossi6#e actions.

This ana#og" #eads to to e>tensions, one dea#ing ith further im-#ications for the

consumerSreader, the other dea#ing ith the ro#e of the nutritiona# s-ecia#ist, the

ethica# critic.

/utritionists dea# ith e>ercise in addition to diet. The" kno that our 6odies

6ecome hat the" are not on#" 6ecause of hat e take in, 6ut a#so 6ecause of

ho e e>ercise them. /ever e>ercising i## certain#" o=set the 6ene<ts of a

good diet. In #ike manner, our minds and hearts 6ecome hat the" are not on#"6ecause of the mora#, inte##ectua#, and emotiona# content of hat e take in, 6ut

6ecause of the a" that content e>ercises our minds and hearts. The forma#

strategies of stories e>ercise our ethica# res-onses and, over time, sha-e them

into -atterns that 6ecome distinctive ha6its of the heart. Ever" narrative55ever"

narrative commercia#, song #"ric, nove#, T -rogram, movie, and so on55not on#"

-u##s out of us a s-eci<c set of res-onses 6ut a#so structures those res-onses.

Working our a" through a narrative resu#ts in an orchestrated, -atterned set of

res-onses. s #ong as e are attentive#" engaged, as #ong as e think e

understand hat is ha--ening, and, most im-ortant#", as #ong as e desire to

receive an" -ro<t of -#easure in return for the investment of our time and energ",e are at #east -otentia##" o-en to the kinds of emotiona#, inte##ectua#, and ethica#

8/10/2019 Style 1998


interactions ith #iterar" te>ts that inHuence our t"-ica# a"s of res-onding to

#ife, not ust to <ctions.

enneth +urke thros #ight on this issue of ethica# e>ercise. In a cha-ter that he

ca##s ?Literature as E@ui-ment for Living,? +urke #a"s don an argument55sketch"

6ut -regnant55asserting that #iterature, s-eci<ca##" <ction, ?names? the situations

of #ife to hich e must form res-onses and, moreover, he#-s us ado-t the

attitudes toard these situations that de<ne and create our on mora# agenc".

+" re-resenting these situations in a## of their concrete em6ededness and 6"

he#-ing us ?ado-t an attitude,? +urke argues that <ctions -rovide us ith mode#s

for ho to face and dea# ith #ife;s situations.

The main -oint is this: ork #ike 4adame +ovar" 7or its home#" mericantrans#ation, +a66itt9 is the strategic naming of a situation. It sing#es out a -attern

of e>-erience that is sucient#" re-resentative of our socia# structure ... for

-eo-#e to ?need a ord for it? and to ado-t an attitude toard it. ... rt forms

#ike ?traged"? or ?comed"? or ?satire? ou#d 6e treated as e@ui-ment for #iving

that si*e u- situations in various a"s and in kee-ing ith corres-onding#"

various attitudes. 7(&J5%$'B em-hasis added9

In ado-ting attitudes e create character, "et the assum-tion 6ehind +urke;s

comment55and 6ehind the nutritiona# ana#og" as e##55is not that a #iterar" diet isa##5determinative of character. 4an" forces other than stor", after a##, inHuence

character. 3oever, the inHuence of our <ctiona# diet is genera##" underrated as

far as e=ects go and is genera##" misunderstood as far as go the mechanisms

that conve" the e=ects 7see 2regor", CE Critic 8&&$ and 2regor", /arrative9.

For the critic, the main im-#ication of the nutritiona# ana#og" touches on one of

the most sensitive55that is, controversia#55ro#es of the ethica# critic: the attem-t to

eva#uate 6oth the contents and e=ects of #iterature in ethica# terms. The ethica#

critic ventures into this <e#d of controvers" 6ecause the nutritiona# ana#og"suggests to him a -ro-er function. s the -erson ho has tried to think #ong and

dee-#" a6out the re#ationshi- 6eteen #iterature and ethics, the ethica# critic has

an o6#igation to assist others to think 6etter a6out that re#ationshi- as e##.

/utritionists orth their -rofessiona# degrees ou#d never #et a c#ient ho needed

to #ose eight get 6" ith the Ha66" argument that, after a##, choco#ate cake is

?mere#" entertainment,? or is su6ect to a variet" of inter-retations, or is

com-osed of rhetorica##" unsta6#e -ers-ectives, or is semantica##" indeterminate,

or must 6e vieed in its historica# conte>t, or is the favorite dessert in the Eng#ish

De-artment at Duke 1niversit". Without 6eing diverted even momentari#" 6"

such se#f5serving and diversionar" rationa#i*ations, 6ut a#so ithout arrogating ordesiring the authorit" to force the c#ient to forgo choco#ate cake, res-onsi6#e

8/10/2019 Style 1998


nutritionists ou#d neverthe#ess 6e aggressive in -resenting the most reasona6#e

and carefu##" thought5out arguments the" can muster for hea#th" food and

against rich desserts.

It is -recise#" at this -oint that horri<ed e>c#amations of ?0h, m" 2od, e;re

ta#king censorshi-Q? 6egin to a--ear. +ut ?e? aren;t ta#king censorshi-.

Censorshi- is a red5herring and has no more to do ith ethica# criticism in an"

necessar" a" than the -recious 1nities had to do ith good drama. 0nce

!amue# Gohnson gra66ed the 1nities 6" the throat in his ?Preface to !hakes-eare?

7(%85%%9 and demanded that the" #eave drama a#one, the" gave u- the ghost at

once and have never 6een heard from again. The connection 6eteen ethica#

criticism and censorshi- shou#d die the same kind of death. /o ethica# critic

su--oses that censorshi- i## even or ever ork, much #ess that it i## make

-eo-#e virtuous. In reo-agitica, Gohn 4i#ton -ut this issue to rest as

com-rehensive#" and decisive#" in his da" as Gohnson -ut the issue of the 1nities

to rest in his da": ?The" are not ski##fu# considerers of human things? sa"s 4i#ton,

?ho imagine to remove sin 6" removing the matter of sin? 7('9. nd no ethica#

critic ho has rea##" thought a6out the com-#e>it" of the re#ationshi- 6eteen

ethics and #iterature has such faith in the infa##i6i#it" of his or her udgment that

he ou#d even ant, much #ess attem-t to e>ercise, the -oer to coerce other

-eo-#e to do her #iterar" 6idding. Those ho do ish to censor riters or #i6raries

or readers are not ethica# critics 6ut dogmatists. The to shou#d not 6e confused.

+ut the ethica# critic ho arns his or her ?friends? 7even if the" are unknon

readers9 of a danger that the friends have -erha-s not thought a6out, or arns

them of a re#ationshi- that ma" not 6e as innocent as the" su--ose, or ho

makes arguments a6out the -ossi6#e negative e=ects of "ie#ding to certain

invitations of fee#ing, thinking, and udging is not -erforming a censor;s function.

To arn is not the same thing as forci6#" sto--ing. /or is arning the same thing

as forci6#" ridding the or#d of the dangers "ou are arning a6out. To an ethica#

critic, censorshi- sim-#" is not the im-ortant issue in ethica# criticism. In ethica#

criticism, the im-ortant issue is hat e make of ourse#ves 6" the choices e

make and the actions e -erform. /one of us chooses our actions or makes our

choices in a socia# and mora# vacuum. We seek he#- from friends, from mode#s,

from ideas, from va#ue s"stems, and from di=erent <e#ds of discourse. Ethica#

critics attem-t to create a kind of discourse a6out #iterature;s -otentia# e=ects on

fee#ing, thinking, and udging that i## 6e he#-fu#, sometimes 6" arning,

sometimes 6" -raising, 6ut a#a"s 6" foregrounding for readers the im-ortance

of 6eing se#f5critica# a6out the kinds of #iterar" and other <ctiona# invitations the"

acce-t.

Ethica# critics can he#- readers not on#" 6" @uestioning the -otentia##" negativee=ects of certain <ctions, 6ut a#so 6" <nding grounds for shoing the -otentia##"

8/10/2019 Style 1998


-ositive e=ects of other <ctions. The attack on #iterar" meaning conducted 6"

man" contem-orar" critics has made it dicu#t for teachers and other #overs of

#iterature to <nd grounds on hich to defend their #iterar" commitments and has

es-ecia##" made it dicu#t for teachers to <nd grounds for recommending the

6ooks the" #ove to their students. Ethica# criticism <nds a"s of arguing the

-ositive va#ue of man" di=erent kinds of #iterar" encounters. Wi##iam enned"reca##s his initia# confusion hen, as an undergraduate at the 1niversit" of

irginia, he <rst heard Wi##iam Fau#kner ta#k in c#ass a6out #iterature;s a6i#it" to

?u-#ift? the human heart.

This u-#ift 6usiness 6aed me. I as reading and rereading The !ound and the

Fur", !anctuar", Light in ugust, The Wi#d Pa#ms and 6sa#om, 6sa#omQ55ta#es of

incest and horing and ra-e and d"ing #ove and madness and murder and racia#

hate and miscegenationa# traged" and idioc"55and sa"ing to m"se#f, ?This is

u-#iftM?

+ut I ke-t reading and found I cou#dn;t get enoughB I had to reread to satisf" the

craving, and came to anser the @uestion in a ord: "es. I fe#t e>a#ted 6" the

man;s ork, not 6" reve#ing in a## the disasters, 6ut 6" #earning from his #anguage

and his insights and his stor"te##ing genius ho certain other -eo-#e #ived and

thought. I as -rivi#eged to enter into the most -rivate domains of their #ives and

the" 6ecame m" friends or -eo-#e I;d kee- at #east at arm;s #ength or -eo-#e I

-itied, feared or #oved. This as tru#" an u-#ifting e>-erience, something akin torea# friendshi-, and I 6egan to understand the -rocess 6" hich riting reaches

into another -erson;s heart.7n&9 7%9

3ere the friendshi- and the nutritiona# ana#og" 6oth a--#": the friends enned"

took in acted as forms of inte##ectua#, emotiona#, and ethica# nourishment. Thus

stor" orks its a" into the ver" nerve endings of our ethica# #ives.

Conc#usion

!o ethica# criticism does matter. It matters 6ecause ho e 6ecome matters and6ecause #iterature, or, rather, stor" in genera#, as an im-ortant midife to our

6ecoming, he#-s usher us into the or#d. Insofar as ethica# criticism he#-s us

understand ho this inHuence gets e>erted, ho our res-onses get e#icited, and

ho these res-onses get 6oth sha-ed u- and <##ed in 6" #iterar" e>-erience, it

contri6utes to the ongoing human enter-rise of getting to kno ourse#ves 6etter

in order that, in our im-roved understanding, e can come c#oser to creating the

kind of or#d e ant rather than sett#ing for the or#d e have. Ethica# criticism

can make a contri6ution to #iterar" stud", to the humanities, and to civi#i*ed #iving

6" he#-ing readers recogni*e the Ganus face of #iterar" e>-erience. Whi#e one

countenance #ooks outard at societ", the other countenance #ooks inard at ouron sou#s. Fina##", ethica# criticism can he#- us understand ho the -ers-ectives

8/10/2019 Style 1998


of these to countenances eventua##" merge into the -u6#ic and -rivate entit" e

ca## an ethos. The o#d adage, ?It is never too #ate to 6ecome hat "ou might have

6een? is -ertinent here, for a## of us are tr"ing to 6ecome hat e might have

6een, and in our e=orts e use e>-erience 6oth from <rst5hand #ife and from

second5hand <ctions. These <ctions are fre@uent#" so -oerfu#, so 6eautifu#, so

o#ting, so vivid, so intimate, so cha##enging, so re-eated, and so #ong5#asting intheir e=ects that the" sometimes e>ert a gradua##" transformative e=ect: the"

enter into and -art#" form the ha6its of our heart and thus he#- us see not on#"

ho e are 6ut hat e might 6ecome.

/otes

7n89 C#ear#", I am not s-eaking here of on#" -rinted stories or #iterature ritten

as <ne art. I am inc#uding the ora# stories and fa6#es and a-o#ogues of tri6a#

societies and, indeed, of our on societ". In short, I am ta#king a6out stories in a##

their sha-es and forms and in a## the media 6" hich the" get conve"ed to those

ho consume them.

7n(9 3e#en 2ardner makes much the same -oint in even more detai#: ?!ince

imaginative #iterature gives us images of human #ife and records human

e>-erience, it is inevita6#" fu## of mora# ideas and mora# fee#ings, strong#"

engages our mora# s"m-athies, and tests our mora# a##egiances. ... The riters

... ho most nota6#" e>-and our kno#edge of the or#d and of ourse#ves ...

are those ho, hi#e the" amuse us, evoke our curiosit" and engage our

s"m-athies, invo#ve us in a or#d of mora# choice and mora# va#ues through ourAfond -artici-ation; in imagined adventures, crises, o"s and distresses? 7%9.

7n%9 The fo##oing cata#og is a short #ist of some of the accusations against

ethica# critics that most #iterar" critics for the #ast 8$$ "ears have readi#"

acce-ted.

Ethica# critics are ust censors in shee-;s c#othing ho ant to te## artists hat

the" can rite and readers hat the" can read, or at #east hat i## 6e good for

them to rite and read. Ethica# critics think it is #iterature;s o6 to teach mora# #essons and, in

conse@uence, the" reductive#" transform ever" te>t into an a-o#ogue, a mora#

fa6#e, or a !unda" !choo# #esson.

Ethica# critics are narro5minded, doctrinaire mora#ists ho, #ike the stereot"-e

of the o#d5fashioned house mother #ooking for men in a omen;s dorm,

concentrate sa#acious#" on sning out sin from its #iterar" hiding -#aces so the"

can hang 6oth the sin and the 6ook on the ga##os of dogma.

Ethica# critics naive#" 6e#ieve that reading canonica# #iterature automatica##"

e#evates readers; mora#it".

8/10/2019 Style 1998


Ethica# critics are either se>ua# -rudes or re#igious fundamenta#ists, neither of

hom understand an"thing a6out aesthetic im-eratives or the <rst amendment

to the Constitution.

Ethica# critics are inte##ectua# guerri##as, 6oth anti5-hi#oso-hica# and anti5

theoretica#, ho am6ush #iterar" te>ts on mora# grounds ithout ever taking intoaccount the oughtSis distinction or the factSva#ue s-#it.

Ethica# critics i##fu##" ignore the isdom of 3enr" Games;s dictum that

?@uestions of art are @uestions ... of e>ecutionB @uestions of mora#it" are @uite

another a=air? 7''J9B ant;s assertion that ?the 6eautifu#, the udging hich has

at its 6asis a mere#" forma# -ur-osiveness, i.e., -ur-osiveness ithout -ur-ose, is

@uite inde-endent of the conce-t of the good? 7%)J9B Phi#i- !idne";s dictum that

?for the -oet, he nothing arms, and therefore never #ieth? 78'&9B /orthro- Fr"e;s

statement that ?there;s no such thing as a mora##" 6ad nove#: its mora# e=ect

de-ends entire#" on the mora# @ua#it" of the reader? 7&'9B Derrida;s vie that ?the

a6sence of the transcendenta# signi<ed e>tends the domain and inter-#a" of

signi<cation ad in<nitum? 7&J89B 4iche# Foucau#t;s assertion, fo##oing Ro#and

+arthes;s #ead, that ?the author function ... does not refer -ure#" and sim-#" to a

rea# individua#, since it can give rise simu#taneous#" to severa# se#ves, to severa#

su6ects55-ositions that can 6e occu-ied 6" di=erent c#asses of individua#s? 78%9B

or +ar6ara 3errnstein !mith;s vie that ?a## va#ue is radica##" contingent, 6eing

neither an inherent -ro-ert" of o6ects nor an ar6itrar" -roection of su6ects 6ut,

rather, the -roduct of the d"namics of an economic s"stem? 7889B and man"

other such assertions in the same vein.

7n'9 Gohn 4or#e" rai#ing at !in6urne for ?-ersistent#" and g#eefu##" H"ing to the

anima# side of human nature? 7))$9B Ro6ert +uchanan accusing ?the Hesh#"

schoo# of verse riters? 7Rossetti9 of ?di#igent#" s-reading the seeds of disease

6roadcast? 7))&9B E#i*a6eth Rig6" attacking the -o#itica##" incendiar" and ?anti5

christian? tendencies of Gane E"re 7''&5$9B the tria# in hich 2ustave F#au6ert

as charged ith an ?outrage to -u6#ic mora#it" and re#igion? 79 for -u6#ishing

4adame +ovar"B the 6annings in merica of the sa#e of Lad" Chatter#";s Lover

and The Tro-ic of CancerB and the -ersistent attem-ts of some -arents and some

schoo# 6oards toda" to -u## The Catcher in the R"e and 3uck#e6err" Finn from

schoo# #i6raries.

7n9 Wi##iam Perr", author of Forms of Inte##ectua# and Ethica# Deve#o-ment in the

Co##ege Kears: !cheme.

7nJ9 Emotivism -roduces contradictions that sometimes seem ho-e#ess,

sometimes seem comic, 6ut that in either case s-eak to our dee- confusions

a6out ethica# discourse. Gust recent#", as I as taking one of m" -eriodic 6eatingsat the facu#t" #unch ta6#e for m" interest in ethica# criticism, a co##eague asserted

8/10/2019 Style 1998


to me decisive#" that ?#iterature has no more to do ith making mora# character

than it has to do ith making shoes.? To minutes #ater he as a--#auding me

for m" e=orts to teach reo-agitica in a freshman c#ass on the grounds that

?orking through 4i#ton;s ideas a6out censorshi- i## 6e good for "our students.?

When I ha*arded that he had ust made a udgment a6out the 7-otentia#9 ethica#

6ene<ts of reading a certain te>t, he res-onded, ?that;s not an ethica# udgmentBit;s ust m" o-inion.? The -resum-tion here is hatM55that ethica# udgments are

not o-inions, or that mere o-inions can never carr" the eight of ethica#

udgmentM I think the -resum-tion is sim-#" that making ethica# udgments is

inte##ectua##" retrograde 6ut that o-inions are defensi6#e. The danger of such

confusion is that it threatens to de-rive us of an" grounds for conducting mora#

discourse at a##, and the danger of this is that, since mora# issues com-rise an

unavoida6#e and -ermanent -art of human socia6i#it", de-riving ourse#ves of the

a6i#it" to discuss these issues on#" dee-ens the confusion in hich e #ive and

#eads to an im-overishing sense of randomness and form#essness.

7n9 If it seems odd to o=er a <ction as an e>am-#e of the criticism of <ction, I

refer m" reader to Wa"ne +ooth;s incisive comment that ?-oerfu# narratives

-rovide our 6est criticism of other -oerfu# narratives? 7()%9.

7n)9 3ere and in the remainder of this -aragra-h I am not @uoting -articu#ar

-ersonsB the @uotation marks indicate t"-ica# -ositions and t"-ica# vies.

7n&9 4artha /uss6aum corro6orates enned";s sense of friendshi- ith #iterar"

characters and 6ooks in a -ara##e# account of her on schoo#ing: ?In m" schoo#

there as nothing that ng#o5merican conventions ou#d ca## A-hi#oso-h".; nd

"et the @uestions of this 6ook 7hich I sha## ca##, 6road#", ethica#9 ere raised and

investigated. The -ursuit of truth there as a certain sort of reHection a6out

#iterature. nd the form the ethica# @uestions took, as the roots of some of them

gre into me, as usua##" that of reHecting and fee#ing a6out a -articu#ar #iterar"

character, a -articu#ar nove#B or, sometimes, an e-isode from histor", 6ut seen as

the materia# for a dramatic -#ot of m" on imagining. ## this as, of course, seenin re#ation to #ife itse#f, hich as itse#f seen, increasing#", in a"s inHuenced 6"

the stories and the sense of #ife the" e>-ressed. ristot#e, P#ato, !-ino*a, ant55

these ere sti## unknon to me. Dickens, Gane usten, risto-hanes, +en Gonson,

Euri-ides, !hakes-eare, Dosto"evsk"55these ere m" friends, m" s-heres of

reHection? 7889.

Works Cited

ristot#e. Poetics. Trans. !. 3. +utcher. /e Kork: 3i## and Wang, 8&J8.

+e##ah, Ro6ert /., et. a#. 3a6its of the 3eart: Individua#ism and Commitment inmerican Life. +erke#e": 1 of Ca#ifornia P, 8&).

8/10/2019 Style 1998


+irkerts, !ven. The 2uten6erg E#egies: The Fate of Reading in an E#ectronic ge.

/e Kork: Facett, 8&&'.


Ca#ifornia P, 8&)).

+rann, Eva T. 3. The Wor#d of Imagination: !um and !u6stance. Lanham, 4D:

Roman U Litt#e<e#d, 8&&'.

+uchanan, Ro6ert. ?The F#esh#" !choo# of Poetr": 4r. D. 2. Rossetti.? ictorian

Poetr" and Poetics. (nd ed. Ed. Wa#ter E. 3oughton and 2. Ro6ert !tange. +oston:

3oughton 4iin, 8&J): )))5&).

+urke, enneth. The Phi#oso-h" of Literar" Form: !tudies in !"m6o#ic ction. (nd

ed. +aton Rouge: Louisiana !tate 1P, 8&'8, 8&J.

Caughie, Pame#a L. ?Let It Pass: Changing the !u6ect, 0nce gain.? P4L 88(.8

7Ganuar" 8&&9: (J5%&.

Fish, !tan#e". ?Rhetoric.? Critica# Terms for Literar" !tud". (nd. ed. Ed. Frank

Lentricchia and Thomas 4cLaugh#in. Chicago: 1 of Chicago P, 8&&: ($%((.

F#au6ert, 2ustave. 4adame +ovar". Ed. and trans. Pau# de 4an. /e Kork: /orton,

8&J.

Foucau#t, 4iche#. ?What Is an uthorM? Te>tua# !trategies: Pers-ectives in Post5

!tructura#ist Criticism. Trans. and ed. Gosue . 3arari. Ithaca, /K: Corne## 1P, 8&&:

8'85J$.

Fr"e, /orthro-. The Educated Imagination. +#oomington: Indiana 1P, 8&J'.

2ardner, 3e#en. In Defence of the Imagination. Cam6ridge, 4: 3arvard 1P,

8&)(.

2regor", 4arsha##. ?3umanism;s 3eat, Postmodernism;s Coo#.? CE Critic .(

7Winter 8&&9: 85(.

55555. ?The !ound of !tor": n In@uir" Into Literature and Ethos.? /arrative %.8

7Ganuar" 8&&9: %%5J.

55555. ?Character Formation in the Literar" C#assroom.? CE Critic %.( 7Winter,

8&&$9: 5(8.

3ar-ham, 2eo=re" 2a#t. 2etting It Right: Language, Literature, and Ethics.

Chicago: 1 of Chicago P, 8&&(.

3orace. The !atires of 3orace. Ed. rthur Pa#mer. /e Kork: !t. 4artin;s, 8&&.

Games, 3enr". ?The rt of Fiction.? The Critica# Tradition: C#assic Te>ts and

Contem-orar" Trends. (nd ed. Ed. David 3. Richter. /e Kork: !t. 4artin;s, 8&&):

'%J5'.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


Gohnson, !amue#. ?Preface to !hakes-eare.? The Critica# Tradition: C#assic Te>ts

and Contem-orar" Trends. (nd ed. Ed. David 3. Richter. /e Kork: !t. 4artin;s,

8&&): (('5%).

ant, Immanue#. ?Criti@ue of Gudgment.? Critica# Theor" !ince P#ato. Ed. 3a*ard

dams. /e Kork: 3arcourt +race Govanovich: %5&&.

enned", Wi##iam. ?Wh" I Took !o Long.? /e Kork Times +ook Revie, ($ 4a"

8&&$:8 V.

LaCa-ra, Dominick. 4adame +ovar" on Tria#. Ithaca, /K: Corne## 1P, 8&)(.

Louden, Ro6ert +. 4ora#it" and 4ora# Theor": Rea--raisa# and Rearmation.

/e Kork: 0>ford 1P, 8&&(.

4acInt"re, #asdair. fter irtue: !tud" in 4ora# Theor". /otre Dame, I/: 1 /otre

Dame P, 8&)8.

4idg#e", 4ar". Can;t We 4ake 4ora# GudgementsM /e Kork: !t. 4artin;s, 8&&8.

4i#ton, Gohn. reo-agitica. 8JJ'. !anta +ar6ara, C: +andanna +ooks, 8&&(.

4or#e", Gohn. ?4r. !in6urne;s /e Poems: Poems and +a##ads.? ictorian Poetr"

and Poetics. (nd ed. Ed. Wa#ter E. 3oughton and 2. Ro6ert !tange. +oston:

3oughton 4iin, 8&J): ))$5)'.

/ea#on, Ge=re" T. ?The Ethics of Dia#ogue: +akhtin and Levinas.? Co##ege Eng#ish

&.( 7Fe6ruar" 8&&9: 8(&5').

/orris, Christo-her. Truth and the Ethics of Criticism. 4anchester: 4anchester 1P,

8&&'.

/uss6aum, 4artha. Love;s no#edge: Essa"s on Phi#oso-h" and Literature. /e

Kork: 0>ford 1P, 8&&$.

Perr", Wi##iam. Forms of Inte##ectua# and Ethica# Deve#o-ment in the Co##ege Kears:

!cheme. /e Kork: 3o#t, Rinehart, and Winston, 8&$.

P#ato. !"m-osium. Trans. #e>ander /ehamas and Pau# Woodru=. Indiana-o#is:

3ackett, 8&)&.

Ra6inoit*, Peter G. +efore Reading: /arrative Conventions and the Po#itics of

Inter-retation. Ithaca, /K: Corne## 1P, 8&).

Rig6", E#i*a6eth. ?n nti5Christian Com-osition.? Gane E"re: n uthoritative

Te>t, +ackgrounds, Criticism. Ed. Richard G. Dunn. /e Kork: /orton, 8&8: ''&5

%.

!idne", Phi#i-. ?n -o#og" for Poetr".? The Critica# Tradition: C#assic Te>ts and

Contem-orar" Trends. (nd ed. Ed. David 3. Richter. /e Kork: !t. 4artin;s, 8&&):

8%'5&.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


!mith, +ar6ara 3errnstein. ?Contingencies of a#ue.? Critica# In@uir" 8$.8

7!e-tem6er 8&)%9: 85%.

Todorov, T*vetan. Literature and Its Theorists. Trans. Catherine Porter. Ithaca, /K:

Corne## 1P, 8&).

Wi#son, Games O. The 4ora# !ense. /e Kork: Free Press, 8&&%.

+" 4arsha## 2regor", +ut#er 1niversit"

/as#ov: The Ethics of Reading E#ie Wiese#;s /ight. Prema: !char*, Danie# R.,

!t"#e, $$%&'(%), !ummer&), !ve*ak. %(, +ro (.

T3E ET3IC! 0F REDI/2 ELIE WIE!EL;! /I23T

!e#ect: merican ccent ustra#ian ccent +ritish ccent

Dead Chi#d !-eaks

4" mother he#d me 6" m" hand.

Then someone raised the knife of -arting:

!o that it shou#d not strike me,

4" mother #oosed her hand from mine.

+ut she #ight#" touched m" thighs once more

nd her hand as 6#eeding55

fter that the knife of -arting

Cut in to each 6ite I sa##oed55

It rose 6efore me ith the sun at dan

nd 6egan to shar-en itse#f in m" e"es55

Wind and ater ground in m" ear

nd ever" voice of comfort -ierced m" heart55

s I as #ed to death

8/10/2019 Style 1998


I sti## fe#t in the #ast moment

The unsheathing of the great knife of -arting.

55/e##" !achs

The survivor ... is a distur6er of the -eace. 3e is a runner of the 6#ockade men

erect against kno#edge of ?uns-eaka6#e? things. 6out these he aims to s-eak,

and in so doing he undermines, ithout intending to, the va#idit" of e>isting

norms. 3e is a genuine transgressor, and here he is made to fee# rea# gui#t. The

or#d to hich he a--ea#s does not admit him, and since he has #ooked to this

or#d as the source of mora# order, he 6egins to dou6t himse#f. nd that is not the

end, for no his gui#t is dou6#ed 6" 6etra"a#55of himse#f, of his task, of his vo to

the dead. The <na# gui#t is not to 6ear itness. The survivor;s orst torment is not

to 6e a6#e to s-eak

55Terence Des Pres

I

In considering ethica# reading, e shou#d di=erentiate 6eteen an ethics of

reading and an ethics hi#e reading. For me, an ethics of reading inc#udes

ackno#edging ho e are and hat are our 6iases and interests. n ethics ofreading s-eaks of our reading as if, no matter ho 6ri##iant, it ere -ro-osing

some -ossi6i#ities rather than vatica##" -roviding the so#ution to Danie#;s

-ro-hetic reading of handriting on the a##B it means reading from mu#ti-#e

-ers-ectives, or at #east em-athetica##" entering into the readings of those ho

are situated di=erent#". For me, an ethics hi#e reading ou#d tr" to understand

hat the author as sa"ing to her origina# imagined audience and 6oth h" and

ho the actua# -o#"auditor" audience might have res-onded and for hat

reasons. n ethics hi#e reading is di=erent from 6ut, in its attention to a va#ue5

oriented e-istemo#og", re#ated to an ethics of reading. n ethics hi#e reading

im-#ies attention to mora# issues generated 6" events descri6ed ithin animagined or#d. It asks hat ethica# @uestions are invo#ved in the act of

transforming #ife into art, and notices such issues as Pound;s or E#iot;s anti5

!emitism and the -atroni*ing racism of some merican5nineteenth5 and ear#"

tentieth5centur" riters. What e choose to read and es-ecia##" hat to inc#ude

on s"##a6i have an ethica# dimension. Thus, I i## choose to se#ect other Conrad

orks for m" undergraduate #ecture course than the unfortunate#" tit#ed The

/igger of the /arcissus.

Let me tentative#" -ro-ose <ve stages of the hermeneutica# activities invo#ved inethica# reading and inter-retation. Even hi#e ackno#edging that m" mode# is

8/10/2019 Style 1998


suggestive rather than rigorous, I 6e#ieve that e do -erceive in stages that

move from a naive res-onse or surface inter-retation to critica# or in5de-th

inter-retation and, <na##", to understanding our readings conce-tua##" and

ethica##" in terms of other kno#edge. areness of such stages ena6#es us to

read ethica##". 4" stages are:

8. Immersion in the -rocess of reading and the discover" of imagined or#ds.

Reading is a -#ace here te>t and reader meet in a transaction. s e o-en a

te>t, e and the author meet as if together e ere going to dra a ma- on an

uncharted s-ace. We -artia##" sus-end our sense of our or#d as e enter into

the imagined or#dB e res-ond in e>-erimenta# terms to the e-isodes, the stor",

the -h"sica# setting, the individua#i*ed characters as humans and, the te##ing

voice. Whi#e it has 6ecome fashiona6#e to s-eak dismissive#" of such reading as

?naive,? or the resu#t of the ?mimetic i##usion,? in fact ho man" of us do not read

in that a" ith -#easure and de#ight55and ith ethica# udgmentsM Who of us

ou#d 6e teaching and stud"ing #iterature had e not #earned to readmimetica##"M

(. Ouest for understanding. 0ur @uest is c#ose#" re#ated to the diachronic, #inear,

tem-ora# activit" of reading. The @uest s-eaks to the ga- 6eteen ?hat did "ou

sa"M? and ?hat did "ou meanM? In riting, as o--osed to s-eech, the s-eaker

cannot correct, intrude, or @ua#if"B she cannot use gestures or adust the de#iver"

of her discourse. +ecause in riting e #ack the s-eaker;s he#-, e must make

our on adustments in our reading. s Pau# Ricouer notes, ?What the te>t sa"s

no matters more than hat the author meant to sa", and ever" e>egesis

unfo#ds its -rocedures ithin the circumference of a meaning that has 6roken its

moorings to the -s"cho#og" of its author? 78&89. We com-#ete the sign of the

imagined or#d 6" -roviding the signi<ed, 6ut no sooner do e com-#ete a sign

than it 6ecomes a signi<er in search of a ne signi<ed. In modern and

-ostmodern te>ts, our search for necessar" information i## 6e much more of a

factor than in traditiona# te>ts. In this stage, as e are active#" unrave#ing the

com-#e>ities of -#ot, e a#so seek to discover the -rinci-#es or or#d5vie 6"

hich the author e>-ects us to understand characters; 6ehavior in terms of

motives and va#ues. 4oreover, e make ethica# udgments of intersu6ective

re#ations and authoria# choices.

%. !e#f5conscious reHection. ReHection s-eaks to the ga- 6eteen ?hat did "oumeanM? and ?hat does that meanM? 1-on reHection, e ma" adust our

-ers-ective or see ne ones. What the inter-retive reader does55-articu#ar#" ith

s-are, im-#icator" modern #iterature55is <## the ga-s #eft 6" the te>t to create an

e>-#anator" te>t or midrash on the te>t itse#f. s Iser -uts it, ;What is said on#"

a--ears to take on signi<cance as a reference to hat is not saidB it is the

im-#ications and not the statements that give sha-e and eight to the meaning?

7!u#eiman and Crosman 8889. Whi#e the reader ha#f5-erceives, ha#f5creates his

origina# ?immersed? reading of the te>t, he retros-ective#"55from the vantage

-oint of knoing the ho#e55im-oses sha-e and form on his stor" of reading. 3e

discovers its signi<cance in re#ation to his other e>-eriences, inc#uding otherreading e>-eriences, and in terms of the inter-retive communities to hich he

8/10/2019 Style 1998


6e#ongs. 3e reasons -osterior#" from e=ects to causes. 3e is aare of

referentia#it" to the anterior or#d55ho that or#d informs the author;s mimesis55

and to the or#d in hich he #ives. 3e 6egins55more in modern te>ts, 6ut even in

traditiona# te>ts55to se-arate his on version of hat is rea##" meant from hat is

said, and to -#ace ethica# issues in the conte>t of #arger va#ue issues.

3ere Todorov;s distinction 6eteen signi<cation and s"m6o#i*ation is usefu#.

?!igni<ed facts are understood: a## e need is kno#edge of the #anguage in

hich the te>t is ritten. !"m6o#i*ation facts are inter-reted: and inter-retations

var" from one su6ect to another? 7!u#eiman and Crosman %9. -ro6#em is that,

in -ractice, hat is understood or udged 6" one reader as signi<ed facts ma"

re@uire inter-retation or a di=erent ethica# udgment 6" another.

'. Critica# ana#"sis. s Pau# Ricouer rites, ?To understand a te>t is to fo##o its

movement from sense to reference, from hat it sa"s to hat it ta#ks a6out?

7(8'9. In the -rocess, e a#a"s move from signi<er to signi<edB for no sooner do

e understand hat the origina# signi<ers signif" ithin the imagined or#d than

these signi<eds in turn 6ecome signi<ers for #arger issues and s"m6o#ic

constructions in the or#d 6e"ond the te>t. nd e res-ond in terms of the

va#ues enacted 6" the agon and, as ith E#iot;s and Pound;s anti5!emitism, resist

here te>ts distur6 our sense of fairness.

Whi#e the reader res-onds to te>ts in such mu#ti-#e a"s and for such diverse

reasons that e cannot s-eak of a correct reading, e can s-eak of a dia#ogue

among -#ausi6#e readings. Draing u-on our inter-retive strategies, e reHect on

generic, interte>tua#, #inguistic, and 6iogra-hica# re#ationshi-s that disru-t #inear

readingB e move 6ack and forth from the ho#e to the -art. 4" res-onses to m"

reading are a function of hat I kno, hat I have recent#" 6een reading, m" #ast

e>-erience of reading a -articu#ar author, m" kno#edge of the -eriod in hich

she rote as e## as the inHuences u-on her and her inHuence on others, and m"

current va#ues. 4" res-onses a#so de-end 6oth on ho i##ing I am to sus-end

m" iron" and detachment and enter into the imagined or#d of the te>t and onho much of the te>t m" memor" retains.

. Cognition in terms of hat e kno. Draing u-on our inter-retive strategies,

e reHect on generic, interte>tua#, #inguistic, and 6iogra-hica# re#ationshi-s that

disru-t #inear readingB e move 6ack and forth from the ho#e to the -art. s

Ricouer rites: ?The reconstruction of the te>t as a ho#e is im-#ied in the

recognition of the -arts. nd reci-roca##", it is in constructing the detai#s that e

construe the ho#e? 7($'9. We return to the origina# reading e>-erience and te>t

and su6se@uent#" modif" our conce-tua# h"-otheses a6out genre, -eriod, author,canon, themes, and most of a##, va#ues. We integrate hat e have read into our

8/10/2019 Style 1998


reading of other te>ts and into our a" of #ooking at ourse#ves and the or#d.

3ere e conscious#" use our va#ues and our categori*ing sensi6i#it"55our rage for

order55to make sense of our reading e>-erience and our a" of 6eing in our

or#d. In the <na# stage, the inter-retive reader ma" 6ecome a critic ho rites

his on te>t a6out the ?transaction? 6eteen himse#f and the te>t55and this

res-onse has an ethica# com-onent. /ove#s raise di=erent ethica# @uestions, onesthat ena6#e us to consider not on#" ho e ou#d 6ehave in certain

circumstances, 6ut a#so hether55even as e em-athetica##" read a te>t55e

shou#d maintain some stance of resistance 6" hich to udge that te>t;s ethica#

im-#ications.

II

Let us no turn to our e>am-#e. E#ie Wiese# 6egins /ight, his <ctiona#i*ed

auto6iogra-hica# memoir of the 3o#ocaust ith a descri-tion of 4oshe the

+ead#e, an insigni<cant <gure in a sma## ton in Trans"#vania ho taught the

narrator a6out the ca66a#a: ?The" ca##ed him 4oshe the +ead#e, as though he

had never had a surname in his #ife. 3e as a man of a## ork at a 3asidic

s"nagogue. The Ges of !ighet55that #itt#e ton in Trans"#vania here I s-ent m"

chi#dhood55ere ver" fond of him. 3e as ver" -oor and #ived hum6#". ... 3e as

a -ast master in the art of making himse#f insigni<cant, of seeming invisi6#e. ... I

#oved his great, dreaming e"es, their ga*e #ost in the distance? 789. +ut 4oshe is

e>-e##ed in ear#" 8&'( 6ecause he is a foreign Ge, and is not heard of for severa#

months. 3e une>-ected#" returns to te## of his miracu#ous esca-e from a 2esta-o

s#aughter of Ges in the Po#ish Forests. +ut no one 6e#ieves him. 4oshe cries:

?Ges, #isten to me. ... 0n#" #isten to me? 79. +ut ever"one assumes that he has

gone mad. nd the narrator55sti## a "oung 6o"55reca##s asking him: ?Wh" are "ou

so an>ious that -eo-#e shou#d 6e#ieve hat "ou sa"M In "our -#ace, I shou#dn;t

care hether the" 6e#ieved me or not? 79.

Let us consider the signi<cance of 4oshe the +ead#e. For one thing, Wiese# is

using him as meton"m" for himse#f in his -resent ro#e as narrator ho is, as he

rites, ca##ing on us to #isten to his ords as he te##s his re#ent#ess ta#e of his on

miracu#ous esca-e from /a*i terror. Im-#icit#", he is urging us that it is our ethica#

res-onsi6i#it" not to turn aa" from the Witnessing oice554oshe, himse#f, indeed

a## those ho have seen, s-eci<ca##", the 3o#ocaust, and meton"mica##", for us,

man;s inhumanit" to man55hether it occurs in +osnia, /orthern Ire#and, or

!oma#ia.

/ight is a narrative that traces the disso#ution of the Geish communit" in !ighet,

the ghettoes, de-ortations, concentration cam-s, crematoriums, death marches,

and, <na##", #i6eration. Disti##ing memoir into narrative form, /ight traces the

groth of ado#escent courage and the #oss of re#igious faith. Wiese#;s origina#

Kiddish tit#e for /ight as 1n di ve#t hot geshvign, or in Eng#ish, nd the Wor#dRemained !i#ent. 3e disti##ed )J( -ages to the (' of the -u6#ished Kiddish

8/10/2019 Style 1998


edition and Gerome Lindon, the French -u6#isher, further edited it to 8) -ages. I

am interested not in the indictment of Wiese# for transforming his nomina#istic

memoir into nove#istic form, 6ut in ho, in res-onse to -u6#ishing circumstances

and -erha-s his on transformation, he recon<gured an e>istentia# nove# a6out

the descent into mora# night into a somehat armative reemergence to #ife.

Whi#e the narrator is a <fteen "ear o#d 6o", Wiese# as 6orn in 8&() and ou#dhave 6een si>teen for most of the 8&''5 -eriod. Is not this age discre-anc" one

reason h" e ought think of /ight as a nove# as e## as a memoirM

nother more im-ortant reason /ight is a nove# is that there as a su6stantive

change from the origina# Kiddish te>t su6mitted in 8&', months 6efore he met

Francois 4auriac, and 8&) hen the French version as -u6#ished. In 8&J, it

as vo#ume 88 of a series on Po#ish Ges entit#ed Dos -o#"ishe "idntum 7Po#ish

Ger"9. Wiese#;s tit#e as 1n di ve#t. !eidman rites:

What distinguishes the Kiddish from the French is not so much #ength as attention

to detai#, an adherence to that -rinci-#e of com-rehensiveness so va#ued 6" the

editors and revieers of the Po#ish Ger" series. Thus, hereas the <rst -age of

/ight succint#" and -ictures@ue#" descri6es !ighet as ?that #itt#e ton in

Trans"#vania here I s-ent m" chi#dhood,? 1n di ve#t introduces !ighet as ?the

most im-ortant cit" shtot and the one ith the #argest Geish -o-u#ation in the

-rovince of 4armarosh.? The Kiddish goes on to -rovide a historica# account of

the region: ?1nti# the First Wor#d War, !ighet 6e#onged to ustro53ungar". Then it6ecame -art of Romania. In 8&'$, 3ungar" ac@uired it again.? nd hi#e the

French memoir is dedicated ?in memor" of m" -arents and of m" #itt#e sister,

Tsi-ora,? the Kiddish names 6oth victims and -er-etrators: ?This 6ook is

dedicated to the eterna# memor" of m" mother !arah, m" father !h#omo, and m"

#itt#e sister Tsi-ora55ho ere ki##ed 6" the 2erman murderers.?

The Kiddish te>t ma" have 6een on#" #ight#" edited in the transition to French, 6ut

the e=ect of this editing as to -osition the memoir ithin a di=erent #iterar"

genre. Even the tit#e 1n di ve#t hot geshvign signi<es a kind of si#ence ver"distant from the m"stica# si#ence at the heart of /ight. The Kiddish tit#e indicts the

or#d that did nothing to sto- the 3o#ocaust and a##os its -er-etrators to carr"

on norma# #ivesB La /uit names no human or even divine agents in the events it

descri6es. From the historica# and -o#itica# s-eci<cities of Kiddish documentar"

testimon", Wiese# and his French -u6#ishing house fashioned something c#oser to

m"tho-oetic narrative. 79

What !eidman ca##s the ?m"tho-oetic narrative,? I ou#d ca## a nove# ith a

centra# agon, a structure of a=ects, a narrative voice, an imagined narratee, andan ending that transforms, modi<es, and reformu#ates hat -recedes.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


Whether a nove# or memoir, /ight de-ends u-on and arms the conce-t of

individua# agenc", for the s-eaker te##s a ondrous and horri6#e ta#e of saving his

#ife and sha-ing his ro#e as Witness, -erha-s our Danie#. s Terence Des Pres

rites:

!i#ence is the on#" ade@uate res-onse, 6ut the -ressure of the scream -ersists.

This is the o6sessive center of Wiese#;s riting: his -rotagonists desire a si#ence

the" cannot kee-. ... The conHict 6eteen si#ence and the scream, so -rominent

in Wiese#;s nove#s, is in fact a 6att#e 6eteen death and #ife, 6eteen a##egiance

to the dead and care for the #iving, hich rages in the survivor and reso#ves itse#f

in the act of 6earing itness. ... !i#ence, in its -rima# as-ect, is a conse@uence

of terror, of a disso#ution of se#f and or#d that, once knon, can never 6e fu##"

dis-e##ed. +ut in retros-ect it 6ecomes something e#se. !i#ence constitutes therea#m of the dead. It is the -a#-a6#e su6stance of those mi##ions murdered, the

or#d no #onger -resent, that intimate a6sence55of 2od, of man, of #ove556" hich

the survivor is haunted. In the survivor;s voice the dead;s on scream is active.

7%J9

In /ight e see dramati*ed the -rocess of the narrator;s deve#o-ing into his ro#e

of ethica# itness in the face of historica# forces that ou#d o6#iterate his

humanit", his individua#it", and his voice. /otithstanding the ecienc" of /a*i

cu#tura# -roduction and the techno#og" of the death cam-s and gas cham6ers,

the narrator recreates himse#f through #anguage. In the sense of the

techno#ogica# fu#<##ment of an ordered state that su6ordinated individua# rights to

the nationa# -ur-ose of the !tate, /a*i ideo#og" has 6een thought of as a -roduct

of modernism. For those, #ike Wiese#, ho have e>-erienced the 3o#ocaust <rst

hand55for hom uschit* is not a meta-hor 6ut a memor"55#anguage is more

than the free -#a" of signi<ers. For these -eo-#e and others on the -o#itica# edge,

their ver" te##ing55their ver" #iving55testi<es to i##, agenc", and a desire to

survive that resists and renders mora##" irre#evant sim-#e -ositivistic e>-#anations

arguing that an author;s #anguage is cu#tura##" -roduced. 0ne might ask h"

Wiese# rites. For one thing, it is to 6ear itnessB for another, it is an act of se#f5thera-"B for a third, it is a kind of transferenceB and as the dedication stresses

7?In memor" of m" -arents and m" #itt#e sister, Tsi-ora,?9 it is an act of homage.

Furthermore, in -s"choana#"tic #inguistic terms, the narrator;s te##ing is a

resistance to the a" in hich the ord ?Ge? as cu#tura##" -roduced to mean

inferior -eo-#e ho ere -rogressive#" discounted, de-rived of 6asic rights as

citi*ens, #a6e#ed ith a Ke##o !tar of David, im-risoned, ens#aved, and ki##ed. We

might reca## ho a## ma#e 2erman Ges ere re@uired to take the midd#e name

?Israe#,? a## fema#es the name ?!arah.?

8/10/2019 Style 1998


4odernism, as Games C#i=ord notes, takes ?as its -ro6#em55and o--ortunit"5the

fragmentation and u>ta-osition of cu#tura# va#ues? 7889. Wiese#;s nove#Smemoir

/ight is an essentia#ist reection of that fragmentation and u>ta-osition even

hi#e it records the grotes@ue conse@uences in Euro-e of their occurrence.

ccording to Wiese#, ?the 3o#ocaust in its enormit" de<es #anguage and art, and

"et 6oth must 6e used to te## the ta#e, the ta#e that must 6e to#d? 74uscham- 89. The ver" o-ening, ?The" ca##ed him 4oshe the +ead#e,? is a stor"te##er;s invitation

to ste- into another or#d. s ith an" #ife riting, the se#ection and arrangement

into narrative 6#ur the #ine 6eteen <ction and fact, and the inc#usion of dia#ogue,

reca##ed at an immense distance of "ears, contri6utes to the nove#istic as-ect of

his memoir.

Wiese# e>-#ains in his essa" ?n Intervie 1n#ike n" 0ther? h" he aited ten

"ears to rite his memoir:

I kne the ro#e of the survivor as to testif". 0n#" I did not kno ho. I #acked

e>-erience, I #acked a frameork. I mistrusted the too#s, the -rocedures. !hou#d

one sa" it a## or ho#d it a## 6ackM !hou#d one shout or his-erM P#ace the em-hasis

on those ho ere gone or on their heirsM 3o does one descri6e the

indescri6a6#eM 3o does one use restraint in re5creating the fa## of mankind and

the ec#i-se of the godsM nd then, ho can one 6e sure that the ords, once

uttered, i## not 6etra", distort the message the" 6earM

!o heav" as m" anguish that I made a vo: not to s-eak, not to touch u-on the

essentia# for at #east ten "ears. Long enough to see c#ear#". Long enough to #earn

to #isten to the voices cr"ing inside m" on. Long enough to regain -ossession of

m" memor". Long enough to unite the #anguage of man ith the si#ence of the

dead. 7 Ge Toda" 89

/ight is a s-are, rough5hen te>t that is an e#o@uent testimon" de-ending on

human agenc" and ethica# commitment. /ight reminds us, too, that the conce-tof author5function as a su6stitute for the creating inte##igence does not do ustice

to the a" in hich #anguage and art e>-ress the individua# -s"che. Readers i##

reca## that the 6ook;s signi<cation de-ends on a taut structure under-inning an

a--arent#" -rimitive testimon", and, de-ends, too, on its s-are, even s-arse

st"#e. Its e#o@uence derives from its a--arent ingenuousness. Ket /ight s-eaks on

6eha#f of meaning, on 6eha#f of i##55the i## to survive, the i## to itness55and on

6eha#f of #anguage;s signi<cation. /ight e#o@uent#" reminds us of a grotes@ue

historica# iron", name#", that ith its use of modern techno#og" and

En#ightenment rationa#it", Western man;s -rogress #ed to the ecienc" of the

/a*i trans-ort s"stem, /a*i ork cam-s, and /a*i gas cham6ers. /ight is a te>tthat resists iron" and deconstruction, and cries out in its e#o@uence, -ain, and

8/10/2019 Style 1998


anger as it enacts the -oer of #anguage. The te>t traces the death of the

narrator;s mother, a sister, and <na##", his fatherB it itnesses an encroaching

horri6#e mora# /I23T, a night that inc#udes the s-eaker;s #oss of re#igious 6e#ief in

the face of historica# events. /otithstanding his re#igious u-6ringing, Wiese#

-arts com-an" from those ho, as Daidoic* e>-#ains, acce-t the 3o#ocaust as

2od;s i##:

For 6e#ieving Ges the conviction that their sacri<ce as re@uired as a testimon"

to #might" 2od as more comforting than the su--osition that 3e had

a6andoned them a#together. To 6e sure, 2od;s design as concea#ed from them,

6ut the" ou#d remain steadfast in their faith. 4ora#e as sustained 6" ra66is

and -ious Ges ho, 6" their on reso#ute and e>a#ted stance, -rovided a mode#

of ho Ges shou#d encounter death. 7%$)9

We shou#d think of the te>t as a -h"sica# o6ect and note its s#imness, its tit#e#ess

cha-ters, its 6reaks 6eteen anecdotes. We onder hat cou#d 6e added in

those hite s-aces, hether his #oss of faith, for e>am-#e, is gradua#M +ut the

s#im vo#ume, the hite s-aces, 6ecome a kind of corre#ative or metonom" to

em-tiness, to his ?starved stomach? 7$9. The short -aragra-hs give a kind of

cinematic e=ect as if the -aragra-hs are #ike frames in an evo#ving <#m. The ver"

sim-#icit"55the a#most chi#d#ike @ua#it"55of the imager" gives the ork its -ara6o#ic

@ua#it".

Wiese# dras u-on a tradition of -ro-hetic h"-er6o#e: ?/ever sha## I forget that

night, the <rst night in cam-, hich has turned m" #ife into one #ong night, seven

times cursed and seven times sea#ed. ... /ever sha## I forget those moments

hich murdered m" 2od and m" sou# and turned m" dreams to dust. /ever sha##

I forget these things, even if I am condemned to #ive as #ong as 2od 3imse#f.

/ever? 7%(9. The cam-s disso#ve traditiona# mora#it" and re-#ace it ith e>treme

conditions that make the strugg#e to survive the on#" va#ue. Thus the death of his

father ?frees? him to save himse#fB he is at once ?free at #ast? and emotiona##"

anaestheti*ed: ?nothing cou#d touch me an" more? 78$J5$9. We might reca## theords of Luc" Daidoic*:

The ish to #ive, the ina6i#it" to 6e#ieve in one;s on imminent death, the

universa# human faith in one;s on immunit" to disaster55a## these factors

cons-ired to make the Ges 6e#ieve that resett#ement, not death, as the fact.

?t 6ottom,? rote Freud, ?no6od" 6e#ieves in his on death.? /ot gu##i6i#it", or

suggesti6i#it", 6ut universa# human o-timism encouraged them to 6e#ieve in the

dece-tions that the 2ermans -er-etrated. In the -rocess of re-ressing and

den"ing the over-oering threat that confronted them, -erce-tua# distortion andskeed inter-retation 6ased on ishfu# thinking managed to reconci#e the i##ogic

8/10/2019 Style 1998


and inconsistencies of their fears and ho-es. Without accurate information,

ithout corrective feed6ack from authoritative sources on the course of events,

their iso#ation he#-ed give credence to their distorted and distorting eva#uation of

their -redicament. This mechanism of denia#, this arming onese#f against

dis@uieting facts, as not -atho#ogica#, 6ut, as -s"cho#ogists -oint out, a too# of

ada-tation, a means of co-ing ith an into#era6#e situation in the a6sence of an"-ossi6i#it" for defensive action. The a#ternative as des-air, the @uiet stunned

reaction of the defeated. 7%$J9

Wiese#;s te>t is ritten in the 6i6#ica# st"#e in hich high#ighted moments fu## of

signi<cance are -resented ithout the carefu# concatenation of events e <nd in

the rea#istic nove#. Ket, he has an e"e for detai#s that ma" oe something to his

ourna#istic career in the "ears -rior to meeting 4auriac. The 6i6#ica# st"#e oes

itse#f to his 6eing stee-ed not on#" in the 0#d Testament55a te>t that -a"s #itt#e

attention to 6ackground or setting, and esches gradua# introductions of its

heightened and su6#ime moments556ut a#so to a Ta#mudic tradition 6" hich

-ara6o#ic anecdotes are used to i##ustrate im-ortant themes. Rather than gradua#

change hen he #oses faith, a change deve#o-ing from the /a*i arriva#, he

e>-eriences #oss of faith as an e-i-hanic moment. 1n#ike the rea#istic nove# or

memoir, e cannot re#ate his ro#e of -assionate itness to a grammar of s-eci<c

causes such as his father;s tears:

For the <rst time, I fe#t revo#t rise u- in me. Wh" shou#d I 6#ess 3is nameM TheEterna#, Lord of the 1niverse, the ##5Poerfu# and Terri6#e, as si#ent. What had I

to thank 3im forM 7%89

ssuming in its form55es-ecia##" its -ro-hetic voice55an ethica# narratee, /ight

a#so demands an ethica# res-onse. +" that I mean a rea# attention to issues that

-ertain to ho #ife is #ived ithin imagined or#ds. Truth in nove#s takes -#ace

ithin the h"-othesis ?as if? hich is another a" of sa"ing that, as e think

a6out our reading e are never com-#ete#" unaare of the meta-horicit" of

#iterature. t one time, some critics ma" have naive#" ignored the meta-horicit"of #anguage and confused characteri*ation ith actua# human character. +ut have

not some theorists reached the other -o#e of i##fu##" den"ing ana#ogies to human

#ife and naive#" re-ressing the -ossi6i#ities of signi<canceM We sha## see that

3o#ocaust <ction55#ike /ight55has an ethica# narrator, demands an ethica#

narratee, 6e#ieves at #east h"-othetica##" in essentia# truths, insists on strong

ana#ogies to #ife #ived ithin the 3o#ocaust, and has faith that #anguage signi<es.

Rereading /ight is a -oerfu# e>-erience, one that re@uires se#f5conscious

reHection a6out ho #anguage can rescue meaning from the mora# vacuumsurrounding 3o#ocaust events. What strikes the reader is its ecienc" as a ork

8/10/2019 Style 1998


of art. Derived, as e have seen, from a much #onger Kiddish t"-escri-t, the

-recise, #ucid, and #aconic te##ing is in ironic u>ta-osition to the historica#

com-#e>it" in Euro-e, 6ut a--ro-riate for the sim-#e cause and e=ect of

annihi#ating an entire -eo-#e. !uch stark imager" as that ith hich he descri6ed

a ork detai#55?e ere so man" dried u- trees in the heart of a desert?557/ight

%9 is a## the more e=ective for its s-areness. Wiese# has ritten:

There are some ords I cannot 6ring m"se#f to useB the" -ara#"*e me. I cannot

rite the ords ?concentration,? ?night and fog,? ?se#ection,? or ?trans-ort?

ithout a fee#ing of sacri#ege. nother dicu#t", of a di=erent t"-e: I rite in

French, 6ut I #earned the #anguage from 6ooks and therefore I am not good at

s#ang.

## m" su6se@uent orks are ritten in the same de#i6erate#" s-are st"#e as

/ight. It is the st"#e of the chronic#ers of the ghettos, here ever"thing had to 6e

said sift#", in one 6reath. Kou never kne hen the enem" might kick in the

door, see-ing us aa" into nothingness. Ever" -hrase as a testament. There

as no time or reason for an"thing su-erHuous. Words must not 6e im-risoned or

harnessed, not even in the si#ence of the -age. nd "et, it must 6e he#d tight#". If

the vio#in is to sing, its strings must 6e stretched so tight as to risk 6reakingB

s#ack, the" are mere#" threads.

To rite is to -#um6 the unfathoma6#e de-ths of 6eing. Writing #ies ithin the

domain of m"ster". The s-ace 6eteen an" to ords is vaster than the distance

6eteen heaven and earth. To 6ridge it "ou must c#ose "our e"es and #ea-.

3asidic tradition te##s us that in the Torah the hite s-aces, too, are 2od5given.

1#timate#", to rite is an act of faith. 74emoirs %(89

The Eng#ish trans#ation of /ight as -u6#ished in the 1.!. in 8&J$ 6" 3i## and

WangB it so#d on#" a fe thousand co-ies in its <rst fe "ears. s Wiese# reca##s,

s for /ight, des-ite 4auriac;s -reface and the favora6#e revies in the French,

+e#gian, and !iss -ress, the 6ig -u6#ishers hesitated, de6ated, and u#timate#"

sent their regrets. !ome thought the 6ook too s#ender 7merican readers seemed

to -refer fatter vo#umes9, others too de-ressing 7merican readers seemed to

-refer o-timistic 6ooks9. !ome fe#t its su6ect as too #itt#e knon, others that it

as too e## knon. In short, it as suggested over and over again that e tr"

e#sehere. Refusing to #ose heart, 2eorges +orchardt, a /e Kork #iterar" agent

ke-t tr"ing. In the end 3i## and Wang agreed to take the risk. 74emoirs %(9

8/10/2019 Style 1998


#though the 6asic unit of form is the retros-ective memor" of the te##er ho

rote after a ten "ear hiatus, the 6ook is a#so organi*ed around a num6er of

motifs. The most im-ortant is the #oss of faith in the face of evidence that 2od

can do or i## do nothing to -revent the 3o#ocaust. Koung Wiese# has a

transva#uation of faith to dis6e#ief and un6e#ief. 3e #oses a## i##usions a6out a

-ur-osefu# or#d. s /aomi !eidman -ut it:

In the descri-tion of the <rst night E#ie*er s-ends in the concentration cam-,

si#ence signa#s the turn from the immediate terrors to a #arger cosmic drama,

from stunned rea#ism to theo#og". In the fe#t a6sence of divine ustice or

com-assion, si#ence 6ecomes the agenc" of an immune, murderous -oer that

-ermanent#" transforms the narrator. 789

Let us continue our critica# ana#"sis. s if the narrator ere strugg#ing to sta"

a#ive, as if he ere having trou6#e 6reathing, the unnum6ered and untit#ed

cha-ters get shorterB the #ast three of nine cha-ters take u- on#" seventeen

-ages. That he moves, on occasion, to a -ostar retros-ective gives the reader

the sense, as in Conrad;s 4ar#o;s te##ing in 3eart of Darkness that his memor" is

strugg#ing ith the narrative and that at times he needs to avoid the horrors.

Wiese#;s 6reaks 6eteen anecdotes has the same e=ect, as if a -ith" anecdote

as a## the narrator cou#d stand to te## 6efore 6eing overcome. The recurring term

?em-t"? reminds us of ho, e>ce-t for the i## to #ive, his #ife had 6ecome a

negation55that is, an a6sence of #ove, comfort, hea#th, food. +ut in the rete##ing itreminds us of ho he has 6ecome s-iritua##" anaestheti*ed and ho he has #eft

6ehind ever"thing he had on the ritten -age. The ver6a# corre#atives to ?em-t"?

inc#ude ?/ight? and ?/ever? and of course antici-ate the survivors mantra,

?/ever gain.?

/ever sha## I forget that night, the <rst night in cam-, hich has turned m" #ife

into one #ong night, seven times cursed and seven times sea#ed. /ever sha## I

forget that smoke. /ever sha## I forget the #itt#e faces of the chi#dren, hose

6odies I sa turned into reaths of smoke 6eneath a si#ent 6#ue sk".

/ever sha## I forget those Hames hich consumed m" faith forever.

/ever sha## I forget that nocturna# si#ence hich de-rived me, for a## eternit", of

the desire to #ive. /ever sha## I forget those moments hich murdered m" 2od

and m" sou# and turned m" dreams to dust. /ever sha## I forget these things,

even if I am condemned to #ive as #ong as 2od 3imse#f. /ever. 7%(9

8/10/2019 Style 1998


The o6servant "oung 6o" ho at the outset ished to 6e initiated into the

m"steries of the ca66a#a fee#s the ?void? of un6e#iefB the void is the a#ternative to

the -#enitude of 6e#ief 7JJ, &%9.

Wh", 6ut h" shou#d I 6#ess 3imM In ever" <6er I re6e##ed. +ecause 3e had had

thousands of chi#dren 6urned in 3is -itsM +ecause 3e ke-t si> crematories

orking night and da", on !unda"s and feast da"sM +ecause in 3is great might

3e had created uschit*, +irkenau, +una, and so man" factories of deathM 3o

cou#d I sa" to 3im: ?+#essed art Thou, Eterna#, 4aster of the 1niverse, Who chose

us from among the races to 6e tortured da" and night, to see our father, our

mothers, our 6rothers, end in the cremator"M Praised 6e Th" 3o#" /ame, Thou

Who hast chosen us to 6e 6utchered on Thine a#tarM

This da" I had ceased to -#ead. I as no #onger ca-a6#e of #amentation. 0n the

contrar", I fe#t ver" strong. I as the accuser, 2od the accused. 4" e"es ere

o-en and I as a#one55terri6#" a#one in a or#d ithout 2od and ithout man.

Without #ove or merc". I had ceased to 6e an"thing 6ut ashes, "et I fe#t m"se#f to

6e stronger than the #might", to hom m" #ife had 6een tied for so #ong. 7J',

J9

III

0ur ethics of reading re@uires that e #ook 6ack and understand ho the themes

organi*e the agon. The tit#e motif of /ight is mora# death, or historica# void.ntithetica# to #ight and its association ith understanding55the En#ightenment of

Euro-e55and ith inner faith and isdom, ?night? is the dominant -attern around

hich the nove# is organi*ed. In /ight, death is the antagonist, an active -rinci-#e

-resent at ever" moment. During the death march from uschit*, Wiese#

reca##s:

Death ra--ed itse#f around me ti## I as stiHed. It stuck to me. I fe#t that I cou#d

touch it. The idea of d"ing, of no #onger 6eing, 6egan to fascinate me. /ot to e>ist

an" #onger. /ot to fee# the horri6#e -ains in m" foot. /ot to fee# an"thing, neithereariness, nor co#d, nor an"thing. To 6reak the ranks, to #et onese#f s#ide to the

edge of the road. 7)(9

During the trans-ort to +uchena#d, he remarks:

Indi=erence deadened the s-irit. 3ere or e#sehere55hat di=erence did it makeM

To die toda" or tomorro, or #aterM The night as #ong and never ending. 7&%9

8/10/2019 Style 1998


Ket, as Des Pres rites, Wiese#;s narrative gives the #ie to indi=erence and mora#

nights:

!urvivors do not 6ear itness to gui#t, neither theirs nor ours, 6ut to o6ective

conditions of evi#. In the #iterature of surviva# e <nd an image of things so grim,

so heart6reaking, so stark#" un6eara6#e, that inevita6#" the survivor;s scream

6egins to 6e our on. When this ha--ens the ro#e of s-ectator is no #onger

enough. +ut the testimon" of survivors is va#ua6#e for something e#se as e##. +"

the ver" fact that the" came to 6e ritten, these documents are evidence that

the mora# se#f can resurrect itse#f from the inhuman de-ths through hich it must

-ass. These 6ooks are -roof that human heroism is -ossi6#e. 7Des Pres '&5$9

t <rst night is u>ta-osed to da", 6ut gradua##" it devours da":

The night as gone. The morning star as shining in the sk". I too had 6ecome a

com-#ete#" di=erent -erson. The student of the Ta#mud, the chi#d that I as, had

6een consumed in the Hames. There remained on#" a sha-e that #ooked #ike me.

dark Hame had entered into m" sou# and devoured it. 7/ight %'9

That #ast sentence contains a maor motif. /ight 6ecomes something that nu##i<es

and o6#iteratesB <na##" night overhe#ms #ight, #anguage, and meaning:

The da"s ere #ike nights, and the nights #eft the dregs of their darkness in our

sou#s. The train as trave#ing s#o#", often sto--ing for severa# hours and then

setting o= again. It never ceased snoing. ## through these da"s and nights e

sta"ed crouching, one on to- of the other, never s-eaking a ord. We ere no

more than fro*en 6odies. 0ur e"es c#osed, e aited mere#" for the ne>t sto-, so

that e cou#d un#oad our dead. 7&'5&9

0n the death march, hen he reca##s that ?the night had no set in. The sno

had ceased to fa##? 7))9, it is rich ith meta-horica# meaning. We reca## his ords

as he is #eaving +una:

The #ast night in +una. Ket another #ast night. The #ast night at home, the #ast

night in the ghetto, the #ast night in the train, and, no, the #ast night in +una.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


3o much #onger ere our #ives to 6e dragged out from one ?#ast night? to

anotherM 7&9

/ight threatens ever"thing, even the cosmos:

/ight. /o one -ra"ed, so that the night ou#d -ass @uick#". The stars ere on#"

s-arks of the <re hich devoured us. !hou#d that <re die out one da", there

ou#d 6e nothing #eft in the sk" 6ut dead stars, dead e"es. 78)9

n im-ortant image is that of <re and 6urning. When during the death march, he

fee#s his infected foot ?6urning? e reca## 4adame !chachter;s -ro-hetic de#irious

nightmare on the train to uschit*:

?Ges, #isten to meQ I can see a <reQ There are huge HamesQ It is a furnaceQ?

It as as though she ere -ossessed 6" an evi# s-irit hich s-oke from the

de-ths of her 6eing. 7(%9

/ote ho <re and death are associated ith night. 3er ords turn out to 6e a## to

true: ?Ges, #ookQ Look through the indoQ F#amesQ LookQ?

nd as the train sto--ed, e sa this time that Hames ere gushing out of a ta##

chimne" into the 6#ack sk".

4adame !chachter as si#ent herse#f. 0nce more she had 6ecome dum6,indi=erent, a6sent, and had gone 6ack to her corner.

We #ooked at the Hames in the darkness. There as an a6omina6#e odor Hoating

in the air. !udden#", our doors o-ened. !ome odd5#ooking characters, dressed in

stri-ed shirts and 6#ack trousers #ea-t into the agon. The" he#d e#ectric torches

and truncheons. The" 6egan to strike out to right and #eft shouting:

?Ever"6od" get outQ Ever"one out of the agonQ Ouick#"Q?

8/10/2019 Style 1998


We um-ed out. I thre a #ast g#ance toard 4adame !chachter. 3er #itt#e 6o"

as ho#ding her hand.

In front of us Hames. In the air that sme## of 6urning Hesh. It must have 6een

a6out midnight. We had arrived55at +irkenau, rece-tion center for uschit*. 7(

5(J9

Within Wiese#;s dramati*ation of 4adame !chachter;s -s"che are the arnings of

4oishe, the rumors of cremation, the an>iet" a6out the to sons and hus6ands

6eing de-orted ear#". +ut she a#so is -art of the -ro-hetic and m"stica# tradition

hen she foresees the <re. 0f course, the ver" meaning of the ord 3o#ocaust is

the com-#ete destruction of -eo-#e or anima#s 6" <re, and an o=ering the ho#e

of hich is 6urned.

s in other 3o#ocaust te>ts, hunger is a dominant theme in uschit*. The

narrator reca##s he soon

took #itt#e interest in an"thing e>ce-t m" dai#" -#ate of sou- and m" crust of sta#e

6read. +read, sou-55these ere m" ho#e #ife. I as a 6od". Perha-s #ess thanthat even: a starved stomach. The stomach a#one as aare of the -assage of

time. 7$9

fter a hanging he reca##s: ?I remem6er that I found the sou- e>ce##ent that

evening? 7J$9. 0r, after another hanging,

+ehind me, I heard the same man asking: ?Where is 2od noM? nd I heard avoice ithin me anser him: ?Where is 3eM 3ere 3e is553e is hanging here on this

ga##os ...? That night the sou- tasted of cor-ses. 7J(9

We might ask hether the #ast sentence is a meta-hor or a searing actua#it"M Is

?sou-? that ?tasted of cor-ses? a tacti#e transference of his fee#ings to his senses

or vice versaM We reca## Des Pres;s ords a6out ho surviva# de-ended on

fu#<##ing 6asic needs at the #oss of ethics:

8/10/2019 Style 1998


To o--ose their fate in the death cam-s, survivors had to choose #ife at the cost

of mora# inur"B the" had to sustain s-iritua# damage and sti## kee- going ithout

#osing sight of the di=erence 6eteen strategic com-romise and demora#i*ation.

3ard choices had to 6e made and not ever"one as e@ua# to the task, no one

#ess than the kind of -erson hose goodness as most evident, most admired,

6ut #east avai#a6#e for action. 78%89

nother motif is the father5son tie, one that is so essentia# in Geish #ife. Within

the horrors of the 3o#ocaust, these 6onds threaten to disso#ve. In an afu# scene

after the evacuation of uschit*, hen he and his father are 6eing trans-orted

to +uchena#d, a son <ghts his father for 6read:

?4e#t. 4eir, m" 6o"Q Don;t "ou recogni*e meM I;m "our father ... "ou;re hurtingme ... "ou;re ki##ing "our fatherQ I;ve got some 6read ... for "ou too ... for "ou

too. ...?

3e co##a-sed. 3is <st as sti## c#enched around a sma## -iece. 3e tried to carr" it

to his mouth. +ut the other one thre himse#f u-on him and snatched it. The o#d

man again his-ered something, #et out a ratt#e, and died amid the genera#

indi=erence. 3is son searched him, took the 6read, and 6egan to devour it. 3e

as not a6#e to get ver" far. To men had seen and hur#ed themse#ves u-on him.

0thers oined in. When the" ithdre, ne>t to me ere to cor-ses, side 6" side,the father and the son.

I as <fteen "ears o#d. 7&J9

0n another occation, a son55a -i-e#, that is, a 6o" 6e#onging to the a-o556eats

his on father for not making his 6ed e## 7J$9. Whenever Wiese# thinks Heeting#"

of his father as a 6urden, he fee#s -angs of gui#t. Indeed, his #o"a#t" to his fatheris among the te>t;s most touching motifs. 3e reects the terri6#e advice of ?the

head of the 6#ock? 78$'9.

?Don;t forget that "ou;re in a concentration cam-. 3ere, ever" man has to <ght

for himse#f and not think of an"one e#se. Even of his father. 3ere, there are no

fathers, no 6rothers, no friends. Ever"one #ives and dies for himse#f a#one. I;## give

"ou a sound -iece of advice55don;t give "our ration of 6read and sou- to "our o#d

father. There;s nothing "ou can do for him. nd "ou;re ki##ing "ourse#f. Instead,

"ou ought to 6e having his ration.?

8/10/2019 Style 1998


I #istened to him ithout interru-ting. 3e as right, I thought in the most secret

region of m" heart, 6ut I dared not admit it. It;s too #ate to save "our o#d father, I

said to m"se#f. Kou ought to 6e having to rations of 6read, to rations of sou-.

...

0n#" a fraction of a second, 6ut I fe#t gui#t". I ran to <nd a #itt#e sou- to give m"

father. +ut he did not ant it. ## he anted as ater. 78$9

+" contrast Wiese#;s devotion to his father, the son of another inmate, Ra66i

E#iahou

anted to get rid of his fatherQ 3e had fe#t that his father as groing eak, he

had 6e#ieved that the end as near and had sought this se-aration in order to

get rid of the 6urden, to free himse#f from an encum6rance hich cou#d #essen his

on chances of surviva#. 7)9

Whi#e Wiese#;s narrative is informed 6" retros-ective gui#t, e ask hat more

cou#d Wiese#, the son, have doneM Isn;t Wiese#;s gui#t dis-ro-ortionate to his

6ehavior. In a a", the father re-resents the tradition for hich he has de-arted,the man he ou#d have 6een. 3is ear#" -erce-tions are informed 6" his Geish

u-6ringing. Descri6ing the !! 0ce hen he arrived at the 6arracks, he rites as

if the 2erman ere stam-ed ith the mark of Cain, ho ou#d ki## his 6rother:

n !! ocer had come in and, ith him, the odor of the nge# of Death. ... ta##

man, a6out thirt", ith crime inscri6ed u-on his 6ro and in the -u-i#s of his

e"es. 3e #ooked us over as if e ere a -ack of #e-rous dogs hanging onto our

#ives. 7%5%J9

3is father is the eterna# Hame to hich he returns as a 6o" and his memor"

returns in the te##ing.

0ne terri6#e iron" is that the 6ad #uck of a choice he and his father made is a

cause of their orst da"s:

8/10/2019 Style 1998


I #earned after the ar the fate of those ho had sta"ed 6ehind in the hos-ita#.

The" ere @uite sim-#" #i6erated 6" the Russians to da"s after the evacuation.

7)9

+ut ho cou#d he and his father have knon that if the" had sta"ed 6ehind in the

hos-ita# as the" cou#d have, that the" cou#d have 6een #i6erated to da"s #ater

and that his father ou#d have #ived. The dramatic action is <##ed ith missed

chancesB the o--ortunit" of emigrating to Pa#estine 7J9B the missed arning 6"

the 3ungarian -o#ice ins-ector 6ecause the" didn;t o-en the indo in time: ?It

as not unti# after the ar that I #earned ho it as that had knocked? 78(9B the

maid 4artha ho cou#d have hidden them in her vi##age, and of course 4oshe;s

arning. Pa#estine 6ecomes the anti5ta#e, the 1to-ian a#ternative. 3e meets to

6rothers in uschit*:

3aving once 6e#onged to a Nionist "outh organi*ation, the" kne innumera6#e

3e6re chants. Thus e ou#d often hum tunes evoking the ca#m aters of

Gordan and the maestic sanctit" of Gerusa#em. nd e ou#d often ta#k of

Pa#estine. Their -arents, #ike mine, had #acked the courage to ind u- their a=airs

and emigrate hi#e there as sti## time. We decided that, if e ere granted our

#ives unti# the #i6eration, e ou#d not sta" in Euro-e a da" #onger. We ou#d take

the <rst 6oat for 3aifa. 7')9

Transformation is as much a theme here as it is in afka. +" shoing us ho #ife

as in !ighet at the outset, e can see the terri6#e transformation in "oung

Wiese# and his father. When he rites of the mas@uerade of c#othes 6efore the

death march, e think of the c#on motif in Picasso and the grotes@ue carniva# in

Games Ensor:

Prisoners a--eared in strange out<ts: it as #ike a mas@uerade. Ever"one had -ut

on severa# garments, one on to- of the other, in order to kee- out the co#d. Poor

mounte6anks, ider than the" ere ta##, more dead than a#iveB -oor c#ons, theirghost#ike faces emerging from -i#es of -rison c#othesQ +u=oonsQ 7&9

When e see his father as a virtua# cor-se556roken in s-irit, a musu#man556efore

d"ing, e rea#i*e ho #itt#e time had -assed since he as a res-ected <ft" "ear

o#d senior mem6er of his vi##age.

4" father as a cu#tured, rather unsentimenta# man. There as never an" dis-#a"of emotion, even at home. 3e as more concerned ith others than ith his on

8/10/2019 Style 1998


fami#". The Geish communit" in !ighet he#d him in the greatest esteem. The"

often used to consu#t him a6out -u6#ic matters and even a6out -rivate ones. 7(9

s in Primo Levi;s !urviva# in uschit*, recurring memora6#e characters,

em-#o"ed in re#ationshi- to the evo#ving -#ot give the te>t unit": Gu#iek, the

vio#inist ho -#a"s +eethoven55in vio#ation of the 2erman -rohi6ition of

+eethoven55hen the" arrive in 2#eiit*B and ho is dead in the morning.

I cou#d hear on#" the vio#in, and it as as though Gu#iek;s sou# ere the 6o. 3e

as -#a"ing his #ife. The ho#e of his #ife as g#iding on the strings55his #ost

ho-es, his charred -ast, his e>tinguished future. 3e -#a"ed as he ou#d never

-#a" again 7&$9B

4adame !chachter ith her -ro-hetic nightmaresB Idek the -s"chotic ka-oB Ra66i

E#iahouB 4eir at*, the hea#th" giant ho <na##" gives u- and diesB the face#ess

c"nic in the hos-ita# ho sa"s: ?I;ve got more faith in 3it#er than in an"one e#se.

3e;s the on#" one ho;s ke-t his -romises, a## his -romises, to the Geish -eo-#e?

79.

Wiese# occasiona##" moves to the -resent as hen he te##s us hat he #earned

after the ar a6out the #i6eration of uschit*, hen he s-eaks of the man ho

knocked on the indo to arn his fami#", or the omen throing coins to the

-oor in den, or hen he conc#udes his testament ith a searing 6ridge across

time:

0ne da" I as a6#e to get u-, after gathering a## m" strength. I anted to see

m"se#f the mirror hanging on the o--osite a##. I had not seen m"se#f since the

ghetto.

From the de-ths of the mirror, a cor-se ga*ed 6ack at me.

The #ook in his e"es, as the" stared into mine, has never #eft me. 78$&9

The mirror as a reHection of the inner se#f55the other se#f55is the recurring image in

modernism, 6ut the mirror is a#so a traditiona# image of rea#istic re-resentation inthe Western tradition. +" his act of riting, Wiese# reects the cor-se as his

8/10/2019 Style 1998


dou6#e. In 6oth cases, he makes a rhetorica# gesture that -ositions himse#f ithin

Western cu#ture and aa" from his iconoc#astic -osition as itness or as one of

the hum6#e anon"mous Lamed ov or Gust 4en. s !eidman -uts it,

In the <na# #ines of /ight hen the recent#" #i6erated E#ie*er ga*es at his on

face in a mirror, the reader is -resented ith the survivor as 6oth su6ect and

o6ect, through his inner e>-erience and through outard image of hat he has

6ecome. 7%9

+ut hen e note ho di=erent this is from the origina# ending, e 6egin to -#ace

our reading in the conte>t of hat e no kno. In his 8&& 4emoirs: ## Rivers

Run to the !ea, Wiese# reca##s the origina# ending 6efore Lindon edited it:

The 6ook ended this a" 7I on#" @uote it for its re#evance toda"9:

I #ooked at m"se#f in the mirror. ske#eton stared 6ack at me.

/othing 6ut skin and 6one.

It as the image of m"se#f after death. It as at that instant that the i## to #ive

aakened ithin me.

Without knoing h", I raised m" <st and shattered the g#ass, a#ong ith the

image it he#d. I #ost consciousness.

fter I got 6etter, I sta"ed in 6ed for severa# da"s, otting don notes for the ork

that "ou, dear reader, no ho#d in "our hands.

+ut ...

Toda", ten "ears after +uchena#d, I rea#i*e that the or#d forgets. 2erman is a

sovereign state. The 2erman arm" has 6een re6orn. I#se och, the sadist of

+uchena#d, is a ha--" ife and mother. War crimina#s stro## in the streets of

3am6urg and 4unich. The -ast has 6een erased, 6uried.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


2ermans and anti5!emites te## the or#d that the stor" of si> mi##ion Geish

victims is 6ut a m"th, and the or#d, in its naivete, i## 6e#ieve it, if not toda",

then tomorro or the ne>t da".

!o it occurred to me that it might 6e usefu# to -u6#ish in 6ook form these notes

taken don in +uchena#d.

I am not so naive as to 6e#ieve that this ork i## change the course of histor" or

shake the conscience of humanit".

+ooks no #onger command the -oer the" once did.

Those ho "esterda" he#d their tongues i## kee- their si#ence tomorro.

That is h", ten "ears after +uchena#d, I ask m"se#f the @uestion, Was I right to

6reak that mirrorM 74emoirs %8&5($9

3e @uestions hether his 6reaking the mirror as an armation of his decision to

#ive is a--ro-riate. !eidman comments:

+" sto--ing hen it does, /ight -rovides an entire#" di=erent account of the

e>-erience of the survivor. /ight and the stories a6out its com-osition de-ict the

survivor as a itness and as an e>-ression of si#ence and death, -roecting the

recent#" #i6erated E#ie*er;s death5haunted face into the -ostar "ears hen

Wiese# ou#d 6ecome a fami#iar <gure. +" contrast, the Kiddish survivor shattersthat image as soon as he sees it, destro"ing the death#" e>istence the /a*is

i##ed on him. The Kiddish survivor is <##ed ith rage and the desire to #ive, to

take revenge, to rite. Indeed, according to the Kiddish memoir, E#ie*er 6egan to

rite not ten "ears after the events of the 3o#ocaust 6ut immediate#" u-on

#i6eration, as the <rst e>-ression of his menta# and -h"sica# recover". In the

Kiddish e meet a survivor ho, ten "ears after #i6eration, is furious ith the

or#d;s disinterest sic in his histor", frustrated ith the fai#ure of the Ges to

fu#<## ?the historica# commandment of revengeB; de-ressed 6" the a--arent

-oint#essness of riting a 6ook. 75)9

8/10/2019 Style 1998


+ut shou#d e not a#so notice ho !eidman, too, es-ecia##" in the #ast of the

a6ove sentences, a--ro-riates Wiese# for her on -ur-oses, name#" to indict

Wiese# and his successors for escheing a rhetoric of revenge. s !eidman -uts

it, ?1n di ve#t does not s-e## out hat form this retri6ution might take, on#" that it

is sanctioned55even commanded556" Geish histor" and tradition? 7J9.

I

We continue to our <na# -hase of hermeneutics55cognition in terms of hat e

kno55hen e turn to the introduction to the French edition. 0rigina##", hen

Wiese# as a "oung unknon, Francois 4auriac, a French Catho#ic /o6e#

Laureate, not on#" he#-ed him get his 6ook -u6#ished in France 6ut a#so rote the

introduction hich ith its Christian meditation on the narrator;s #oss, 6ecame

-art of the te>t:

nd I, ho 6e#ieve that 2od is #ove, hat anser cou#d I give m" "oung

@uestioner, hose dark e"es sti## he#d the reHection of that ange#ic sadness hich

had a--eared one da" u-on the face of the hanged chi#dM What did I sa" to himM

Did I s-eak of that other Ge, his 6rother, ho ma" have resem6#ed him55the

Cruci<ed, hose Cross has con@uered the or#dM Did I arm that the stum6#ing

6#ock to his faith as the cornerstone of mine, and that the conformit" 6eteen

the Cross and the su=ering of men as in m" e"es the ke" to that im-enetra6#e

m"ster" hereon the faith of his chi#dhood had -erishedM Nion, hoever, has

risen u- again from the crematories and the charne# houses. The Geish nation

has 6een resurrected from among its thousands of dead. It is through them that it#ives again. We do not kno the orth of one sing#e dro- of 6#ood, one sing#e

tear. i# is grace. If the Eterna# is the Eterna#, the #ast ord for each one of us

6e#ongs to 3im. This is hat I shou#d have to#d this Geish chi#d. +ut I cou#d on#"

em6race him, ee-ing. 7/ight >5>i9

The introduction frames the 6ook in a Christian conte>t and im-#ies a di=erent set

of 6e#iefs. 4auriac as the kind of cu#tura# icon ho gave #egitimac" to the nove#.

It ere as if a "oung riter ere no 6eing -u6#ished under Wiese#;s aus-ices. In

8&J%, as Wiese# notes in his 4emoirs, 4auriac rote in his nes-a-er co#umn:

!omeda" E#ie Wiese# i## take me to the 3o#" Land. 3e desires it great#", having a

most singu#ar kno#edge of Christ, hom he -ictures earing -h"#acteries, as

Chaga## sa him, a son of the s"nagogue, a -ious Ge su6mitting to the La, and

ho did not die, ?6ecause 6eing human he as made 2od? E#ie Wiese# stands on

the 6orders of the to testaments: he is of the race of Gohn the +a-tist. 7(89

8/10/2019 Style 1998


There can 6e no dou6t that 4auriac;s introduction sha-es the res-onse of some

readers into a more Christian reading. For e>am-#e, hen a chi#d is among three

condemned -risoners, Christian students see the -ara##e# to a cruci<>ion scene,

and see the #onger and s#oer death of ?a chi#d ith a re<ned and 6eautifu# face?

as a Christ <gure 7/ight J$9. Ket, didn;t Wiese# mean the scene as a cha##enge to

the origina# Christian readers55hether Po#es or French, most of hom had55hi#enight engu#fed Euro-e55either remained si#ent or done far orseM In his memoir

he distances himse#f from 4auriac;s te#eo#og":

Where I come from and from here I stand, one cannot 6e Ge and Christian at

the same time. Gesus as Geish, 6ut those ho c#aim a##egiance to him toda" are

not. In no a" does this mean that Ges are 6etter or orse than Christians, 6ut

sim-#" that each of us has the right, if not the dut", to 6e hat e are. 74emoirs

(89

+ut has he ritten a nove# that fu#<##s the -aradigm of re6irth and resurrection to

use 4auriac;s ords ?of a La*arus risen from the dead? and does he rea##" s-eak

to us not as a tent"5si> "ear o#d adu#t 6ut as a chi#d, as 4auriac contendsM

The chi#d ho te##s us his stor" here as one of 2od;s e#ect. From the time hen

his conscience <rst aoke, he had #ived on#" for 2od and had 6een reared on the

Ta#mud, as-iring to initiation into the ca66a#a, dedicated to the Eterna#. 3ave eever thought a6out the conse@uence of a horror that, though #ess a--arent, #ess

striking than the other outrages, is "et the orst of a## to those of us ho have

faith: the death of 2od in the sou# of a chi#d ho sudden#" discovers a6so#ute

evi#M ... It as then that I understood hat had <rst dran me to the "oung Ge:

that #ook, as of a La*arus risen from the dead, "et sti## a -risoner ithin the

con<nes here he had stra"ed, stum6#ing among the shamefu# cor-ses. 7/ight

viii5i>9

Is 4auriac;s construction not on#" a Christian a--ro-riation of /ight;s angst, 6ut,no matter ho e## meant, an ethica# transgressionM It is as if, for 4auriac, Wiese#

ere the Christ chi#d, an archet"-e for a## victims hose su=ering as

redem-tive. !eidman rites:

The friendshi- 6eteen the o#der Christian and "ounger Ge 6egan, then, ith

Wiese# re#in@uishing his aim of mani-u#ating 4auriac for Geish -ur-oses and

turning, in a## sincerit", to the man himse#f. With the -s"cho#ogica# shift, Wiese#

6egan his transformation from 3e6re ourna#ist and 7sti## un-u6#ished9 Kiddish

memoirist to Euro-ean, or French riter. ... The French reorking of 1n di ve#t

8/10/2019 Style 1998


hot geshvign and 4auriac;s framing of this te>t together suggest that La /uit55

read so consistent#" as authentica##" Geish, auto6iogra-hica#, direct55re-resents

a com-romise 6eteen Geish e>-ression and the ca-acities and desires of non5

Geish readers, 4auriac <rst among them. 78%, 8'9

!he conc#udes:

Was it orth ?unshattering? the mirror the Kiddish E#i 6reaks, reviving the image

of the Ge as the /a*is ished him to 6e, as the Christians -re-ared to acce-t

him, the em6#em of su=ering si#ence rather than #iving rageM In the com-#e>

negotiations that resu#ted in the manuscri-t of /ight, did the astonishing gains

make good the tremendous #ossesM It is over this uns-oken @uestion that the

cu#ture of 3o#ocaust discourse has arisen and taken sha-e, 78J9

What is the grammar of cause and e=ect ithin Wiese#;s testamentM To a

contem-orar" reader, historica# ironies a6ound. Wh" did the 2ermans continue to

-ersecute Ges hen the" needed ever" resource to stem defeatM Was it an

attem-t on the -art of a com-u#sive if not -s"chotic co##ective grou- -s"cho#og"55

or shou#d e sa" -s"cho-atho#og"M55to shift 6#ame and erase evidence. Wh" did

the" use Geish s#ave #a6or most#" for use#ess tasks and s"stematica##" starve

that #a6orM s Des Pres -uts it,

+ut here too, for a## its madness, there as method and reason. This s-ecia# kind

of evi# is a natura# outcome of -oer hen it 6ecomes a6so#ute, and in the

tota#itarian or#d of the cam-s it ver" near#" as. The !! cou#d ki## an"one the"

ha--ened to run into. Crimina# a-os ou#d a#k a6out in grou-s of to and

three, making 6ets among themse#ves on ho cou#d ki## a -risoner ith a sing#e

6#o. The -atho#ogica# rage of such men, their uncontro##a6#e fur" hen ru#es

ere 6roken, is evidence of a 6ound#ess desire to annihi#ate, to destro", to smash

ever"thing not mo6i#i*ed ithin the movement of their on authorit". nd

inevita6#", the mere act of ki##ing is not enoughB for if a man dies ithoutsurrender, if something ithin him remains un6roken to the end, then the -oer

hich destro"ed him has not after a## crushed ever"thing. 7&9

+" confronting the horrors of the 3o#ocaust and insisting on 6earing itness 7and

resisting 4auriac;s Christian g#oss9, Wiese#;s te>t is an antidote to the a" that

nne Frank;s stor" had 6een mani-u#ated to ?g#orif",? as +runo +ette#heim -uts

it, ?the a6i#it" to retreat into an e>treme#" -rivate, gent#e, sensitive or#d, and

there to c#ing as much as -ossi6#e to hat have 6een one;s usua# attitudes and

activities, a#though surrounded 6" a mae#strom a-t to engu#f one at an" moment?

8/10/2019 Style 1998


7!urvivors and 0ther Essa"s ('9. In the -#a" and <#m, e hear nne;s voice from

6e"ond sa"ing, ?In s-ite of ever"thing, I sti## 6e#ieve that -eo-#e are rea##" good

at heart,? 6ut +ette#heim argues -assionate#" that this statement is not

su--orted or usti<ed nne;s diar":

This im-ro6a6#e sentiment is su--osed#" from a gir# ho had 6een starved to

death, had atched her sister meet the same fate 6efore she did, kne that her

mother had 6een murdered, and had atched unto#d thousands of adu#ts and

chi#dren 6eing ki##ed. This statement is not usti<ed 6" an"thing nne actua##"

to#d her diar". 7+ette#heim ($9

+ut, of course, e see nne;s #ast ord as ironic 6ecause she has 6een ki##ed.

+ette#heim is @uite harsh in his udgments:

Those Ges ho su6mitted -assive#" to /a*i -ersecution came to de-end on

-rimitive and infanti#e thought -rocesses: ishfu# thinking and disregard for the

-ossi6i#it" of death. 4an" -ersuaded themse#ves that the", out of a## the others,

ou#d 6e s-ared. 4an" more sim-#" dis6e#ieved in the -ossi6i#it" of their on

death. /ot 6e#ieving in it, the" did not take hat seemed to them des-erate

-recautions, such as giving u- ever"thing to hide out sing#"B or tr"ing to esca-e

even if it meant risking their #ives in doing soB or -re-aring to <ght for their #ives

hen no esca-e as -ossi6#e and death had 6ecome an immediate -ossi6i#it".7(89

In an essa" entit#ed ?Freedom From 2hetto Thinking,? +ette#heim de<nes ?2hetto

thinking?: ?to 6e#ieve that one can ingratiate onese#f ith a morta# enem" 6"

den"ing that his #ashes sting, to den" one;s on degradation in return for a

moment;s res-ite, to su--ort one;s enem" ho i## on#" use his strength the

6etter to destro" one. ## that is -art of 2hetto -hi#oso-h"? 7Freud;s ienna and

0ther Essa"s (J89. For him the Franks em6od" ghetto thinking:

The Frank fami#" created a ghetto in the anne>, the 3inter 3aus, here the" ent

to #iveB it as an inte##ectua# ghetto, a sensitive one, 6ut a ghetto neverthe#ess. I

think e shou#d contrast their stor" ith those of other Geish fami#ies ho ent

into hiding in 3o##and. These fami#ies, from the moment the" dug in, -#anned

esca-e routes for the time hen the -o#ice might come #ooking for them. 1n#ike

the Franks, the" did not 6arricade themse#ves in rooms ithout e>itsB the" did not

ish to 6e tra--ed. In -re-aration, some of them -#anned and rehearsed ho the

father, if the -o#ice shou#d come, ou#d tr" to argue ith them or resist in order

to give his ife and chi#dren time to esca-e. !ometimes hen the -o#ice came

8/10/2019 Style 1998


the -arents -h"sica##" attacked them, knoing the" ou#d 6e ki##ed 6ut thus

saving a chi#d. 7Freud;s ienna ($9

+ette#heim, ho himse#f committed suicide, rites in his essa" ?!urviving? ho

the survivor ?knos ver" e## that he is not gui#t", as I, for one kno a6out

m"se#f, 6ut that this does not change the fact that the humanit" of such a

-erson, as a fe##o 6eing, re@uires that he fee# gui#t", and he does. This is a most

signi<cant as-ect of survivorshi-? 7!urviving (&9. +ette#heim reminds ho, hi#e

the foremost condition for surviva# as #uck, other factors he#-ed, such as, to

@uote +ette#heim,

correct#" assessing one;s situation and taking advantage of o--ortunities, in

short, acting inde-endent#" and ith courage, decision and conviction. ...!urviva# as, of course, great#" he#-ed if one had entered the cam-s in a good

state of -h"sica# hea#th. +ut most of a##, as I have intimated a## a#ong, autonom",

se#f5res-ect, inner integration, a rich inner #ife, and the a6i#it" to re#ate to others

in meaningfu# a"s ere the -s"cho#ogica# conditions hich, more than an"

others, -ermitted one to survive in the cam-s as much a ho#e human 6eing as

overa## conditions and chance ou#d -ermit. 7?0ners of their Faces,? !urviving

8$&9

Whether e agree ith +ette#heim and hether e chide him for #etting his ragedistort and a--ro-riate nne Frank;s te>t as 4auriac and !eidman have

a--ro-riated Wiese#, his ords give us some sense of ho dicu#t it is for us

readers of 3o#ocaust te>ts to res-ond ethica##" to such a searing and heart5

rendering narrative of memor", trauma, and #iterar" imagination as /ight.

Works Cited

+ette#heim, +runo. Freud;s ienna and 0ther Essa"s. /e Kork: intage, 8&&8.

55555. !urviving and 0ther Essa"s. /e Kork: intage, 8&)$.

Daidoic*, Luc". The War gainst the Ges, 8&%%58&'. 8&. /e Kork:

+antam, 8&)J.

Des Pres, Terence. The !urvivor.; n natom" of Life in the Death Cam-s. /e

Kork: 0>ford 1P, 8&$.

C#i=ord, Games. The Predicament of Cu#ture: Tentieth5Centur" Ethnogra-h",

Literature, and rt. Cam6ridge, 4: 3arvard 1P, 8&)).

4uscham-, 3er6ert, ?!ha-ing a 4onument;s 4emor".? /e Kork Times 8&&%:8

7rt and Leisure9.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


Ricouer, Pau#. ?The 4ode# of the Te>t.? !ocia# Research .8 7!-ring 8&)'9: 8)5

(8).

!achs, /e##ie. ? Dead Chi#d !-eaks.? Trans. Ruth and 4atthe 4ead. 3o#ocaust

Poetr". Ed. 3i#da !chi=. /e Kork: !t. 4artin;s, 8&&.J.

!eidman, /aomi, ?E#ie Wiese# and the !canda# Rage.? Geish !ocia# !tudies:

3istor", Cu#ture and !ociet" %.8 7Fa## 8&&J9: 858&.

!u#eiman, !usan and Inge Crossman, eds. The Reader in the Te>t: Essa"s on

udience and Inter-retation. Princeton: Princeton 1P, 8&)$.

Wiese#, E#ie. Ge Toda", Trans. 4arion Wiese#. /e Kork: Random 3ouse, 8&).

55555. 4emoirs: ## Rivers Run to the !ea. /e Kork: no-f, 8&&.

55555. /ight. 8&). Trans. !te##a Rodne". /e Kork: +antam, 8&J$.

+" Danie# R. !char*, Corne## 1niversit"

/as#ov: A/othing +ut Face;55ATo 3e## ith Phi#oso-h";M: Wito#d 2om6roic*, +runo

!chu#*, and the !canda# of 3uman Countenance. Prema: /eton, dam Nachar",


Com-#ete.

A/0T3I/2 +1T FCE;55AT0 3ELL WIT3 P3IL0!0P3K;M: WIT0LD 204+R0WICN,

+R1/0 !C31LN, /D T3E !C/DL 0F 314/ C01/TE//CE

!cene 0ne: Rai#a" in rgentina

!itting in an rgentine train com-artment, seething at the -ress of others, the

tentieth5centur" Po#ish emigre riter Wito#d 2om6roic* 6egins his Diar" entr"

for the "ear 8&J( this a":

That mug ten centimeters aa". The tear", reddish -u-i#sM Litt#e hairs on this

earM I don;t ant thisQ a"Q I i## not go on a6out his cha--ed skinQ +" hat

right did this <nd itse#f so c#ose that I -ractica##" have to 6reathe him in, "et at

the same time fee# his hot trick#es on m" ear and neckM We rest our unseeing

ga*es on each other from a ver" near distance ...Each -erson is cur#ing u-,

ro##ing u-, shutting, shrinking, #imiting to a minimum his e"es, ears, #i-s, tr"ing to

6e as #itt#e as -ossi6#e. 7%:89

8/10/2019 Style 1998


Whi#e the entr" makes it c#ear that its ressentiment is centered chieH" on the

num6ers of -eo-#e com-ressed into the same car as 2om6roic* himse#f, ?that

mug ten centimeters aa"? does not e>act#" fade from readers; sight. It sta"s

vivid 72om6roic* has ensured as much9, 6ut -art#" 6ecause of the uncann" #itt#e

scene that em6eds it.

Literature, ith criticism;s he#-, has accustomed us 6" no to a ho#e scenic

-a##et, diminutive theaters of <gura# enactment: 4irror !cenes, !cenes of Writing,

!cenes of Reading, !cenes of Instruction, !cenes of Eating, even !cenes of

Fasting 7in afka;s case9. 2om6roic* o=ers, in their -#ace, a !cene of Facing.

Indeed, it is fair to assume that 2om6roic* e>-ects readers of his Diar" ho are

a#read" fami#iar ith his ork55the 8&% nove# Ferd"durke, in -articu#ar55to

recogni*e such a scene as a #ate#"5added sna-shot to a much #arger -ortfo#io of

signature studies in the face5to5face.7 n89

Thus, against the 6ackground of the author;s a6iding concern ith the s-ace

6eteen to -ersons7 n(9, that mug ten centimeters aa" denotes not so much

a countenance -ositioned o--osite as an incitement to 0--osition itse#f. The

gaunt#et5s#a- de#ivered to 2om6roic*;s face is the fact that another faces him.

The s#a- that ansers it is his counter5face grimacing in return.

Pr*"-raienie ge6" 7?<tting someone ith a mug?9 descri6es the norm of humaninteraction in 2om6roic*, a re#ent#ess due# of face5making, face5earing, face5

im-osing. 0ne face creates the otherB a grimace res-onds. +oth faces remain in

de-endent re#ation, face and grimace, mug and countenance, tracing a dou6#e

he#i> of mutua# deformation on into the negative in<nit".7 n%9 There is no

su6#ation or su6#imation. 3igher, theoretica# o-erations mere#" re-eat rather than

reso#ve an a#most chthonic drama.

/othing 6ut face, sa"s a character in Ferd"durke ho is #ooking for authentic

countenance: the face that #ooks at me and the face it im-oses on mine and theface I ado-t in return and a## the faces, mugs, grimaces, and -ermutations of -hi*

that -ass 6eteen us. Gust as that de<nitive -arado> of 2om6roic*ian

s-ace55?from a ver" near distance?55overrides an" -ro-rietar" ideas a6out

autonomous identit", so face is s"necdochic shorthand for the face5to5face

re#ation, for the scanda# of one;s on face forced into se#f5consciousness and

counter5move 6" the face of another.7 n'9 0ne ears a faceB one doesn;t on it.

The sucienc" of m" on -rivate -h"siognom" is a#a"s 6eing interru-ted or

com-romised 6" the intervening faces of others. Even more, that desire is

8/10/2019 Style 1998


ridicu#ed 6" the unru#iness of the face to 6egin ith, 6" its ens#avement not on#"

to the faces of others, 6ut a#so to one;s on 6od". Thus, sometimes in Ferd"durke

face ust signi<es -ersonhoodB other times, it means ?the agon" of outard

form.? s a6ove, in e>tended form, ?/othing 6ut face, nothing sincere or natura#,

ever"thing fa#se, imitated, and arti<cia#? 7%:8&&9. Ph"siognom"55as

counterintuitive 6ut a#so dee-#" intuitive as it sounds55is an"thing 6ut -rivate-ro-ert". That is the o6vious -oint a6out the train com-artment. Even if I seem

<nished to m"se#f, a facing other i## make me seem un<nished, de5sha-ed.

nd I endure a #udicrous se#f5sa6otage, too. !tanding u- to the to- of m" height, I

am sti## mocked 6" the ver" 6ackside that oins trunk to head.7 n9 The ver" fact

of thighs ca##s consciousness don from its #oft" -erch. Digits and toes conduct

their on due# of grimaces in re-eating each other, hand to foot. 3uman forms

aren;t uni<ed or conso#idatedB the";re com-osite, an aggregate of -arts. Faces

are their on mugs 6ecause se#f5identit" is se#f5-arod". The face is a kind of

dou6#e agent: the seat and sign of -ersona# identit" 6ut a#so ust another

com-osite 6od" -art. !e#fhood isn;t rea#ism, 6ut rather innate#" surrea#istic.

?3o can one esca-e from hat one is, here is the #everage to come fromM?

2om6roic* rites. ?0ur sha-e -enetrates and con<nes us, as much as from

ithin as from ithout? 7%:'&9.7 nJ9 4" face is a#so m" mask, not ust a saving

and necessar" heterog#ossia in +akhtin;s sense, 6ut a hetero5-h"siognomia, a

6#end of m" features and the faces o--osite mine. nd if ?it is im-ossi6#e todetach from other -eo-#e? 7%:9, it is no #ess im-ossi6#e to free the face from its

on mugs and grimaces. The socia#i*ing stick shaken 6" -arents at

chi#dren55?don;t make such faces or the";## get stuck?55has the ring of dee-est

onto#ogica# truth, face as rictus. 7Indeed, that;s ho -arents and chi#dren make

each other u-, -recise#" needing each other to do so.9

+ut this isn;t the ho#e stor". There is more to 2om6roic*, in other ords, than

ust face. There is even -hi#oso-h". The mini5o-era a6ove that ends ith ?cur#ing

u-, ro##ing u-, shutting, shrinking and tr"ing to 6e as #itt#e as -ossi6#e,? hi#e itma" ta- the <gura# marro of 2om6roic*;s ork,7 n9 connects him, @uite se#f5

conscious#", to a ho#e matri> of continenta# thought55though Po#and;s e>act

-#ace on that continent is mere#" another a" of -utting 2om6roic*;s centra#

@uestion. Countries, as m" coda on +runo !chu#* suggests, have faces too. The

rai#a" set5-iece, nested ithin Diar" as a ho#e, itse#f the cu#minating ork of

2om6roic*;s ouevre, can, ithout too much of a stretch, 6e understood to

a##egori*e his on keen aareness of riting in the -resence of reading others,

the aggregate mugs, reddish -u-i#s, and tin" hairs of riter#"Sreader#" nearness.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


Diar" is here 2om6roic* achieves a Form -ossi6#e on#" ith readers;

com-#icit". 1n#ike more ?tactfu#? French diaries, he ants his on to 6e ?more

modern and more conscious, and #et it 6e -ermeated 6" the idea that m" ta#ent

can on#" arise in connection ith "ou, that on#" "ou can e>cite me to ta#ent, or

hat;s more that on#" "ou can create it in me? 78:%9. +ut Diar" is a#so here he

re#ates anecdotes #ike the one a6ove or <rst cousins to it #ike the fo##oing, setagainst the 6ackdro- of rgentina;s 4useo /aciona# de +e##as rtes:

There ere ten other -eo-#e 6esides ourse#ves ho a#ked u-, #ooked, then

a#ked aa". The mechanica# @ua#it" of their movements, their muteness, gave

them the a--earance of marionettes and their faces ere none>istent com-ared

to the faces that -eered out of the canvas. This is not the <rst time that the face

of art has irritated me 6" e>tinguishing the faces of the #iving ... 3ere in the

museum, the -aintings are croded, the amount crods the @ua#it",

master-ieces counted in the do*ens sto- 6eing master-ieces. Who can #ook

c#ose#" at a 4uri##o hen the Tie-o#o ne>t to it demands attention and thirt" other

-aintings shout: #ook at usQ 78:((9

This kind of nausea is, in its a", -rofounder than E>istentia#ist dread, 6ecause it

dras a continuous #ine 6eteen the !artrean ?L;enfer, c;est #;autres? and the

?he## hich is other -aintings or other 6ooks or even this 6ook or this -ainting

direct#" in front of me.? Whi#e the image is o6vious#" more dramatic for

-ortraiture, 2om6roic* -roects a face onto #iterature and -hi#oso-h", too: Idon;t ust #ook at 6ooks, the" hector me, shouting ?#ook at 1!.?

?Ferd"durke as -u6#ished in 8&%,? 2om6roic* rites, ?6efore !artre

formu#ated his theor" of the regard d;autrui. +ut it is oing to the -o-u#ari*ation

of !artrean conce-ts that this as-ect of m" 6ook has 6een 6etter understood and

assimi#ated? 7%:)9.7 n)9 In Diar" vo#ume %, he #a"s c#aim to having simi#ar#"

-resaged French !tructura#ism. Ferd"durke -redates 4er#eau Pont" 7The

Phenomeno#og" of Perce-tion9, E#ias Canetti 7Crods and Poer9, 2eorges Pou#et

7?Criticism and the E>-erience of Interiorit"?9, and, most re#evant of a## -erha-s,the -hi#oso-hica# thought of Emmanue# Levinas, in hich the <gure of the face

occu-ies an a6so#ute#" centra# -osition, the -#ace here ethics is manifested and

here the 0ther cuts across the grain of !e#f.7 n&9

+ut form such a ga##er" around 2om6roic*, and the -hi#oso-hers 6ecome so

man" 4uri##os and Tie-o#os, shouting ?#ook at usQ Look at out anities, our

tangenciesQ !ee the mugs e <t each other ithQ?7 n8$9 #ong ith the same

character in Ferd"durke ho e>c#aims, ?/othing 6ut faceQ? one ants to sa", ?To

he## ith -hi#oso-h"Q? The ruth#ess#" consistent vector of 2om6roic*;s thought isitse#f a kind of face that i## not sto- irrevoca6#" facing, staring, grimacing. To

8/10/2019 Style 1998


8/10/2019 Style 1998


!artre re#uctant#" admits that after immuring himse#f in his se#fhood, he gre #ess

ha--" ith the idea of iso#ation as 6eing sustained, e>istentia##", in iso#ation. 3e

notices, ?in his -eri-hera# vision, that it ou#d <nd a g#ad re-ose in the thousands

of other sou#s threatened 6" num6ers.? This confusion 6eteen ?-hi#oso-h" andnum6ers? 6eteen one;s on thought and the -ress of others, 6eteen a s-ot

taken u- in a museum and do*ens of staring -aintings, !artre cannot seem to

transcend: ?/either Consciousness nor the Concrete has the right to gro fat on

such "east.?

Worse even than this resurfacing terror55?iso#ation fattened 6" num6ers?55is the

rea#i*ation that this fear itse#f is not a#one: ?It immediate#" 6ecame magni<ed 6"

the num6ers of a## those others hom he cou#d identif" himse#f ith55and the

6urning of a tree 6ecame a conHagration of an entire forest in our -hi#oso-her.?!artre turns to himse#f one more time55?in 6eing the 0n#" 0ne, I cannot 6e one of

the man"Q?55and decides to resuscitate the 0ther hom he had -revious#"

annihi#ated -hi#oso-hica##"55?rediscover, recogni*e, reinstitute, re5esta6#ish m"

6ond ith himQ? 3e recogni*es the 0ther;s freedom, gives the 0ther the

character of !u6ect, ca##s the 0ther into 6eing. The horrif"ing conse@uenceM ?0ur

-hi#oso-her has found himse#f face5to5face ith fu## num6ers. 3e ho took fright

at the Parisian mo6 no sa himse#f facing a## mo6s, a## individua#s, ever"here

and a#a"s.?

!artre -resses on. +eing and /othingness is -u6#ished. 3e thros himse#f into

-o#itica# causes, ho#ds fast to the !artrean -i##ars of res-onsi6i#it" and

engagement, once again endeavors to ?take humanit" onto his shou#ders.?

nd he might have made it, if not for this, if not for the fact that num6ers had

again mi>ed into the ho#e, inc#uding ever"one, overHoing in a a" that as

rea##" indecent ... the num6er of co-ies of his ork ... the num6er of editions

... the num6er of readers ... the num6er of commentaries ... the num6er ofthoughts that hatched out of his thoughts and the num6er of thoughts hatching

out of these thoughts ... and the num6er of a## the di=erent variants of these

variants. 7%:'(9

Far orse no than an" ?throng5crush? of ?-eo-#e5non-eo-#e? ho a--roach or

surround one on the street is the in<nite#" greater u-surge of readers, 6eing

6esieged 6" hom 7as 2om6roic* -uts it in Ferd"durke9 ?is #ike 6eing 6orn in a

thousand narro minds 789.? To -ara-hrase !artre;s famous o6servation a6out

F#au6ert, on est #ire55one is read.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


The anecdote ends on a note of deHationar" resignation. !artre is distraught,

ants to commit suicide, tries to commit suicide, 6ut <na##" conso#es himse#f ith

the thought that even though the se##ing tide of readers is catastro-hic 6ecause

of the sheer num6ers, at the end of the da" it a## comes to nothing ?as a resu#t ofthese same num6ers,? since dis-ersa# actua##" hides a secret cushion: the more

thought and #anguage are disseminated, the #ess the";re rea##" understood:

?-eo-#e ta#k 6ut no one knos a6out hat, one a6out this, another a6out that,

and someho nothing comes of it? 7%:'(9.

The end resu#t is not so ver" di=erent from that of the rai#a" com-artment:

?each -erson is cur#ing u-, ro##ing u-, shutting, shrinking, #imiting to a minimum

his e"es, ears, #i-s, tr"ing to 6e as #itt#e as -ossi6#e.? Where the one is a due#, the

other is a skirmish. s 2om6roic* -uts it in Diar", ?I am tum6#ing into -u6#icisma#ong ith "ou and the rest of the or#d? 78:%9. nd it is face55te>tua# and

inter-ersona#55that drags me out of the amnion and c#andestinit" of ?me,? and

-ushes me into -u6#ic vie. Thus do faces not on#" ?anser? 6acksides in

2om6roic*, the" de#iver kicks to them, and send their oners tum6#ing.

The train com-artment and !artre versus ever"6od", the face5to5face and the

6ook5as5face: 2om6roic* makes human countenance a scanda# in 6oth. In the

rai#a" com-artment it as the too5c#ose 0ther, a foi# or antagonist, a counter5

face, a s"nechoche for the crod. In the case of !artre, it is a crod that is <na##"

on#" imagined 6ut ust as threatening55a virtua# throng, the sur-#us of unseea6#e

reading 0thers ho #ock e"es onto him through his 6ook.7 n8(9 4edusa or the

4aenads: stared at, or dis-ersed into -ieces. facia# c#austro-ho6ia or its

agora-ho6ic counter-art. 3airs, seat, and -u-i#s, or ?those human o-inions, the

a6"ss of vies and criticisms of "our inte##igence, "our heart, ever" detai# of "our

6eing, hich o-ens u- in front of "ou hen "ou have incautious#" c#othed "our

thoughts in ords, -ut them on -a-er and s-read them among menQ? 78: 8J589.

+ut instead of #eaving the im-ression of a tid" o--osition, I see these to scenes

of otherness either s@uared o= against me or catching me 6" sur-rise as

converging u-on a third, from a Diar" entr" that -recedes the other to 6" on#"

-ages, that com6ines features of 6oth.

!cene Three: Po#andB or the !-ace of Literature

+runo.

I have #ong knon a6out this edition -re-ared ith such -ainstaking e=ort, "ethen I <na##" sa the 6ook a recent French trans#ation of !chu#*;s Cinnamon

8/10/2019 Style 1998


!ho-s I inced ... 3e <rst shoed u- at m" -#ace, on !#u*eska, after the

-u6#ication of Cinnamon !ho-s. 3e as sma##, strange, chimerica#, focused,

intense, a#most feverish and this is ho our conversations got started, usua##" on

a#ks. That e needed one another is indis-uta6#e. We found ourse#ves in a

vacuum, our #iterar" situations ere -ermeated ith a void, our admirers ere

s-ectra# ... fter reading m" <rst 6ook, +runo discovered a com-anion in me, forme to furnish him ith the 0utside ithout hich an inner #ife is condemned to a

mono#ogue55and he anted me to use him in the same a" ... nd here is

here the ?miss? or ?dis#ocation,? to use the #anguage of our orks, came inB for

his e>tended hand did not meet m" on. I did not return his regard, I gave him

a6"sma##" #itt#e, a#most nothing, of m"se#f, our re#ationshi- as a <ascoB 6ut

-erha-s this secret#" orked to our advantageM Perha-s he and I needed <asco

rather than ha--" s"m6iosis. Toda" I can s-eak of this o-en#" 6ecause he has

died. 7%:%9

The rest of this e>tended reHection on 2om6roic*;s fe##o riter and Po#e, +runo

!chu#*, is forthright, uns-aring, and often 6ruta#, a#most as though 2om6roic*

and !chu#* are -ositioned o--osite one another in a rai#a" com-artment 7as

indeed the" often are, <gurative#" s-eaking, hen critics s-eak a6out them in the

same 6reath9.7 n8%9 Put another a", it is a#most as if 2om6roic*;s reading of

!chu#* summons u- a face for him hich he must deHect a-otro-aica##", not

mere#" 6" ?incing? or turning aa" ?+runo;s regard,? 6ut 6" <tting him ith a

mug. Put a third a", +runo is made to su=er !artre;s fate, a riter at the merc"

of a reader;s grimacing.

!chu#* himse#f, in the #ast ork of <ction -u6#ished 6efore his death, -rovides a

kind of inadvertent con<rmation of 2om6roic*;s insight 7though an author;s

<ction shou#d never serve as adavit for the #ife9:

Kou ru6 against some6od", attach "our home#essness and nothingness to

someone a#ive and arm. The other -erson a#ks aa" and does not fee# "our

6urden, does not notice that he is carr"ing "ou on his shou#ders, that #ike a-arasite "ou c#ing momentari#" to his #ife.7 n8'9 7Com-#ete Fiction (&)9

2om6roic* mounts a sustained diatri6e against such s"m6iosis, the a#ternative

to hich55?<asco?55etches into much shar-er re#ief the ru66ing, c#inging, carr"ing,

6urdening of mutua# need hose -arasitism is a#so a##erg".

The <asco of the 0ther, of the se#f -ressed against, su6ected to, -rovoked 6"

otherness is hat I have termed a ?scanda#?55the ordea# of inter5su6ectivit" as

8/10/2019 Style 1998


-h"siognom", as e>teriorit", 6ut a#so as reading, in 6oth cases hat i## not #eave

o= ine>ora6#" facing. 2om6roic*;s stand is the one of most resistance, since the

integrit" of one;s on face is at stake: one has to stare 6ack, and do#e out

grimaces and mugs in the same measure that the" are received. +ut the stand

2om6roic* takes against !chu#* e>ceeds the stu= of -rivate discom<ture, since

it takes -#ace as a ?tum6#ing into -u6#icism? on the -#ane of Diar" itse#f. !chu#*and 2om6roic* are not a#one in this -articu#ar com-artment, the dominant to

his su6missive,7 n89 for to itness the face5to5face is a#so to 6ecome a -art" to

it. The rea# scanda# of countenance is that it is a conoint -henomenonB no one55

not even readers55gets a free #ook.

Inasmuch as the !e#f is created or deformed from the outside, it ears a face.

Inasmuch as the !e#f can #a" c#aim to a #atenc" or ca-acit" for estrangement

ithin, it ears a face. Inasmuch as the 0ther a#a"s enters unannounced, it

ears a face. nd at 2om6roic*;s most authoria##" se#f5conscious, inasmuch as

face #ooks out onto the s-ace of reading, the 6earing and im-osing of faces is

a#so something te>ts, authors, and riters can 6e said to undergo.

In the introduction to the !-anish edition of Ferd"durke, 2om6roic* addresses

his readers in c#osing,

I therefore 6eg "ou to kee- si#ent ... For the time 6eing55if "ou ish to #et mekno that the 6ook -#eased "ou55hen "ou see me sim-#" touch "our right ear. If

"ou touch "our #eft ear, I sha## kno that "ou didn;t #ike it, and if "ou touch "our

nose it i## mean that "ou are not sure ...Thus e sha## avoid uncomforta6#e and

even ridicu#ous situations and understand each other in si#ence. 4" greetings to

a##. 7 &9

The Diar", his cu#minating and most -ersona#i*ed ork in a Hagrant#"

-ersona#i*ed oeuvre, trans-oses that virtua# encounter onto the -#ane of reading

itse#f. The <guration is #ess distinct55as in 6oth the !chu#* and the !artreanecdotes, one has to ?conure? the face onese#f556ut the se#f5consciousness

a6out 6eing under the e"es of reading others is, if an"thing, even more -rofound.

The 2om6roic*ian face, one cou#d sa", is a kind of s"m-tom 7in Lacan;s sense9:

summoned in the act of 6eing arded o=.7 n8J9

What of the face in !chu#*, the !chu#*ian faceM It deserves more than a cameo

a--earance here, so I -ivot to it 6" a" of contrast, and conc#ude. 3is re#ative

o6scurit", the frustration of a -rovincia# fate, the am6ient -athos of his

-ersona#it", his Geishness in a Catho#ic and -re5ar Po#and55if an"thing, !chu#*

8/10/2019 Style 1998


as even more conscious of the s-e## cast 6" the face, and his on need to

conure and ard it o=. 3is <ction and his surviving corres-ondence sho a riter

in overdetermined re#ationshi- to readers55those hose faces he kne,7n89 as

e## as -ros-ective ones he cou#d on#" invoke or im-#".

1n#ike its counter-art in 2om6roic*, hoever, the !chu#*ian face thros don

no gaunt#et. It does not 6e#ieve in due#ing. /or does it -ro#iferate, <nding refuge

in meton"m", safet" in num6ers. Instead, it #ives a ho##" meta-horica# #ife. It is

su6ect to the same forces that -reside over ever"thing e#se in !chu#*;s m"thi<ed

<ctiona# or#d: a fundamenta# -rinci-#e of transmigrated form, o6ects turned into

signs, -ersons co##a-sed into a##egories of themse#ves, -rivate s-ace and time

contracted into further de-ths of -rivac" or e#se dis-ersed into otherness. The

face a--ears, on#" to recede again, much as 2om6roic* sa"s of !chu#* himse#f

in Diar", ?e>traneous,? ?su-erHuous.? +ut -erha-s there #ies its signi<cance, a

minor e#ement in a minor modernism that nonethe#ess reads the #arger5in5sca#e.

The ver" <rst stor" of Cinnamon !ho-s, ?ugust,? descri6es a ?ha#f5it gir#,?

Tou"a, hose face ?orks #ike the 6e##os of an accordion. Ever" no and then a

sorrofu# grimace fo#ds it into a thousand vertica# -#eats, 6ut astonishment soon

straightens it out again? 7!chu#* J9. The simi#e that conve"s this <gure 7or her

face9 -romises a kind of -#enitude, the o--osite -o#e to hich55ho##oed out or

contracted s-ace55is em6#emati*ed 6" Tou"a;s mother, ?hite as a afer and

motion#ess #ike a g#ove from hich a hand had 6een ithdran? 7 9. The stor"ends ith a face hich is the em-t" g#ove to Tou"a;s accordion:

Emi#;s -a#e Ha66" face, seemed from da" to da" to #ose its out#ine, to 6ecome a

hite 6#ank ith a -a#e netork of veins, #ike #ines on an o#d ma- ... 3e as

sitting on a sma##, #o sofa and it seemed as if it ere on#" his c#othes that had

6een thron, crum-#ed and em-t", over a chair. 3is face seemed #ike the 6reath

of a face55a smudge hich an unknon -asser56" had #eft in the air. From the

mist of his face, the -rotruding hite of a -a#e e"e emerged ith dicu#t",

enticing me ith a ink ... 6ut a## fe## aa" again and his face receded intoindi=erence and 6ecame a6sent and <na##" faded aa" a#together.? 7 8$9

The -u#se of !chu#*;s <ction osci##ates 6eteen such fadings or diminishings, and

corres-onding -u##u#ations of ?immoderate ferti#it",? as in the stor" ?Pan?:

It as the face of a tram- or a drunkard. tuft of <#th" hair 6rist#ed over his

6road forehead rounded #ike a stone ashed 6" a stream. That forehead as no

creased into dee- furros. I did not kno hether it as the -ain. The 6urning

8/10/2019 Style 1998


heat of the sun, or that su-erhuman e=ort that had eaten into his face and

stretched those features near to cracking. 3is dark e"es 6ored into me ith a

<>edness of su-reme des-air or su=ering. 3e 6oth #ooked at me and did not, he

sa me and did not see. 3is e"es ere #ike 6ursting she##s, strained in a trans-ort

of -ain or the i#d de#ights of ins-iration. 7Com-#ete Fiction '9

The face in !chu#* fo#ds in on its on meta-horicit", -roducing e>@uisite simi#es

that, in Gohn 1-dike;s trenchant descri-tion from his introduction to the Penguin

edition of !chu#*;s !anatorium 1nder the !ign of the 3ourg#ass, evince 6oth the

-rose;s strenuous arti<ce and its harroing e=ect 71-dike >iii5>iv9. The faces are

their meta-hors, ho##" <gura# -roductions of #anguage. There, are, thus 7as

there must 6e in 2om6roic*9, neither counter5faces nor mugs. ?It is -art of m"

e>istence,? sa"s a character in !anatorium 1nder the !ign of the 3ourg#ass, ?to

6e the -arasite of meta-hors, so easi#" am I carried aa" 6" the <rst simi#e that

comes a#ong? 7Com-#ete Fiction %$&9,7n8)9 a fate shared 6" the !chu#*ian face as

e##. The counter-art in !chu#* to 2om6roic*;s train com-artment scene might

therefore 6e this:

For a time I had the com-an" of a man in a ragged rai#a"man;s uniform55si#ent,

engrossed in his thoughts. 3e -ressed a handkerchief to his so##en, aching face.

Later even he disa--eared, having s#i--ed out uno6served at some sto-. 3e #eft

6ehind him the mark of his 6od" in the stra that #a" on the Hoor, and a sha66"

6#ack suitcase he had forgotten. 7Com-#ete Fiction ('(9

0n#" in the stor" ?Tai#or;s Dummies? from Cinnamon !ho-s, here !chu#* #a"s

c#aim to his most e>travagant of -athetic fa##acies, does he a--ro>imate

2om6roic*;s notion of face as something im-osed rather than sim-#"

-ossessed, faces or e>-ressions that ?im-rison? or coerce the simu#acra

7a>ork <gures, dummies9 that ear them, 6ut the seeming crue#t" here is

mere#" the s-ecia# case of a genera# -rinci-#e: ?a certain monism of the #ife

su6stance? for hich ?s-eci<c o6ects are nothing more than mask. The #ife of the

su6stance consists in the assuming and consuming of num6er#ess masks. Themigration of forms is the essence of #ife? 7Letters 88%9.

3o !chu#* might have e>tended or com-#icated such m"tho-oesis is a @uestion

that remains <>ed in the grimace im-osed u-on it 6" a 2esta-o ocer;s 6u##et in

8&'(.7n8&9 !chu#*;s death, as 2om6roic* co#d#" notes, #icenses a di=erent kind

of facing55something 2om6roic* had a#read" -re<gured during !chu#*;s #ifetime,

hen he dre him out in an e>change of o-en #etters, e>-osing his face in -u6#ic.

7n($9

8/10/2019 Style 1998


2om6roic*, it seems, re@uired foi#s and counter5faces to articu#ate the features

of his on. To this degree, his criticism and his demeanor as -u6#ic inte##ectua#

ere of a -iece ith his art. Intersu6ective s-ace 6ecomes an in<nite regress of

meton"m", the face that 6egets other faces as e## as the face of human

encounter that trans-oses into the face of reading. !chu#* a#so sustains a

consistenc" 6eteen #ife and art, 6ut it is the more vu#nera6#e, 6ecause <>ed,consistenc" of meta-hor. Faces don;t trans-ose, 6ut transu6stantiate instead.

4oreover, there is no face5to5face. The face is an o6ect, a kind of -ure -assivit",

he#d out 6" the <ction to 6e stared at 7as to read !chu#*;s <ction, ana#ogous#", is

t"-ica##" the e>-erience of #anguor and tor-id assent, an a#most -ost5coita#

fee#ing of a6e"ance9.7n(89

Even aa" from his <ction, hen !chu#* rote corres-ondence to others, or

ansered 2om6roic*;s o-en #etter ith one of his on, or -roduced critica#

essa"s on the su6conscious or the m"tho#ogi*ing of rea#it" or a Re-u6#ic of

Dreams, the face55as sim-#" one meta-horic em6#em among mu#ti-#e others55is

asked to do a di=erent kind of ork than in 2om6roic*. ? consecration 6" the

ceremon" of the s-ectac#e? 7!artre, What is Literature 9: that is !artre;s

descri-tion of the face5to5face instituted 6" reading, and it accurate#" conve"s

the re#igiosit" of !chu#*;s -rose, its air of nunc starts that -ut 2om6roic* so i## at

ease.7n((9 If, thus, a -ara##e# !artrean e>em-#i<cation to the one in 2om6roic*

can 6e found for !chu#*, it ou#d 6e the aesthetic <rst -rinci-#e s-e##ed out in

!artre;s essa" ?Wh" WriteM?: ?ant 6e#ieves that the ork of art <rst e>ists as fact

and that it is then seen. Whereas it e>ists on#" if one #ooks at it and if it is <rst

a--ea#, -ure e>igence to e>ist ... The ork of art is a va#ue 6ecause it is an

a--ea#? 79. Consider this #ast scene.

!cene Four: Euro-eB or the !-ace of 4"th and 3istor"

During his #ifetime /a-o#eon;s face ma" have 6een the face of an individua#.

Certain#", those near him kne that smi#e, that c#ouding 6ro, the Hashes the

moment #it u- on his face. To us, from a distance, individua# traits increasing#"

dim and 6#ur, the" seem to give out a radiance from ithin, as of #arger, more

massive features carr"ing in themse#ves hundreds of #ost and irrecovera6#e faces.

In the act of d"ing, merging ith eternit", that face Hickers ith memories, roams

through a series of faces, ever -a#er, more condensed, unti# out of the hea-ing of

those faces there sett#es on it at #ast, and hardens into its <na# mask, the

countenance of Po#and55forever. 7Letters J(9

That is the conc#usion of a critica# essa", ?The Formation of Legends,? that !chu#*

rote to commemorate the death of Go*ef Pitsudski, 4arsha# of Po#and. It treats

greatness in an a6stract sense, 6ut a#so as the #asting e=ect -ersoni<ed 6"

/a-o#eon Western Euro-e has had over its Centra# and Eastern Euro-ean 0ther.

The receding of individua# features that -ermits a heightening of more massiveones, the merging, condensation, and hea-ing of Faces into 4ask, the e>-ense of

8/10/2019 Style 1998


0thers that si#houettes a !e#f: the scanda# of countenance here is the scanda# of

meta-hor genera##" in !chu#*, an e@ui-oise of #ine and shado.

The face, one cou#d sa", is the condition of chiarascuro, and s-atia#i*es a simi#ar

notion from !anatorium 1nder the !ign of the 3ourg#ass a6out time:

What it is to 6e done ith events that have no -#ace of their on in timeB events

that have occurred too #ate, after the ho#e of time has 6een distri6uted, divided,

and a##ottedB events that have 6een #eft in the co#d, unregistered, hanging in the

airB home#ess, and errantM Cou#d it 6e that time is too narro for a## eventsM Cou#d

it 6e that a## the seats ithin time might have 6een so#dM 7Com-#ete Fiction 8%89

n a>is of su6stitution shunts 6ranch #ines of time or su-ernumerar" faces into a

*one of irrecovera6i#it", here the" are neverthe#ess -reserved meta-horica##".

Perha-s this e>or6itanc" of meta-hor, the trans-orting of contra6and that cannot

otherise 6e registered 7as !chu#* -uts it in !anatorium9, is hat 2om6roic*

meant hen he charged !chu#* of a--roaching art ?as if it ere a #ake he

intended to dron in? 7%:J9. Without endorsing 2om6roic*;s manichean

distinctions 6eteen himse#f and !chu#* as #aid out in his Diar"55?+runo as a

man den"ing himse#f. I as seeking m"se#f. 3e anted annihi#ation. I anted

rea#i*ation. 3e as 6orn to 6e a s#ave. I as 6orn to 6e a master. 3e as of the

Geish race. I as from a fami#" of Po#ish gentr"? 7%:J955the !chu#*ian face doeshat the 2om6roic*ian face cannot. It doesn;t Hinch or recom-ose itse#f. /ot

staring55or grimacing or incing or mugging556ack is ho it stares 6ack.

3is face matured ear#", and strange to sa" hi#e e>-erience and the tria#s of

#iving s-ared the em-t" invio#a6i#it", the strange margina#it" of his #ife, his

features reHected e>-eriences that had -assed him 6", e#ements in a 6iogra-h"

never to 6e fu#<##edB these e>-eriences, a#though com-#ete#" i##usor", mo#ded and

scu#-ted his face into the mask of a great tragedian, hich e>-ressed the isdom

and sadness of his e>istence. 7Com-#ete Fiction (9

Wito#d 2om6roic* as 6orn on an estate at 4a#os*"ce in southeast Po#and, #ived

in Warsa as a chi#d, 6ecame stranded in rgentina on the eve of Wor#d War II,

and returned to Euro-e in 8&J% an internationa##" recogni*ed riter, four "ears

6efore his death. +runo !chu#* #ived, rote, and died in the southeastern

-rovincia# ton of Droho6"c*. Even in #ife, the" seem to -ersonif" di=erent

rhetorica# <gures. +eteen them is sus-ended the countenance of Po#and in the

midd#e decades of the tentieth centur", Ganus5faced and se#f5estranged, itse#f

haunted 6" the death;s head of /ationa# !ocia#ism at one end and the grimace of

8/10/2019 Style 1998


Communism at the 0ther. +ut in tracking the scanda# of face on a #esser sca#e in

6oth riters, one descries the out#ine of that same nationa# countenance, as

reading makes one stum6#e ine#ucta6#" from ethics to -o#itics to histor", from one

-u6#icism into another. From that vantage, meton"m" and meta-hor are mere#"

di=erent a"s of <##ing in its features.

Wito#d 2om6roic*, Po#ish c#assist e>i#e, facing rgentine train -assenger, or,

East Euro-ean 0ther facing !outh merican counter-art. Wito#d 2om6roic*,

author, facing Gean5Pau# !artre, -hi#oso-her, or, h"-er5k"nica# modernist7n(%9

facing modern inte##ectua# /a-o#eon. Wito#d 2om6roic*, diarist and nove#ist,

facing a mu#ti-#icit" of readers, or, riting su6ect facing #ecteurs et sem6#a6#es

in<ni. Wito#d 2om6roic* facing +runo !chu#*, or, Po#ish emigre dead of heart

fai#ure in 8&J& facing Po#ish Ge murdered in 8&'(, or, ho##" origina# riter ho

sustained an aesthetic -o#itics of facing to the end facing ho##" origina# riter

hose ?s-iritua# genea#og"? Fate chose to -reserve in am6er. Wito#d 2om6roic*

facing this artic#e;s on author and this author;s readers, or, W. 2. facing . N. /.

and...

To read 2om6roic*, thus, is to 6ecome su6ect to hat another face5o6sessed

riter, Thomas De Ouince", ca##ed ?the Piranesi e=ect,? the mu#ti-#ication of face

as in a ha## of mirrors, from hich 7as !artre might sa"9, there is no e>it, no

a6out5face. If I have seemed to com-ress those man" -#anes or images here, it is

oing in no sma## -art to the e>-erience of reading 2om6roic*, hoseuncanniness resem6#es nothing so much as the tinning of forced otherness and

e>treme se#f5consciousness in a staring contest. From that vantage, the scanda#

of facing is a#so its reason for 6eing. 0ne takes u- the gaunt#et and reads.

/otes

7n89 2om6roic* and Erving 2o=man converge at more than ust a shared -#ace

in the a#-ha6et. !ee es-ecia##" Interaction Ritua#: Essa" in Face5to5Face +ehavior,

here 2o=man descri6es the socio#og" of encounter in terms of ?face5ork,? and

!tigma: /otes on the 4anagement of !-oi#ed Identit".

7n(9 ?Face? oins ?Part,? ?Immaturit",? and es-ecia##" ?Form? in 2om6roic*;s

s-ecia#i*ed voca6u#ar" for e>-ressing the -rimac" of the inter5human. The

fo##oing crucia# e>-#anation of the ro#e -#a"ed 6" Form in a## of 2om6roic*;s

ork comes from Diar", vo#ume 8: ?The most im-ortant, most e>treme, and most

incura6#e dis-ute is that aged in us 6" to of our most 6asic strivings: the one

that desires form, sha-e, de<nition, and the other hich -rotests against sha-e,

and does not ant form ... That entire -hi#oso-hica# and ethica# dia#ectic of ours

takes -#ace against an immensit", hich is ca##ed sha-e#essnesss, hich is

neither darkness nor #ight, 6ut e>act#" a mi>ture of ever"thing: ferment, disorder,-urit", and accident? 7&%9. !ee a#so the e>tended remarks on Form in Diar",

8/10/2019 Style 1998


vo#ume (, %5 and 8)'5)B cha-ter of ind of Testament, a short

auto6iogra-hica# ork -u6#ished short#" 6efore 2om6roic*;s death, J&5)(B and

of course the <ctive e>-#oration of this construct in the nove#s Ferd"durke,

Cosmos, and Pornogra<a. Ea 4. Thom-son;s Wito#d 2om6roic* and Tomis#av N.

Longinovi;s +order#ine Cu#ture: The Po#itics of Identit" in Four Tentieth5Centur"

!#avic /ove#s o=er he#-fu# secondar" treatments, as does the recent#" -u6#ishedessa" co##ection, 2om6roic*;s 2rimaces: 4odernism, 2ender, /ationa#it".

7n%9 Com-are, for e>am-#e, Ferd"durke: ?0h, if I cou#d have seen ust one

undistorted face to ena6#e me to fee# the distortion of m" onQ +ut a#asQ round

me ere nothing 6ut 6attered, #aundered and ironed faces hich reHected m"

on as in a distorting mirror55and I as he#d ca-tive 6" this facia# mirage? 7'&5

$9.

7n'9 Later on in Diar", vo#ume %, 2om6roic* i## indu#ge in a ?c#ose scrutin" of

6odies?: ?I dre -h"sica# defects out of the crods, oh #ook, Hat chest, anemia of

the neck, hunch6ack, tisted trunk, the traged" of those #im6s ... I as

-ersistent a6out seeking out a certain defect, a kind of ver" French ine#egance

dancing a6out their ver" #i-s, noses, not of a## Frenchman 6ut @uite a fe? 7)9.

7n9 For the face is a#so made scanda#ous 6" the ?6ackside? or ?thigh? as

2om6roic* -arce#s out the 6od" into various -arts in Ferd"durke. n othernessin<#trates the root of a -erson;s meta-h"sica# integrit" @uite inde-endent#" of an"

human 0ther, a s-ecies of a#ienation 2om6roic* ca##s ?the rum-? to suggest

than an" !e#f Proect is a#read" undermined 6" the innate surrea#ism of the 6od".

?I even imagined that m" 6od" as not entire#" homogeneous ... that m" head

as #aughing at and mocking m" thigh, that m" thigh as making merr" at m"

head, that m" <nger as ridicu#ing m" heart and m" heart m" 6rain, hi#e m"

e"e made s-ort of m" nose and m" nose of m" e"e ... m" #im6s and the various

-arts of m" 6od" vio#ent#" ridicu#ing each other in a genera# atmos-here of

caustic and ounding rai##er"? 78%58'9.

7nJ9 In the introduction to Pornogra<a, 2om6roic* rites, ?4an, tortured 6" his

mask, fa6ricates secret#" ... a secondar" domain of com-ensation? 7)9.

7n9 -ara##e# moment, for instance, occurs in Diar", vo#ume (: ?I as a#king

a#ong a euca#"-tus5#ined avenue hen a co sauntered out from 6ehind a tree. I

sto--ed and e #ooked each other in the e"e. 3er coness shocked m"

humanness to such a degree55the moment our e"es met as so tense55I sto--ed

dead in m" tracks and #ost m" 6eatings as a man, that is, as a mem6er of the

8/10/2019 Style 1998


human s-ecies. The strange fee#ing that I as a--arent#" discovering for the <rst

time as the shame of a man come face5to5face ith an anima#. I a##oed here to

#ook and see me55this made us e@ua#55and resu#ted in m" a#so 6ecoming an

anima#556ut a strange even for6idden one, I ou#d sa". I continued m" a#k, 6ut I

fe#t uncomforta6#e ... in nature, surrounding me on a## sides, as if it ere ...

atching me? 7('9. The vo#ume c#oses ith an e>tended e-isode 7(%85(%&9 thatcontains the fo##oing: ?Face to face. #one. 3and to 3and. Foot to foot. nee to

knee. Face to face. 1nti# this stu-id identit" 6egins to irritate me in the room, and

I think, ho is it that he re-eats me, that I re-eat him, face to face? 7(%89.

7n)9 !ee a#so Diar" 8, 8)858). In ind of Testament, 2om6roic* makes

simi#ar c#aims a6out structura#ism: ?Kes I am a structura#ist ust as I am an

e>istentia#ist. I am 6ound to structura#ism 6" m" a--roach to Form. 0f course the

human -ersona#it", hich I 6e#ieve is created A6eteen men,; in the human

conte>t hich de<nes a s"stem of de-endencies 6" no means dissimi#ar to a

Astructure.; In hat I rote 6efore the ar "ou i## <nd e>-ressions hich have

no 6een incor-orated 6" the structura#ists? 78(9. In Diar", vo#ume %, he sa"s

irasci6#", ?and -#ease re-#ace the ord form ith structura#ism and "ou i## see

me at the center of toda";s French inte##ectua# issues? 78)(9.

7n&9 The -rovenance of the face tro-e in Levinas is -ro6a6#" dua#, a--earing

cons-icuous#" at the end of Fran* Rosen*eig;s The !tar of Redem-tion, a ork

that inHuenced Levinas dee-#", 6ut a#so saturating the +i6#ica# and Ra66inic te>tsthat undergird much of Levinas;s -hi#oso-h". In 3e6re, the ord for face a#so

means -resence or se#fhood, and it a--ears in numerous scenes of encounter in

the Pentateuch. s 4oses ?hides his face? from 2od on !inai in E>odus 8$, for

e>am-#e, so 2od;s ansering threat of a6sence from the -#ane of human events

is ca##ed hister -anim55the hiding of face55in Deuteronom". Though not -articu#ar#"

Levinasian, -erha-s most re#evant in the #ight of 2om6roic*;s <ction ma" 6e the

verses in 2enesis %8:(, ?nd Gaco6 sa that La6an;s face as not ith him, as it

had 6een in the 6est,? and %8:, ?La6an;s face is not to me as it as -revious#".?

s vivah Norn6erg 6ri##iant#" reads them in her The +eginning of Desire:

ReHections on 2enesis, ?La6an;s face is -art of Gaco6;s or#dB he carries its

im-ress, its changing #ooks around ith him.? !he adduces a homi#etic g#oss on a

re#ated Ta#mudic -assage 7+erakhot J69 that centers on the se#f5consciousness

induced 6" the ga*e of others: ?one ho is too much a=ected 6" other;s faces

<nds his on face turning a## co#ors, 6#ushing and -a#ing in res-onse to their

changing e>-ressions.? 7($J9

7n8$9 The credi6#e -ara##e#s Ea 4. Thom-son dras 6eteen 2om6roic* and

the ork of Gac@ues Lacan and Rene 2irard in Wito#d 2om6roic* 78%&5J9 make

the Levinasian resem6#ance, through French -henomeno#og", 6" com-arison,unsur-rising. The most uncannni#" Levinasian moment in Diar"55as though it

8/10/2019 Style 1998


came from Tota#it" and In<nit" itse#f55occurs in vo#ume %: ?The -oint is 7and I have

noticed it for @uite a hi#e9 that some sort of theor" ... im-oses itse#f u-on me

in m" re#ation to -eo-#e: I kno that essence -oerfu##" ... and I tr" to rouse the

<ght reHe> in m"se#f. I kno, I fee#, the ?ho? and ?hence? and ?h"? of this

other;s ?a--roaching? or ?emerging? and hat our ?dis-osition? is toard one

another shou#d not 6e a matter of indi=erenceB I kno that it shou#d 6e morefundamenta# than one can e>-ress in ordsB and that it shou#d 6e ?introductor",?

or ?-receding? m" other sensation constituting something #ike a 6ackground?

7(%9. +ut -erha-s the c#osest fami#" ties, <tting#" enough, can 6e tracked to the

nove# La Came de Rend 7Rene;s F#esh9, 6" the Cu6an riter irgi#io Pinero 7hom

2om6roic* kne in rgentina, and to hom he de#egated the res-onsi6i#it" of

trans#ating Ferd"durke into !-anish9. Pinero;s nove# features a re#ent#ess 6od"5

consciousness, the sado5masochism of -edagog", and various scenes of

grimacing and distorted face that a## undou6ted#" echo Ferd"durke.

7n889 !-eaking of !artre again, for instance, at the end of the entr" for 8&J(,

2om6roic* chides him for his ?caco-hon" of #eve#s, tones, conce-ts,? his

?sudden tum6#ing from the -eaks onto the Hat -#ain,? the sitch from one voice

e>-ressive of ?the s-irit,? to a second voice one associates ith ?a schoo#master

and mora#ist.? 3e te##s the fo##oing anecdote. ?fter going to 6ed ith an

e#evator 6o", the heroine of one of Thomas 4ann;s nove#s cries out in e>a#tation,

AWhat, I, 4adame so5and5so, a -oet, #ad" of societ", in 6ed ith a naked e#evator

6o"Q; I think this anecdote is <ght for !artre not so much 6ecause of the dia#ectics

of the A6ase; hich it contains as for the Asu-erstructure,; the e#evator. For even

in our time, one occasiona##" comes u-on one of those scru-u#ous -eo-#e ho,

-anic5stricken that not his on su6stance 6ut a mechanism is raising him a#oft

-resses the 6utton of the same machine to ride don as @uick#" as -ossi6#e? 7(:

J$5J89. nd in the entr" for 8&J%, he o-ines, ?3a#f of his deductions from +eing

and /othingness are unacce-ta6#e to me, the" do not corres-ond to m" truest

e>-eriences in #ife? 7%:&%9. Later in the same vo#ume, he te##s us, -erverse#", that

he on#" rites a6out !artre an"a" in order to distract himse#f from visiting +er#in

on a Ford Foundation grant: ?It is o6vious55never rite Aa6out +er#in, AParis,; on#"

a6out onese#f ... in +er#in and Paris? 788$9.

7n8(9 0r in other ords, a regard de #;autrui com-#ete#" unimagina6#e ithin the

-ages of +eing and /othingness. In ha--ier da"s55at #east as recounted 6" an

adu#t !artre #ooking 6ack on his chi#dhood55a ver" di=erent re#ationshi- to 6eing

read is imagined in a -assage hich descri6es ith immense -#easure the

-ros-ect of 6ecoming a ?-reci-itate of #anguage? disseminated through riting.

?4" 6ones are made of #eather and card6oard, m" -archment5skinned Hesh

sme##s of g#ue and mushrooms, I sit in state through a hundred thirt" -ounds of;

-a-er, thorough#" at ease. I am re6orn, I at #ast 6ecome a ho#e man. ... 3ands

take me don, o-en me, s-read me Hat on the ta6#e, smooth me, and sometimes

make me creak. ... 4" mind is in 6its and -ieces. ## the 6etter. Peo-#e read me,

I #ea- to the e"eB the" ta#k to me. I;m in ever"one;s mouth, a universa# and

8/10/2019 Style 1998


individua# #anguage: I 6ecome a -ros-ective curiosit" in mi##ions of ga*esB to him

ho can #ove me, I ste- aside and disa--ear: I e>ist nohere, at #ast I am, I;m

ever"here. I;m a -arasite on mankind, m" 6#essings eat into it and force it to

kee- reviving m" a6sence? 7The Words 8&'58&9.

7n8%9 1nfortunate#", most of this discussion is carried on in #anguages other than

Eng#ish. !ee, hoever, Russe## E. +ron;s 4"ths and Re#atives: !even Essa"s on

+runo !chu#*, Diana u-re#;s ?Errant Events on the +ranch Tracks of Time: +runo

!chu#* and 4"thica# Consciousness,? and David Garrett;s ?+runo !chu#* and the

4a- of Po#and.?

7n8'9 The -assage comes from -erha-s !chu#*;s most 2om6roic*5#ike stor",

?The 0#d ge Pensioner,? hich -ara##e#s Ferd"durke in its descri-tion of anadu#t;s uveni#i*ation.

7n89 The entr" on !chu#* is #aced ith the voca6u#ar" of -erversion and -"scho5

-atho#og", and the #ineaments of 2om6roic*;s on -ersona#it", not #east his

homose>ua#it", can 6e discerned 6eteen its #ines55hich is on#" <tting, since the

face5to5face in 2om6roic* is, in this sense, a#a"s inter#inear55a stretto or

stichom"thia.

7n8J9 In The !u6#ime 06ect of Ideo#og", !#avo Ni*ek e>-#ains the dua# meaning

of the s"m-tom in Lacan, an inde> to human -ersona#it" as e## as a semiotic

choice:

The Lacanian anser to the @uestion: From here does the re-ressed returnM is

... -arado>ica##": From the future. !"m-toms are meaning#ess traces, their

meaning is not discovered, e>cavated from the hidden de-th of the -ast, 6ut

constructed retroactive#"55the ana#"sis -roduces the truthB that is, the signif"ingframe hich gives the s"m-toms their s"m6o#ic -#ace and meaning ... What e

must 6ear in mind here is the radica# onto#ogica# status of s"m-tom: s"m-tom,

conceived as sinthome, Lacan;s coinage, meaning 7among other things9, a

s"nthesis 6eteen s"m-tom and fantas" is #itera##" our on#" su6stance, the

-ositive su--ort of our 6eing, the on#" -oint that gives consistenc" to the su6ect.

7, 9

The a" in hich it takes sha-e 6eteen ana#"st and ana#"sand is ana#ogous to

the dou6#e 6ind of #iterar" inter-retation, chaining riter and reader in a com-#e>

8/10/2019 Style 1998


e>change of cathe>es. !ee in this conte>t 3ano +erressem;s The ?Evi# E"e? of

Painting: Gac@ues Lacan and Wito#d 2om6roic* of the 2a*e.

7n89 0ne of his #etters 6egins, ?Dear C#assmate, of course I remem6er "ou, and

"our face s-rings vivid#" 6efore m" e"es? 7Letters )&9.

7n8)9 Com-are a#so the stor", ?!anatorium 1nder the !ign of the 3ourg#ass,? for

the descri-tion of a man5dog: ?3o great is the -oer of -reudiceQ 3o -oerfu#

the ho#d of fearQ 3o 6#ind I had 6eenQ It as not a dog, it as a man. chained

man, hom 6" a sim-#if"ing meta-horic error, I had taken for a dog.? 7Com-#ete

Fiction (J&9

7n8&9 In a #etter to a -u6#isher dated 0cto6er 8$, 8&%, !chu#* sa"s that The

4essiah 7since #ost9 i## 6e ?the continuation of Cinnamon !ho-s? 7Letters 8$%9.

7n($9 In his ?0-en Letter to +runo !chu#*? from to "ears ear#ier, 2om6roic*

accuses his com-atriot of a mandarin facade that remains o-a@ue to the

common reader 7?the doctor;s ife?9, e>horting him at the end to ?sho us this

e>-ression on "our face, give us one #ook at it, ho gent#e +runo shakes o= the

o-inion of the doctor;s ife from Line 8)? 7!chu#*, Letters 88&9. !chu#*;s ri-oste

as itt" and unafraid, and certain#" -#aces 2om6roic*;s assessment of him

there and in his Diar" in a di=erent #ight. To "ears after this e>change, !chu#*

-u6#ished a revie of Ferd"durke in the ourna# !kamander in 8&%), hich, to use

2om6roic*;s terms, reHects a#most undisti##ed ?s"m6iosis.? 0ne of its organi*ing

meta-hors, hoever, is te##ing: ?+oth the trou6#es, the misfortunes, and the -uns

of form, and the torture of man on form;s Procrustean 6ed, e>cite and move him

-assionate#". +ut ho meager and dr", ho -oor is the ske#eton of those

-ro6#ems #ifted out of the #iving organism of the nove# Ferd"durke. It is scarce#"

one cross5section of the #iving, hir#ing 6u#k of its 6od", hard#" one of the

thousand as-ects of this thousand5faceted creature. 3ere e <na##" encounter a

natura#, <rst5hand mind that has not 6een stu=ed fu## of read"made ideas.Whenever e #a" our hands on the Hesh of this ork, e fee# a -oerfu#

muscu#ature of thought, musc#es, and sines of an ath#etic anatom" that needs

no arti<cia# -adding. This 6ook 6ursts from an a6undance of ideas, overHos ith

creative and destructive energ".? The same somatic conceit conc#udes the -iece,

re-roving criticism in its c#inica# im-ro-riet": ?Ket ho much must the ork,

through this sort of stri--ing and medica# -re--ing of the 6are ske#eton su=er

damage to its un#imited -ers-ective ... that 6estos on 2om6roic*;s ideas the

va#ue of a microcosmos, the va#ue of a universa# mode# of the or#d and #ifeQ?

7Letters 8J%5J'9.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


7n(89 Which is to sa" of the -rose;s se>ua# energies, that, un#ike 2om6roic*;s,

there is no friction. It is orth -ursuing the @uestion of eros as a di=erentiating

categor" for these to riters, sa", a#ong #ines suggested 6" +arthes;s distinction

6eteen te>ts of -#aisir and those of ouissance in The P#easure of the Te>t. If

te>ts of -#easure can 6e #inked to a ?comforta6#e -ractice of reading,? and te>ts

of 6#iss to ?a state of #oss? or discomfort 7 8'9, 2om6roic* and !chu#* might 6ethought of, #ikeise, in terms of the te>t that chafes or a6rades on the one hand,

and the te>t that s#ides and s#i-s aa" on the other.

7n((9 ?3e as a fanatic of art, its s#ave. 3e entered this c#oister and su6mitted to

its rigors, carr"ing out its strictest inunctions ith great humi#it" in order to

attain -erfection. ... Fa##ing to his knees 6efore the !-irit, he e>-erienced

sensua# -#easure. 3e anted to 6e a servant, nothing more. 3e craved

none>istence? 7 9.

7n(%9 !ee Peter !#oterdik;s high#" 2om6roic*ian Criti@ue of C"nica# Reason,

es-ecia##" the section ?P"schosomatics of the Neitgeist? and its <rst cha-ter,

?Ph"siognomic 4ain Te>t.? I thank Fe#icia !tee#e for discussions a6out

2om6roic* in this regard.

Works Cited

+arthes, Ro#and. The P#easure of the Te>t. Trans. Richard 4i##er. /e Kork: 3i## and

Wang, 8&.

+erressem, 3ano. The ?Evi# E"e? of Painting: Gac@ues Lacan and Wito#d

2om6roic* of the 2a*e. #6an": !tate 1 of /e Kork P, 8&&.

+ron, Russe## E. 4"ths and Re#atives: !even Essa"s on +runo !chu#*. 4unchen:

er#ag 0tto !agner, 8&&8.

2o=man, Erving. Interaction Ritua#: Essa" in Face5to5Face +ehavior. Chicago:

d#ine, 8&J.

55555. !tigma: /otes on the 4anagement of !-oi#ed Identit". Eng#eood C#i=s, /G:Prentice53a##, 8&J%. 2om6roic*, Wito#d. Diar". % vo#s. Trans. Li##ian a##ee.

Evanston: /orthestern 1P, 8&))5&%.

55555. Ferd"durke. Trans. Eric 4os6acher. London: 4ac2i66on U ee, 8&J8.

55555. ind of Testament. Trans. #astair 3ami#ton. London: Ca#der and +o"ars,

8&%.

55555. Pornogra<a. Trans. #astair 3ami#ton. London: Ca#der and +o"ars, 8&JJ.

Garrett, David. ?+runo !chu#* and the 4a- of Po#and.? Chicago Revie '$. 8

78&&'9: %5)'.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


u-re#, Diana. ?Errant Events on the +ranch Tracks of Time: +runo !chu#* and

4"thica# Consciousness.? !#avic U East Euro-ean Gourna# '$.8 7!-ring 8&&J9: 8$$5

8.

Levinas, Emmanue#. +asic Phi#oso-hica# Writings. +#oom<e#d: Indiana 1P, 8&&J.

55555. Co##ected Phi#oso-hica# Pa-ers. Trans. #-honso Lingis. The 3ague: 4artinus

/iho=, 8&).

55555. Tota#it" and In<nit": n Essa" on E>teriorit". Trans. #fonso Lingis. Pitts6urgh:

Du@uesne 1P, 8&J&.

Longinovi, Tomis#av N. +order#ine Cu#ture: The Po#itics of Identit" in Four

Tentieth5Centur" !#avic /ove#s. Fa"ettevi##e: 1 of rkansas P, 8&&%.

/eton, dam Nachar". Facing +#ack and Ge: Literature as Pu6#ic !-ace in

Tentieth5Centur" merica. Cam6ridge: Cam6ridge 1P, 8&&&.

55555. The Fence and the /eigh6or: Emmanue# Levinas, Kesha"ahu Lei6oit*, and

Israe# mong the /ations. Forthcoming.

55555. /arrative Ethics. Cam6ridge: 3arvard 1P, 8&&.

Pinero, irgi#io. Rene;s F#esh. Trans. 4ark !chafen /e Kork: 4arsi#io, 8&)&.

!artre, Gean5Pau#. The Words. Trans. +ernard Frechtman. /e Kork: 2eorge

+ra*i##er, 8&J'.

55555. ?What is LiteratureM? and 0ther Essa"s. Cam6ridge: 3arvard 1P, 8&)).

!chu#*, +runo. The Com-#ete Fiction of +runo !chu#*. Trans. Ce#ia Wienieska.

/e Kork: Wa#ker, 8&)&.

55555. Letters and Draings of +runo !chu#*. /e Kork: 3ar-er and Ro, 8&)).

!#oterdik, Peter. Criti@ue of C"nica# Reason. Trans. 4ichae# E#red. 4innea-o#is: 1

of 4innesota P, 8&).

55555. Thom-son, Ea 4. Wito#d 2om6roic*. +oston: Ta"ne, 8&&.

1-dike, Gohn. Introduction. !anatorium 1nder the !ign of the 3ourg#ass. +" +runo

!chu#*. Trans. Ce#ia Wienieska. /e Kork: Penguin, 8&&.

Niarek, Ea Ponoska, ed. 2om6roic*;s 2rimaces: 4odernism, 2ender,

/ationa#it". #6an": !tate 1 of /e Kork P, 8&&).

Ni*ek, !#avo. The !u6#ime 06ect of Ideo#og". London: erso, 8&)&.

Norn6erg, vivah. The +eginning of Desire: ReHections on 2enesis. /e Kork:

Dou6#eda", 8&&J.

+" dam Nachar" /eton, 1niversit" of Te>as at ustin

8/10/2019 Style 1998


/as#ov: Who 3as the Right to Fee#M: The Ethics of Literar" Em-ath". Prema:

Lundeen, ath#een, !t"#e, $$%&'(%), !ummer&), !ve*ak. %(, +ro (.+a*a


W30 3! T3E RI23T T0 FEELM: T3E ET3IC! 0F LITERRK E4PT3K

Like most go#den ru#es, em-ath" is seen as more than a virtueB for man", it is a

#itmus test of one;s humanit". In the -o#itica# rea#m it is #o66ied for in the form of

socia# #egis#ation and demanded of e#ected ocia#s ho must ?re#ate? to their

constituents. s -rivac" has 6ecome a -u6#ic commodit" and the ta#k sho host

the -rotot"-e of a #eader, -o#itica##" motivated em-ath" has on occasion

esca#ated to the -oint of 6eing maud#in. Though +i## C#inton is hard#" u6i@uitous,

sur-rising#" fe cha##enged him hen he dec#ared to a heterogeneous e#ectorate,?I fee# "our -ain.? +ut hi#e a sho of em-ath" ma" enhance a -erson;s -ro<#e in

rea#5#ife encounters, it has of #ate raised sus-icion hen directed toard <ctiona#

su6ects. Writers or readers ho a--ear to em-athi*e ith another;s #ife

e>-eriences are often accused of arrogating a cu#tura# authorit" to hich the"

have no natura# c#aim.

Discourse of a## kinds55-oetic, <ctiona#, critica#55is taken at this time to 6e an

artifact of socia# identit"B the #anguage of a -articu#ar te>t is thus treated as the

secret code of those ho share a designated mark of socia# identi<cation.4oreover, since ever"one is marked 6" societ" in a num6er of a"s 7through, for

instance, ethnicit", c#ass, se>, re#igion, age, -h"sica# mo6i#it", and nationa#it"9, if

e ere to insist on shared identit" in a## areas, riters ou#d on#" 6e <t to

re-resent themse#ves, and readers, to understand re-resentations of themse#ves.

+" this #ogic, auto6iogra-h" ou#d emerge as the so#e #egitimate creative genre

and it ou#d 6e suita6#e on#" for a readershi- of one: its author.

Though no one -ro-oses surrendering to such an e>treme -osition, @uestions

#inger a6out the degree to hich socia# identit" insinuates itse#f into #iterar" art.David Pa#um6o5Liu;s musing on his e>-erience as an assistant -rofessor is orth

noting since his account, hich is hard#" uni@ue, reminds us that assum-tions

a6out #iterar" em-ath" have rea# conse@uences:

hat do e do hen ca##ed on 7over and over again9 to guest5teach The Woman

WarriorM or The Co#or Pur-#e or Ceremon" and so onM Do e insist that skin co#or

has no 6earing on the a6i#it" or right of an"one to teach a -articu#ar ork and

enter once again into the de6ates that inevita6#" fo##o regarding the -o#itics of

8/10/2019 Style 1998


hiring facu#t" mem6ers of co#orM Is the re@uest that I teach 4a>ine 3ong ingston

a sign of the dreaded ethnic ghettoi*ation or a sign of res-ectM 78$)9

The @uestion -ersists: to hat e>tent is our #iterar" engagement 6io#ogica##" or

cu#tura##" determinedM

/arroing the authorit" of riters, readers, or teachers o6vious#" reduces the

sco-e of their #iterar" activities, 6ut it -oses an even greater threat to cu#ture: it

de6unks a fundamenta# assum-tion a6out cu#tura# e>-ression55name#", that

re-resentation -resu--oses a ca-acit" for em-ath". That -articu#ar assum-tion is

so rooted in human consciousness that it has endured in the face of the

shredest of arguments a6out the nature of re-resentation. /otithstanding

-ostmodern -ronouncements that a## s"stems of re-resentation are mechanismsof distortion 7a c#aim that tacit#" argues there is a truth to 6e distorted9, the

co##ective faith that re-resentation is -ossi6#e has not diminished. We might have

e>-ected in the ake of deconstruction to itness the #ong, ithdraing roar of

ver6a# activit", 6ut, of course, e have not. Though -ostmodern criti@ue has not

-reem-ted re-resentationa# acts, it has #eft man" in a du-#icitous re#ationshi-

ith cu#ture, one in hich the" e>ercise their faith in #anguage 6" s-eaking and

riting, 6ut remain ske-tica# of others; ver6a# e>-ression, a#a"s kee-ing an e"e

out for the a"s the" are 6eing had.

In 8)(), Fe#icia 3emans -u6#ished a -oem that, ere it not for the -ro6#ems it

raises a6out #iterar" em-ath", might 6e dismissed as unmemora6#e. ?Indian

Woman;s Death5!ong? as ins-ired 6" an account of a oman ho, distraught 6"

the a6andonment of her hus6and, droned herse#f and her to "oung chi#dren in

the 4ississi--i River. In the -oem, 3emans romantici*es the mother;s murder and

suicide 6" -resenting them as an act of courage. Preceding her sentimenta#

rendering of the event, her severa# e-igra-hs to the -oem, es-ecia##" the

@uotation from Games Fenimore Coo-er;s The Prairie: ?Let not m" chi#d 6e a gir#,

for ver" sad is the #ife of a oman,? signa# her editoria# -osition. 3emans;s refusa#

to @uestion the oman;s actions -oses an ethica# di#emma for her readers,hoever: is her em-ath" ith the oman a testament to her freedom from

cu#tura# hegemon", or is it evidence of a se#f5serving -#o" 6" hich she can

e>-#oit another cu#ture for her on -s"cho#ogica# gainM

3emans #earns of the droning incident from Wi##iam eating;s /arrative of an

E>-edition to the !ource of !t. Peter;s River. eating;s rete##ing is te##ing. In the

re-ort, eating makes the merican Indians sound sus-icious#" Eng#ish in

sensi6i#it":

8/10/2019 Style 1998


n Indian of the Dacota nation had united himse#f ear#" in #ife to a "outhfu#

fema#e, hose name as m-ota !a-a, hich signi<es the dark da"B ith her he

#ived ha--i#" for severa# "ears, a--arent#" eno"ing ever" comfort hich the

savage #ife can a=ord. Their union had 6een 6#essed ith to chi#dren, on hom

6oth -arents doated ith that de-th of fee#ing hich is unknon to such as have

other treasures 6eside those that s-ring from nature. 7%8$9

eating goes on to e>-#ain that the hus6and, un6eknonst to his s-ouse,

ac@uires a second ife to increase his stature in the communit". 0nce again, the

ord choice, s"nta>, and overa## decorum of the -rose revea# that eating;s

narrative has 6een <#tered through ng#o5merican consciousness:

+eing desirous to introduce his 6ride into his #odge in the manner hich shou#d6e #east o=ensive to the mother of his chi#dren, for hom he sti## retained much

regard, he introduced the su6ect in these ords: ?Kou kno,? said he, ?that I #ove

no oman so fond#" as I doat u-on "ou. With regret, have I seen "ou of #ate

su6ected to toi#s, hich must 6e o--ressive to "ou, and from hich I ou#d

g#ad#" re#ieve "ou, "et I kno no other a" of doing so than 6" associating to "ou

in the househo#d duties one, ho sha## re#ieve "ou from the trou6#e of

entertaining the numerous guests, hom m" groing im-ortance in the nation

co##ects around me. I have, therefore, reso#ved u-on taking another ife, 6ut she

sha## a#a"s 6e su6ect to "our contro#, as she i## a#a"s rank in m" a=ections

second to "ou.? With the utmost an>iet", and the dee-est concern, did hiscom-anion #isten to this une>-ected -ro-osa#. !he e>-ostu#ated in the kindest

terms, entreated him ith a## the arguments hich undisguised #ove and the

-urest conuga# a=ection cou#d suggest. 7%889

Throughout his account, even as eating refers to the natives as ?savages,? he

-ortra"s them as gentee# fo#k ho never miss an o--ortunit" for fe#icitous

-hrasing. In the -reface to the 6ook, far from a-o#ogi*ing for editoria# intrusions,

he e>-resses regret for not 6eing a6#e to render a## of his account in decorous

#anguage:

The com-i#er has found it im-ossi6#e, in the descri-tion of the scener" of the

4ississi--i, Uc. to avoid the introduction of severa# ords, hich, a#though the"

are not sanctioned 6" the dictionaries, seem to 6e characteristic and essentia# in

such descri-tions: of this nature are the ords556#u=, -rairie, Uc. The term creek,

6eing used in di=erent acce-tations in Eng#and and merica, has 6een avoided in

a## cases, though ith some inconvenience. The ord run i##, it is 6e#ieved, 6e

found 6ut once in the 6od" of the ork. Lest an" fa#se im-ression shou#d 6e

dran from the introduction of the term estuar", it ma" 6e -ro-er to state, that ithas 6een inadvertent#" used in severa# cases to designate the out#ets of streams

8/10/2019 Style 1998


here the tides do not reci-rocate. In com-i#ing from notes ritten 6" man"

-ersons under the disadvantages of fatigues, hardshi-s, and -rivations, it is not

eas", hoever it ma" 6e desira6#e, to avoid the use of a## o6ectiona6#e terms.

7i>9

For nineteenth5centur" re-orters, the ru#es of the game ere c#ear#" di=erent

from those for their tentieth5centur" counter-arts. In his account, eating

a--ears to -rivi#ege -ro-riet" over authenticit". Though he never suggests that

he ma" have com-romised the ?facts? through his rhetorica# discretion, he, as a

ourna#ist, neverthe#ess, has a -ro6#em: if geogra-hica# terms i## make his

readers 6#ush, ho can he -ossi6#" <nd a suita6#" de#icate #anguage to descri6e a

mother murdering her chi#dM Presuma6#", he re-resents merican Indian cu#ture

through Euro-ean #iterar" conventions to mitigate the horror of the infanticide

and thus avoid o=ending his re<ned readers.7 n89 Even more distur6ing than his

unfaithfu# rendering of the merican Indian;s s-eech, hoever, is his im-#icit

suggestion that the native oman;s actions are sanctioned 6" her -eo-#e. /ot

once in his account does he suggest that the traged" ma" have 6een an

anoma#ous act of a des-erate oman. Rather, he -resents it as data from hich

readers can e>tra-o#ate the character of the Dacota tri6e. t the end of this

account, he rites:

it is stated 6" the Indians that often in the morning a voice has 6een heard to

sing a do#efu# ditt" a#ong the edge of the fa##, and that it ever de##s u-on theinconstanc" of her hus6and. /a", some assert that her s-irit has 6een seen

andering near the s-ot ith her chi#dren ra--ed to her 6osom. !uch are the

ta#es or traditions hich the Indians treasure u-, and hich the" re#ate to the

vo"ager, forcing a tear from the e"es of the most re#ent#ess. 7%8(58%9

eating;s re-ort that the traged" achieved a m"tho#ogica# status ithin the

Dacota nation argues against its socio#ogica# re#evance. 3ad it 6een a common

event, it -ro6a6#" ou#d not have 6een re#ated to ?vo"agers? at a##.

1nitting#", eating sends mi>ed signa#s to his readers. s mentioned ear#ier,

hi#e he fashions the merican Indians after Euro-eans in s-eech and sensi6i#it",

he continua##" reminds his reader that these @uasi5Euro-eans are at some #eve#

?savage.? The frontis-iece to his 6ook itse#f o=ers a mi>ed visua# signa#. Tit#ed

?Wanotan and his son,? the engraving shos an Indian adu#t -osing, as it ere,

for a Euro-ean -ortrait artist 7<g. 89. 3and on hi- ith one #eg 6ent and /ordic

facia# features, he #ooks sus-icious#" #ike !ir Wa#ter Ra#eigh in an Indian costume

7<g. (9. cursor" g#ance at the engraving suggests that cu#ture is #itt#e more than

the cut of one;s i6, 6ut a c#oser #ook shos the son to 6e ho#ding a s-ear.eating;s -atroni*ing gestures are as trans-arent in his account as the" are in the

8/10/2019 Style 1998


engraving. /ohere in his narrative does he rest#e ith the contradiction in

-ortra"ing the Indians as 6enign curiosities ho are ?ust #ike us? 7e>ce-t, of

course, for their 6ar6aric nature9, 6ut rather im-#ies that ?no6#e savage? is not an

o>"moron.

Like eating, 3emans strains the stor" of the native oman through a sieve of

Western conventions. 3er -ur-ose is di=erent, hoever. Whereas eating

saniti*es the murder and suicide so as not to o=end his readers, 3emans

ce#e6rates it as a a" of e>-ressing, ithout e>-ressing, her on death ish.

3emans 6egins the -oem 6" de-icting the canoe as fragi#e and vu#nera6#e, and

thus a##os it to 6e seen as a meton"m for the Indian oman:

Don a 6road river of the estern i#ds,

Piercing thick forest g#ooms, a #ight canoe

!e-t ith the current: fearfu# as the s-eed

0f the frai# 6ark, as 6" a tem-est;s ing

+orne #eaf5#ike on to here the mist of s-ra"

Rose ith the cataract;s thunder.

Like the canoe, hich is sim-#" a vesse# for the oman, e infer that the oman,

in her earth#" form, is 6ut a tem-orar" container for her immorta# se#f. 4oreover,

e intimate from the meton"m that the oman is as he#-#ess and incu#-a6#e as

?the frai# 6ark? in hich she rides. 3emans continues:

55Ket ithin,

Proud#", and daunt#ess#", and a## a#one,

!ave that a 6a6e #a" s#ee-ing at her 6reast,

oman stood.

Though it is high#" im-ro6a6#e that an 0#"m-ic ka"aker cou#d stand in a canoe in

a rushing river, 3emans shos the mother confronting death in fu## stature. In so

doing, she manages to <nesse an image of a oman ho is 6oth in contro# of her

destin" and invo#untari#" se-t aa" 6" circumstances.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


!he com-#etes the o-ening of the -oem 6" revea#ing the oman to 6e a -oet:

!he -ress;d her chi#d,

In its 6right s#um6er, to her 6eating heart,

nd #ifted her seet voice, that rose ahi#e

6ove the sound of aters, high and c#ear,

Wafting a i#d -roud strain, her !ong of Death.

The ver" notion of a ?death5song? suggests 3emans;s refusa# to recogni*e the fu##

im-#ications of the oman;s actions. s nthon" 3arding notes, ?Death, in

3emans;s -oems, is not so much the enem" of domestic a=ection as the

necessar" dark 6ackdro- against hich the a=ections sho their true 6rightness.t times, death virtua##" 6ecomes a kind of guarantee of the signi<cance of a #ife,

-articu#ar#" of a oman;s #ife? 78%)9. In ?Indian Woman;s Death5!ong,? death

a--ears to 6e #itt#e more than conve"ance to a ha--ier, safer -#ace. Thus, the

mother #eaves the earth singing, as if art can trans-ort her chi#d and her into

another or#d.

In her -oem 7hich is Rousseauvian ith a feminist tist9, 3emans -ortra"s the

native oman as having an anit" ith the natura# universe and im-#ies that this

ena6#es her to e>-ress the universa# grief of omanhood. It is no sur-rise that?Indian Woman;s Death5!ong? as -u6#ished in 3emans;s Records of Woman

since ethnicit" e>ists in the -oem so#e#" in the service of gender. Like eating,

3emans has a dou6#e attitude toard race. !imu#taneous#" accentuating and

minimi*ing racia# di=erence, she conceives of the native oman in her on

Western image. /ot on#" does her Indian oman s-eak +ritish Eng#ish, she does

so ithin the conventions of Eng#ish #"rica# verse:

Wi## he not miss the 6ounding ste- that met him from the chaseM The heart of

#ove that made his home an ever sunn" -#aceM The hand that s-read the hunter;s

6oard, and deck;d his couch of "oreM 3e i## notQ55ro##, dark foaming stream, on to

the 6etter shoreQ

Through the rh"med iam6ic he-tameter, the e-ithets 7?the 6ounding ste-,? ?dark

foaming stream?9, and the s"necdoches 7the heart, the hand9, 3emans

trans-#ants merican Indian e>-erience from its on cu#tura# ground to Eng#ish

soi#. !he even -resents /ative merican re#igion in a Western form: the Indian

oman, in hat sounds #ike a -ra"er to the Christian 2od, c#as-s her chi#d to her

6reast and im-#ores the ?Father of ncient Waters? to ?6ear our #ives ith theeQ?

8/10/2019 Style 1998


Toard the end of the -oem she sings to her chi#d, assuring her that she is taking

her to ?the g#orious 6oers here none are heard to ee-,Snd here th;unkind

one hath no -oer again to trou6#e s#ee-BSnd here the sou# sha## <nd its "outh,

as akening from a dream?5a -#ace that c#ose#" resem6#es the orthodo> Christian

heaven.

The conventions 3emans uses ere fami#iar to the readers of her da" since at the

time she rote the -oem, ng#o5merican riters had a--ro-riated the Indian

death5song 7as re-orted 6" those ho had met /ative mericans9 and recast it as

an Eng#ish #iterar" genre 7see 2os#ee ('J5'9. From a #ate tentieth5centur"

-ers-ective, it might a--ear that 3emans commits an act of dou6#e eo-ard",

<rst co#oni*ing her su6ect and then -#acing her in a co#oni*ed genre. 3emans;s

re-resentationa# act is com-#icated, hoever, 6" the fact that she and her su6ect

are 6oth omen. !he assumes an anit" ith the Indian oman, ho in the

-oem is ng#ici*ed so that she is in a## res-ects #ike 3emans. In a## res-ects, that

is, 6ut one. The Indian oman has the courage to #eave her morta# #ife and take

her chi#d ith her.

+" documenting the source of her -oetic narrative in a -refator" note to the

-oem, 3emans #ends authorit" to her rendering of the event. In stating that the

Indian oman;s voice ?as heard from the shore singing a mournfu# death5song,?

she suggests that the song in the -oem ma" 6e transcri-tion rather than

imaginative construction. +ut she neg#ects to sa" in the note that the -oem is the-roduct of a heavi#" mediated event. The droning as itnessed 6" a oman of

the Dacota nation ho to#d it to her son. 3e, in turn, re#ated it to !te-hen Long

7ho #ed the e>-edition recorded 6" eating9B Long -assed it on to eating, and

eating 7via his ritten account9 to 3emans, ho -resents it to her readers as a

-oetic narrative. Thus, the -refator" note to the -oem overauthori*es her

account 6" omitting the fact that the event as <#tered through severa#

imaginations. 1ndou6ted#", in 3emans;s da", man" an unsus-ecting reader

assumed the song as more5or5#ess authentic.

In 8)8), ten "ears 6efore 3emans rote the -oem, her hus6and deserted her and

their <ve chi#dren, one of hom as a ne6orn. Though 3emans;s refusa# to

condemn, or even @uestion, the native oman;s act might a--ear to argue in

favor of cu#tura# to#erance, her on domestic tria#s o=er another e>-#anation55that

she enno6#es an act of vio#ence, a form of conduct unsanctioned 6" Eng#ish

societ", in order to va#ori*e 6" -ro>" her on uns-eaka6#e desire. Like eating,

3emans intimates that the oman;s actions are native to her cu#ture. In the

narrative 6#ank verse that introduces the song itse#f, she rites: ?1-on her Indian

6roQ !at a strange g#adness, and her dark hair av;dSs if trium-hant#".? The

smooth#" orchestrated death, accom-anied 6" a #"rica# scri-t 7the oman;sdeath5song9, takes on the character of a tri6a# ritua#. !ince in the 6est of Eng#ish

8/10/2019 Style 1998


fami#ies of the ear#" nineteenth centur", mothers did not dron themse#ves and

their chi#dren, 3emans, it a--ears, a--ro-riates non5White cu#ture as a <#ter for

her on des-erate voice. The -oem is, thus, a cu#tura# conundrum in that

3emans s-eaks on 6eha#f of a native oman so that the native oman can s-eak

for her. The a--arent reci-rocit" 6eteen the omen, hoever e## 3emans

intended it, is neverthe#ess #itt#e more than a rhetorica# construction since toadmire in hiding55to em-athi*e in secret55is simu#taneous#" to seek and shun

identi<cation ith another. Like meta-hor, em-ath" c#aims that something is #ike,

6ut is not, something e#se, so that even hen o-en#" e>-ressed, it is at once a

condition of s"m-ath" and a#ienation. 0r, to -ut it another a", em-ath"

manifests the a--arent anit" one -erson has ith another, 6ut in so doing it

magni<es the di=erences 6eteen them.

In severa# res-ects 3emans;s -oem resem6#es hat !usan Ritchie has referred to

as ?ventri#o@uist fo#k#ore,? #iterature that ?-resumes to s-eak on the 6eha#f of

some voice#ess grou- or individua#? 7%JJ5J9. ccording to Ritchie, one of the

features of this cu#tura# e>-ression is that it ?ignores the a"s in hich conte>t

mediates -resentation? 7%J9. Further, it ?esta6#ishes the fo#k#orist as a kind of

medium or channe#er, ho -resents the true voices of those otherise #ost to an

audience so eager for diverse articu#ations that the" fai# to note this Adiversit";

... issues from fo#k#ore;s sing#e disci-#inar" throat? 7%J9. dmitted#", situating

?Indian Woman;s Death5!ong? in a matri> of -resent5da" cu#tura# issues is

anachronistic, an em-athic overste--ing, since 3emans never intimates a

-o#itica# agenda, either in the -oem itse#f or in her -reface to the -oem. /ohere

does she hint that the -oem is designed to give a voice to a si#enced mem6er of

an underre-resented grou-. 3er so#e desire a--ears to 6e to give herse#f a voice,

something she can do on#" 6" -ro>".

Gust as 3emans ma" 6e more interested in hearing her on voice in the -oem

than in hearing the Indian oman;s voice, man" readers are more eager to hear

their on voices in the -oem than those of 3emans or the Indian oman.

Demanding the em-ath" of #iterar" riters, readers ask them to s-eak on their

6eha#f, to va#idate their va#ues, articu#ate their idea#ism. Derrida has argued:

?What e ca## #iterature 7not 6e##es5#ettres or -oetr"9 im-#ies that #icense is given

to the riter to sa" ever"thing he ants to or ever"thing he can, hi#e remaining

shie#ded, safe from a## censorshi-s, 6e it re#igious or -o#itica#? 7%9. License is a#so

given, hoever, to readers of #iterature 7inc#uding 6e##es5#ettres and -oetr"9 ho

interna#i*e such te>ts and make demands on them that the" don;t make on other

kinds of riting. From a reader;s -ers-ective, #iterature doesn;t denote that hich

is unrea# so much as that hich is h"-errea#. Thus, readers ant to hear #iterar"

voices as if the" ere their on in a c#ari<ed form. In ?Indian Woman;s Death5

!ong,? the narrator;s voice a--ears to merge ith the native oman;s voice since

there is no comment 6" the narrator after the Indian oman conc#udes her song.

s a resu#t, given the a6sence of an a#ternative vie of the event, the reader is

invo#untari#" im-#icated in this @uestiona6#e em-ath".

8/10/2019 Style 1998


0ccasiona##", one reads in the nes-a-er a6out tragedies such as the one

descri6ed in 3emans;s -oem. fe "ears ago, the fo##oing item a--eared in

merican nes-a-ers:

oman ho said she anted to sho her J5"ear5o#d daughter the vie from the

to- of a ((5stor" oce 6ui#ding had -#anned a ?suicide ritua#? that #ed to their

death -#unge.7 n(9

The 6rief re-ort mentioned that the oman as ?em6roi#ed in a chi#d5su--ort

case? ith her former hus6and. Though this straightforard, unsentimenta#

re-ort undou6ted#" e#icited some s"m-ath" for the o6vious#" des-erate oman,

it a#so -rovoked outrage. Perha-s it is 3emans;s #ack of outrage that is most

chi##ing in her -oem. Perha-s, to -ara-hrase eats, hat is distur6ing is not

3emans;s env" of the native oman;s ha--" 7fortunate9 #ot, 6ut 3emans 6eing

too ha--" in her ha--iness, an a=ective state that revea#s em-ath" to 6e

-otentia##" as dehumani*ing as hatred or indi=erence.

The ethica# di#emma inherent in em-ath"55forever <nding onese#f either too c#ose

or not c#ose enough to the o6ect of se#f5identi<cation55is inherent in #anguage

itse#f, hich em6odies a se#f5contradictor" d"namic. Ever" ver6a# act isessentia##" so#itar" in that it is initiated 6" an individua#B it is recogni*ed as

#anguage, hoever, on#" 6" consensus55that is, on#" if it is a#read" understood 6"

the #istener or reader. Though #anguage is a means of individuation, its materia#s

come from a communa##" oned source. Thus, in the act of articu#ation, a riter;s

voice is am-#i<ed so that the most confessiona# discourse resonates as if it ere

a co##ective utterance, s-oken in unison. Wa"ne +ooth articu#ates a reconci#iation

of the o--osing im-u#ses in #anguage 6" deconstructing the 6inar" of se#f and

societ":

We ta#k a6out -o#itica# actions as some kind of o6#igation that e oe, as

individua#s, to societ", to others: e shou#d 6e a#truistic, not ?se#f5centered.? +ut

if e are characters, socia# creatures 6" origin and de<nition, -o#itica# and

-hi#anthro-ic actions are not -erformed out of dut" to others 6ut as acts of ?se#f?5

-reservationB if the others are in me, ?a#truism?55the service of a#terit"55and

se#<shness must either not 6e contrasted at a##, or if the" are contrasted the #ines

must 6e dran in ne a"s. 7('%5''9

!ince riters and readers can at some #eve# make choices that circumvent thea--arent conHict 6eteen se#f e>-ression and the accurate -ortra"a# of others,

8/10/2019 Style 1998


+ooth;s argument informs the ethica# issues surrounding re-resentation.

/everthe#ess, at a dee-er #eve# riters and readers are often st"mied 6eteen

emotiona# autonom" and em-ath". !ince #anguage is simu#taneous#" a so#itar"

and socia# -henomenon, the issue ceases to 6e hether riters and readers have

the authorit" to sho em-ath" 6ut rather ho the" reso#ve the tension created

6" their oint im-u#ses to individua#i*e their res-onse to something and to identif"ith another;s res-onse. Em-ath", in essence, is an idea# of di=erentiated union

ith another, and that -arado> shou#d remind us that in #iterature as in #ife, there

are shared 6orders of identit" that e are com-e##ed to recogni*e 6ut cannot

cross.

/otes

7n89 Though eating as a -rofessor at the 1niversit" of Penns"#vania, his 6ook

as -u6#ished 6" a London -ress and thus eno"ed an Eng#ish readershi-.

7n(9 The incident, hich as re-orted in The +e##ingham 3era#d, occurred in

Phoeni>, ri*ona.

P30T0 7+LC U W3ITE9: Figure 8. ?Wanotan and 3is !on,? 6" unknon artist,

-u6#ished in 8)(. +" -ermission of The +ritish Li6rar" 7item num6er +L 8$$

LP9.

P30T0 7+LC U W3ITE9: Figure (. ?!ir Wa#ter Ra#eigh and 3is E#dest !on

Wa#ter,? 6" unknon artist, 8J$(. +" -ermission of the /ationa# Portrait 2a##er",

London 7item num6er %&8'9.

Works Cited


Ca#ifornia P, 8&)).

Derrida, Gac@ues. cts of Literature. Ed. Derek ttridge. /e Kork: Rout#edge,

8&&(.

2os#ee, /anc" 4oore. ?3emans;s ARed Indians;: Reading !tereot"-es.?

Romanticism, Race, and Im-eria# Cu#ture, 8)$58)%'. Eds. #an Richardson and

!onia 3ofkosh. +#oomington: Indiana 1P, 8&&J. (%5J8.

3arding, nthon" Gohn. ?Fe#icia 3emans and the E=acement of Woman.?

Romantic Women Writers: oices and Countervoices. Ed. Pau#a R. Fe#dman and

Theresa 4. e##e". 3anover: 1P of /e Eng#and, 8&&. 8%)5'&.

eating, Wi##iam 3., .4.Uc. /arrative of an E>-edition to the !ource of !t. Peter;s

River, Lake Winne-eek, Lake of the Woods, Uc., -erformed in the "ear 8)(%, 6"

8/10/2019 Style 1998


8/10/2019 Style 1998


s-okes-ersons for se#f5congratu#ator" va#ues in reading that are e>treme#"

dicu#t to state in an" -u6#ic #anguage. nd ith this em6arrassment there

-ro6a6#" ought 6e some se#f5disgust, since our c#aims to understand and use

ethics seek a se#f5-romoting and -erha-s unarranted dignit" for hat e do

hi#e the" a#so dis-#ace the domain of -#easures and thri##s and fascinations and

@uirk" sensua#ities that ma" in fact 6e hat e -roduce for our c#ients.7 n89 tthe #east then e need a theoretica# stance that can ackno#edge our se#f5

interest ithout succum6ing to the tem-tation to defend ourse#ves 6" assuming

the mant#e of ironic distance.

This is here the #"rica# 6ecomes im-ortant. Em-hasi*ing its centra#it" for #iterar"

e>-erience a##os us to stress the various a"s that this e>-erience is concerned

ith e>-#oring modes of ethos invo#ving -s"cho#ogica# states and inviting

a=ective res-onses ca-a6#e of cha##enging the mode#s of agenc" that dominate

mora# discourses. This cha##enge addresses 6oth the s-eci<c va#ues -hi#oso-hers

6ring to 6ear in that discourse and -hi#oso-h";s tendenc" to make itse#f the

ar6iter of hat di=erences make su6stantia# di=erences in ho criticism

discusses va#ues. 4ore im-ortant, even to 6egin taking u- the cha##enge,

criticism itse#f must treat the s-eci<c intricacies and -#easures that #iterar"

e>-erience -rovides in terms that #ead 6e"ond the aesthetic: criticism must sho

ho hat matters for the aesthetic a#so has conse@uences for the @uestions

-osed 6" mora# -hi#oso-h". I am tem-ted to c#aim that having to face the

cha##enge i## he#- critics resist hat no often seems a grand ethica# dog sho

here e a## get one turn around the arena 6efore a ta6#e of discerning udges,

udges ho have -ro6a6#" forgotten hat it fee#s #ike to 6e a6#e to -rance. +ut it

is -ro6a6#" more accurate to c#aim on#" that this shift in critica# -ers-ective i## at

#east #ead us to do #ess harm than e do no 6ecause e need not -romise

mora# orth 6ut can stress sim-#" those states that attentive -#easure makes

avai#a6#e.

I

Let me 6egin 6" attem-ting to c#arif" hat I mean hen I refer to ethica# criticism

in re#ation to #iterar" studies. Ethica# criticism occurs in at #east three activities55in

individua#s eva#uating motives and actions in te>ts, in readers imagining or

actua##" entering mora# conversations a6out their assessments, and in critics

using te>ts to enter the discourses a6out mora#it" carried out 6" -rofessiona#

-hi#oso-hers. ## three activities stage reading as a cu#tura##" vita# -ractice

6ecause the" re@uire testing our mora# voca6u#aries, making carefu# distinctions

in our udgments, and even assessing -u6#ic -o#icies, at #east in 6road terms that

reHect u-on the ends that these -rocesses serve and the imaginations a6out

human va#ue that go into sha-ing those ends. +ut a## three activities a#so invo#ve

su6stantia# risks of su6ordinating hat might 6e distinctive ithin #iterar"

e>-erience to those frameorks and menta# economies that are attuned to

modes of udgment sha-ed 6" other non5te>tua# and 7usua##"9 #ess direct#"

imaginar" or#d#" demands.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


Res-onding to these risks need not re@uire me#odramatic #anguages a6out

shattering the se#f or -ursuing -o#"mor-hous#" -erverse sensi6i#ities. It sim-#"

re@uires -ushing 6ack against the -ractices of ethica# criticism to sho hat the"

negate and to -rovide a contrasting stor" stressing as-ects of #iterar" e>-eriencethat the" cannot ade@uate#" address. 4" version of that stor" i## em-hasi*e ho

te>ts deve#o- a=ective states much more in tension ith our idea#s of udgment

than those cu#tivated 6" hat e might ca## the ne ?emotion5friend#"? versions

of mora# reason -o-u#ar in ethica# criticism. +" resisting the standard c#aims of

ethica# criticism, e ma" deve#o- a richer mode# for c#arif"ing ho as-ects of

ethos 6ecome a force in these te>ts. Then it 6ecomes feasi6#e to treat #iterar"

e>-erience as actua##" ca-a6#e of inHuencing hat e take ethica# udgment to

invo#ve.7n(9

This -ro-osa# is hard#" revo#utionar". /o decent theorist on the re#ation 6eteen

ethics and #iterar" e>-erience ignores the cha##enges I am tr"ing to shar-en.7n%9

+ut, sti##, I ant to c#aim that the cha##enge is rare#" fu##" engaged. C#ear#", ethica#

criticism often ca##s our attention to to as-ects of #iterar" e>-erience that are

centra# to man" of the te>ts that matter to most of us, es-ecia##" c#assic nove#s55a

i## to accurate and dense, re#ative#" im-artia# concrete descri-tion and a

corres-onding @uest for a genera#i*ing sco-e 6" hich the te>t can esta6#ish an

e>em-#ar" version of certain @ua#ities of com-assion and eva#uative udgment. If

criticism de##s on on#" these va#ues, hoever, it o=ers #itt#e o--ortunit" to

e>tend 6e"ond rea#istic narrative to engage one of #iterature;s maorcontri6utions to our a--reciation of hat is fundamenta##" at stake in ethica#

thinking. Literar" modes #ike #"ric often ask us to -artici-ate in states that are

either too e#ementa# or too transcendenta# or too a6so#ute or too satisf"ing#" se#f5

a6sor6ed to engage ethica# criticism. Ket these states can have enormous im-act

on ho and h" e are concerned ith va#ues of a## kinds, inc#uding those that

e -ursue 6" ethica# reasoning. 4inima##", the" 6ring to 6ear e>am-#es of

-ositive intensities that an" ethics might have to take into account. nd at their

richest these orks e>-#ore the #imitations of a## udgmenta# stances 6" re@uiring

com-#e> 6#ends of s"m-ath" and distance, and hence e#iciting our fascination

ith e>treme states of mind hi#e com-#icating an" -ossi6#e gras- of ho onemight -ut such states into the categories a=ording commensura6i#it" on hich

ethica# udgment must u#timate#" de-end.

!ome of those energies are focussed 6" acts of identi<cationB others de-end on

here orks situate us, that is, on the s-eci<c @ua#ities of imaginative vita#it"

o=ered 6" certain dis-ositions, inc#uding those states of trans-ort once sustained

6" re#igious e>-erience. In such cases, -artici-ation entai#s maintaining

su6stantia# di=erences from the attitudes e re#" on in our -ractica# udgments.

We 6ecome attentive to the se#ves that are -ossi6#e hen e manage to de-#o"distinctive -oers of mind and sensi6i#it". 0ften, moreover, the focus is much #ess

8/10/2019 Style 1998


8/10/2019 Style 1998


/o it is time to 6e s-eci<c a6out the #imitations ithin various versions of

ethica# #iterar" criticism so that e at #east a--reciate the -ressure to come u-

ith a#ternative versions of ho #iterar" e>-erience a=ects e>istentia# va#ues. I

suggest e 6egin 6" distinguishing four characteristic a"s of -erforming ethica#

criticism. The <rst to are mirror images of one another. Each stresses the ethica#

im-ortance of attending to dense concrete -resentations of -articu#ar actions6ecause such attention -rovides a -oerfu# su--#ement to more a6stract and

categorica# modes of ethica# in@uir". t one -o#e e have an em-hasis on ho

invo#vement in concrete situations enriches our ca-acities for making

discriminations and kee-s our udgments in c#ose re#ation to the emotions of

s"m-ath" and em-ath"B at the other e have a deconstructive concern for an

ethics of #etting 6e that is acute#" aare of the im-eria#i*ing ork usua##" done 6"

-rofessions of em-ath" and of s"m-ath" since it is the res-onder ho gets to

s-ecif" hat those emotions invo#ve.

The <rst em-hasis is es-ecia##" im-ortant for those ho ant #iterar" e>-erience

to com-#ement traditiona# ethica# in@uir". It -romises to contour udgment to the

dense te>ture of -articu#ar #ives and hence can -artia##" free us from the

tendenc" ithin ng#o5merican -hi#oso-h" to re#" on sim-#e re-resentative

anecdotes as its means of testing -rinci-#es. 4oreover, that shift -rovides an

a#ternative to the e>cruciating -hi#oso-hica# task of deve#o-ing categories

ena6#ing us to treat di=erent situations as su6suma6#e under one commensurate

frameork ithin hich re#ative orth can 6e assessed. Ethica# #iterar" criticism

makes it c#ear that e sim-#" cannot re#" on such a6stract -rinci-#es for an"

as-ects of e>-erience ithout a#so 6ringing to 6ear the more He>i6#e, narrative5

6ased modes of udgment that ristot#e characteri*ed as -hronesis 7see 4artha

/uss6aum, Love;s no#edge (5( and 8J)5&'9. nd here -hi#oso-h" seeks

im-ersona# and disinterested modes of udgment centered on the giving and

testing of reasons, #iterar" e>-erience e>-#ores the degree to hich our emotions

can 6e heuristic features of the udgmenta# -rocess: e can 6e im-artia# ithout

6eing unmoved 7so #ong as our emotions are s-ectator emotions9.7n9

Deconstructive and Levinasian ethica# criticism is 6ased on a ver" di=erent notion

of concreteness. 4ore a=ected 6" antian aesthetic idea#s than the" are 6"

ethica# c#aims 6ased on -ractica# udgment, these theorists concentrate not on

dramatic situations 6ut on the ethica# force that one can attri6ute to the

-ur-osiveness of the -articu#ar te>t as an authoria# action. 3ere the centra# va#ue

#ies in ada-ting onese#f to strong -articu#ars 6" #etting them 6e, that is, 6"

coming to a--reciate their -oer as the articu#ation of orking desire, a mode of

desire manifest -rimari#" as a direct function of their a6i#it" to ard o= the

categories that mora# udgment tries to im-ose. The ethica# here is shar-#"

o--osed to the mora#, the domain of -rinci-#e. Ethica# va#ues emerge in reading

6ecause there e fee# the vio#ence of our i## to make te>ts mean something e

can state a6stract#" hi#e e a#so have to recogni*e the ca-acit" of the desires

orking ithin te>tua#it" to resist that i##. na#ogous#", e can #earn to ada-t

8/10/2019 Style 1998


the same attitudes toards societ", since our attention is oriented toards forms

of vio#ence that easi#" mask as e#farist -rinci-#es "et in fact are not res-onsive

to the needs of those for hom e see ourse#ves s-eaking.

C#ear#", 6oth stances have ro#es to -#a" in #iterar" criticism. +ut the" a#so #eave

us ith su6stantia# -ro6#ems making it im-ossi6#e not to have to reach out for

additiona# theoretica# terms. There arises immediate#" the @uestion of ho e

reconci#e the to @uite di=erent vies of concreteness and the to @uite di=erent

vies of the va#ues that ethica# udgment seeks. Does de##ing on the denseness

of -articu#ar actions a=ord a richer mode# of ethica# udgment or does it

encourage casuistries that evade the c#ear and necessar" a--#ication of

-rinci-#esM 0nce these to a#ternatives emerge, e c#ear#" cannot re#" on the

concrete e>-erience of te>ts to he#- us determine hich one is to 6e -referred.

For returning to the concrete case for our anser i##, in theor" at #east, -roduce

end#ess regress un#ess one c, an someho re#ink such concreteness either

direct#" to universa#s or to methods of udgment that someho have a more

He>i6#e version of genera#it" 6ui#t into them. If e are to kee- at the center of our

in@uir" the ristote#ian concern for ho e shou#d #ive, e have to -reserve as a

6ackground invoked through the -articu#ars some kind of #arger frameork of

e>am-#es and -ro6a6#" at #east some -rinci-#es that give resonance to the

conce-ts of good ith hich e ant to ork. Ket once e 6egin seeking

e>-#anator" -rinci-#es e -ut at risk the ver" concreteness that e ant to

ce#e6rate. There is then su6stantia# -ressure to have traditiona# -hi#oso-h"

articu#ate these -rinci-#es and determine to hat degree concrete cases can

sanction our serving from themM

Deconstructive theor" seems ca-a6#e of turning m" o6ections to its interests,

since it can insist that, un#ike the discrimination vie, it at #east faces u- to the

gu#f 6eteen -articu#ars and su--orting categorica# -rinci-#es. +ut its a"s of

engaging that gu#f run a serious risk. For it seems as if the idea# of #etting 6e

takes on the function of a mora# categor" and hence -roduces its on form of

vio#ence. nd, more distur6ing, deconstructive #iterar" ethics has to face the

-ro6#em of its so far not having done ver" much to s-ecif" hat is so va#ua6#e

a6out singu#arit" -er se in re#ation to #iterature or so necessari#" destructive in

the udicious use of categories. This version of ethica# criticism ma" re#" on the

ver" individua#ist va#ues sustaining the modern -hi#oso-h" that it is @uick to

reect. nd if it is to attri6ute s-eci<c va#ues to hat singu#arities -erform,

deconstruction ma" have to <nd some ra--rochement ith the e>-ressivist

theor" deve#o-ed 6" Char#es Ta"#or and others. This ra--rochement ou#d free

deconstruction from re#"ing on a 6inar" o--osition 6eteen singu#arit" and the

categorica#, and it ou#d ena6#e it to stress hat -ersons accom-#ish as the"

6end rather than 6reak from the categories giving meaning to their actions.

III

8/10/2019 Style 1998


/either deconstructive nor discernment versions of concreteness can -roduce a

satisf"ing theoretica# -osition. 0n the one hand, deconstruction cannot even

-ostu#ate much of an ethica# theor" for #iterar" e>-erience 6ecause it cannot

su--#ement its commitment to singu#arit" ithout fa##ing into 6ad faith.7nJ9

Discernment theories, on the other hand, invite conce-tua# e#a6oration, since

the" so c#ear#" cr" out for some account of the more genera# va#ues at stake inour c#ose concern ith the e#ements that go into ethica# udgments. +ut these

e=orts on#" dee-en the -ro6#em 6" shoing ho dicu#t it is to esta6#ish the

necessar" conce-tua# su--#ements. Therefore I i## no turn to to versions of

ethica# criticism that do -rovide this conce-tua# frameork. Even though the to

mode#s di=er from the <rst to, e i## nonethe#ess <nd essentia##" the same

dicu#ties -#aguing these as e##.

The <rst conce-tua# structure for these su--#ements can 6e seen as a set of

variants on -erfectionist -rinci-#es 6ecause its -rimar" concern is ith the

versions of virtue and the @ua#ities of #ife -roduced or reinforced 6" s-eci<c a"s

of reading. !tan#e" Cave## is the 6est5knon thinker re-resenting the re#evant

conce-tua# moves. +ut since I have ritten a6out him critica##" on other

occasions and since to the 6est of m" kno#edge he does not identif" himse#f as

an ethica# critic, I i## turn to the somehat di=erent 6ut re#ated theori*ing of

Wa"ne +ooth. There is no c#earer rendering of ho -erfectionist idea#s can 6e

rea#i*ed ithin #iterar" e>am-#es. For +ooth sees reading as fundamenta##" the

e>-#oration of desires e ma" come to desire7n9:

?What sort of character, hat sorts of ha6its, am I #ike#" to take on or reinforce?

as ?I deci-her this immense#" com-act 6und#e of actions, thought, and a##usionsM?

?What A6etter desires; does it #ead me to desireM? 7The Com-an" We ee- ('9

Formu#ations #ike these ena6#e +ooth to -rovide a -oerfu# anser to ho te>ts

mediate ethica# va#ues ithout his having either to su6sume te>ts under genera#

-rinci-#es or to insist u-on their c#ose <t ith mora# -hi#oso-h". The va#ues that

matter emerge through com-arisons e make among the @ua#ities of e>-eriencein te>ts ?that are 6oth #ike and un#ike? 7$9 each other. For e a--raise orks 6"

e>amining hether an e>-erience can 6e seen as ?com-arative#" desira6#e,

admira6#e, #ova6#e, or, on the other hand, com-arative#" re-ugnant,

contem-ti6#e, or hatefu#? 789.

!uch a--raisa# is not mere#" a matter of intuitions or the e>-ression of

sensi6i#ities. +ooth shos there are c#ear standards that enter our udgments

6ecause ethica# criticism is founded on the @uestion of ho te>ts contri6ute to

virtue. To address this concern, critics have to 6egin ith the issue ofintentiona#it", for e cannot have virtue ithout agenc". We have to -ostu#ate

8/10/2019 Style 1998


im-#ied authors, then in@uire a6out the ro#es these authors might -#a" in

conversations a6out ethica# va#ues. The ?ke" @uestion in the ethics of narration

... 6ecomes: Is the -attern of #ife that this ou#d56e friend o=ers one that friends

might e## -ursue togetherM? 7(((9. /o e have 6oth an o6ect of ethica#

reHection55the friendshi- re#ation55and e have an o6vious #ocus for making

assessments of te>ts. We are invited to ask hether the 6asic @ua#ities of the te>tcontri6ute to forging such imaginar" friendshi-s or if these @ua#ities -resent

hindrances to friendshi- such as hidden designs or #ack of res-ect for the

audience or shodd" reHection on the activit" -resentedM In either case +ooth

shos that 6" thinking a6out te>ts in terms of @uestions a6out the com-an" e

kee-, e do not need a6stract -rinci-#es as grounds of their orth 6ecause e

have c#ear -ersona# measures 6ased on ho the modes of desire for desire the"

de#ineate stand u- in re#ation to orks to hich the" can 6e com-ared. We do not

determine ho our friends are 6ecause of the conditions the" satisf"B rather e

determine ho e are in terms of the @uite concrete com-an" e choose, and

the com-an" e reect. Res-onsi6i#it" remains a matter of individua# se#f5de<nition, "et it 6rings ith it a--ro-riate conte>ts in hich choices can 6e

characteri*ed and udged.

In m" vie, +ooth;s is a -oerfu# theoretica# -osition -recise#" 6ecause it a--ea#s

so direct#" to matters of ethos. /onethe#ess it is dicu#t to acce-t this <gure of

friendshi- as an ade@uate -rinci-#e for either the @ua#ities distinguishing

individua# va#uations 6" readers or for the frameorks that give such choices

-u6#ic signi<cance. First, this <gure makes it dicu#t to have theor" remain

res-onsive to the fu## range of va#ues e>-#ored 6" #iterar" te>ts or to account for

the often contradictor" va#ues that emerge ithin this range. +ooth;s concern for

the com-an" one kee-s does su--ort a #imited -#ura#ism 7no sing#e -rinci-#e is

#ike#" to determine our range of friendshi-s9. +ut I sus-ect e ou#d rather have

some of the te>ts e va#ue high#" -rove interesting enemies rather than a## 6e

admira6#e friends55not on#" 6ecause e ant to 6e cha##enged 6ut a#so 6ecause

e ant the fascination of engaging hat refuses to contour itse#f to the mode#s

of dia#ogue a##oed 6" a virtue56ased mode# of friendshi-. 4ore im-ortant, the

idea of virtue itse#f seems to me to o=er a somehat -ious and inaccurate

-rimar" criterion for ho the friendshi-s contri6ute to ha--iness. Invoking

?virtue? makes it seem that criticism can admit -#ura# -ossi6i#ities of va#ue hi#ea#so achieving a -u6#ic re-resentativeness 6ased sim-#" on e>am-#es and

cu#tura# traditions. Ket ?virtue? -roves an irreduci6#" e@uivoca# conce-t 6ecause in

one register it is sim-#" a measure of -oer or conative strength, ith no

distinguishing ?ethica#? @ua#ities, hi#e in another it 6rings to 6ear certain dee-

mora# va#ues in a societ".

0ne can then use +ooth for a /iet*schean reading of ho #iterar" e>-erience

6ecomes formative for certain grou-s high#" conscious of ho their sense of

shared strengths makes them di=erent from those 6ound to socia# mores. 0r one

can ti#t one;s sense of virtue as +ooth himse#f does toards friendshi-s that

8/10/2019 Style 1998


8/10/2019 Style 1998


/uss6aum ants to create a conte>t in hich e can see dee- #inks 6eteen the

ro#es of reader and of udge.

/uss6aum;s enter-rise is a no6#e one. +ut her making e>-#icit the need to -roect

6e"ond concrete reading to visi6#e -u6#ic -rinci-#es seems to me to #a" 6are the

under#"ing #ogic of a## ethica# criticism55in a"s that raise ver" serious -ro6#ems.

Consider for e>am-#e the fact that to make the arguments of Poetic Gustice ork

she has to turn aa" from Games and from Proust, the maor <gures of her ear#ier

ork on ethica# criticism, to the Char#es Dickens of 3ard Times. Whi#e Dickens is

c#ear#" a maor riter, there are fe #iterar" theorists ho ou#d ant to use 3ard

Times as their e>em-#ar" te>t, for e>act#" the reasons that tem-t /uss6aum to

make the e=ort. For here deve#o-ing ethica# c#aims from Games and Proust

re@uires stressing the -#a" of a ver" com-#e> mora# inte##igence, deve#o-ing

c#aims for the Dickens of 3ard Times entai#s stressing not so much the -rocesses

of udgment in -articu#ar dense situations as the a6i#it" to deve#o- stances

toards #arge socia# issues. Dickens is #ess interested in assessing ho characters

res-ond to intricate -atricu#ar situations than he is in dis-#a"ing ho agents can

res-ond ade@uate#" to the genera# socia# conditions making demands on them.

!uch genera#i*ing sco-e is not something to condemn, 6ut neither is it something

to hich most riters as-ire direct#" 6ecause of the #imited means that <ction

has at its dis-osa# to create the a--ro-riate e=ects. 3ard Times gains its mora#

sco-e 6" its e>traordinar" a6i#it" to mani-u#ate -athos and hence to -osition ares-onsive audience in a situation here it 6oth registers su=ering and

understands -#ausi6#e -u6#ic causes of that su=ering. /uss6aum then is @uite

right to argue that this nove# shares ith some contem-orar" -hi#oso-hers the

-roect of defending ?an a--roach to @ua#it" of #ife measurement 6ased on a

notion of human functioning and human ca-a6i#it", rather than on either

o-u#ence or uti#it"? 789. Dickens;s -athos a##os his <ction an immediate and

com-e##ing ?measure of ho -eo-#e are doing? 6ecause he can 6ring emotiona#

resonance to ?@uestions of ho e## their form of #ife has ena6#ed them to

function in a variet" of distinct areas, inc#uding 6ut not #imited to mo6i#it", hea#th,

education, -o#itica# -artici-ation, and socia# re#ations? 789. From this the #ea- to

contem-orar" -hi#oso-h" is not a #arge one:

!ince e read a nove# #ike 3ard Times ith the thought that e ourse#ves might

6e in the character;s -osition55since our emotion is 6ased in -art on this sort of

em-athic identi<cation55e i## natura##" 6e most concerned ith the #ot of those

hose -osition is orst, and e i## 6egin to think of a"s in hich that -osition

might have 6een other than it is, might 6e made 6etter than it is. ... If one cou#d

not imagine hat it as #ike to 6e !te-hen +#ack-oo#, then it ou#d 6e a## too

eas" to neg#ect this situation as +ounder6" does, -ortra"ing orkers as gras-inginsensitive 6eings. !imi#ar#", ... if one cannot imagine hat omen su=er from

8/10/2019 Style 1998


se>ua# harassment on the o6, one on;t have a vivid sense of that o=ense as a

serious socia# infringement that the #a shou#d remed". 7&89

This stress on -athos 6oth a##os the em-athic imagination to #ea- direct#" to

#arge va#ue frameorks and -roduces an inherent socia#i*ing dimension for

#iterar" te>ts 6ecause it seeks imaginative agreement a6out a"s of redressing

the su=ering. Ket I think it im-ortant to ask hether these advantages outeigh

the disadvantages of #etting our #iterar" ethics 6e so de-endent on that one

emotiona# attitude. Games for e>am-#e is carefu# to make characters tem-ted 6"

the a--ea# of -athos, #ike 3"acinth Ro6inson, have to #earn to make udgments

critica# of the tem-tations to se#f5righteousness that occur hen one #ets one;s

aareness of -u6#ic issues outeigh the need for concrete se#f5understanding.

0ne cou#d argue, moreover, that this em-hasis on -athos a##os -recious #itt#e

room for a corres-onding em-hasis on the various modes of ethos that #iterar"

imaginations -ursue. In fact one cou#d use this contrast 6eteen ethos and

-athos as a 6asic a" of cha##enging assum-tions fundamenta# to /uss6aum;s

ethica# criticism and -erha-s to an" criticism content to a##" itse#f ith mora#

-hi#oso-h". This contrast is es-ecia##" im-ortant for c#arif"ing the various ro#es

that accounts of the emotions might -#a" in our -ers-ectives on #iterar" va#ues.

For once -athos is the centra# #ink 6eteen the #iterar" and the ethica#, then

/uss6aum;s cognitive theor" of emotions c#ear#" -rovides the d"namic energies

securing the interactions 6eteen the to domains. In m" vie, hoever, the

costs e>acted 6" this a" of #inking the domains makes it crucia# that e turn

from -athos to ethos and see hat conce-tions of emotion then 6est articu#ate

the va#ues -rovided 6" #iterar" e>-erience.

/uss6aum identi<es three s-eci<c means 6" hich the emotions e#icited ithin

#iterar" narrative can su--ort and e>tend the ork of mora# -hi#oso-h". Whi#e the

<rst is mentioned on#" in a -assing remark, I think it has to -#a" a maor ro#e in a

fu## statement of her theor". I refer to the need to make mora# sense of the sim-#e

6ut e#ementa# fact that #iterature seeks to confer -#easure. What kind of -#easure

instructs, es-ecia##" hen -athos is the vehic#e of instructionM /iet*sche ou#d

suggest that e 6e sus-icious of the kinds of -#easures e take in identif"ing

ith other -eo-#e;s su=ering, since nothing secures 6ourgeois se#f5satisfaction so

e## as s"m-ath" ith those ho #ack the same -ossessions. /uss6aum is more

generous and in some res-ects more su6t#e. !he sees that -#easure a=ords a

means of making identi<cation attractive, and hence of a##oing us to orient

cognitive interests toards su=ering hi#e resisting the need to #ocate the

-#easure in our on me#odramatic consciousness of ourse#ves as -it" -roducers.

For to the e>tent that e take -#easure in -articu#ar characters from

under-rivi#eged situations, e are #ike#" to <nd their com-an" attractive so that

e are dran further into their or#d and into s"m-ath" ith their interests 7%9.

We do not have to #et the -#easure 6e a6sor6ed ithin our on senses of se#f5

im-ortance.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


+ut an" e=ort to #ink #iterar" -#easure to mora# -hi#oso-h" 6rings 6ack another

version of the -ro6#em ith concreteness that e have a#read" considered. For

one has to 6e a6#e to sa" hich -#easures contri6ute to mora# va#ues and hich

do not. This is h" /uss6aum #inks -#easure to her cognitive theor" of emotions.If emotions can -rovide a kind of kno#edge in their on right, then e can

secure their ro#e in mora# thinking ithout -rescri6ing in advance hat emotions

e i## a##o. Indeed, there are man" res-ects in hich emotions -roduce

kno#edge and com-#ement hat on other grounds e esta6#ish as truths.

Emotions c#ear#" esta6#ish sa#ience conditions 6" stressing hat might matter in

-articu#ar -erce-tua# <e#ds, and the" 6ring to 6ear 6e#ief conte>ts that e have

to go on to assess if e are to understand ho and h" -articu#ar o-tions for

actions might matter to us. The emotions organi*ed 6" a sense of -athos -rovide

e>ce##ent e>am-#es. For -athos attunes us to the facts contri6uting to someone;s

su=ering, and it 6rings 6e#iefs to 6ear that orient us toard s-eci<c actions ifthe" -rove true 7ust as -#easure faci#itates identi<cations9. s /uss6aum -uts it,

?The -erson de-rived of the eva#uations contained in -it" seems to 6e de-rived

of ethica# information ithout hich such situations cannot 6e ade@uate#",

rationa##" a--raised? 7J9. Ket 6ecause the emotions are 6ound to 6e#iefs, the" do

not #ock us into attitudes 6ut can 6e modi<ed 6" re#evant information 7such as

information that the one 6idding for our s"m-ath" is faking it9.

The greater the cognitive c#aims for emotions, hoever, the more -ressing is that

same o#d s-ecter: there seems no sta6#e and ca-acious a" to connect anem-hasis on concrete discriminations to the authorit" of c#ear -rinci-#es. There

are emotions that -rovide sustenance for reason. +ut ho do e decide hich

emotions do and do not have the -oer to modif" reason, es-ecia##" hen e are

dea#ing ith imaginar" constructsM It seems as if these emotions have to 6e

tested 6" reason in order to 6e orth" of having such an inHuence. Then,

hoever, ethica# criticism enters a vicious circ#e here hat is to inHuence

rationa#it" must 6e inHuenced 6" rationa#it". This -ros-ect does not scare

/uss6aum. !he hand#es the danger of circu#arit" 6" ada-ting a version of +ooth;s

-osition here s-eci<c human e>em-#ars 6ecome the -ossi6#e mediation de<ning

ho emotions can a=ect hat e take reason to 6e. +ut rather than invoke the<gure of the friend, she re#ies on dam !mith;s mode# of the ?udicious s-ectator?

6ecause that ena6#es her to tie emotions to dis-ositions of character. 3er focus

then is not on ho e come to desire to desire 6ut on ho e attach ourse#ves to

the genera# forms of idea#i*a6#e desire that constitute ethica# #ives.

!mith deve#o-s his mode# of s-ectatorshi- in order to address the fact that man"

emotions o6vious#" do not -rove good guides for our actions. !o to assure that

the emotion is a--ro-riate e have to determine that it is a ?true vie of hat is

going on? 7'9. nd then e have to 6e sure that the vieer i## notoverdetermine that truth 6ecause of -ro6#ematic -rivate interests. Theor" can

8/10/2019 Style 1998


make the a--ro-riate distinctions if it can <nd a a" of assuring that the emotion

is that ?of a s-ectator not a -artici-ant? 7'9. In a sing#e stroke #iterar"

e>-erience moves from 6eing margina# to -hi#oso-h" to having c#aims for

centra#it", since there is no 6etter mode# for the -s"chic economies !mith ca##s

for than the se#f5disci-#ine fundamenta# to attentive reading. Reading reduces its

o6ect to 6ana#it" if it sim-#" im-oses an individua#;s needs and desires.Converse#", the -romise he#d out for readers re@uires that the" assume

s-ectatoria# ro#es through hich the" manage 6oth to fee# the re#evant emotions

and to a--reciate them for the energies and va#ues the" organi*e. Reading shos

ho e can treat anger or grief or #ove as if at the same time e cou#d identif"

ith their intensities and maintain the distance necessar" to make udgments

a6out and through our invo#vement in the -articu#ars.

!uggestive as this account of reading is in itse#f, /uss6aum;s -rimar" interest

resides in the socia# im-#ications she can dra from it. This <gure of the

?udicious s-ectator? a##os her to -roect on to reading im-ortant #inks to the

entire d"namics of making socia# udgments 6ecause it gives the agent an

interest in 6eing res-onsive to -u6#ic measures of the good. 3ence the dramatic

c#ima> of her 6ook consists in an e#a6orate e=ort to -ut reading as a udicious

s-ectator at the heart of ho udges make decisions. Gudges have to kno

-rinci-#es and -rocedures. +ut the" a#so have to kno the #imitations of the

a6stractness 6ui#t into -rinci-#es and -rocedures, and the" have to <nd a"s to

make those imaginative -roections necessar" for -roducing ustice in -articu#ar

situations 7)(9. !o if one can make #iterar" e>-erience an e>em-#ar for the

orking of an im-artia# "et s"m-athetic udgment, one can then treat the ?-oetic

imagination? as ?a crucia# agent of democratic e@ua#it"? 788&9. This imagination

not on#" tries to s"m-athi*e ith a## the re#evant -oints of vie, 6ut it a#so 6ui#ds

on its on im-artia#it" to seek from that s"m-ath" those actions com-rising the

greater socia# good. nd this imagination re@uires casting that understanding in

-#ura# and @ua#itative terms 6ased on those idea#s of human Hourishing that

re-eated acts of s"m-ath" ena6#e us to kee- in the forefront of our vision.

I

I de## on /uss6aum at such #ength in -art 6ecause I ant to make readers fee# a

dee- emotiona# -ro6#em that her theori*ing a6out emotions in #iterature raises

for me and -erha-s for the ver" -ractice of ethica# criticism. 0n the one hand, I

am made uneas" 6" the se#f5con<dence and im-eria#ist -hi#oso-hi*ing that

reduces the great imaginative range of #iterar" e>-erience to the inte##ectua##"

undemanding 6ut @uite im-ortant mora# and -o#itica# truths -romu#gated 6" a

-hi#oso-h" devoted to s-reading the va#ues of human Hourishing. 0n the other

hand, I am not ha--" ith m"se#f for 6eing so easi#" seduced into the e@ua##"

distressing arrogance of the #iterar" critic a--a##ed at our marve#ous com-#e>it"

6eing oversim-#i<ed mere#" 6ecause someone ho has devoted her #ife to the

-roect ants to use #iterature for making the or#d a 6etter -#ace for #arge

segments of its -o-u#ation. I am forced to confront the fact that m" vie of

#iterar" e>-erience can -romise on#" -artia# modi<cations in ho some

8/10/2019 Style 1998


individua#s a--roach the or#d, so it cannot even a--ro>imate the kind of socia#

im-act that /uss6aum -roects for #iterar" te>ts and that riters #ike Dickens are

in fact ca-a6#e of -roducing. Ket I sti## ant to argue that the ver" grandeur of her

enter-rise #eads our attention aa" from those concrete -rocesses 6" hich

#iterature does a=ect individua# #ives in a"s that no6#e sentiments a6out -u6#ic

e#fare sim-#" cannot accom-#ish. Whi#e m" a#ternative -ers-ective ma" not 6ea6#e to demonstrate ho #iterar" e>-erience makes 6etter mora# agents of us, it

can sho ho that e>-erience o=ers su6stantia# va#ues ver" dicu#t to get

e#sehere.

In /uss6aum;s account, on the other hand, #iterature is -rimari#" an instrument

for teaching us discernment and for e#iciting from us thoughtfu# -it". Literature

remains su6ect to -hi#oso-h", hich u#timate#" contro#s ho va#ues are

characteri*ed and assessed. nd hi#e #iterature -roves usefu# in resisting the

uti#itarian and rationa#ist mode#s of assessment that /uss6aum attacks, its

re#evance in this regard stems #ess from the -assions it mediates than from the

inade@uacies of those -hi#oso-hica# stances. Therefore I think that in asking

#iterar" criticism to -ursue c#ear#" de<ned, -u6#ic ethica# ends, e risk #osing

sight of hat are usua##" the most com-e##ing and most -ersuasive e>-erientia#

@ua#ities the re#evant te>ts -roduce. nd e do so ithout gaining much more

than ideo#ogica# reinforcement for va#ues that have their s-onsoring energies and

re#evant conditions of udgment e#sehere.

4" resistance to /uss6aum does not entai# returning to some kind of

aestheticism or ada-ting discourses a6out singu#arit" and di=erence and

em-oerment. The #iterar" va#ues that I ant to foreground hover in the shados

cast 6" ork that overmora#i*es them, so the 6est a" to a--reciate a## that

#"ricism invo#ves ma" 6e sim-#" to reHect on h" there might 6e good reasons to

remain in constant strugg#e against ethica# criticism. !uch strugg#e -romises not

on#" to rene attention to -articu#ar @ua#ities of #iterar" e>-erience 6ut a#so to

-reserve a tension 6eteen ethos and ethics -erha-s necessar" for an ade@uate

gras- of ho e make and maintain investments in the entire structure of

concerns that ethica# theor" adudicates. Therefore I i## c#ose 6" 6eing as c#ear

as I can on hat I take to 6e three insu-era6#e -ro6#ems in contem-orar" ethica#

criticism, in the ho-e that e can dee-en our a--reciation of ho #iterar"

e>-erience is ca-a6#e of cha##enging those -hi#oso-hica# stances that ant to

domesticate it 6" making it su6mit to their conditions for -raise.

We have a#read" addressed the <rst -ro6#em, hich #ies in the #ogica# structure of

ethica# criticism. This criticism insists on there 6eing something distinctive in ho

concrete te>ts engage our mora# attention, and "et it has to inter-ret the va#ue of

that engagement in terms of the ver" -hi#oso-hica# methods and genera#i*ationsfrom hich the concrete reading deviates. s Derrida might -ut it, ethica# theor"

8/10/2019 Style 1998


ants the concrete 6oth to esta6#ish va#ues and to su--#ement va#ue schemes,

"et the ver" ro#e of su--#ement undercuts the concreteness 6" making it

de-endent on a6stractions, and it undercuts the a6stractions 6" making them

de-endent for their rea#i*ation on something that -hi#oso-h" a--arent#" cannot

-rovide on its on. +ecause I have nothing more to sa" a6out the a6stract form

of this -ro6#em, I i## shift to a @uite s-eci<c and I think te##ing manifestation ofthe issues 6rought into focus 6" /uss6aum and, indirect#", 6" +ooth. When e

rea#i*e ho -hi#oso-h" has to strain for the <t that me#ds it ith #iterar"

e>-erience, e a#so understand the -ressure to #et -athos take over from ethos,

or to 6ecome the so#e re#evant ethos, and e understand h" it is so tem-ting to

vaci##ate 6eteen di=erent meanings of ?virtue.? That rea#i*ation in turn #eads us

to hat I am c#aiming is the shados or margins of ethica# discourse, here e

might va#ue #iterar" e>-eriments in ethos -recise#" 6ecause the" do not de-end

on the same kind of under#"ing distinctive#" mora# sentiments as do e>am-#es

drenched in -athos and, more im-ortant, 6ecause the" a##o us to a--reciate

imaginative states as direct#" a=ecting our e>-erience of va#ues ithout ourhaving to -ostu#ate those under#"ing reasons. E>am-#es of ethos make their

a--ea# to us in terms of the d"namic ca-acities the" a=ord our @uite -articu#ar

states of se#f5aareness as e e>-#ore the energies the" make avai#a6#e, ith no

sanction 6e"ond the @ua#ities made -ossi6#e 6" a te>t for inte##ectua#, emotiona#,

and intersu6ective intensities.

There is no 6etter contrast to the ethics of #iterar" -athos than W.+. Keats;s -oem

?3e and !he?:

s the moon sid#es u-

4ust she sid#e u-,

s tri-s the scared moon

a" must she tri-:

A3is #ight had struck me 6#ind

Dared I sto-;.

!he sings as the moon sings:

AI am I, am IB

The greater gros m" #ight

The further that I H";.

## creation shivers

With that seet cr". 7()J5)9

8/10/2019 Style 1998


The <rst stan*a tries to render something #ike the essence of -athos. For here the

character cannot s-eak for herse#f 6ut must 6e re-resented 6" another, e>ce-t

for the one moment hen she gets to utter her di#emma. nd ever" move seems

driven 6" forces to hich the character is uni##ing#" 6ound. +" the secondstan*a the ver" intensit" of the -ain seems to o-en a -ossi6#e fascination ith

the o--osite -o#e, ith more assertive egocentric states that -oetr" might not

on#" re-resent 6ut a#so he#- focus. t <rst this stan*a a#so de-ends on a narrator

in order to situate the s-eaker. +ut after one #ine the content of the singing takes

over from its visua# re-resentation, and the mode of consciousness ithin that

singing then entire#" dominates the scene. Gust the a6so#uteness of the singing in

turn suces to -roduce an assertion of an AT; identica# to itse#f: there seems

sim-#" no ga- 6eteen the su6ect singing and the o6ective state that is the

song made -h"sica#.

Technica##" s-eaking, such assertions cannot have an" -hi#oso-hica# force, since

on#" god can e>-erience the com-#ete coincidence of su6ectivit" and o6ectivit".

+ut the -oem is #ess interested in the truth of its assertion than in the energies

and desires that it can make visi6#e 6" the e=ort to -urif" song of ever"thing 6ut

the AT; ho as its singer, or 6etter as it singing, manages to g#im-se hat it

means to e>-erience the coincidence of su6ect and o6ect states. Whi#e the

-oem does not -oint to an" em-irica# test of the truth of this assertion, it does

o=er signi<cant forma# features that at #east give a kind of su6stance to the

desire it s-eaks. The utter sim-#icit" of the situation in the second stan*a, fore>am-#e, sha-ed on#" 6" a contrast to the de-endencies registered in the

-receding one, gives us a or#d in hich there might 6e nothing 6ut the singing,

ith a## im-urities driven aa" 6" the need to se-arate onese#f from hat the

moon dominates. 3ere #"ric seems to a--roach its on inner -ossi6i#ities55

-resenting not an" one ro#e, an" one version of ethos, 6ut the essence of hat

an" ro#e 6ecomes hen it can 6e entire#" the matter of song. nd, as song, the

-oem;s -h"sica# @ua#ities dee-en the a##5a6sor6ing nature of the ?I am I.? Long I

sounds #itera##" take the -oem over, s-reading the #ight -roduced 6" and as the

AT; of the singing. That intensit" in turn 6ecomes so great that se#f5a6sor-tion

cannot rest in narcissistic states. Gust as the ?she? of the <rst stan*a is 6ound tothe a"s of the moon, the AT; of the second must return to its setting. 0n#" no

the se#f5a6sor-tion constitutes a fantas" #over 6ringing to creation its dee-est

se>ua# -#easure 6ecause <na##" creation has an o--osite active enough to make

its on -resence fe#t, and hence to make creation itse#f once again something to

6e #oved and not mere#" feared or res-ected or mora#i*ed.

3ad I the time, I ou#d go on to -oems that e>-#ore the same #eve# of intensit"

6ut attach it @uite di=erent emotiona# orientations. Keats;s ?Lu##a6",? for e>am-#e,

com-#ete#" a6sor6s the ego ithin that traditiona# fo#k form, using #iterar" se#f5consciousness as its vehic#e for giving to care itse#f a mode of a6sor-tion that

8/10/2019 Style 1998


e>tends far 6e"ond hat ou#d suce for mora# udgment. +ut m" one e>am-#e

is strong enough to a##o m" going direct#" to the genera#i*ation that hat

matters most in these #iterar" states is not ho the" might 6e usti<ed mora##"

6ut ho the" ustif" themse#ves as invitations to imaginative -artici-ation ithin

hat the te>t e#icits from its a"s of 6ringing the or#d and the -s"che into

#anguage. E>cess #ies don ith e>treme, -recise careB no onder creationshivers. nd -erha-s ethics can #earn from this dis-#a". For it seems to me

argua6#e that here e have a te##ing i##ustration of ho the #"rica# dimension of

e>-erience inHuences hat +ooth ca##s the desire for desires55not sim-#" 6ecause

s-eci<c states a--ea# to us 6ut a#so 6ecause e encounter concrete @ua#ities of

those desires that 6ecome e>em-#ars for hat a range of emotions might -rovide

ere e attuned to a--reciate their intensities. +oth a"s of encountering

emotiona# <e#ds then have the -oer to a=ect ho e ada-t or modif" ethica#

stances. L"rica# emotions can make certain states attractive 6ecause of the

modes of se#f5identi<cation that the" a##o55here the 6est e>am-#e ma" 6e the

@ua#ities of mora# res-onsiveness that e <nd in the great e-ic -oets. 0r theseemotions can a=ect ethics 6" giving us standards for hat #eve#s of emotiona# #ife

e might <nd orth taking -ride in as e e>-#ore -ossi6#e dis-ositions, on#"

some of hich are themati*a6#" mora#. +" this #ogic e might even c#aim that

concerns a6out ethos -rove centra# to ho e #et ourse#ves 6e a=ected 6"

-athos.

The second of the three 6asic -ro6#ems I see facing ethica# criticism i## he#- me

e#a6orate the s-eci<c a"s that #iterar" e>-erience deve#o-s emotions that a=ect

our visions of ethos even though the" are not easi#" re-resented ithin ethica#

theor". The -ro6#em is sim-#" the danger that criticism devoted to ethics i## <nd

itse#f not sucient#" honoring those @ua#ities and va#ues traditiona##" most

im-ortant to riters and to the inter-retive discourses fostered 6" their ork.

Considered #ogica##", this -ro6#em re-eats the same structure as the one e sa

in dea#ing ith c#aims a6out concreteness. For on the one hand, ethica# criticism

has to insist that #iterature gives mora# -hi#oso-h" access to emotions mediating

kinds of kno#edge and of investment not avai#a6#e ithin the conce-tua# modes

of udgment usua##" ca##ed u-on 6" ethica# theor". Ket, on the other, hi#e the

emotions have to 6e di=erent, the" a#so have to 6e contained, overt#" or covert#",

6" the ver" rationa#it" that the" are seen as su--#ementing55hence /uss6aum;sre#iance on the cognitive theor" of emotions. +ut if e sto- ith the #ogica#

-ro6#ems, e might miss the force and -ossi6#e socia# re#evance of those as-ects

of #iterar" emotions that do not so readi#" ada-t to ethica# theor". Therefore I

ant to de## on one -articu#ar instance of the #ogica# -ro6#em.

I i## take as m" e>am-#e /uss6aum;s use of +igger Thomas in Richard Wright;s

/ative !on 6ecause there e <nd the cognitive theor" of emotions sim-#" una6#e

to dea# ith the intensities generated 6" the te>t, so that /uss6aum;s e=ort to

mora#i*e emotions seems to re-ress some @uite di=erent and threatening as-ect

of the te>t;s emotiona# force. /uss6aum c#aims that readers of this te>t c#ear#"

8/10/2019 Style 1998


<nd their emotiona# res-onses a#so serving as cognitive instruments556oth in

generating s"m-ath" for +igger and in -ushing hites to e>amine their

assum-tions toards such "oung 6#ack ma#es. 4oreover, /uss6aum can a#so

sho, Wright is carefu# to com-#icate and @ua#if" that s"m-ath" so that it meets

rea# or#d conditions. Rather than make the eas" a--ea# to <gures of universa#

6rotherhood, the nove# demands e ackno#edge the degree to hich socia#factors have a#so made #itera# 6rotherhood ver" hard to envision, at #east for

6ourgeois hites. The resu#t of that demand is a dee-er s"m-ath" #eading the

udicious s-ectator to fee# and to think, ?This is a human 6eing, ith the 6asic

e@ui-ment to #ead a -roductive #ifeB for e see ho not on#" the e>terna#

circumstances of action, 6ut a#so anger, fear, and desire have 6een deformed 6"

racia# hatred and its institutiona# e>-ression. The un#ikeness that re-e#s

identi<cation 6ecomes the chief o6ect of our concern? 7&'9.

+ut /uss6aum;s rich ana#"sis of the dicu#ties hites fee# in re#ating to +igger

makes that un#ikeness more -ro6#ematic than her theor" #ets her grant. It is c#ear

that Wright;s te>t dee-ens our ca-acit" to understand +igger in his un#ikeness.

Ket the dee-er hites come to a--reciate ho ounded +igger is 6" his

u-6ringing in a racist societ", the more dicu#t it is to #ink that kno#edge to

une@uivoca# s"m-ath". 3e raises a com-#e> set of emotions in hites 7and

-erha-s not on#" in hites9 invo#ving fear and se#f5-reservation and the resu#ting

need to evade se#f5contem-t. nd once those emotions enter it is not -ossi6#e

sim-#" to trans#ate the s"m-ath" +igger e#icits from the udicious s-ectator into a

mora# orientation toards s-eci<c actions.

/uss6aum is con<dent that ?the reader, hi#e udging +igger cu#-a6#e 7the

degree of his cu#-a6i#it" is certain#" de6ata6#e9, is #ike#" to 6e, other things 6eing

e@ua#, inc#ined to merc" in the im-osition of -unishment, seeing ho much of his

character as the -roduct of circumstances created 6" others? 7&9. Ket I am not

sure that the emotions he raises -roduce that udgment, nor that Wright even

anted that udgment.7n&9 For the s"m-ath" Wright ca##s for engages us ith a

serious#" ounded -s"che that for man" readers i## not e#icit merc", at #east in

re#ation to hat the" e>-ect of the #ega# s"stem. It is -erfect#" -ossi6#e to res-ect

+igger;s inde-endence so much that one ants him ke-t aa" from the hite

or#d at a## costs. 0nce s"m-ath" a#igns us ith his character, and not ust ith

his actions, e have ver" good reason to think that nothing so mere#"

institutiona# as a re#ative#" short ai# sentence is #ike#" to -roduce an" change in

+igger. Instrumenta# reason then ma" e## <nd itse#f using this s"m-ath" to seek

a"s of e#iminating the threat rather than im-roving the condition of the one

found threatening.

#most an"one reading /uss6aum;s essa" is #ike#" to share a desire that merc"tem-er -unishment in cases #ike +igger;s. +ut I sus-ect e cannot arrive at this

8/10/2019 Style 1998


udgment 6ecause of an"thing our emotions for him te## us. In fact the motivating

force here has ver" #itt#e to do ith our emotiona# re#ation to +igger;s s-eci<c

condition. Rather, hat moves us to that merc" for +igger is our a=ective

investment in certain images of ourse#ves 6ased on our overa## -o#itica#

commitments. These investments do seem to me crucia# to -o#itics and are

certain#" a=ected 6" #iterar" e>-erience. +ut not @uite 6" the e>-erience ofs"m-ath", or an" other -athos5oriented attitude, and certain#" not 6" hat

/uss6aum ce#e6rates as the emotions of a udicious s-ectator ho manages to

contro# the im-u#ses of the em-irica# se#f. For hat in -art #eads us to go against

hat e kno from our s"m-ath" ith +igger is an intense#" -ersona#

commitment to a#igning ourse#ves ith the -o#itics of ho-e rather than the

-o#itics of des-air, and ith a i##ingness to take -o#itica# risks rather than to

insist on safe order. These im-u#ses are strengthened not 6" s"m-ath" -er se 6ut

6" deve#o-ing investments in -ositive identi<cations, if not ith s-eci<c ro#e

mode#s then ith imaginar" or#ds that #iterar" te>ts he#- us envision and

-o-u#ate ith -ossi6#e udges hom e ant to -#ease 6" acting as no6#" as ecan. /uss6aum;s cognitive mode# of emotions can neither hand#e the dangers

attendant on hat e do come to kno in -assionate a"s nor address the ro#e

of noncognitive fantasi*ed identi<cations as fundamenta# to mora#it", and to the

im-act #iterar" e>-erience can have in a=ecting mora#it" 6" inHuencing

identi<cations.7n8$9

If I am right, the #imitations of /uss6aum;s cognitive theor" of emotions -rovide a

su-er6 contrastive stage on hich to -ut our s-ot#ight 6ack on Keats;s -oem. It

seems c#ear that her -osition cannot ade@uate#" address either of the

fundamenta# #"rica# states in the -oem55the de-endenc" 6" hich the s-eaker

understands hat -oer is and the assertiveness 6" hich she e>-#ores her on

access to it. +oth are e>treme states that re@uire the s-ectator to sus-end

im-ersona# udiciousness. The centra# drama is #ess a matter of hat e come to

kno a6out the or#d than it is of hat our -artici-ation in the -oem makes

avai#a6#e as concrete, e#ementa# a6straction. !o from Keats;s -oint of vie it is

reason that must #earn to accommodate states #ike those that the -oem can

make so intense#" rea# and so a--ea#ing as re-resentations of hat the desire for

desire might #ook #ike in its -ure form. Keats;s -oem sets ethos against -athos,

insisting that hi#e rationa#it" ma" re@uire /uss6aum;s vie of cognitiveemotions, there are strong features of #iterar" e>-erience that shar-#" o--ose it,

features #ike Wright;s desire to #eave his audience in des-airing ae at +igger;s

#ife. Where cognition might have 6een, there Keats ants fascination to reign,

since fascination o-ens the reader to hat e might ca## -ure #"rica# -oer and

its ca-acities to -roduce modes of satisf"ing se#f5reHection. nd here Keats is,

there too e might <nd riters as diverse as Games and !hakes-eare and

-erha-s even Dante in his e=ort to characteri*e a #oving inte##ect hose reason is

far 6e"ond an" re-resentations e might -roduce for it.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


4" -raise of these states does not mean that e as agents can survive ithout

heeding the c#aims of reason. It does mean that e as agents are not #ike#" to

thrive unti# e recogni*e ho our -ossi6#e interest in states of se#f5a6sor-tion

conHicts ith reason, or at #east ith ho -hi#oso-hers #ike /uss6aum understand

its im-eratives. Reason has its c#aims 6ecause e have to act in a or#d here

accurate information is crucia#, here #as of a## kinds need to 6e honored, andhere societ" needs sharea6#e -rinci-#es for assessing actions and agendas. +ut

these c#aims have to take -recedence for us on#" hen e actua##" need to ustif"

actions 7and non5actions9 or hen e have to make ana#ogous udgments a6out

actions or agendas. Then e need disci-#inar" ethics, and disci-#inar" ethics

re@uires the 6ackground -rovided 6" discussions in mora# -hi#oso-h". +ut man"

as-ects of our #ives take -#ace on @uite di=erent -#anes here usti<cations can

6e assumed or here the" are c#ear#" after the fact and hence not fundamenta#.

In these domains the orr" a6out hat is right is #ess -ressing than the need to

discover hat is -ossi6#e for us to fee# and to -roect and even to s-ecu#ate u-on.

7n889 nd in these domains the socia# im-act of our actions -roves #ess centra#than the -ossi6#e im-act on our -rivate #ives -roduced 6" s-eci<c imaginative

states and re#ated energ" <e#ds.

I

nd so I come to the #ast -ositive -oint that I think is shar-ened 6" de##ing on

hat is -ro6#ematic ithin ethica# criticism. I ant to sho ho an em-hasis on

ethos he#-s c#arif" the kinds of i##ing that are fundamenta# to #iterar"

e>-erience, and I ant to suggest the -ossi6i#it" that man" of the va#ues 6asic to

these e>-eriences emerge in the modes of cha##enge and -rovocation, and not

sim-#" in e>em-#ar" cognitive udgments. That in turn means e have to

esta6#ish idea#s of udgment ca-a6#e of c#arif"ing ho the esta6#ishing of

cha##enges can 6e an accom-#ishment centra# to the deve#o-ment of mora#

va#ues. +" e>amining ho e are motivated to action and ho as-ects of i## are

6rought to the fore in #iterar" e>-erience e can deve#o- a fresh -ers-ective on

ust ho im-ortant ethos is to ethics.

/uss6aum;s cognitive theor" of emotions seems to rest in -art on an assum-tion

that the connection 6eteen -hi#oso-hica# reasoning and discriminating,

s"m-athetic #iterar" e>-erience is matched 6" a direct <t 6eteen hat e come

to think is right, ho e then make socia# identi<cations, and ho e go on to

act. Therefore if one can s-ecif" the <t 6eteen em-irica# udgments and the

a--ro-riate emotions, one has -oerfu# terms for hand#ing those -s"cho#ogica#

factors ena6#ing ethica# reading to carr" over into inHuencing ethica# -ractice.

+ooth, on the other hand, introduces hat seems a crucia# third term for this

-s"cho#og". In his scheme one cannot e>-#ain actions sim-#" in terms of -erce-t,

conce-t, and e#icited s-ectatoria# emotions. 0ne a#so has to -ostu#ate a

motivating factor s-eci<c to the com-#e>it" of individua# situations.7n8(9 The

<gure of the com-an" e kee- then -rovides the motivating factor. That

com-an" is not mere#" something constructed 6" our udgments a6out te>ts. It

a#so takes on the ca-acit" to udge us, to inHuence hat desires e desire and

8/10/2019 Style 1998


conse@uent#" to -rovide 6oth a measure of fai#ure and a -ena#t" for not kee-ing

our i## in a#ignment ith our idea#s. Fai#ing those idea#s is fai#ing mem6ershi-

ithin this communit".

+ooth, hoever, sets unnecessar" constraints on hat might constitute the

re#evant communit", and he severe#" #imits the range of motives and interests 6"

hich #iterar" e>-erience inHuences 6oth the decisions e make and the se#f5

re-resentations or modes of aareness that sha-e our understanding of those

decisions. s e have seen, the image of te>ts as friends sim-#" does not ca-ture

the man" di=erent kinds of intimate re#ations te>ts enter in our #ives, nor does it

@uite address the variet" of -roductive energies 6rought into -#a" 6" those

intimate re#ations. 0ur a=ective #ives can 6e strong#" touched 6" -#easures,

fascinations, and cha##enges that have their -oer 6ecause the" refuse the

domesticating idea# of friendshi- for other #ess sta6#e and #ess comforting modes

of -resence. 4oreover, these -#easures, fascinations, and cha##enges are not as

eas" as to su6sume under criteria com-ati6#e ith mora# discourse as are

a--ea#s to friendshi-.

dmitting these di=erent #ines of re#ation a=ects our understanding of the i## in

to 6asic a"s. First e gain some s-ace ena6#ing us to sho ho some acts of

i## need not 6e governed 6" s-eci<c conce-tua# categories or idea#i*ing

#anguages charged ith -roviding re-resentations of ourse#ves to ourse#ves. Te>ts

a--ea# as -articu#ars ith their on distinctive -romise of a re#ation hich a##osus to fee# ourse#ves endoed ith s-eci<c -oers or ca-a6#e of maintaining

certain images of ourse#ves556" identi<cation or 6" active strugg#e against

domination. Indeed, the more identit" issues seem direct#" at stake, the more e

i## <nd it im-ossi6#e to inter-ret the s-eci<c armations as re#"ing on conce-ts

or on s-eci<a6#e criteria. Instead, e must envision i## emerging sim-#" as an

e>tension of here e <nd our energies satisf"ing#" dis-osed. Consider again

ho identi<cation is invited 6" Keats;s -oem55not 6ecause the -oem someho

-rovides us an idea a=ording a s-eci<c image for the se#f 6ut 6ecause e <nd

ourse#ves taking on the -oem;s on ork of gathering an intensit" of -roductive

se#f5consciousness as its res-onse to the utter #oss of -ersona# -oer re-resented

in the initia# situation. In our e>-eriences of the #"rica# at #east, i##ing often takes

-#ace #ess through an inter-retation of hat is true or good a6out the te>t than

an attachment to hat is -oerfu# ithin it.

This c#aim a6out the i## is not incom-ati6#e ith the ca-acit" of #iterar" te>ts to

state the truth or to re-resent the good. For the i##ing e#icited 6" imaginative

-oer sim-#" occu-ies a di=erent -#ane: it can accom-an" a range of udgments

or -erce-tions 6ecause it sim-#" determines the degree to hich the -erson

-#aces stakes u-on the -articu#ar state. 3ence m" second c#aim. Even hen edo stress the truth va#ue of an intense #iterar" e>-erience, our armation of it as

8/10/2019 Style 1998


an e>-erience ma" de-end #ess on the truth it o=ers than on our <nding

ourse#ves intense#" identi<ed ith ho its s-eci<c e=orts at articu#ation -rovide a

sense of discover" or shar-en hat e thought e kne. We ma" arm a te>t

for ho it re-resents mora# situations, or e ma" arm ourse#ves in re#ation to

that te>t for ho e <nd ourse#ves 6ecoming moved in its -resence. nd,

ana#ogous#", hen e are moved to -it", e ma" res-ond direct#" to the o6ectof -it" or to the states of su6ective intensit" that the te>t o=ers us 6ecause of

ho e can 6ecome in our -it"ing.

3ere then e enter another -ossi6i#it" for a--reciating h" Wittgenstein thought

ethics and aesthetics ere one. There is a dee- connection 6eteen ho e

arm our on re#ation to the states or actions e inha6it and ho e u#timate#"

come to arm the sense of com-#eteness and of intense -artici-ation a=orded us

6" orks of art. From the -oint of vie of ethics, the com-arison to aesthetics

foregrounds ho c#ose#" our aareness of various e>em-#ar" states, of hat

carries force as ethos, 6ecomes fundamenta# to our on senses of identit". We

are hat e i## most intense#", hether the o6ect 6e our investment in reason

or our investments in hat -rovides materia# for reason to ork u-on. In 6oth

cases one im-ortant measure of ho e are as -ersons consists in the range of

-assions that e can occu-" se#f5reHe>ive#" so that e take res-onsi6i#it" for the

ro#es the" -#a" in our #ives and in our re-resentations of our #ives. Converse#"

hat e ca## aesthetic emotion is trivia#i*ed if e take it as on#" a reaction to the

-oer of form. I think aesthetic emotion is a condition of i## that accom-anies

our regarding the ork as o=ering a distinctive and -oerfu# state of mind.

esthetic emotion ma" even 6e considered a strange kind of a=ect 6ecause it

tends not to 6e focussed on an" -articu#ars ithin the ork 6ut to characteri*e

the force 6" hich e res-ond to the -iece as a ho#e, as if e ere i##ing to

take res-onsi6i#it" for ho e 6ecame 6" virtue of our -artici-ation in it.7n8%9

When e make such armative udgments, it seems as if e cannot 6ut ant

this te>t to 6e -art of our or#d and e cannot 6ut ant ourse#ves to make this

te>t -art of ho e see -ossi6i#ities for arming our on ca-acities ithin that

or#d. 0n some occasions e cou#d give ethica# reasons for such udgments, 6ut

e a#so often <nd the emotions themse#ves ca-a6#e of modif"ing the @ua#it" or

degree of investments once re#egated on#" to mora# categories.

II

Even those te>ts that tem-t us 6" contrast and cha##enge to e>-#ore hat such

i##ing against the mora# might fee# #ike 6ecome -art of the com-an" e kee-.

+ut the" do so #ess as friends than as imaginative -resences not on#" de<ning the

most -oerfu# and fascinating states of consciousness e kno 6ut a#so ho#ding

out the -romise that 6" identif"ing -rovisiona##" ith them e are #ike#" to

encounter ourse#ves at our most vita# and most ca-acious. Where ethica#

criticism is forced, often against its 6est instincts, to treat te>ts as u#timate#"

e>am-#es of something that -hi#oso-h" can c#arif" and he#- assess, the ethos5

6ased criticism that I am -ro-osing dea#s direct#" ith the e>am-#es as

manifestations of @ua#ities and -oers that esta6#ish hat is -ossi6#e ithin

8/10/2019 Style 1998


certain a"s of engaging the or#d. When e reHect on these e>am-#es e ma"

decide e have to reect their #ong term c#aims u-on our #o"a#ties 6ecause hat

the" o=er us in moments of intensit" sim-#" i## not <t ith the economies e

ork out as a"s of directing our #ives. +ut if e have e>-erienced these orks

fu##", e are hard5-ressed to dismiss them as sim-#" 6ehavior e can udge or

mistaken identi<cations e can easi#" dis-e#. Think of the continuing im-act!he##e" and 4i#ton have had on -oets ho think the" shou#d kno 6etter. !o

these -resences remain ith us as cha##enges and as measures of the #eve#s of

intensit" and commitment that e can continue to o=er those te>ts ith hich

e continue to identif".

mong its man" #acks, ethica# criticism usua##" has #itt#e to sa" a6out this kind of

strugg#e, or indeed a6out an" kind of strugg#e 6eteen com-eting forces. In this

res-ect it is -ro6a6#" not even good -hi#oso-h". For e>am-#e, in /uss6aum there

is su6stantia# strugg#e against other -hi#oso-hica# -ositions, 6ut her

re-resentation of reading makes it seem that a## e need do is #et the emotions

com-ati6#e ith udicious s-ectatorshi- have their a" ith us, hi#e a## riters

need is themse#ves to #earn the ro#e of udicious s-ectators. nd 6oth

deconstructive and 3eideggerean versions of #etting 6e -ut the 6urden of error

sim-#" on hether e succum6 to categorica# thinking and hence su6mit to some

fantas" of the #a. This situation makes me #ong for the -s"chomachias much

#oved in c#assica# #iterature. There at #east e <nd a -#ausi6#e em6#em for hat

ha--ened to authors as the" read their -eers and as the" strugg#ed to formu#ate

desires for desires that neither made them ashamed 6efore their chosen

com-an" nor #eft them -assive fo##oers of the moon in an" of its socia#

manifestations.

Perha-s ethica# criticism has surrendered that vie of the -s"che;s activit" in

reading maor te>ts so that it cou#d at #east secure for #iterar" e>-erience the

-ossi6i#it" of he#-ing us de## imaginative#" ithin the sense of the se#f -romised

6" our mora# theories. If e are to fee# e have an" mora# contro# over ourse#ves

at a##, e ma" 6e tem-ted to think e have to renounce visions of imaginative

activit" as a constant cha##enge to the i##. +ut "ie#ding to such sus-icions seems

to me to -a" too high a -rice. 4inima##", e risk reecting the demand made 6"

man" #iterar" te>ts that e 6e orth" of them 6" 6ringing to 6ear a se#f5

consciousness so intense#" invested that @uestions of ho a i## stands toards

the materia# 6ecome inesca-a6#e. What;s more, e ma" risk sett#ing for too

-assive or se#f5satis<ed a mora#it" that either comes to su6stitute for i## or to

#ose its imaginative ho#d on us to 6ecome a mere ardro6e e reuse for socia#

-ur-oses 6ecause e have surrendered an" fantas" that e can dress so as to

turn an e"e and engage a mind. These are reasons enough to make me ar" of

#etting ethica# criticism 6e a maor -artici-ant in the com-an" our maor te>ts

invite us to kee-.

/otes

8/10/2019 Style 1998


7n89 I have an additiona# reason for orr"ing a6out em6arrassment and se#f5

disgust 6ecause I ant to use this occasion to address hat I think are

misunderstandings of m" -revious ritings on the to-ic of ethica# criticism 6"

those ver" fe -eo-#e ho have engaged them at a##. +ecause I ta#k a6out

res-onsi6i#it" and the ?-ur-osive -erformance of identit",? it is eas" to assume

that I su6sume the ork of art under mora# categories. +ut this is 6" no means anecessar" reading of -ur-osiveness or of res-onsi6i#it", since those conce-ts

-oint our attention sim-#" to -erformative features of the ork and to its status

as the articu#ation of ethos rather than its @uest for usti<cation in mora# terms. In

-articu#ar I ant to address 4ark Erin;s essa" ?Wittgenstein and The Waste

Land? 6ecause of the a" it attri6utes to me a ?grammatica# -ragmatism? that it

then uses as a contrast to Erin;s cha##enge ?hat sort of res-onsi6#e se#f5

e>-ression e can ado-t 6" reading a modern -oem #ike The Waste Land.? Erin

suggests that instead of that grammatica# -ragmatism e turn to a

Wittgensteinian m"sticism: ?For the Wittgenstein of the /ote6ooks, ethics and

aesthetics are one, not 6ecause the" e>-ress A-ur-osiveness,; 6ut 6ecause the"manifest a a" of #ooking at the or#d, seeing it either as a ha--" or#d or as an

unha--" or#d. Ethics and aesthetics are 6oth forms of vision? 7()$9.

+ut on hat do e focus in order to care a6ou the achievement of ha--" or

unha--" or#dsM That is one im-ortant @uestion that #eads me not to

?grammatica# -ragmatism? 6ut to an e>-ressivism derived from ant and

/iet*sche. The" ena6#e us to shift our focus to ho investments are sha-ed and

maintained in re#ation to visions, and the" kee- us concerned ith issues of ho

agents take res-onsi6i#it" for those investments. For ho I see this e>-ressivism

a--#"ing to E#iot;s Waste Land, Erin might have #ooked at m" Painter#"

6straction in 4odernist merican Poetr".

7n(9 Phi#oso-hers have #ong 6een aare of the need for some such distinction

6eteen ethics as concerned s-eci<ca##" ith -rocesses of usti<cation and more

genera# @uestions a6out va#ues and ends. Perha-s the most usefu# contem-orar"

formu#ation can 6e found in /uss6aum;s Love;s no#edge, here she

distinguishes 6eteen ethica# theor" as ?the stud" of su6stantive ethica#

-ositions? and ?mora# -hi#oso-h"? as a ?genera# and inc#usive ru6ric covering ...

man" di=erent t"-es of ethica# investigations? 78J&9. This formu#ation is certain#"

-refera6#e to the -o-u#ar distinction 6eteen ?ethics? as someho the domain of

high -rinci-#e and ?mora#s? as the mere socia# coding of those -rinci-#es in

di=erent circumstances 6ecause it gets at the distinctive ro#es -#a"ed 6"

theori*ing ithin -rofessiona# -hi#oso-hica# discourse and more genera#

s-ecu#ations on ?ho shou#d human 6eings #ive? 789. Ket the ver" genera#it" she

ins for the ru6ric ?mora# -hi#oso-h"? runs the risk of co##a-sing #iterature;s

genera# concern ith ho va#ues are -ursued into a discourse that turns out to

#ook ver" much #ike ?ethics.? ssessing those concerns turns out to re@uire the

s-eci<c terms of mora# -hi#oso-h". Conse@uent#", ethica# criticism fee#s #icensed

to seek ?reasons? for the kinds of action that in fact are 6eggared 6" assuming

8/10/2019 Style 1998


that e arrive at them 6" mora# ca#cu#i. 4oreover, these -hi#oso-hica#

assum-tions are -ro6a6#" not sucient#" attuned to the dee- conHicts in ho to

ta#k a6out va#ues that emerge among di=erent cu#tura# -ractices.

7n%9 4artha /uss6aum;s account of her shifting attitudes toards tensions

6eteen -assionate #ove and ?the ethica# vie-oint? -rovides a good e>am-#e of

an ethica# theorist ackno#edging these cha##enges 7Love;s no#edge $5%, and

her essa" ?!teerforth;s rm? in the same co##ection9. +ut her reso#ution of the

-ro6#em 6" insisting on a ?dee- #ink 6eteen erotic attachment and a ne, more

"ie#ding sort of mora# rightness? 7%9 seems a#so a good e>am-#e of ho the

cha##enge is usua##" u#timate#" reso#ved in terms that restore the ethica#, ith

more chastened 6ut a#so more im-erious inter-retive authorit".

7n'9 !evera# of m" recent essa"s e>-#ore various as-ects of this /iet*schean

contrast, es-ecia##" ?Poetr" as A1ntruth;: Revising 4odern C#aims for Literar"

Truth.?

7n9 4ora# rea#ism -uts a somehat di=erent onto#ogica# s-in on the idea#s of

udgment since it treats #iterar" te>ts #ess as inter-reting va#ues than as

instances of va#ue c#aims to 6e treated as e treat other facts in the or#d. +ut

mora# rea#ism does -reserve the same under#"ing hegemon" of -hi#oso-hica#

reasoning as do more hermeneutic and -erfectionist a--roaches to te>ts. Iattem-t a more e#a6orate criticism of the re#ation 6eteen mora# rea#ism and

#iterar" studies in m" !u6ective genc" 8%&5$, here I res-ond to Terr"

Eag#eton;s recent ork.

7nJ9 I have to admit that Derrida has gone a #ong a" in addressing this -ro6#em

ithin his genera# ethics 6" deve#o-ing com-#e> interre#ations 6eteen res-onse,

res-onsiveness, and res-onsi6i#it". Ket hi#e Derrida certain#" does not invoke

traditiona# mora# va#ues, I think that he manages to evoke them in the

6ackground as his a" of dignif"ing his focus on te>ts as singu#ar orkingsignatures. Without Western mora#it" there ou#d 6e no reason to care a6out this

singu#arit", "et Derrida seems to -resu--oses that singu#arit" can stand as an

u#timate va#ue 7or as c#ose as his thinking comes to an u#timate va#ue9.

7n9 I miss-eak. There is one much -refera6#e -erfectionist mode# for ta#king

a6out the ethica# in #iterar" orks, name#" the treatment of -oesis deve#o-ed 6"

Richard E#dridge in Leading a 3uman Life. +ut E#dridge;s actua# a--#ications of

this mode# to #iterar" te>ts in the #iterar" criticism seem to me sti## ham-ered 6"

8/10/2019 Style 1998


the e=ort to make his dramatic situations corre#ate ith statea6#e -rinci-#es for

hat constitutes human Hourishing.

7n)9 Let me su--ort this c#aim ith s-eci<c @uotations. This is the #iterar"

/uss6aum: ?Certain truths a6out human #ife can on#" 6e <tting#" and accurate#"

stated in the #anguage and forms characteristic of the narrative artist? 7Love;s

no#edge 9. Re-eated acts of com-#e> s"m-ath" and em-ath" in re#ation to

these narrative situations he#- forge a ?distinctive ethica# conce-tion? 7(J9 in

their on right 6ecause the" he#- us envison hat constitutes a good #ife for

human 6eings and hat va#ues make that #ife sharea6#e. +ut then on the ver"

ne>t -age she is content to argue that e shou#d ?add the stud" of certain nove#s

to the stud"? of c#assica# orks in -hi#oso-hica# ethics, ?on the grounds that

ithout them e i## not have a fu##" ade@uate statement of a -oerfu# ethica#

conce-tion? that e ?ought to investigate.? I <nd the c#aim that on#" ?certain

nove#s? shou#d 6e studied es-ecia##" dicu#t to reconci#e ith an" argument that

there is a distinctive contri6ution made to ethics 6" #iterar" e>-erience. t 6est

one can argue that these certain nove#s su--ort or enrich her en#ightened

ristote#ianism.

7n&9 In conversation +r"an 2#aser -ointed out to me that Wright himse#f uses the

courtroom -arts of his nove# to raise @uestions a6out udgment hich seem to

#ead aa" from an" -ossi6#e institutiona# res-onse to +igger: to s"m-athi*e is

-atroni*ingB to e>ecute utter#" inhumane. Wright can raise such @uestions6ecause his #arger am6ition is to make us see the forces -roducing our im-asse,

and to res-ond to those forces e cannot ust s"m-athi*e. We have to make our

s"m-ath" one feature of a com-#e> -o#itica# udgment sus-icious of a## dreams

that mora# identities matter ver" much at a## in re#ation to hat needs to 6e done.

7n8$9 In conversation Richard Wo##heim has made it c#ear to me the cost invo#ved

in #inking emotions on#" to -erce-tions, as cognitive theor" does, and hence

den"ing a## the fantas" dimensions that give the emotions their intensit" and

their ho#d on our #ives. For a good e>am-#e of -ro6#ems that arise hen thisfantas" dimension is over#ooked, see /uss6aum;s Poetic Gustice J'.

7n889 In the 6ook I am riting I argue that the cognitive theor" of the emotions

makes a -erfect <t ith ethica# criticism;s em-hasis on narrative <ction 6ecause

the kinds of emotion stressed are those that can 6e negotiated 6" the -hronesis

-roviding the 6asic mode of udgment in that domain. +ut the rea#m of a=ects

contains much more than the emotions that enter this <t. If one comes to the

a=ects through the e>-erience of #"ric states, to other a=ective domains

6ecome at #east e@ua##" im-ortant. These are the fee#ings, hich I take to 6e therange of a"s that our a=ective 6eing s-reads out into the or#d in -articu#ar

8/10/2019 Style 1998


moments, and the -assions, hich I take to 6e those emotions in hich the

identit" of the agent is overt#" and intense#" at stake.

7n8(9 0ne cou#d argue that /uss6aum;s udicious s-ectator creates the same

-ro6#ems of moving 6eteen ethica# reason and em-irica# -ersona# situations

that one <nds in ant and in Ra#s. I <nd +ernard Wi##iams;s Ethics and the Limits

of Phi#oso-h" the most usefu# treatment of this to-ic, 6ut I shou#d a#so mention

4ichae# !ande#;s Li6era#ism and the Limits of Gustice, an inHuentia# criti@ue of

Ra#s a#ong these #ines. In ant i## is not an issue 6ecause i## is inse-ara6#e

from reason: if one can enter the im-ersona# domain of reason, one i## have to

i##55reason is active and se#f5de<ning.

7n8%9 This version of res-onsi6i#it" is hat Wittgenstein -ro6a6#" as referring tohen he said that ethics and aesthetics are one.

Works Cited

#tieri, Char#es. Painter#" 6straction in 4odernist merican Poetr": The

Contem-oraneit" of 4odernism 7Literature U Phi#oso-h"9. Cam6ridge: Cam6ridge

1P, 8&&$.

55555. ?Poetics as A1ntruth;: Revising 4odern C#aims for Literar" Truth.? /e

Literar" 3istor" (& 7!-ring 8&&)9: %$5().

55555. !u6ective genc": Theor" of First5Person E>-ressivit" and its !ocia#

Im-#ications. 0>ford: +#acke##, 8&&'.

+ooth, Wa"ne. The Com-an" We ee-: n Ethics of Fiction. +erke#e": 1 of

Ca#ifornia P, 8&)).

E#dridge, Richard. Leading a 3uman Life: Wittgenstein, Intentiona#it", and

Romanticism. Chicago: 1 of Chicago P, 8&&.

Erin, 4ark. ?Wittgenstein and The Waste Land.? Phi#oso-h" and Literature (8

78&&9: (&5&8.



55555. Poetic Gustice: The Literar" Imagination and Pu6#ic Life. +oston: +eacon,

8&&.

!ande#, 4ichae#. Li6era#ism and the Limits of Gustice. Cam6ridge: Cam6ridge 1P,

8&)(.

Wi##iams, +ernard. Ethics and the Limits of Phi#oso-h". Cam6ridge: 3arvard 1P,

8&).

8/10/2019 Style 1998


Wittgenstein, Ludig. Tractatus Logico5Phi#oso-hicus. Trans. D.F. Pears and +.F.

4c2uinness. London: Rout#edge and egan Pau#, 8&J8.

Keats, Wi##iam +ut#er. The Poems of Wi##iam +ut#er Keats. Ed. Richard Finneran.

/e Kork: 4acmi##an, 8&)%.

+" Char#es #tieri, 1niversit" of Ca#ifornia5+erke#e"

/as#ov: !aints, !inners, and the Dickensian /ove#: The Ethics of !tor"te##ing in

Gohn Irving;s The Cider 3ouse Ru#es. Prema: Davis, Todd F., Womack, enneth,


Com-#ete.

!I/T!, !I//ER!, /D T3E DICE/!I/ /0EL: T3E ET3IC! 0F !T0RKTELLI/2I/ G03/ IRI/2;! T3E CIDER 301!E R1LE!

The intention of a nove# 6" Char#es Dickens is to move "ou emotiona##", not

inte##ectua##"B and it is 6" emotiona# means that Dickens intends to inHuence "ou

socia##".

55Gohn Irving, ?The ing of the /ove#?

In addition to a=ording readers the critica# machiner" for e>-#oring the nature ofconce-ts such as communit", st"#istics, and goodness in narratives, ethica#

criticism -rovides us ith a usefu# rhetoric for e>amining the function of

stor"te##ing in #iterar" orks. The act of narration55or hat dam Nachar" /eton

refers to in /arrative Ethics 78&&9 as the ?-erformative function of stor"te##ing?

7)955can itse#f o=er signi<cant insight into the ethica# -ro-erties of a given te>t.

Ethica# criticism -resu--oses that through their de-ictions of so man" mora##"

dis-arate heroes and vi##ains, orks of art necessari#" im-#ore us to render va#ue

udgments 6ased u-on our e>-eriences as readers and mem6ers of the #arger

human communit". Ket the act of stor"te##ing55the manner in hich riters

de#i6erate#" construct their narratives so as to register mora# or socia# im-actsu-on their readers55remains #arge#" une>amined in the considera6#e and groing

#iterature devoted to the inter-retive mode of ethica# criticism.7 n89 In !tor" Line:

E>-#oring the Literature of the --a#achian Trai# 78&&)9, Ian 4arsha## notes that

#iterar" criticism;s -ur-ose ?is not sim-#" to he#- us understand #iterature 6ut to

he#- us understand our #ives, and sometimes our #ives and the #iterature e read

he#- us understand critica# theories? 7 )9. 4arsha##;s o6servation a6out the

reHe>ivit" of #iterar" criticism underscores one of ethica# criticism;s -rinci-a#

functions: to -rovide readers not on#" ith a mechanism for com-rehending the

vicissitudes of human e>-erience, 6ut a#so ith the inter-retive too#s for

recogni*ing the a"s in hich riters create meaning through stor"te##ing.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


In Cu#tivating 3umanit": C#assica# Defense of Reform in Li6era# Education

78&&9, 4artha C. /uss6aum reminds us that ?a centra# ro#e of art is to cha##enge

conventiona# isdom and va#ues? 7&&9. In his nove#s, Gohn Irving continues to

e>-eriment ith a narrative voice that seeks to thart de#i6erate#" his readers;

e>-ectations, to u-set our notions of conventiona#it", and to 6#ur the 6oundaries

that #inger 6eteen good and evi#, right and rong. From the #ife5arming-resence of the ?good, smart 6ears? in The 3ote# /e 3am-shire 78&)89 and

0en 4ean";s shri## voice of reason in Pra"er for 0en 4ean" 78&)&9 to the

convo#uted se>ua# -o#itics of The 8)5Pound 4arriage 78&'9 and the cons-icuous

-ro>imit" of the ?1nder Toad? and the traged" of the E##en Gamesians in The Wor#d

ccording to 2ar- 78&)9, Irving adorns his <ctions ith a host of ethica# signi<ers

that cha##enge readers at ever" turn throughout his #a6"rinthine, de#i6erate#"

Dickensian <ctions. Irving makes #itt#e secret of his anit" for Dickens and in

-articu#ar for the ictorian riter;s e"e for com-#e>it" of narrative and #iterar"

character. In ?ing of the /ove#s,? Irving rites that ?Dickens as a6undant and

magni<cent ith descri-tion, ith the atmos-here surrounding ever"thing55andith the tacti#e, ith ever" detai# that as terrif"ing or viscera##" fe#t? 7%J'9. s

ith Dickens, 6ecause Irving #oads his on narratives ith considera6#e detai#

and descri-tion, he makes it virtua##" im-ossi6#e for readers to render faci#e

ethica# decisions in the face of so much information a6out a given character;s

humanit". Irving se#f5conscious#" ado-ts the #iterar" form of the Dickensian

nove#55ith its mu#ti-#icit" of characters, its narrative mass, its overt sense of

sentimenta#it", and its generic intersections ith such modes as the detective

stor"55as the forum for constructing the <ctions that intentiona##" cha##enge his

readers; va#ue s"stems. In short, for Irving the choice of the narrative form of the

Dickensian nove# itse#f re-resents an ethica# move.

The essentia# formu#ation of the Dickensian nove# as a narrative form <nds its

origins in Dickens;s d"namic a--roach to #iterar" character. In Poetic Gustice: The

Literar" Imagination and Pu6#ic Life 78&&9, /uss6aum remarks that Dickens

endos his characters ith ?-h"sica# and mora# attri6utes that make it -ossi6#e

for us to distinguish ever" one from ever" other. We are made to attend to their

a"s of moving and ta#king, the sha-es of their 6odies, the e>-ressions on their

faces, the sentiments of their hearts. The inner #ife of each is dis-#a"ed as having

-s"cho#ogica# de-th and com-#e>it",? she adds, and ?e see that as humans the"share certain common -ro6#ems and common ho-es? 7(9. Ket Dickens;s

characters are far more than mere vesse#s of trans-ort for the essentia# e#ements

of genuine human 6ehavior. The e=ectiveness of Dickens;s characters as human

re-resentations #ies in their -ecu#iar #ack of ethica# certaint", in their ca-acit" for

mimicking the e#usive @ua#ities that often de<ne human nature. Dickens;s

?characters do not so much recreate actua# individua#s as re5create the reactions

to actua# individua#s, and -articu#ar#" the dicu#ties and di#emmas,? +rian

Rosen6erg rites in Litt#e Dorrit;s !hados: Character and Contradiction in

Dickens 78&&J9B ?his dou6ts a6out the -otentia# for understanding others ca-ture

a near#" universa# uncertaint", and his strugg#e to make sense of conHicting,unre#ia6#e -ieces of information mirrors a strugg#e e undergo dai#". !hunning

8/10/2019 Style 1998


the rounded and de<nite, he #eaves the reader,? Rosen6erg continues, ?#ike man"

of the <gures in his nove#s, a#a"s contending ith the e#usive and irreconci#a6#e?

7%$9.

s a #iterar" mode#, the Dickensian nove# -rovides the narrative structure for

Irving;s on ethics of stor"te##ing. In The Cider 3ouse Ru#es 78&)9, Irving avai#s

himse#f of man" of the Dickensian form;s c#assic narrato#ogica# e#ements,

inc#uding its intentiona##" conHicted me#ange of characters, its intricate #a"ering

of -#ots, its -enchant for the detective stor", and even its fre@uent de-iction of

or-hans, the occu-ants of societ";s most innocent and vu#nera6#e stations. The

Cider 3ouse Ru#es a#so a=ords Irving a venue for cha##enging our assum-tions,

fears, and -reudices a6out a6ortion, that most fractious of socia# issues. Rather

than mere#" rendering an overt decision a6out the ethics of a6ortion, Irving,

using the Dickensian mode of characteri*ation, chooses to confront his readers

ith detai#ed, fu##" rea#i*ed visions of the com-#ications and uncertainties that

com-rise the human condition.7 n(9 Des-ite Irving;s carefu# and de#i6erate#"

indeterminate de-iction of human nature in his nove#, Caro# C. 3arter and Games

R. Thom-son argue that as a -o#emic The Cider 3ouse Ru#es ?is serious#" Haed,?

and 6ecause ?Irving;s Acorrect -o#itica# vision; sometimes distorts the 6ook;s

#arger theme55the -ro6#ematica# nature of -ersona# and socia# Aru#es;55the

dicu#ties ith Irving;s ne <ction are considera6#e? 78%'9.7 n%9 Ket 3arter and

Thom-son;s criti@ue of The Cider 3ouse Ru#es neg#ects to a##o for the

tremendous im-ort of Irving;s ethics of stor"te##ing in the nove#. s an essentia##"

Dickensian nove#ist, Irving sim-#" refuses to -ermit his readers to resort to eas"

and o6vious decisions a6out either his on ethos or the ethica# s"stems of his

characters. With its variegated #andsca-e of humanit"55and the e#usiveness and

uncertaint" that genuine humanit" necessari#" entai#s55the Dickensian nove#

functions in The Cider 3ouse Ru#es as the ethica# vehic#e via hich Irving

cha##enges his readers to consider the a6ortion de6ate from a host of vantage

-oints, rather than mere#" ado-ting a ?correct -o#itica# vision.?

In Ethics, Evi#, and Fiction 78&&9, Co#in 4c2inn rites that ?the <ctiona# or#d is

rea##" the idea# or#d in hich to go on ethica# e>-editions: it is safe, convenient,

inconse@uentia#, and e>-ress#" designed for our e>-#oration and de#ight? 789.

Irving;s on a--roach to stor"te##ing55his techni@ue, as e## as his understanding

of its -ur-oses55demonstrates the ethica# force of the narrative act as he

conceives it. ?rt has an aesthetic res-onsi6i#it" to 6e entertaining,? Irving

argues. ?The riter;s res-onsi6i#it" is to take hard stu= and make it as accessi6#e

as the stu= can 6e made? 7?n Intervie? 8)J9. In contrast to the contem-orar"

direction of much -oststructura#ist #iterar" criticism, hoever, Irving does not

mean to suggest that those narratives that entertain are someho #ess serious or

#ess ethica##" cha##enging. 0n the contrar"55as Dickens;s ictorian5era canon and

Irving;s #ate tentieth5centur" oeuvre seem to demonstrate55to entertain one;s

readers is to ca-ture their hearts and minds in such a a" that dras them into

the #ives of characters ho -o-u#ate stories that tru#" matter ithin the #arger

8/10/2019 Style 1998


narrative of our shared humanit". ?Gohn Irving 6e#ongs to a sma## grou- of

merican riters,? Terrence Des Pres suggests in Writing into the Wor#d 78&&89,

?hose ork has ins-ired res-ect for the -#ainest of reasons55these -eo-#e rite

a kind of <ction usefu#, as genuine art must a#a"s 6e usefu#, to s-iritua# need?

78$(9. In his attem-t to entertain and en#ighten readers, as Irving creates te>ts

rich ith the vi6ranc" and contrariness of e>istence, he -ortra"s not on#" our?s-iritua# need? 6ut a#so a"s of co-ing ith that need. In fact, the ver" form of

Irving;s stor"te##ing seems to suggest a means for co-ing s-iritua##", for it o=ers a

-rocess that 6rings no <na# ansers 6ut invites us to take -art in an

unforgetta6#e ourne". s he te##s his stor", Irving moves his readers 6e"ond the

-resent moment in the te>t into a dee- histor" of 6oth the characters in the stor"

and the communities in hich the" #iveB he com-e#s his readers to rest#e ith

the same ethica# di#emmas that the stor";s characters must confrontB he causes

us to see and fee# the o", anger, and sorro that inevita6#" visits itse#f u-on the

saints and sinners ho -o-u#ate the #andsca-e of his <ction. Like the rest#er he

as55indeed, he is55Irving de#i6erate#" eaves his ta#es into the emotiona# #ives of his readers. !naking his characters; arms and #egs around one another, he #eaves

us in the most im-ro6a6#e and com-romising -ositions: entined on the mat of

his stor", strugg#ing not to 6e -inned 6" the eight of the #ives e enter

vicarious#".

3o, then, does Irving achieve this kind of connection ith his readers, and h"

do the characters ithin Irving;s <ctiona# or#d remain vivid in the minds of 6oth

his devoted -o-u#ar readershi- and the #iteratiM Writing against the grain of much

contem-orar" artistic -ractice, Irving grounds his achievement in his use of the

-articu#ar and his consistent desire for the su6ect of his <ctions to 6e

recogni*a6#e in the or#d 6e"ond the te>t.7 n'9 In his -u6#ished intervies and

memoirs, Irving #aments the shift in contem-orar" <ction aa" from the actua#

or#d in hich e #ive toard the or#d of meta<ction. In a 8&& intervie, Irving

addresses the de6ate taking -#ace during that era 6eteen Gohn 2ardner and

Wi##iam 2ass a6out the ?necessit" or irre#evanc" of art;s a##egiance to mora#it"?:

?2ardner has 6een ver" care#ess a6out a num6er of things he;s said, so it;s easier

to -ick on 2ardner than it is to -ick on 2ass,? Irving e>-#ainsB ?on the other hand,

it seems to me that 2ardner has tried to sa" a #ot more a6out #iterature than

2ass, and I have to admire him for that. I;d a#so have to agree ith 2ardner that#iterature shou#d 6e a sign of #ife rather than a ce#e6ration of death,? Irving

conc#udes, ?and if a nove# doesn;t address itse#f to something of human va#ue, I

don;t see much orth in it? 7?n Intervie? 8)9. Irving;s insistence that the nove#

as #iterar" form shou#d address ?something of human va#ue? continues to

determine man" of his narrative -ractices, es-ecia##" his use of the -articu#ar.

7 n9 +" chronic#ing severa# maor and minor characters; histories in his nove#s

ith an uncann" -recision and attentiveness, Irving creates an ethica# construct

that for the -ur-oses of this essa" e sha## refer to as ?charactersca-e.?

8/10/2019 Style 1998


Whi#e nove#ists must in some manner esta6#ish character for their readers, not a##

riters agree a6out its im-ort or the techni@ues necessar" to -roduce it. In Find

Kou the irtue: Ethics, Image, and Desire in Literature 78&)9, Irving 4asse"

contends that the ethics of -articu#arit", the a6i#it" to see the individua# rather

than the universa#, i##ustrates the fo##" in ideas of re-etition and categori*ation:

?Things ust do not re-eat themse#ves, un#ess e are -assive to them: if the"e>ist for us fu##", e do not e>-erience them under the as-ect of sameness or

uniformit". Categories have something of the fraud a6out them? 7%'9.7 nJ9 The

a6i#it" to see human events and e>-eriences for hat the" are, to 6e fu##"

attentive to their origina#it", is a centra# conce-t in Irving;s creation of

charactersca-e.7 n9 In order to understand more fu##" the notion of

charactersca-e, it shou#d 6e noted that this construct does not di=er signi<cant#"

from the creation of character in terms of techni@ue, 6ut it does di=er radica##" in

terms of intention. s ith the creation of character, charactersca-e re@uires the

descri-tion of s-eci<c incidents that reHect the inner #ife of a given character;s

-ersonhoodB fundamenta# e#ements of anatom", dress, -h"sica# movements,-rofessiona# ha6its, and the #ike must 6e foregrounded for readers. In contrast

ith mere characteri*ation, hoever, charactersca-e o-erates u-on a sca#e of

grand -ro-ortion. This is not to sa" that a given character is necessari#"

grandiose or ethica# in his or her on rightB on the contrar", in The Cider 3ouse

Ru#es Irving 6orros from Dickens 6" making an or-han of diminutive and hum6#e

stature a centra# <gure in the action of his nove#. Instead, the conce-t of

-ro-ortion re#ates to the amount of narrative s-ace used to create a vivid

rendering of a -articu#ar character. This -rocess might 6est 6e com-ared to

Wi##iam Least 3eat54oon;s a--ro-riation of #andsca-e in Prair"Erth: Dee- 4a-

78&&89. The su6tit#e of 3eat54oon;s o-us underscores the issue at hand: e muste>amine hat #ies ithin the dee-er structures of the or#ds that e inha6it to

understand fu##" hat #ives 6efore our e"es. +" -ro6ing 6eneath the surface of

Chase Count", ansas, and vieing it from near#" ever" imagina6#e -osition,

3eat54oon confronts his readers ith a menta# image that transcends #andsca-eB

it is as if the riter has found a a" not on#" to transform the to5dimensiona# art

of ords on the -rinted -age into a three5dimensiona# re-resentation, 6ut a#so

has discovered a vehic#e to trans-ort readers into other dimensions that fuse the

-h"sica# and the s-iritua#, the anima# and the human into a sing#e #andsca-e.

s ith 3eat54oon;s ork of creative non<ction, Irving;s <ctiona#5or#d

charactersca-es o=er mu#tidimensiona# -ers-ectives. Certain#", The Cider 3ouse

Ru#es might 6e to#d more succinct#" if e ere not -resented <rst ith the histor"

of !t. C#oud;s55inc#uding such e-hemera# facts as ho the ton;s name ac@uired

an a-ostro-he55and then ith the histor" of Wi#6ur Larch and his circuitous

ourne" into medicine and the -ractice of a6ortion. Ket if such materia# ere

e>cised, the nove#;s range ou#d 6e radica##" truncated and Larch;s com-#icated

motivations for -erforming a6ortions ou#d not 6e fu##" rea#i*ed. Charactersca-e

demands that man" of the issues and incidents to hich e are not -riv" in our

orkada" #ives 6e"ond the con<nes of the te>t55es-ecia##" such onderfu# arti<ceas The Cider 3ouse Ru#es;s e-i#ogue that -ermits us not on#" to see the -ast, 6ut

8/10/2019 Style 1998


a#so the -ast in the conte>t of the future556e -resented in such a a" that our

understanding of the <ctiona# -ersons that e encounter as e consume the

stor" e>-ands vo#uminous#" toard an ethica# i##umination of far5reaching

conse@uence. 0f course, not a## readers i## acce-t the invitation to enter fu##"

into Irving;s <ctive or#d, 6ut 6ecause of its narrative mass the sheer num6er of

hours that such stor"te##ing re@uires makes -ossi6#e this kind of reve#ator"re#ationshi-.

+" carefu##" and e>-ansive#" #a"ering his -resentation of character, Irving

satis<es his on demand that -hi#oso-hica# issues 6e su6servient to the a"s in

hich -eo-#e #ive. Charactersca-e functions as Irving;s centra# ethic: the -h"sica#

or#d of human activit"55hich he attem-ts to make as vi6rant#" a#ive as

-ossi6#e55must never 6e #ost in a -hi#oso-hica# de6ate a6out notions of right and

rong. s ith Wi##iam Car#os Wi##iams, Irving dismisses the a6stract and

em6races the -h"sica#. In The Ca## of !tories: Teaching and the 4ora# Imagination

78&)&9, Ro6ert Co#es e>-#ains that Wi##iams;s ?re-eated ca## to arms, the e##5

knon -hrase Ano ideas 6ut in things,; is a -re#ude to distinctions he ke-t making

6eteen -oetr" and #ifeB 6eteen ideas and actionB 6eteen the a6stract and the

concreteB 6eteen theor" and -racticeB and not #east, 6eteen art and conduct?

78&%9. In simi#ar fashion, Irving a#so -roc#aims adamant#" that <ction must

originate in the concrete and the -h"sica# as o--osed to the -hi#oso-hica#, and he

o=ers a #itan" of com-#aints against those nove#s that seem more a6out a

-articu#ar ideo#og" than a6out the #ives that trans-ire ithin a given te>t: ?I guess

another a" to -ut this? e>-#ains Irving, ?is that I don;t #ike to see a thesis a6out

#ife, or -eo-#e, disguised as a nove#. I don;t think the greatest nove#s of our time

or an" other time are theses. 2reat nove#s succeed much 6etter hen the" are

6road e>-ressions or -ortraits than hen the" con<ne themse#ves to the

singu#arit" of an idea? 7?n Intervie? 8&9.

#though The Cider 3ouse Ru#es has 6een 6oth critici*ed and #auded as an ?idea?

6ook, one that crusades for a singu#ar -osition on the a6ortion issue, e ou#d do

e## to note the author;s on account of the nove#;s genesis: ?I anted to rite

an or-han nove#. It as a "ear 6efore a6ortion entered the stor",? Irving remarks,

?6ut it made -erfect sense. In the ear#" -art of the centur", hat doctor ou#d 6e

most s"m-athetic to -erforming a6ortions 6ut a doctor ho de#ivered unanted

6a6ies, then cared for them in an or-hanageM? 7Fein (9. Re-eating his #itan" in

an intervie ith #ison Free#and55?a nove# is not sing#e5issue -o#itics, or if it is,

it;s not a nove#? 78'$955Irving derides those critics ho read The Cider 3ouse

Ru#es in terms of a sing#e -o#itica# vision. This narroness of vision, of course,

demonstrates -recise#" the -ro6#em ith 3arter and Thom-son;s criti@ue of the

nove# as ?-o#emic? Whi#e Irving admits that The Cider 3ouse Ru#es is -erha-s his

<rst -o#emica# nove#, 3arter and Thom-son;s understanding of Irving;s use of the

-o#emic fai#s to account for the signi<cance of the charactersca-es that undergird

Irving;s <ctions. 1ndou6ted#", Irving -ro=ers a nove# that sets forth an argument

of great controvers", 6ut, as is his -ractice e#sehere, the #ives of his characters

8/10/2019 Style 1998


8/10/2019 Style 1998


smoked 6" 4rs. Eames;s daughter, ho enters unannounced hi#e Wi#6ur

droses in -ost5coita# 6#iss. What Larch seems to take from this e>-erience55in

addition to gonorrhea, hich he studies in 6acterio#og" at 3arvard 4edica#

!choo#55is a su6stantia# measure of remorse. Wi#6ur com-ounds his gui#t"

conscience through a series of events that 6ring 4rs. Eames and her daughter

6ack into his #ife. Whi#e orking as a "oung intern at the !outh End +ranch of the+oston L"ing5In, Larch treats 4rs. Eames, hom he discovers has 6een taking an

a6orticide that #eaves her organs in a state of ?fragi#e e##".? fter si> da"s of

Larch;s care, 4rs. Eames dies, and in the ensuing auto-s" Larch #earns from the

-atho#ogist that she has e>-ired as a resu#t of scurv". da" #ater, as on#"

ha--ens in the fa6u#istic or#d of Dickens and Irving, here coincidences are

indis-ensa6#e to the connective tissue of charactersca-e, 4rs. Eames;s daughter

visits Larch. !he shos him the a6orticide that her mother ingested55a ?French

Lunar !o#ution? said to restore ?Fema#e 4onth#" Regu#arit"Q? 7955and asks him

to -erform an a6ortion for her: ?I ain;t @uickQ I ain;t @uick, I saidQ? she screams at

Larch 7&9. +ut the conse@uences of the -rocedure frighten Larch and hehesitates. eek #ater Larch <nds her 6eaten and in grave condition after

receiving an a6ortion at the shad" c#inic knon on#" as ?0= 3arrison.? 3e

discovers a note -inned to her 6attered 6od": ?D0CT0R LRC355!3IT 0R 2ET 0FF

T3E P0TQ? 7J$9. s ith her mother on#" da"s 6efore, 4rs. Eames;s daughter a#so

dies in the care of Larch, 6ut her death -rom-ts him to visit ?0= 3arrison? and

confront the a6ortionist ho runs the c#inic, an e#der#" oman knon #oca##" as

4rs. !anta C#aus. This scene a##os readers to see the too#s of a6ortion, and,

a#ong ith Larch, to 6e shocked 6" the afu# conditions and misguided methods

under hich i##ega# a6ortions are conducted. This e>-erience a#so serves as the

cata#"st for Larch;s u#timate ro#e as a6ortionist in the nove#. In short, the kinds ofmeta-horica# gifts that 4rs. C#aus de#ivers cha##enge Larch to seek a -ractica# and

immediate so#ution for such omen in need as 4rs. Eames and her daughter55a

so#ution generated out of the -ragmatics of -h"sica# circumstance as o--osed to

#ega#istic ideo#og".

With each horri<c incident, Irving adds one more #a"er to Larch;s charactersca-e,

6ut, in so doing, Irving refuses to render an" overt va#ue udgments and o=ers

nothing more than the -recarious e#ements of human stor"te##ing. #though

a6ortion c#ear#" #ies at the center of these -assages, Irving carefu##" avoidsentering into a -hi#oso-hica# de6ate a6out hen #ife actua##" 6egins or hose

rights must 6e -rotected. Irving esches an" theo#ogica# discussion that might

a=ect the actions of his characters or the manner in hich readers might

inter-ret those actions. Interesting#", Larch;s decision seems to s-ring from his

understanding of his on fa##i6i#it", his on fa##en nature. Through his interaction

ith 4rs. Eames and her daughter he recogni*es the cu#-a6i#it" of his on

conduct, as e## as that of a societ" that tacit#" condones the creation of or-hans,

-rostitutes, and unanted -regnancies. In a -articu#ar#" te##ing moment of

reHection, Larch contem-#ates the -ecu#iar interre#ationshi- 6eteen ce#i6ac"

and mora# condemnation:

8/10/2019 Style 1998


0n his mind as 4rs. Eames;s daughter;s #ast -u= of cigar 6reath in his face as

he 6ent over her 6efore she died55reminding him, of course, of the night he

needed her -ung cigar to <nd his c#othes. If -ride as a sin, thought Dr. Larch,

the greatest sin as mora# -ride. 3e had s#e-t ith someone;s mother anddressed himse#f in the #ight of her daughter;s cigar. 3e cou#d @uite comforta6#"

a6stain from having se> for the rest of his #ife, 6ut ho cou#d he ever condemn

another -erson for having se>M 7J89

Larch;s uns-oken vo of ce#i6ac" and his assum-tion of sainthood, #ike the

disorder#" nature of a## genuine#" human activit", <nds its roots in inter-ersona#

re#ationshi-s, and in his re#ationshi-s ith omen, Larch continua##" fa#ters. s

ith his addiction to ether55hich 6egins as a -ractica# remed" to the gonorrhea

he contracts from 4rs. Eames and #ater 6ecomes a means for 6oth re#a>ing and,-erha-s, esca-ing tem-orari#" from his gui#t55his res-onse to a6ortion re-resents

the actions of a -ragmatic doctor doing the -ractica# things necessar" for his

-atients and the communit" in hich he #ives. fter den"ing 4rs. Eames;s

daughter an a6ortion, he never again -auses to consider the #ega# or ethica#

rami<cations of a6ortion hen faced ith a mother in need. Instead, as Larch

e>-#ains in +rief 3istor" of !t. C#oud;s, ?3ere in !t. C#oud;s e ou#d aste our

#imited energ" and our #imited imagination 6" regarding the sordid facts of #ife as

if the" ere -ro6#ems? 7%'9. For Larch, -ragmatism reignsB 6ecause the ?sordid

facts of #ife? can never 6e changed, one;s mora# -osition must never 6e #orded

over the -h"sica# needs of another.7 n)9 Later ithin the ver" same cha-ter, ?TheLord;s Work,? in hich he o=ers his <rst -ronouncement of ce#i6ac" and his

confession that mora# -ride amounts to the orst of sins, Larch rearms this

notion in the -recise #anguage of the ear#ier -assage. In this manner, the saint of

6oth or-hans and mothers esta6#ishes a mantra that a##os him to carr" on ith

his duties:

Later, hen he ou#d have occasion to dou6t himse#f, he ou#d force himse#f to

remem6er: he had s#e-t ith someone;s mother and dressed himse#f in the #ight

of her daughter;s cigar. 3e cou#d @uite comforta6#" a6stain from having se> forthe rest of his #ife, 6ut ho cou#d he ever condemn another -erson for having

se>M 3e ou#d remem6er, too, hat he hadn;t done for 4rs. Eames;s daughter,

and hat that had cost.

3e ou#d de#iver 6a6ies. 3e ou#d de#iver mothers, too. 79

Ket the most signi<cant test of Latch;s reso#ve comes not ith the <rst a6ortionhe -erforms for the "oung gir# he rescues from ?0= 3arrison? or the su6se@uent

8/10/2019 Style 1998


re@uests 6" others in the neigh6orhood communit" ho <nd themse#ves in

simi#ar straits, 6ut from a ea#th" fami#", the Channing5Pea6od"s of +oston, ho

summer in Port#and, 4aine. Larch has gone to 4aine to a--#" for a -osition in

o6stetrics, esca-ing +oston here he ?had 6ecome, in the vie of the erring, the

sanctuar" to hich to Hee? 7J&9. Larch ostensi6#" visits the Channing5Pea6od"s;s

-a#atia# mansion for hat he assumes i## 6e a dinner -art". /either -oor nordontrodden #ike the omen ho sought out Larch in !outh +oston, the

Channing5Pea6od"s -rove insu=era6#e in their mora# su-eriorit" and in their

-resum-tion that their mone" can re#ieve them of an" set of un-#easant or

undesired circumstances. Des-ite such arrogance, Larch sti## cannot 6ring himse#f

to -ass udgment u-on 4iss", the oman in need of his services. Instead of

refusing the Channing5Pea6od"s, he insists that the "oung man res-onsi6#e for

im-regnating 4iss" 6e sent in to atch the -rocedure55and, as Larch ho-es, the

"oung man vomits a## over himse#f. dditiona##", taking the mone" ith hich the

Channing5Pea6od"s attem-t to ?6u"? his services and his si#ence, Larch chooses

to distri6ute it among the servants ho he#- him -erform the a6ortion, as e## asamong those others ho ork throughout the great house. !uch a scene,

-articu#ar#" im-ortant in the creation of Larch;s on character5sca-e,

demonstrates his ethica# determination to refuse to udge the oman in need of

his care. Whi#e Larch indeed -asses udgment u-on those characters ho seem

to stand in su--osed mora# su-eriorit" over 4iss" for 6ecoming -regnant and

over him for 6ecoming a doctor ho ou#d -erform a6ortions, he i## not den"

an" oman, in this instance 4iss", hom he c#ear#" sees as a victim.

+" avai#ing himse#f of the ethos of charactersca-e, Irving esta6#ishes the

motivations and the ideo#og" of Larch, a man ho c#aims to do 6oth ?the Lord;s

ork and the Devi#;s ork.?7 n&9 3e further com-#icates our understanding of

Larch as 6oth saint and sinner 6" introducing the <gure of 3omer We##s, the

eterna# or-han ho 6ecomes a surrogate son for Larch, as e## as his -rofessiona#

successor. 3omer;s -resence in the frame of Irving;s stor" e>em-#i<es the ethics

of charactersca-e 6" i##ustrating the marked im-ortance of human

interre#ationshi-s in the construction of charactersca-e. Gust as a #andsca-e artist

needs a hori*on and a sk", a foreground and a 6ackground to ca-ture -ro-er#"

the s-irit of a -#ace, the riter ho ho-es to achieve a fu##" articu#ated -ortrait of

a character must -#ace the -erson in c#ose re#ation to another character ofconse@uence ithin a given narrative. Whi#e Irving devotes the 6u#k of The Cider

3ouse Ru#es;s narrative s-ace to 3omer;s stor", the or-han ou#d not achieve his

fu## sem6#ance of -ersonhood ithout the character of Larch to 6ring him into

6as5re#ief.

s the 6o" hose ado-tion never comes to -ass, 3omer undergoes a tria# 6" <re

of sorts that consists of severa# horri6#" fantastic ado-tive e>-eriences, inc#uding

in one instance his ?6uggering? 6" a si6#ing and in another case the death of his

ne -arents in a thunderous rushing Hood of #ogs and ater on a cam-ing

e>-edition. s he inevita6#" returns to !t. C#oud;s, he deve#o-s a s-ecia#

8/10/2019 Style 1998


re#ationshi-, uni@ue and fu## of mutua# #ove, ith Larch. +ecause 3omer gros to

the age of ?usefu#ness,? as Larch ca##s it, hi#e sti## residing at !t. C#oud;s, Larch

initiates him into the or#d of the or-hanage, <rst as a caregiver and #ater as an

o6stetrician. For e>am-#e, Larch assigns 3omer the night#" task of reading orks

6" Dickens and +ronte to the or-hans in 6oth the gir#s; and 6o"s; divisions.7 n8$9

In this ca-acit", 3omer deve#o-s a re#ationshi- ith another ?o#der? or-han,4e#on", ho, #ike himse#f, has "et to 6e ado-ted successfu##". 4e#on" functions as

the <rst fema#e character to a=ect 3omer;s understanding of the or#d of

se>ua#it" and trust. s ith Larch, 3omer;s fee#ings a6out a6ortion, se>, and

-rocreation 6ecome fundamenta##" a#tered 6" his re#ations ith omen. In the

Dickensian tradition of the detective stor", 4e#on";s character -rovides Irving

ith the means for avai#ing himse#f of the generic conventions of the detective

mode to trace one of the -rinci-a# desires of man" or-hans: to kno the identit"

of their -arents and to kno ho #oves them. 4e#on";s menacing attitude toard

her undiscovered -arents, as e## as her -romise to 3omer that she i## -erform

fe##atio u-on him if he #ocates the records of her -arents; identit" in Larch;s oce,inaugurates the @uirk" commitment that e>ists 6eteen 4e#on" and 3omer.

#though her <rst investigation as Irving;s de facto detective fai#s 6ecause Larch

makes it a -ractice not to maintain ado-tion records, 4e#on" searches for #ove in

the -erson of 3omer, hom she coerces into a -romise that, in the Heeting or#d

of !t. C#oud;s, must inevita6#" 6e 6roken:

?If I sta", "ou;## sta"55is that hat "ou;re sa"ingM? 4e#on" asked him. Is that hat I

meanM thought 3omer We##s. +ut 4e#on", as usua#, gave him no time to think.

?Promise me "ou;## sta" as #ong as I sta", !unshine,? 4e#on" said. !he moved

c#oser to himB she took his hand and o-ened his <ngers and -ut his inde> <nger

in her mouth. 78$9

Whi#e 3omer and 4e#on" deve#o- a se>ua# re#ationshi-, even a #oving re#ationshi-

of sorts, 3omer u#timate#" 6reaks his commitment to 4e#on" hen he goes to #ive

at 3eart;s Rock u-on the invitation of Wa##" Worthington and Cand" enda##.

Irving #ater reintroduces the Dickensian detective stor" after 4e#on" searches for

3omer and <na##" confronts him in the Worthington;s orchard. In addition to

immediate#" recogni*ing nge# as 3omer and Cand";s son, Irving;s or-han cum

detective #ater succeeds in <nding 3omer, des-ite her untime#" death, hen her

cadaver tracks 3omer to !t. C#oud;s and meta-horica##" unrave#s his secret

identit" as Dr. F. !tone. Whi#e Irving em-#o"s the detective mode to entertain his

readers ith sus-ense55as ith the detective stor" that undergirds the #atter third

of his most recent nove#, Wido for 0ne Kear 78&&)955the ethics of stor"te##ing

insists that Irving em-#o" 4e#on";s investigation to esta6#ish a #a"er in 3omer;s

charactersca-e that i## eventua##" contri6ute to his return to !t. C#oud;s asLarch;s re-#acement. Whi#e 4e#on";s detective ta#e a##os Irving to esta6#ish the

8/10/2019 Style 1998


gravit" of 3omer;s 6etra"a# of her, as e## as that of his su6se@uent 6etra"a# of

Wa##" Worthington, it a#so a=ects the manner in hich he sees the ?sins? of

others. s ith Latch;s convo#uted re#ationshi-s ith omen in The Cider 3ouse

Ru#es, 3omer;s 6roken -romise to 4e#on" and his secret #ove for Cand" teach him

to see #ife;s variegated shades of meaning, to understand the foi6#es of human

interaction, and to recogni*e that a #ega#istic a--roach to ?ru#es? never revea#sthe fu## com-#e>it" of an" situation.

Ket for 3omer such a #esson comes s#o#". To this end, Irving o=ers three

e>traordinar" scenes that demonstrate 3omer;s e>ce-tiona# com-assion, his

devotion to the de#iver" of 6a6ies and their mothers. The <rst encounter takes

-#ace hen 3omer is re#ative#" "oung 6ut o#d enough to have 6een instructed 6"

Larch to 6e of some ?use.? +ecause of or-han Fu**" !tone;s coughing and the

noise the machines make that he#- Fu**" 6reathe, on certain nights 3omer roams

the ha##s of the or-hanage, often seeking out the 6a6" room or the mothers;

room. 0n this -articu#ar night, hi#e standing in the mothers; room, a m"sterious

-regnant oman asks 3omer if he ou#d, at his age, #eave the or-hanage ith a

fami#" ho ishes to ado-t him. 3e re-#ies that he ou#d not. 0f course, the

oman asks this @uestion 6ecause she ants to 6e reassured that her 6a6" i##

<nd an ado-tive home and 6e cared for in a"s she cannot o=er. 3omer does not

sense this at <rst, hoever, and des-ite severa# attem-ts on the mother;s -art to

e#icit a ?"es? from 3omer, he seems <>ed in his o-inion that !t. C#oud;s is the

on#" home he i## ever kno. The mother 6egins to cr" and asks 3omer if he

ishes to 6e of ?use? and touch her -regnant 6e##":

?/o one 6ut me ever -ut a hand on me, to fee# that 6a6". /o one anted to -ut

his ear against it and #isten,? the oman said. ?Kou shou#dn;t have a 6a6" if

there;s no one ho ants to fee# it kick, or #isten to it move.? 7)5))9

The oman asks 3omer again if he ishes to 6e of use and suggests that he

?s#ee- right here? here the 6a6" rests 6eneath her stomach. 3omer feigns s#ee-

unti# the oman;s ater 6reaks. fter the 6irth of the chi#d, 3omer -#a"s a gameith himse#f. +ecause of his ?nighttime vigi# ith his face u-on the mother;s

um-ing 6e##"? he ho-es to recogni*e her chi#d. This incident -rofound#" a=ects

the a" 3omer #ooks at not on#" the omen ho come to !t. C#oud;s to 6e

de#ivered of some of their -ro6#ems55?Im-ortant#", 3omer kne the" did not #ook

de#ivered of a## their -ro6#ems hen the" #eft. /o one he had seen #ooked more

misera6#e than those omen? 7%$9556ut a#so the a" that he #ooks at their

-regnant 6e##ies, the -otentia# #ives that i## either 6e a6orted or de#ivered 6" the

hands of !t. Larch. +ecause of his s"m-athetic vigi# u-on the 6e##" of this mother,

3omer cannot 6ring himse#f to 6e#ieve hat Larch -reaches a6out a6ortion. t

the same time, 6ecause of his re#ationshi- ith Larch he cannot condemn his?father;s? actions either.7 n889

8/10/2019 Style 1998


!hort#" 6efore his de-arture to 3eart;s Rock, 3omer e>-eriences an e-i-han" of

sorts a6out his on right to choose hat he i## 6e#ieve regarding a6ortion. In

this second scene, 3omer e>amines a fetus that 6#ed to death during a fai#ed

de#iver" -erformed 6" Larch:

3omer fe#t there as nothing as sim-#e as an"one;s fau#t invo#vedB it as not

Larch;s fau#t55Larch did hat he 6e#ieved in. If Wi#6ur Larch as a saint to /urse

nge#a and to /urse Edna, he as 6oth a saint and a father to 3omer We##s.

Larch kne hat he as doing55and for hom. +ut that @uick and not5@uick stu=:

it didn;t ork for 3omer We##s. Kou can ca## it a fetus, or an em6r"o, or the

-roducts of conce-tion, thought 3omer We##s, 6ut hatever "ou ca## it, it;s a#ive.

nd hatever "ou do to it, 3omer thought55and hatever "ou ca## hat "ou dr"55

"ou;re ki##ing it. ... Let Larch ca## it hatever he ants, thought 3omer We##s. It;shis choice55if it;s a fetus, to him, that;s <ne. It;s a 6a6" to me, thought 3omer

We##s. If Larch has a choice, I have a choice, too. 78J&9

Later at 3eart;s Rock, after Cand" 6ecomes -regnant and mentions a tri- to !t.

C#oud;s for a -ossi6#e a6ortion, 3omer55motivated 6" his intense convictions

a6out the sanctit" of human #ife55te##s her that ?it;s m" 6a6", too? 7%)J9, that he

a#so 6ears res-onsi6i#it" for the #ife that the" created together and in hich he

ishes to -artici-ate. 1n#ike Larch, ho in his #ater "ears ithdras more dee-#"

into his ether addiction and his medica# routine 6ecause he 6e#ieves that ?#ove

as certain#" not safe55not ever? 7%)89, 3omer se#f5conscious#" shares his #ove

ith others and cannot imagine a #ife ithout Cand" or his ne#" conceived 6a6".

+ecause he 6e#ieves that Wa##" died in the ar, 3omer avoids confronting his

gui#t over the #ove he has shared ith Cand" or his 6etra"a# of his 6est friend.

!oon after the 6irth of nge#56a-ti*ed s"m6o#ica##" 6" a dro- of Larch;s seat as

he de#ivers him55the nes that Wa##" has 6een found a#ive tests 3omer;s #ove for

Cand", Wa##", and nge#. Ket 3omer;s rea# cha##enge comes <fteen "ears #ater,

short#" after the death of Larch 6" an accidenta# ether overdose.

In the third scene, Irving55using re#ationa# charactersca-e in conunction ith the

Dickensian grand st"#e of convergence55assem6#es a## of the characters ho have

a=ected 3omer;s #ife most -rofound#". In the nove#;s <na# cha-ter, a-t#" entit#ed

?+reaking the Ru#es,? 3omer faces mu#ti-#e, near#" simu#taneous decisions

regarding various ?ru#es? of ethica# 6ehavior. The im-act of these decisions u-on

those characters that he #oves and #ives ith make these issues es-ecia##"

dicu#t. s the tit#e of the cha-ter intimates, 3omer i## ?6reak the ru#es,? and, in

so doing, he i## come to understand that ethica# #a cannot 6e a--roached

#ega#istica##", a -oint that Irving underscores via his on method of stor"te##ing.

Whi#e certain ru#es once governed 3omer;s si#ence a6out his #ove for Cand" and

their true re#ationshi- to one another and their son nge#, in the end 3omer

8/10/2019 Style 1998


recogni*es 55courtes" of 4e#on";s recognition of the chi#d;s #ineage55that the truth

must 6e to#d. !imi#ar#", such remarka6#" human situations force 3omer to

contem-#ate the -ossi6i#it" that certain a6stract ru#es cannot 6e reconci#ed ith

the -ractica#, -h"sica# needs of the moment, that human su=ering cannot 6e

udged or sacri<ced to #ega#ism. s the foreman of the orchard for the #ast <fteen

"ears, moreover, 3omer 6ears the res-onsi6i#it" for -osting ?the cider houseru#es.? t times, the fact that the ork cre does not fo##o the ru#es 6others

3omer. In a conversation ith 4r. Rose, hoever, 3omer 6egins to rea#i*e that

the a"s in hich -eo-#e #ive together in human communit" actua##" govern the

?ru#es?B those ru#es esta6#ished 6" forces outside the communit" cannot -roduce

this same e=ect. 4r. Rose e>-#ains, for e>am-#e, that ithin the 6#ack communit"

of migrant orkers ho #ive at the orchard during harvest there emerge

unritten ru#es engendered from human re#ationshi-s that have nothing to do

ith 3omer;s ru#es. Ket 3omer cannot 6ring himse#f fu##" to acce-t the re#ationa#

as e## as conte>tua# as-ects of ethica# ru#esB he <nds it dicu#t to com-rehend

that those ru#es im-osed from ithout ?never asked? 6ut ?to#d? 7'(&955a fact thatitse#f e>-#ains the ine=ectiveness of #ega#istic codes in contrast ith ethica# ru#es.

7 n8(9

1#timate#", 3omer;s decision to -erform an a6ortion for Rose Rose, 4r. Rose;s

-regnant daughter and nge#;s <rst #ove, a#ters his -ers-ective a6out the

-rocedure, 6ut 3omer does not reach this decision easi#". fe eeks 6efore

Rose Rose;s crisis, 3omer rites to Larch in order to refuse his invitation to come

to !t. C#oud;s and re-#ace !t. Larch in the o-eration of the or-hanage. s he

rites in his #aconic, num6ered #etter to Larch:

8. I 4 /0T D0CT0R.

(. I +ELIEE T3E FET1! 3! !01L.

%. I;4 !0RRK. 78%9

In short, 3omer refuses to 6reak the ?ru#es? that govern the -ractice of medicine.

3e a#so fee#s that he cannot -erform an a6ortion 6ecause of an ethica# 6e#ief in

the sanctit" of the human sou#. t the same time, he regrets these decisions

6ecause of his #o"a#t" and #ove for his ?father,? !t. Larch. Whi#e 6oth his 6e#ief inthe sanctit" of the human sou# and his conviction that the fetus is fu##" human

remain static, 3omer, hen faced ith Larch;s untime#" death and his on status

as the on#" -erson avai#a6#e to -erform a safe a6ortion on Rose Rose, sim-#"

cannot refuse his -atient;s ish to a6ort her -regnanc". #though Irving de-icts

3omer;s <rst a6ortion as re-resentative of the most e>treme and afu# form of

conce-tion55Rose Rose has 6een im-regnated 6" her on father, 6reaking a## of

the ru#es553omer neverthe#ess 6e#ieves as strong#" in the sanctit" of Rose Rose;s

fetus as he ou#d in the sanctit" of an" other fetus conceived under #ess ethica##"

cha##enging circumstances. s he confesses to Cand", 3omer <nds a6ortion

-ro6#ematic, for he considers it tantamount to ?ki##ing? a human 6eing:

8/10/2019 Style 1998


?I;m a #itt#e nervous,; 3omer admitted to Cand". ?It;s certain#" not a matter of

techni@ue, and I;ve got ever"thing I need55I kno I can do it. It;s ust that, to me,

it is a #iving human 6eing. I can;t descri6e to "ou hat it fee#s #ike55ust to ho#d the

curette, for e>am-#e. When #iving tissue is touched, it res-onds55someho,?

3omer said, 6ut Cand" cut him o=. 7%%5%'9

3omer;s decision to -erform the a6ortion i##ustrates the ethica# im-erative

em6odied 6" Irving;s act of stor"te##ing. C#ear#", The Cider 3ouse Ru#es shou#d

not 6e read as a nove# that <na##" em6races the act of a6ortion. 3omer;s on

6e#ief s"stem radica##" contradicts such a conc#usion. The nove# demonstrates the

conHicted nature of human dea#ings and the inade@uac" of #ega#ism as a means

for res-onding to our most -ressing needs. Whi#e 3omer decides to assume the

constructed identit" that Larch invents for him55as Dr. F. !tone, a missionar"

o6stetrician ne#" arrived from India553omer recogni*es that he cannot den"

strangers hat he ou#d give free#" to those he #oves and those he knos:

?+ecause he kne no that he cou#dn;t -#a" 2od in the orst senseB if he cou#do-erate on Rose Rose, ho cou#d he refuse to he#- a strangerM 3o cou#d he

refuse an"oneM 0n#" a god makes that kind of decision. I;## ust give them hat

the" ant, he thought. n or-han or an a6ortion? 7%9. For 3omer, then, ru#es

do not account for the fact that e are a## saints and a## sinners, rather than 6eing

one or the other. Lega#ism o=ers no true, com-assionate, or humane ansers to

the a6ortion issue 6ecause it o-erates from the a6stract, not from the tangi6#e.

Irving;s ethics of stor"te##ing makes a## too c#ear that the a"s our #ives intersect

and the im-ossi6#e decisions that the 6usiness of #iving forces us to make cannot

6e hand#ed under a sing#e s"stem of ru#es. In Irving;s <ctive universe55and,

indeed, in our on cor-orea# or#d55on#" the sanctit" of individua# choice inre#ation to human communit" can determine the s"stem of ethica# va#ues that

governs our #ives.

In this manner, Irving;s a--ro-riation of the Dickensian form esta6#ishes

55es-ecia##" through its use of e>tensive narrato#ogica# and charactero#ogica#

detai#55an ethics of -articu#arit" in hich a mu#ti-ers-ectiva# histor" comes to

6ear u-on our understanding of a given narrative situation. The Dickensian nove#

as #iterar" mode demands that e see the ethica# dimensions of the #ives

re-resented in the te>t as something that ethica# ?ru#es?55hether the" 6e the

ru#es that dictate #ife in a cider house or ru#es that govern a -romise 6eteen

or-hans55cannot ade@uate#" address. 1sing the a6iding#" fractious issue ofa6ortion as the 6ackground for his stor" of an or-hanage, Irving refuses to

conc#ude his nove# ith an" faci#e statement either for or against a6ortion.

Rather, as stor"te##er he insists that an" genuine contem-#ation a6out the

a6ortion issue must take -#ace ithin the conte>t of human re#ationshi-s, and, as

a disci-#e of Dickens, he -aints charactersca-es of such #a"ered detai# that e

see the conHicted nature of human reso#ution. 0n#" 6" -roviding his readershi-

ith fu##" rea#i*ed -ortraits of humanit" can Irving construct an ade@uate <ctiona#

ta6#eau for narrating the mora# di#emmas that trou6#e our societ" and the a"s

that e #ive no. s ith Dickens, Irving intuitive#" recogni*es that readers ?ant

catharsis, the" ant to 6e stretched and tested, the" ant to 6e frightened andcome through it, the" ant to 6e scared, taken out of their fami#iar surroundings55

8/10/2019 Style 1998


inte##ectua#, viscera#, s-iritua#55and to 6e ree>-osed to things? 7?n Intervie?

8)9. In The Cider 3ouse Ru#es, Irving o=ers -recise#" such an ethica##" com-#e>

and conHicted narrative. Whi#e some form of udgment must inevita6#" 6e

rendered in the nove#, c#ear#" 3omer;s decision to return to !t. C#oud;s as Dr. F.

!tone is not motivated 6" an" ?ru#e? a6out the goodness of a6ortion or the

a6so#ute 6e#ief that omen must have a choice in the matter. s ith Dr. Larch;sinitia# decision to -erform an a6ortion, 3omer;s return to !t. C#oud;s and a## that it

entai#s <nds its origins in his genuine#" human re#ationshi-s ith omen55ith

Cand" and 4e#on" and Rose Rose55not out of an" ideo#ogica##" -ure ethic. +"

de#ivering his com-e##ing narratives and vast charactersca-es through the arti<ce

of the Dickensian nove#, Irving narrates the e@ua##" ca-tivating and convo#uted

stories of our on #ives.

/otes

7n89 In his discussion of the res-onsi6i#ities that riters and readers im-#icit#" are

in the reading -rocess, Wa"ne C. +ooth -rovides us ith a usefu# foundation for

considering the ethica# im-#ications of stor"te##ing, -articu#ar#" regarding

#iterature;s fre@uent#" de6ated didactic function. +ooth reminds us that the

?distinction 6eteen genuine #iterature 7or ;-oetr";9 and ;rhetoric; or ;didactic;

#iterature is entire#" mis#eading if it suggests that some stories, those that e

seem to read ust for eno"ment, are -urged of a## teaching.? For instance, +ooth

reasons, ?ever" oke a6out stu-idit" de-ends u-on and reinforces the va#ue of

6eing c#ever, and most of them de-end u-on and reinforce our sense that certain

kinds of -eo-#e are most #ike#" to 6e stu-id? 7885(9.

7n(9 In an intervie ith #ison Free#and, Irving underscores the signi<cance of

#iterar" character in the act of stor"te##ing: ?What "ou remem6er a6out a nove# is

the emotiona# e=ect that the characters had on "ou. Long after the stor", the

-#ot, the intricacies of hat ha--ens, to hom, hen55#ong after that stu= is out

of "our mind, out of memor", and "ou rea##" need to read the 6ook again in order

to fami#iari*e "ourse#f ith e>act#" ho the stor" unfo#ds, a nove# kee-s orking

its magic on readers 6ecause of the emotiona# im-act of characters that ust

can;t 6e du-#icated in a short stor", even a short nove#? 78%&9.

7n%9 In his revie of The Cider 3ouse Ru#es, Christo-her Lehmann53au-t concurs

ith this thread of 3arter and Thom-son;s argument, contending that the

nove#ist;s centra# -oint ?is driven home ith the s#edgehammer e=ect that Gohn

Irving usua##" uses? 7($9.

7n'9 In his essa" ?gainst the 1nder Toad,? co##ected in Writing into the Wor#d:

Essa"s, 8&%58&) 78&&89, Des Pres a#so stresses the intimate re#ationshi-

6eteen <ction and the or#d 6e"ond in a moving -assage of great ethica# force:?Fiction s-eaks to us, touches our dee-est fears and ishes, in so far as it

8/10/2019 Style 1998


8/10/2019 Style 1998


found in a## forms of stor"te##ing. For e>am-#e, the minima#ist schoo# of <ction, as

e## as the -ostmodernist meta<ctionists556oth o-en#" a6horred and denigrated

on numerous occasions 6" Irving in essa"s and intervies55do not ork toard

hat Irving ca##s ?e>u6erance,? the vita#it" of #ife someho re-resented on the

-age. ?E>u6erance is unfashiona6#e,? Irving remarks in an intervie ith Image.

?I -oint to the recent foo#ishness regarding ;minima#ism; in the nove#. ... Theidea of a ;minima#ist; nove# makes me gag. nove# is as much as "ou can 6ite o=B

if it;s minima#, that sa"s hat "ou are? 7'&9.

7n)9 Whi#e Larch 6e#ieves that he has a dut" to -erform a6ortions for the omen

ho re@uest his services during the course of The Cider 3ouse Ru#es, he does not

argue for the ethica# correctness of the -rocedure. In fact, as Larch e>-#ains to

3omer We##s, ?I;m not sa"ing it;s a6ortion right, "ou understandM I;m sa"ing it;s

her choice55it;s a oman;s choice. !he;s got a right to have a choice, "ou

understandM? 7889.

7n&9 Ear#" in his #ife as an o6stetrician, Larch rea#i*es that much of the or#d

ishes to categori*e and dichotomi*e hat he does. Larch instinctive#" <ghts

such ar6itrar" de<nitions: ?3e as an o6stetricianB he de#ivered 6a6ies into the

or#d,? Irving ritesB ?his co##eagues ca##ed this ;the Lord;s ork.; nd he as an

a6ortionistB he de#ivered mothers, too. 3is co##eagues ca##ed this ;the Devi#;s

ork,; 6ut it as a## the Lord;s ork to Wi#6ur Larch. s 4rs. 4a>e## o6serves in

the nove#: ;The true -h"sician;s sou# cannot 6e too 6road and gent#e;? 79. Later,during his tenure at !t. C#oud;s, the terms ?Lord;s ork? and ?Devi#;s ork? -rove

he#-fu# in distinguishing for Larch and his nurses 6eteen the kinds of -rocedures

the" are -re-aring to -erform. fter serving as a -h"sician in Wor#d War I,

moreover, Larch adamant#" c#aims to have seen the genuine ork of the Devi#:

?the Devi# orked ith she## and grenade fragments, ith shra-ne# and ith the

#itt#e, dirt" 6its of c#othing carried ith a missi#e into a ound. The Devi#;s ork

as gas 6aci##us infection, that scourge of the First Wor#d War5Wi#6ur Larch ou#d

never forget ho it crack#ed to the touch? 7J9. Larch <nds it dicu#t to

understand ho a nation cou#d -roud#" su--ort the Devi#;s ork in ar, "et

out#a the a6ortions he -erforms at the or-hanage during -eacetime. In a #etter

to his nurses sent from the mi#itar" hos-ita# here he orks, Larch asks that his

re-#acement at the or-hanage, a doctor ho refuses to -erform a6ortions

6ecause he 6e#ieves them to 6e immora# and unethica#, 6e to#d that ?the ork at

the or-hanage is a## the Lord;s ork55ever"thing "ou do, "ou do for the or-hans,

"ou de#iver themQ? 7J9.

7n8$9 The narrative signi<cance of the or-hanage;s night#" readings has 6een

noted 6" severa# critics, inc#uding De6ra !hostak, ho o6serves that ?Irving;s

de6t to Dickens is re-aid in a variet" of a"s55the 6i*arre or eccentric charactersho -o-u#ate his <ctiona# terrain, the comic names, the homage in The Cider

8/10/2019 Style 1998


3ouse Ru#es 6" a" of numerous a##usions to David Co--er<e#d and 2reat

E>-ectations, hich are 6i6#es to the or-han 3omer We##s? 78%%9.

7n889 Irving em-hasi*es the 6ond 6eteen 3omer and Larch so that #ater in the

nove# e are not sur-rised 6" 3omer;s return to !t. C#oud;s or his decision to

-erform an a6ortion. In order to achieve such an e=ect, Irving makes use of

re#ationa# charactersca-e, a form of charactersca-e in hich e come to

understand 6etter 6oth characters ithin the same scene 6ecause of their

interaction. In a dramatic se@uence that inc#udes the <rst father5son kiss shared

6" 3omer and Larch, Irving de-icts 3omer saving a oman su=ering: from

ec#am-sia, a condition that threatens the #ife of 6oth the mother and the un6orn

chi#d 6ecause of -uer-era# convu#sions. 6sent 6ecause he has gone to track

don a cadaver that he -#ans to use in 3omer;s medica# training, Larch u-on his

return discovers 3omer as#ee- and the mother and infant in good hea#th after the

e>hausting thirt"5hour ordea#. Proud of 3omer;s <ne -erformance, Larch is moved

to kiss 3omer as he s#ee-s. t the scene;s conc#usion, e are to#d that 3omer

on#" feigns s#ee- hi#e Larch kisses him: ?3omer We##s fe#t his tears come

si#ent#"B there ere more tears than he remem6ered cr"ing the #ast time he had

cried. ... 3e cried 6ecause he had received his <rst father#" kisses. ... If 3omer

We##s had received his <rst father#" kisses, Dr. Larch had given the <rst kisses he

had ever given5father#", or otherise55since the da" in the Port#and 6oarding

house hen he caught the c#a- from 4rs. Eames. ... 0h 2od, thought Wi#6ur

Larch, hat i## ha--en to me hen 3omer has to goM? 78%)5%&9.

7n8(9 For additiona# discussion a6out #ega#ism and its dramati*ation in Irving;s

nove#, see +ruce L. Rockood;s ?6ortion !tories: 1ncivi# Discourse and ;Cider

3ouse Ru#es.;?

Works Cited


Ca#ifornia P, 8&)).

Co#es, Ro6ert. The Ca## of !tories: Teaching and the 4ora# Imagination. +oston:3oughton 4iin, 8&)&.

De4ott, +enamin. Revie of The Cider 3ouse Ru#es, 6" Gohn Irving. /e Kork

Times +ook Revie (J 4a" 8&): 8, (.

Des Pres, Terrence. ?gainst the 1nder Toad: The /ove#s of Gohn Irving.? Writing

into the Wor#d: Essa"s, 8&%58&). /e Kork: iking, 8&&8. &58$%.

Fein, Esther +. ?Cost#" P#easures.? /e Kork Times +ook Revie, (J 4a" 8&):

(.

3arter, Caro# C., and Games R. Thom-son. Gohn Irving. +oston: Ta"ne, 8&)J.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


3eat54oon, Wi##iam Least. Prair"Erth: Dee- 4a-. +oston: 3oughton 4iin,

8&&8.

Irving, Gohn. Cider 3ouse Ru#es. /e Kork: 4orro, 8&).

55555. ? Conversation ith Gohn Irving.? Image ( 78&&(9: '5.

55555. ? Conversation ith Gohn Irving.? Intervie ith #ison Free#and. /e

Eng#and Revie 8) 78&&9: 8%5'(.

55555. The 3ote# /e 3am-shire. /e Kork: Dutton, 8&)8.

55555. ?n Intervie ith Gohn Irving.? n"thing Can 3a--en: Intervies ith

Contem-orar" merican /ove#ists. Ed. Tom LeC#air and Larr" 4cCa=er". 1r6ana:

1 of I##inois P, 8&)). 8J5&).

55555. ?The ing of the /ove#.? Tr"ing to !ave Pigg" !need. +" Irving. /e Kork:

rcade, 8&&J. %'5)8.

55555. Pra"er for 0en 4ean". /e Kork: 4orro, 8&)&.

55555. Three 6" Irving: !etting Free the +ears, The Water54ethod 4an, and The

8)5Pound 4arriage. 8&J&, 8&(, 8&'. /e Kork: Random 3ouse, 8&)$.

55555. Wido for 0ne Kear. /e Kork: Random 3ouse, 8&&).

55555. The Wor#d ccording to 2ar-. /e Kork: Dutton, 8&).

#inkoit*, Gerome. Literar" !u6versions: /e merican Fiction and the Practice

of Criticism. Car6onda#e: !outhern I##inois 1P, 8&).

Lehmann53au-t, Christo-her. Revie of The Cider 3ouse Ru#es, 6" Gohn Irving.

/e Kork Times ($ 4a" 8&): ($.

4arsha##, Ian. !tor" Line: E>-#oring the Literature of the --a#achian Trai#.

Char#ottesvi##e: 1P of irginia, 8&&).

4asse", Irving. Find Kou the irtue: Ethics, Image, and Desire in Literature.

Lanham: 2eorge 4ason 1P, 8&).

4c2inn, Co#in. Ethics, Evi#, and Fiction. 0>ford: C#arendon, 8&&.

4i##er, 2a6rie#. Gohn Irving. /e Kork: 1ngar, 8&)(.

/eton, dam Nachar". /arrative Ethics. Cam6ridge: 3arvard 1P, 8&&.

/uss6aum, 4artha C. Cu#tivating 3umanit": C#assica# Defense of Reform in

Li6era# Education. Cam6ridge: 3arvard 1P, 8&&.

55555. Poetic Gustice: The Literar" Imagination and Pu6#ic Life. +oston: +eacon,

8&&.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


Rockood, +ruce L. ?6ortion !tories: 1ncivi# Discourse and ;Cider 3ouse Ru#es.;?

La and Literature Pers-ectives. Ed. Rockood. /e Kork: Lang, 8&&J. ()&5%'$.

Rosen6erg, +rian. Litt#e Dorrit;s !hados: Character and Contradiction in Dickens.

Co#um6ia: 1 of 4issouri P, 8&&J.

!hostak, De6ra. ?The Fami#" Romances of Gohn Irving.? Essa"s in Literature (8

78&&'9: 8(&5'.

+" Todd F. Davis and enneth Womack

/as#ov: !ethe;s Choice: +e#oved and the Ethics of Reading. Prema: Phe#an, Games,


Com-#ete.

!ET3E;! C30ICE: +EL0ED /D T3E ET3IC! 0F REDI/2

4orrison;s 1nusua# 2uidance

/o, too #ate, !tam- Paid understood +a6" !uggs. The heart that -um-ed out

#ove, the mouth that s-oke the Word, didn;t count. The" came in her "ard an"a"

and she cou#d not a--rove or condemn !ethe;s rough choice. 78)$9

?!ethe;s rough choice,? her decision to ki## her daughter rather than have her

6ecome a s#ave at the -#antation the" ca##ed !eet 3ome, is at once the most

stunning and most im-ortant event in 4orrison;s nove#. !tunning for o6vious

reasons: ho can the #ove of a mother for her chi#d #ead her to murder the chi#dM

Im-ortant not on#" 6ecause the tem-ora#, -s"cho#ogica#, structura#, and thematic

#ogic of the nove# Hos from that event 6ut a#so 6ecause 4orrison;s treatment of

it -resents her audience ith a dicu#t and unusua# ethica# -ro6#em. In order toa--reciate the events of the -resent time of the narrative558)%55e need to

kno hat ha--ened in the oodshed 6ehind 8(' +#uestone Rd. on an ugust

afternoon in 8). In order to understand the characters of !ethe, Denver, and

+e#oved in 8)%, e need to kno that on that afternoon !ethe reached for the

handsa 6efore schoo#teacher cou#d reach for her or her chi#dren. In order to

come to terms ith the nove#;s -rogression, a=ective -oer, and thematic

im-ort, e need to come to ethica# terms ith !ethe;s choice to -u## the handsa

across the neck of her daughter.7 n89 The -ro6#em arises 6ecause 4orrison sto-s

short of taking an" c#ear ethica# stand on !ethe;s rough choice, 6ut instead

-resents it as something that she, #ike +a6" !uggs, can neither a--rove nor

condemn. This essa" i## seek to e>-#ore the ethics of reading !ethe;s choice 6" 7

8/10/2019 Style 1998


8/10/2019 Style 1998


/eton investigates the ?ethica# conse@uences of narrating stor" and

<ctiona#i*ing -erson, and the reci-roca# c#aims 6inding te##er, #istener, itness,

and reader in that -rocess? 7889. 3is investigation #eads him to descri6e three

kinds of ethica# structure in narrative: the narrationa#, the re-resentationa#, andthe hermeneutic. /arrationa# ethics are those associated ith the te##ingB the"

occur a#ong the #ine of narrative transmission from author to narrator to narratee

to reader. Re-resentationa# ethics are those associated ith ?<ctiona#i*ing

-erson? or creating character. 3ermeneutic ethics are those associated ith

reading and inter-reting, the o6#igations readers and critics have to the te>t.

/eton s"nthesi*es ork of 4ikhai# +akhtin, !tan#e" Cave##, and Emmanue#

Levinas as he does his ana#"ses, 6orroing es-ecia##" +akhtin;s conce-t of

vh*ivanie or #ive5entering 7em-ath" ith the 0ther ithout #oss of se#f9, Cave##;s

conce-t of ackno#edging 76eing in a -osition of having to res-ond9, and

Levinas;s of !a"ing 7-erforming a te##ing9 and Facing 7#ooking at or #ooking aa"9.

Whi#e I share much ith +ooth and ith /eton, I do not ant to ado-t +ooth;s

overarching meta-hor of 6ooks as friends, 6ecause it seems too #imiting, or

/eton;s idea that narrative is e@uiva#ent to ethics, 6ecause that seems not to

recogni*e a## the other things narrative is as e##. Furthermore, a#though I <nd

+akhtin, Cave##, and Levinas a## to 6e strong theorists, I am #ess inc#ined than

/eton to #ook to theor" for recurrent ethica# concerns and more inc#ined to #et

individua# narratives deve#o- their on sets of ethica# to-oi. Like 6oth +ooth and

/eton, I focus on ho the ver" act of reading entai#s ethica# engagement andres-onse, 6ut I attend more than either of them does to the #inks among

techni@ue 7the signa#s o=ered 6" the te>t9 and the reader;s cognitive

understanding, emotiona# res-onse, and ethica# -ositioning. Indeed, the centra#

construct in m" a--roach to the ethics of reading is -osition, a conce-t that

com6ines acting from and 6eing -#aced in an ethica# #ocation. 0ur ethica# -osition

at an" -oint in a narrative resu#ts from the d"namic interaction of four ethica#

situations:

that of the characters ithin the stor" or#dB

that of the narrator in re#ation to the te##ing and to the audienceB unre#ia6#enarration, for e>am-#e, constitutes a di=erent ethica# -osition from re#ia6#e

narrationB di=erent kinds of foca#i*ation a#so -osition the audience di=erent#"B

that of the im-#ied author in re#ation to the authoria# audienceB the im-#ied

author;s choices to ado-t one narrative strateg" rather than another i## a=ect

the audience;s ethica# res-onse to the charactersB each choice i## a#so conve"

the author;s attitudes toard the audienceB

that of the Hesh and 6#ood reader in re#ation to the set of va#ues, 6e#iefs, and

#ocations that the narrative invites one to occu-".

8/10/2019 Style 1998


Whi#e the ethica# dimension of reading engages our va#ues and udgments, it is

dee-#" intertined ith cognition, emotion, and desire: our understanding

inHuences our sense of hich va#ues the te>t is ca##ing forth, the activation of

those va#ues inHuences our udgments, our udgments inHuence our fee#ings, and

our fee#ings our desires. nd the other a" around.

s this sketch indicates, I assume that authors i## attem-t to guide us toard

-articu#ar ethica# -ositions on their characters; actions, and it is eas" to sho that

authoria# -ractice -rovides a strong arrant for the assum-tion. In some cases,

the guidance is ver" c#ear and the -osition eas" to occu-": 3enr" Fie#ding, for

e>am-#e, guides us to recogni*e that Tom Gones;s actions are a#a"s ethica##"

su-erior to those of +#i<#. In some cases, the ke" to the narrative -rogression is

the evo#ution of the -rotagonists; on ethica# understanding and corres-onding

6ehavior: Gane usten, for e>am-#e, -ositions us to recogni*e the initia# ethica#

de<ciencies of 6oth E#i*a6eth +ennett and Fit*i##iam Darc" and then re-resents

the ame#ioration of those de<ciencies, an ame#ioration that in turn -re-ares the

a" for their ha--" union. In some cases, authors i## -resent us ith characters

ho face dicu#t ethica# decisions and then guide us to see 6oth the dicu#t"

and their on udgment of the situation: Gose-h Conrad, for e>am-#e, a##os Gim

to te## the stor" of ho he um-ed from the Patna 6ut uses characters such as

+rieH", ho commits suicide 6ecause he sees himse#f in Gim, and the French

#ieutenant, ho c#ear#" states that the sai#or;s dut" is to sa" ith the shi-, to

indicate 6oth the de-th of Gim;s tem-tation and the une@uivoca# negative

udgment of his action. In some cases, authors i## sho characters ho

transgress standard societa# and #ega# norms 6ut neverthe#ess fo##o an ethica##"

su-erior -ath: en ese", for e>am-#e, re-resents Chief +romden;s ki##ing of the

#o6otomi*ed 4c4ur-h" not as a horri6#e murder 6ut rather as an act of 6oth

merc" and courage. Even in situations here authors have ritten famous#"

am6iguous narratives, the ethica# -ositions ithin each side of the am6iguit" are

#ike#" to 6e c#ear#" de#ineated: 3enr" Games in The Turn of the !cre, for e>am-#e,

has sketched a -ortrait either of a heroic governess ho risks her on safet" in

order to -rotect the chi#dren in her care against evi# ghosts or of a -s"chotic

oman hose de#usions constitute a serious threat to those chi#dren.

In short, -roviding ethica# guidance to their audiences is one of the chief things

that im-#ied authors do: riting narrative invo#ves taking ethica# stands and

communicating those stands e>-#icit#" or im-#icit#", heav"5handed#" or su6t#"55or

an"thing in 6eteen55to one;s audience. Indeed, recogni*ing this communication

he#-s us recogni*e that the defau#t ethica# re#ation 6eteen im-#ied author and

authoria# audience in narrative is one of reci-rocit". Each -art" 6oth gives and

receives. uthors give, among other things, guidance through ethica# com-#e>it"

and e>-ect to receive in return their audiences; interest and attention. udiences

give that interest and attention and e>-ect to receive in return authoria#

guidance. The defau#t assum-tion of course need not a#a"s 6e in -#ace, 6ut

deviating from it necessari#" entai#s certain risks. udiences ho -#ace their on

8/10/2019 Style 1998


interests 7ideo#ogies, -o#itics, ethics9 at the center of their reading risk turning

reading into a re-etitious activit" that misses the a"s in hich authors can

e>tend their vision of human -ossi6i#it" and e>-erience. uthors ho don;t

-rovide guidance or ho take aggressive stances toard their audiences risk

a#ienating those audiences to the -oint of #osing them. n author ho sto-s short

of conve"ing her on ethica# udgment of an action that is centra# to hernarrative is doing something e>traordinari#" unusua#55and e>traordinari#" risk".

The narrative ma" fa## a-art 6ecause the center i## not ho#d, or the narrative i##

6ecome an inscruta6#e 6#ack ho#e, hich a6sor6s ever" e#ement of the ork into

its inscruta6i#it". That +e#oved esca-es 6oth risks is one sign of 4orrison;s

remarka6#e achievement.

Esta6#ishing Ethica# Position

s e turn to #ook at the interaction in +e#oved among the four ethica# situations I

identi<ed a6ove, the third one55the re#ation of the im-#ied author to the te##ing

and to the authoria# audience55stands out as the ke" to the ethica# -ro6#em of the

nove#. If e can ork through the ethica# im-#ications of 4orrison;s narrative

strategies, e shou#d 6e a6#e to come to terms ith her decision not to take a

<na# stand on !ethe;s choice. That orking through means attending to the

ethica# conse@uences of severa# ke" authoria# decisions: 7 89 a6out here in the

-rogression of the narrative to disc#ose the information a6out !ethe;s choice55at

the end of Part 0ne rather than ear#ier or #ater, after some hints a6out the event

6efore it is revea#edB 7 (9 a6out ho to disc#ose the information55through three

di=erent te##ings, one foca#i*ed through the hite men ho come to rec#aim

!ethe and her chi#dren for !eet 3omeB one foca#i*ed through !tam- PaidB and

one from !ethe;s on -ers-ectiveB and 7 %9 a6out ho to #ink those te##ings to

other ke" moments in the narrative here her ethica# stances are c#earer.

4orrison;s no famous o-ening focuses on the ghost#" -resence of a 6a6" in the

fema#e s-ace of 8(' +#uestone Rd.: ?8(' as s-itefu#. Fu## of 6a6";s venom? 7 %9.

!hort#" after that, 4orrison has the narrator add a cr"-tic reference to the 6a6";s

d"ing as -art of a summar" of !ethe;s situation: ?not on#" did she have to #ive out

her "ears in a house -a#sied 6" the 6a6";s fur" at having its throat cut, 6ut those

ten minutes she s-ent -ressed u- against dan5co#ored stone studded ith star

chi-s, her knees ide o-en as the grave, ere #onger than #ife, more a#ive, more

-u#sating than the 6a6" 6#ood that soaked her <ngers #ike oi#? 7 m" em-hasis9.

In one of !ethe;s ear#" conversations ith Pau# D a6out Denver, she makes

reference to the events of ugust 8) ithout te##ing the ho#e stor":

?nd hen the schoo#teacher found us and came 6usting in here ith the #a and

a shotgun55?

?!choo#teacher found "ouM?

8/10/2019 Style 1998


?Took a hi#e, 6ut he did. Fina##".?

?nd he didn;t take "ou 6ackM?

?0h, no, I asn;t going 6ack there. I don;t care ho found ho. n" #ife 6ut that

one. I ent to ai# instead. ...?

Pau# D turned aa". 3e anted to kno more a6out it, 6ut ai# -ut him 6ack in

#fred, 2eorgia. 7'(9

The <rst ha#f of the nove# is, in fact, <##ed ith such incom-#ete, indirect, or

cr"-tic a##usions and references to !ethe;s rough choice.7n'9 Conse@uent#",

4orrison esta6#ishes a signi<cant tension 6eteen the im-#ied author 7and the

narrator9, ho kno a6out !ethe;s rough choice, and the authoria# audience ho

get on#" these -artia#, indirect, and cr"-tic references. This tension creates an

aura not ust of m"ster" 6ut a#so of -rivi#ege around the m"ster"B each reference

increases the audience;s sense of its im-ortance and the audience;s desire to

reso#ve the tension. The strateg" of deferra# esta6#ishes an ethica# o6#igation on

4orrison;s -art to -rovide some reso#ution to the tension, even as it com-#imentsthe audience on its a6i#ities to register the various hints and to ait for the

reso#ution. In the meantime, 4orrison is -roviding carefu# ethica# guidance

through her com-#e> narrative.

#though that guidance is carefu##" nuanced, its 6road out#ines are c#ear. First, 6"

em-#o"ing a -rotean narrator ho e>ercises the -rivi#ege of giving us inside

vies of the maor characters55!ethe, Pau# D, Denver, and +a6" !uggs55and ho

a#so comments direct#" on the action and the characters, 4orrison seeks to

mu#ti-#" the num6er of va#ori*ed ethica# -ers-ectives. For e>am-#e, !ethe, Pau#

D, and Denver a## have ver" di=erent fee#ings and udgments a6out Pau# D;s

entering the house at 8(' +#uestone Rd. Rather than -rivi#eging an" one

character;s vie and the va#ues u-on hich it is 6ased, 4orrison asks us to enter

into each character;s consciousness and to recogni*e the va#idit" of his or her

fee#ings and udgments.7n9 !econd, 4orrison esta6#ishes s#aver" not ust as an

a6stract evi# 6ut as one that even in 8)% has continuing and -rofound negative

e=ects on !ethe and Pau# D55and thus, on Denver and ever" one e#se in their

circ#e. Indeed, 4orrison;s re-resentation of s#aver" guides us to recogni*e the

historica# va#idit" of +a6" !uggs;s conc#usion that ?there is no 6ad #uck in the

or#d 6ut hitefo#ks? 7)&9. This ethica# -osition is a## the more com-e##ing6ecause s#aver" at the 2arners; !eet 3ome -#antation as re#ative#"

8/10/2019 Style 1998


6enevo#ent. Third, 4orrison identi<es !ethe;s ha6it of ?6eating 6ack the -ast,?

her e=orts to re-ress the events of 8), as 6oth im-ossi6#e and dangerousB the

conse@uence of this move is to increase the -ressure on the reve#ation of those

events55!ethe;s future i## 6e determined 6" hat ha--ens hen she faces rather

than 6eats 6ack that -ast.

Whi#e esta6#ishing this conte>t, 4orrison 6ui#ds toard the reve#ation of !ethe;s

choice 6" 6oth -roviding enough information a6out 8) for us to understand

hat is at stake for !ethe hen schoo#teacher arrives at 8(' and 6" taking the

events of 8)% forard to the -oint here Pau# D asks her to have his chi#d. The

reso#ution of the tension, then, not on#" -rovides the audience ith crucia#

information that makes the situation in 8)% inte##igi6#e 6ut it a#so -rovides a

maor turning -oint in the deve#o-ment of that situation. Each of the three

te##ings55and the triangu#ation of a## three55contri6utes to the reso#ution and

es-ecia##" to the ethica# guidance 4orrison does and does not -rovide. s noted

a6ove, the <rst te##ing is foca#i*ed through the hite men ho come to return

!ethe and her chi#dren to s#aver"B the fo##oing -assage, in hich the foca#i*ation

6egins ith the s#ave catcher and then shifts to schoo#teacher, is a re-resentative

e>am-#e:7nJ9

Inside, to 6o"s 6#ed in the sadust and dirt at the feet of a nigger oman

ho#ding a 6#ood5soaked chi#d to her chest ith one hand and an infant 6" the

hee#s in the other. !he did not #ook at themB she sim-#" sung the 6a6" toardthe a## -#anks, missed and tried to connect a second time, hen out of

nohere55in the ticking time the men s-ent staring at hat there as to stare at55

the o#d nigger 6o", sti## meing, ran through the door 6ehind them and snatched

the 6a6" from the arch of its mother;s sing.

Right o=, it as c#ear, to schoo#teacher es-ecia##", that there as nothing there to

c#aim. ...!he;d gone i#d, due to the mishand#ing of the ne-he ho;d over6eat

her and made her cut and run. !choo#teacher had chastised that ne-he, te##ing

him to think55ust think hat ou#d his on horse do if "ou 6eat it to 6e"ond the-oint of education. 0r Chi--er, or !amson. !u--ose "ou 6eat the hounds -ast

that -oint thataa". /ever again cou#d "ou trust them in the oods or an"here

e#se. Kou;d 6e feeding them ma"6e, ho#ding out a -iece of ra66it in "our hand

and the anima# ou#d revert556ite "our hand c#ean o=. ... The ho#e #ot as #ost

no. Five. 3e cou#d c#aim the 6a6" strugg#ing in the arms of the meing o#d man,

6ut ho;d tend herM +ecause the oman55something as rong ith her. !he

as #ooking at him no, and if his other ne-he cou#d see that #ook he ou#d

#earn the #esson for sure: "ou ust can;t mishand#e creatures and e>-ect success.

78'&5$9

8/10/2019 Style 1998


+" unrave#ing the m"ster" this a", 4orrison -rovides a high#" unsett#ing

e>-erience for the audience. fter seeing !ethe from the inside for so #ong, e

fee# emotiona##", -s"cho#ogica##"55and ethica##"55arred 6" seeing her from hat is

such an a#ien -ers-ective, one that thinks of her as ?a nigger oman? and as a

?creature? e@uiva#ent to a horse or a hound. Indeed, 4orrison has chosen to

narrate this <rst te##ing from an ethica# -ers-ective that e easi#" re-udiate. /oton#" does schoo#teacher regard !ethe as a dog ho no #onger trusts its master,

6ut he is a#so concerned on#" ith himse#f and his #oss, not at a## ith !ethe or

her chi#dren. !triking#", hoever, 4orrison;s strateg" of moving aa" from

!ethe;s -ers-ective and descri6ing her actions from the outside high#ights 6oth

the inade@uac" of schoo#teacher;s racist -ers-ective and the horror of hat

!ethe is doing: ?ho#ding a 6#ood5soaked chi#d to her chest ith one hand and an

infant 6" the hee#s in the other ... she sim-#" sung the 6a6" toard the a##

-#anks, missed and tried to connect a second time.? If the shift in -ers-ective is

arring, the reve#ation of !ethe;s action is shocking. The -h"sica# descri-tion is

not -rett", and it is not -ossi6#e to <nd a a" to make it -rett". t the same time,the -h"sica# descri-tion is not #oaded ith an" ethica# eva#uation from 4orrison.

Instead, she ust #eaves it out there uncorrected55the descri-tion ma" 6e from the

s#ave catcher;s ang#e of vision, 6ut there is no sign that the ang#e distorts his

vie of the -h"sica# action55and asks us to come to terms ith it on our on.

4orrison does, hoever, #eave s-ace for us to defer that coming to terms. !ince

this <rst te##ing -icks u- the stor" after the hite men have entered the shed, it

does not e>-#ain ho or h" !ethe ent there ith her chi#dren. In the second

te##ing, 4orrison addresses that as-ect of the stor". The -ers-ective here 6e#ongs

to !tam- PaidB the te##ing occurs as -art of a reco##ection he is -re-ared to share

ith Pau# D 6ut does not 6ecause Pau# insists that the oman in the nes-a-er

stor" !tam- gives him cannot 6e !ethe:

!o !tam- Paid did not te## him ho she He, snatching u- her chi#dren #ike a

hak on the ingB ho her face 6eaked, ho her hands orked #ike c#as, ho

she co##ected them ever" hich a"B one on her shou#der, one under her arm,

one 6" the hand, the other shouted forard into the oodshed <##ed ith ust

sun#ight and shavings no 6ecause there asn;t an" ood. The -art" had used it

a##, hich is h" he as cho--ing some. /othing as in that shed, he kne,

having 6een there ear#" that morning. /othing 6ut sun#ight. !un#ight, shavings, a

shove#. The a> he himse#f took out. /othing as in there e>ce-t the shove#55and

of course the sa. 789

+ecause Pau# D ho#ds fast to his 6e#ief that the oman in the stor" as not !ethe,

!tam- onders ?if it had ha--ened at a##, eighteen "ears ago, that hi#e he and

+a6" !uggs ere #ooking the rong a", a -rett" #itt#e s#avegir# had recogni*ed ahat, and s-#it to the oodshed to ki## her chi#dren? 78)9.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


!tam- Paid, too, sees !ethe from the outside, and though he a#so com-ares her

to an anima#, he does not reduce her to one. Indeed, the com-arison of !ethe

ith a hak on the ing orks to i##uminate the ho and h": 6ecause !ethe

senses danger, she instinctive#" reacts, <erce#" and sift#" gathering her chi#dreninto the shed. +ecause the -ers-ective remains outside of !ethe and 6ecause the

em-hasis is on her instinctive reaction, 4orrison;s techni@ue again sto-s short of

rendering an" c#ear ethica# udgment. +ut !tam- Paid;s <na# thought once again

foregrounds the horror of hat !ethe is doing: ?a -rett" #itt#e s#avegir# ... s-#it to

the oodshed to ki## her chi#dren.? The contrast 6eteen the condescending

descri-tion, ?-rett" #itt#e s#avegir#? and the -#ain statement of her -ur-ose, ?to ki##

her chi#dren? has com-#e> ethica# e=ects. The -#ain statement, hen u>ta-osed

to the descri-tion of !ethe singing her 6a6" toard the a##, ma" initia##" move

us toard conc#uding that !ethe;s instinctive reaction is u#timate#" rong55

hoever instinctive, it;s a frightening overreaction. +ut the condescendingdescri-tion, in com6ination ith the -oer of our -revious s"m-ath" for !ethe,

gives us s-ace to defer an" <na# conc#usion "et again. If !tam- Paid is rong

a6out ho !ethe is, -erha-s he;s a#so rong a6out her -ur-ose. +ut even as e

defer a <na# udgment, e continue to contem-#ate the a#most un6e#ieva6#e

horror of hat !ethe has done. We ma" ish to ado-t Pau# D;s attitude of denia#,

6ut, ith this second te##ing through a more s"m-athetic foca#i*er, 4orrison has

e=ective#" e#iminated that co-ing strateg" from our re-ertoire.

!ethe;s on te##ing to Pau# D55ith occasiona# further commentar" 6" thenarrator55is, not sur-rising#", the #ongest version of the stor". !ethe circ#es the

room as she ta#ks, much as the nove# has circ#ed the event u- unti# these three

te##ings. !ethe 6egins not ith the da" that the four horsemen rode into the "ard

6ut rather ith her arriva# at 8(' tent" da"s ear#ier and the -ride and #ove she

fe#t as a resu#t of that accom-#ishment:

?We as here. Each and ever" one of m" 6a6ies and me too. I 6irthed them and I

got em out and it asn;t no accident. I did that. ... It fe#t good. 2ood and right. I

as 6ig, Pau# D, and dee- and ide and hen I stretched out m" arms a## m"chi#dren cou#d get in 6eteen. I as that ide. Look #ike I #oved em more after I

got here. 0r ma"6e I cou#dn;t #ove em -ro-er in entuck" 6ecause the" asn;t

mine to #ove. +ut hen I got here, hen I um-ed don o= that agon55there

asn;t no6od" in the or#d I cou#dn;t #ove if I anted to.?

?... I cou#dn;t #et her nor an" of em #ive under schoo#teacher.? 78J(5J%9

With !ethe;s ords to Pau# D as 6ackground, 4orrison shifts to !ethe;s thoughts:

8/10/2019 Style 1998


!ethe kne that ... she cou#d never c#ose in, -in it don for an"6od" ho had to

ask. If the" didn;t get it right o=55she cou#d never e>-#ain. +ecause the truth as

sim-#e. ... When she sa them coming and recogni*ed schoo#teacher;s hat, she

heard ings. Litt#e humming6irds stuck their need#e 6eaks right through herheadc#oth into her hair and 6eat their ings. If she thought an"thing it as /o.

/o. /ono. /onono. !im-#e. !he ust He. Co##ected ever" 6it of #ife she had made,

a## the -arts of her that ere -recious and <ne and 6eautifu#, and carried,

-ushed, dragged them through the vei#, out, aa", over there here no one

cou#d hurt them. 0ver there outside this -#ace, here the" ou#d 6e safe. ...

?I sto--ed him,? she said, staring at the -#ace here the fence used to 6e. ?I took

and -ut m" 6a6ies here the";d 6e safe.? 78J%5J'9.

!ethe;s version is o6vious#" a strong counter to the ear#ier to: her -ur-ose as

not to ki## 6ut to -rotect, her motivation as #ove, and the action as a success.

!he does act instinctive#", 6ut the instincts are those of mother#ove. The anima#

imager" here does not suggest an"thing a6out her agenc" 6ut rather a6out an

association 6eteen schoo#teacher and a fee#ing in her head55a matter I i##

return to 6e#o.

Thus, the -rogression of the stories gives us a -rogression of -ossi6i#ities for

ethica# udgment: !ethe has committed a su6human actionB !ethe has done the

rong thing 6ut done it instinctive#" and understanda6#"B !ethe has done

something dicu#t 6ut heroic 6ecause it is done for the 6est motives and it turns

out to 6e a success. !ince the -rogression of the narrative -ers-ectives, from

outside to inside, from the hite men;s to !tam- Paid;s to !ethe;s, is a

-rogression toard increasing#" s"m-athetic vies, e might 6e inc#ined to

conc#ude that 4orrison is guiding us toard acce-ting !ethe;s version.

Furthermore, if e sta" inside !ethe;s -ers-ective, her account is ver"

com-e##ing. +ut the triangu#ation of a## three stories indicates that 4orrisondoesn;t ant !ethe;s stor" to 6e the authoritative version 6ecause that

triangu#ation ca##s attention to hat !ethe #eaves out of her account: the

handsa, the s#it throat, the 6#ood, the singing of the 6a6" toard the a##. In

short, !ethe;s te##ing isn;t de<nitive 6ecause it erases the horror of her murdering

her chi#d under its ta#k of motivations 7#ove9 and -ur-ose 7safet"9.

Furthermore, 6efore the third te##ing conc#udes, 4orrison uses Pau# D to -rovide

an interna# counter to !ethe;s -ers-ective. Pau# D, of course, is the most

s"m-athetic audience !ethe cou#d <nd ithin the or#d of the nove#, someoneho knos <rst5hand the evi#s of s#aver" and ho a#so #oves her. +ut Pau# D

8/10/2019 Style 1998


immediate#" reects !ethe;s udgments and im-oses his on, much harsher ones.

4orrison;s narrator shos that he immediate#" thinks, ?What she anted for her

chi#dren as e>act#" hat as missing in 8(': safet"? 78J'9. 4orrison a#so has

Pau# D sa" to !ethe that ?"our #ove is too thick,? that ?hat "ou did as rong,

!ethe,? and that ?"ou got to feet, !ethe, not four? 78J%5J9.

0f these res-onses, the <rst resonates most ith the authoria# audience. 0ur on

e>-erience of the narrative to this -oint shos that 8(' has not 6een a safe

-#ace: it is #itera##" haunted 6" the ghost of the dead 6a6" and her return as

+e#oved, meta-horica##" haunted 6" the conse@uences of !ethe;s rough choice.

Furthermore, !ethe;s on constant ork ?of 6eating 6ack the -ast? indicates that

her narrative does not accurate#" ca-ture the com-#e>it" of her choice. Part To

i## give further evidence, in !ethe;s e>treme e=orts to e>-iate her gui#t toard

+e#oved, that she herse#f does not fu##" 6e#ieve that her choice as the right one.

+ut 4orrison a#so gives us reason not to endorse the rest of Pau#;s negative

udgments. 3is remark that !ethe has ?to feet not four? c#ear#" #inks his

assessment ith schoo#teacher;s, and that #ink a=ects our res-onse to each one;s

udgment. 0n the one hand, Pau# D;s seeing !ethe;s action in the same terms as

schoo#teacher does reminds us of the horror of the -h"sica# descri-tion of hat

schoo#teacher sa. +ut on the other, if Pau# D ado-ts schoo#teacher;s terms, his

assessment c#ear#" cannot 6e entire#" right. gain, 4orrison;s techni@ue #eads us

to ru#e out certain ethica# res-onses55schoo#teacher;s racist one, !ethe;s onheroic one55ithout #eading us to a c#ear -osition.

Connections

If the three te##ings do not themse#ves -osition us c#ear#", -erha-s the

connections 6eteen these te##ings and other -arts of the nove# i##. I ou#d #ike

to #ook at the to most signi<cant connections, 6oth of hich give greater eight

to !ethe;s -ers-ective on her choice ithout <na##" indicating that 4orrison

endorses that -ers-ective. Consider, <rst, the retros-ective #ight cast 6" !ethe;s

account to +e#oved a6out hat ha--ened hen she overheard one of

schoo#teacher;s #essons:

This is the <rst time I;m te##ing it and I;m te##ing it to "ou 6ecause it might he#-

e>-#ain something to "ou a#though I kno "ou don;t need me to do it. To te## it or

even think over it. Kou don;t have to #isten either, if "ou don;t ant to. +ut I

cou#dn;t he#- #istening to hat I heard that da". 3e as ta#king to his -u-i#s and I

heard him sa", ?Which one are "ou doingM? nd one the 6o"s said, ?!ethe.?

That;s hen I sto--ed 6ecause I heard m" name, and then I took a fe ste-s to

here I cou#d see hat the" as doing. !choo#teacher as standing over one of

them ith one hand 6ehind his 6ack. 3e #icked a fore<nger a cou-#e of times andturned a fe -ages. !#o. I as a6out to turn around and kee- on m" a" to

8/10/2019 Style 1998


here the mus#in as, hen I heard him sa", ?/o, no. That;s not the a". I to#d

"ou to -ut her human characteristics on the #eftB her anima# ones on the right.

nd don;t forget to #ine them u-.? I commenced to a#k 6ackard, didn;t even

#ook 6ehind me to <nd out here I as headed. I ust ke-t #ifting m" feet and

-ushing 6ack. When I 6um-ed u- against a tree m" sca#- as -rick#". 0ne of the

dogs as #icking out a -an in the "ard. I got to the gra-e ar6or fast enough, 6ut Ididn;t have the mus#in. F#ies sett#ed a## over "our face, ru66ing their hands. 4"

head itched #ike the devi#. Like some6od" as sticking <ne need#es in m" sca#-. I

never to#d 3a##e or no6od". 78&%9

The retros-ective #ight of this -assage i##uminates !ethe;s choice in the fo##oing

a"s: 7 89 It e>-#ains h" the sight of schoo#teacher at 8(' +#uestone Rd. makes

!ethe fee# as if humming6irds are sticking their ?need#e 6eaks? in her sca#-. 7 (9

In so doing, it -rovides further motivation for her instinctive res-onseB having

tasted freedom for herse#f and her chi#dren, ho can she desire an"thing other

than to -ut them a## somehere safeM 7 %9 It shos ho dee-#" racist

schoo#teacher;s res-onse to !ethe;s rough choice is: her horri6#e actions do not

cause him to think of her as a horse or a hound, 6ut those terms -rovide the on#"

a" in hich he can -rocess the scene he itnesses. For these reasons, the

retros-ective #ight shines most 6right#" and most favora6#" on !ethe;s te##ing. I

i## discuss the signi<cance of this e=ect after #ooking at the second connection.

This connection invo#ves !ethe and Pau# D. In the ver" <rst cha-ter of the nove#,!ethe te##s Pau# a6out ho she came to get the ?tree? on her 6ack.

?4en don;t kno nothing much,? said Pau# D, tucking his -ouch 6ack into his vest

-ocket, ?6ut the" do kno a suck#ing can;t 6e aa" from its mother for #ong.?

?Then the" kno hat it;s #ike to send "our chi#dren o= hen "our 6reasts are

fu##.?

?We as ta#king ;6out a tree, !ethe.?

?fter I #eft "ou, those 6o"s came in there and took m" mi#k. That;s hat the"

came in there for. 3e#d me don and took it. I to#d 4rs. 2arner on em. ... Them6o"s found out I to#d on em. !choo#teacher made one o-en u- m" 6ack, and

hen it c#osed it made a tree. It gros there sti##.?

?The" used cohide on "ouM?

?nd the" took m" mi#k.?

?The" 6eat "ou and "ou as -regnant.?

?nd the" took m" mi#kQ? 78J589

8/10/2019 Style 1998


Pau# D;s fai#ure to understand that !ethe fe#t more vio#ated 6" the hite men;s

taking her mi#k than 6" their hi--ing her 6ack shos that he does not

understand hat motherhood means to !ethe. 3is udgment that her ?#ove is too

thick? can 6e seen as a simi#ar fai#ure of understanding. #though Pau# D knos

the evi#s of s#aver", he does not kno hat it is #ike to 6e 6oth -arent and s#ave,

#et a#one 6oth mother and s#ave. Reading Pau# D;s udgment of !ethe;s choice in#ight of this ear#ier scene, e see that 4orrison ants us to sus-ect his @uick and

sure negative res-onse. Pau# D is once again thinking #ike a man ithout chi#dren

rather than #ike a mother.7n9

!ince each connection orks in its on a" to su--ort !ethe;s narrative, e ma"

6e inc#ined to conc#ude that the eight of evidence no suggests that 4orrison is

directing us to endorse !ethe;s vie of her actions. +ut since neither connection

actua##" addresses the reca#citrance !ethe;s narrative encounters55the horror of

chi#d murder, the #ack of true safet" in her #ife55the 6etter conc#usion is that

4orrison assumes that her harder task i## 6e to maintain s"m-ath" for !ethe

once the events of ugust 8) are revea#ed.

Conse@uences

In sum, I have 6een arguing that 4orrison c#ear#" designates some -ositions that

e ought not occu-"55!ethe deserves Pau# D;s harsh udgmentB !ethe;s on

account shou#d 6e endorsed55ithout -ositive#" esta6#ishing her on ethica#

assessment. s e have seen in the e-igra-h, 4orrison incor-orates this attitude

into the narrative through the character of the ise +a6" !uggs, a source ofkno#edge and isdom throughout the nove#: she is <na##" una6#e either to

a--rove or condemn !ethe;s choice. 1n#ike +a6" !uggs, hoever, the res-onsi6#e

audience mem6er can not sim-#" ithdra from the ethica# demands of the

narrative and give his or her da"s over to the contem-#ation of co#or. Instead, e

need to dea# ith the a" 4orrison re@uires us to recogni*e that !ethe;s choice is

someho 6e"ond the reach of standard ethica# udgment55an action at once

instinctive and unnatura#, motivated 6" #ove 6ut destructive to #ife. Conse@uent#",

the ethica##" irres-onsi6#e thing to do is to reso#ve the -ro6#em 6" reaching a

c#ear and <>ed udgment of !ethe;s action. If other Hesh and 6#ood readers are at

a## #ike me, the" are #ike#" to <nd their udgments of !ethe Huctuating55sometimes

the horror of the murder i## dominate our consciousness, hi#e at others !ethe;s

des-eration, motivation, and -ur-ose i## make her choice seem, if not fu##"

defensi6#e, at #east com-rehensi6#e.

This ina6i#it" to <> a -osition on the centra# action com-#icates our re#ation to

!ethe as the centra# actor ithout disru-ting our s"m-ath" for her. !ethe

6ecomes a character ho as once -ushed 6e"ond the #imits of human

endurance and reacted to that -ushing in this e>traordinar" a". Conse@uent#",

e turn our udgment on the institution that -ushed her 6e"ond the #imits:s#aver". It is of course eas" to sa" that s#aver" is evi#, 6ut it;s another thing for

8/10/2019 Style 1998


readers in the #ate tentieth centur"55es-ecia##" hite readers55to fee# the force

of that statement, to com-rehend the e=ects of s#aver" on individua# human

#ives. 4orrison;s treatment of !ethe;s rough choice moves readers toard such

com-rehension: in the s-ace here e rest#e ith the ethica# di#emma

-resented 6" !ethe;s choice, e must imaginative#" engage ith !ethe;s

instinctive decision that, hen faced ith the -ros-ect of s#aver", #oving herchi#dren means murdering them. !uch engagement transforms s#aver" from an

a6stract evi# to a -a#-a6#e one. !uch engagement is a#so crucia# to 4orrison;s

#arger -ur-ose of cha##enging her audience to come to terms ith s#aver";s

continuing e=ects on the 1nited !tates.7n)9

t the #eve# of author5audience communication, 4orrison;s unusua# treatment of

!ethe;s choice a#so creates an unusua# ethica# re#ationshi- ith her audience. The

treatment is simu#taneous#" a cha##enge and a com-#iment. !he cha##enges us to

have the negative ca-a6i#it" to refrain from an" irrita6#e reaching after ethica#

c#osure a6out !ethe;s rough choice, even as that cha##enge im-#ies her faith that

e i## 6e e@ua# to the task. 4orrison;s treatment retains the 6asic reci-roca#

re#ation 6eteen author and audience that under#ies the ethica# dimension of

their communication, 6ut it gives a ne tist to that reci-rocit". +" #imiting her

guidance, 4orrison gives u- some authoria# res-onsi6i#it" and transfers it to the

audience. +" acce-ting that res-onsi6i#it"55and attending to the -arameters

ithin hich 4orrison asks us to e>ercise it55e have a more dicu#t and

demanding 6ut a#so richer reading e>-erience. +" guiding us #ess, 4orrison gives

us more. +" e>ercising the res-onsi6i#it" 4orrison transfers to us, e get more

out of hat she o=ers. For this Hesh and 6#ood reader, this ethica# re#ationshi- is

a ke" reason +e#oved is one of the most unsett#ing and most rearding narratives

I have ever read.

/otes

7n89 In the e#even "ears since its -u6#ication, +e#oved has attracted a great dea#

of critica# attention, 6ecoming the su6ect of over to hundred 6ooks and artic#es,

"et no one, to m" kno#edge, has direct#" addressed the ethics of !ethe;s choice.

The e>isting criticism is es-ecia##" strong on the nove#;s man" thematic

com-onents from histor" and memor" to motherhood and identit" as e## as on

its re#ation to -revious merican narratives and its ming#ing of Western and

frican cu#tura# va#ues. For a sam-#e of this ork, see Christian, 3and#e" 7on

Western and frican cu#ture9, rmstrong, 4ore#and, Travis 7on re#ation to -revious

traditions9, 3irsch, Wi#t, W"att 7on motherhood and its re#ated issues9, and

3artman and 4og#en 7on histor" and memor"9. For essa"s that focus on issues of

narrative theor" and techni@ue, see 3omans, Rimmon5enan, and Phe#an.

7n(9 For further discussion of this a--roach, see m" /arrative as Rhetoric,

es-ecia##" the Introduction.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


7n%9 The ethica# turn in #iterar" studies over the -ast decade or so is a

-henomenon that shou#d 6e seen in re#ation to other, #arger deve#o-ments in the

institution. The ethica# turn, I 6e#ieve, is -art of the genera# reaction against the

forma#ism of Ka#e5schoo# deconstruction in the ake of the reve#ations of Pau# de

4an;s artime ritingsB it is a#so com-ati6#e ith, though distinguisha6#e from,

the continuing -oer of feminist criticism and theor" and the rising inHuence offrican5merican, mu#ticu#tura#, and @ueer criticism and theor", a## of hich

ground themse#ves in sets of ethico5-o#itica# commitments. The ethica# turn in

narrative studies is a#so -art of a groing attention to the uses of narrative

across the disci-#ines and in ?ever"da" #ife.?

From this -ers-ective, e can see G. 3i##is 4i##er;s ork on ethics as an e=ort to

address the connection 6eteen the forma# concerns of Ka#e deconstruction and

the turn toard ethics. That ethics 6ecomes, for 4i##er, another a" of doing

deconstruction is testimon" to 6oth the -oer and #imits of deconstruction;s

conce-tion of #anguage as undecida6#e. We can a#so see 4artha /uss6aum;s

-hi#oso-hica# investigation into narrative;s ca-acit" to o=er thick descri-tions of

mora# -ro6#ems and mora# reasoning as a rich instance of interdisci-#inar"

interest in narrative. For other im-ortant ork, see 3ar-ham, the recent issue of

P4L devoted to ethica# criticism, and of course the other essa"s in this s-ecia#

issue.

7n'9 For other a##usions, see -ages 8(, 8', 8, 8&, %, %), '(, ', $, %, &J.

7n9 I don;t mean to suggest that 4orrison never e>-oses the #imits of some

va#ues and 6e#iefs he#d 6" the main characters. For e>am-#e, she asks us to

recogni*e 6oth the immaturit" of Denver;s vie of Pau# D as an une#come

intruder and the good reasons h" she c#ings so strong#" to that vie.

7nJ9 ?Re-resentative? in the sense that it -rovides an a--ro-riate focus for m"

discussion of the ethica# dimension of the <rst te##ing, 6ut not ?re-resentative? inthe sense that a## sections of the te##ing ork the a" this one does.

7n9 There is one more ver" suggestive conse@uence of fo##oing the connections

6eteen !choo#teacher;s #esson and his and Pau# D;s udgment of !ethe. These

connections, a#ong ith a fe other moments in the te>t, suggest that 4orrison

ants to @uestion the distinction55or at #east to @uestion the usua# assumed

hierarch" of the distinction55at the heart of schoo#teacher;s #esson, that 6eteen

the human and the anima#. The inversion of the hierarch" is, of course, ver"

much a -art of the -assage descri6ing the #esson: !ethe has a kind of se#f5

8/10/2019 Style 1998


consciousness that e don;t usua##" attri6ute to anima#s, hereas !choo#teacher

has #ost a## sense of hat e usua##" think of as humanit" in his assum-tions

a6out !ethe as su6human. +ut 4orrison goes further than that in the a" in

hich the distinction o-erates in the #arger narrative. First, as . !. +"att -oints

out in her revie of the nove#, !ethe;s giving 6irth to Denver de-ends on her

going on a## fours, on her acting as if she has four #egs not to. Indeed, thes"m6o#ic forest that s-rings u- 6eteen !ethe and Pau# D after he renders his

udgment ma" ver" e## 6e the forest through hich !ethe cra#ed on the night

of her Hight from !eet 3ome, the night 6efore Denver as 6orn. 4oreover, if

Pau# D;s comment a--#ies to !ethe;s murder of +e#oved, it a#so a--#ies to !ethe;s

most unam6iguous demonstration of mother#" #ove and devotion.

Pau# D;s remark a#so is com-#icated 6" his on -ast actions that might suggest

that he has four #egs not to, -articu#ar#" his <nding se>ua# re#ease 6" rutting

ith cos. !choo#teacher;s #esson, 4orrison;s suggestions a6out inverting the

usua# hierarchies, Pau# D;s comment to !ethe a6out ho man" #egs she has, the

!eet 3ome men;s se>ua# -ractices: a## these e#ements of the narrative suggest

that 4orrison is ver" much interested in @uestioning the 6oundaries of the

human, ver" much tr"ing to suggest that the #ines 6eteen the human and the

anima# are not as c#ear and c#ean as some one such as !choo#teacher ou#d #ike

his -u-i#s to 6e#ieve.

7n)9 For a discussion of ho 4orrison incor-orates this cha##enge into the endingof the nove#, see m" ?Toard a Rhetorica# Readers Res-onse Criticism.?

Works Cited

rmstrong, /anc". ?Wh" Daughters Die: The Racia# Logic of merican

!entimenta#ism.? The Ka#e Gourna# of Criticism .( 78&&'9: 85('


Ca#ifornia P, 8&)).

+"att, . !. Passions of the 4ind: !e#ected Writings. /e Kork: intage, 8&&%.

Christian, +ar6ara. ?+e#oved, !he;s 0urs.? /arrative 78&&9: %J5'&.

3and#e", Wi##iam R. ?The 3ouse a 2host +ui#t: /ommo, ##egor", and the Ethics of

Reading in Toni 4orrison;s +e#oved.? Contem-orar" Literature %J 78&&9: JJ5

$8.

3ar-ham, 2eo=re". 2etting It Right: Language, Literature, and Ethics. Chicago: 1

of Chicago P, 8&&(.

3artman, 2eo=re" 3. ?Pu6#ic 4emor" and Its Discontents.? The 1ses of Literar"

3istor". Ed. 4arsha## +ron. Durham: Duke 1P, 8&&.%5&8.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


3irsch, 4arianne. ?4aternit" and Rememor": Toni 4orrison;s +e#oved.?

Re-resentations of 4otherhood. Ed. Donna +assin, 4argaret 3one", and 4er"#e

4ahrer a-#an. /e 3aven: Ka#e 1P, 8&&'. &(588$.

3omans, 4argaret. ?Feminist Fictions and Feminist Theories of /arrative.?

/arrative ( 78&&'9: %58J.

4i##er, G. 3i##is. The Ethics of Reading: ant, de 4an, Tro##o-e, E#iot, Games,

+enamin. /e Kork: Co#um6ia 1P, 8&).

4og#en, 3e#ene. ?Redeeming 3istor": Toni 4orrison;s +e#oved.? !u6ects in +#ack

and White: Race, Ps"choana#"sis, Feminism. Ed. E#i*a6eth 6e#, +ar6ara Christian,

and 4og#en. +erke#e": 1 of Ca#ifornia P, 8&&. ($85($.

4ore#and, Richard C. ?A3e Wants to Put 3is !tor" /e>t to 3ers;: Putting Tain;s

!tor" /e>t to 3ers in 4orrison;s +e#oved.? 4odern Fiction !tudies %&.%5' 78&&%9:

$85(.

4orrison, Toni. +e#oved. /e Kork: no-f, 8&).

/eton, dam Nachar". /arrative Ethics. Cam6ridge: 3arvard 1P, 8&&.



Phe#an, Games. ?Toard a Rhetorica# Reader5Res-onse Criticism: The Dicu#t, The

!tu66orn, and the Ending of +e#oved.? /arrative as Rhetoric. Co#um6us: 0hio

!tate 1P, 8&&J. 8%5)&.

P4L. !-ecia# issue. ?Ethics and Literar" Criticism.? 88'.8 7Ganuar" 8&&&9.

Rigne", +ar6ara. The oices of Toni 4orrison. Co#um6us: 0hio !tate 1P, 8&&'.

Rimmon5enan, !h#omith. 2#ance +e"ond Dou6t: /arration, Re-resentation,

!u6ectivit". Co#um6us: 0hio !tate 1P, 8&&J.

Travis, 4o##". ?!-eaking from the !i#ence of the !#ave /arrative: +e#oved and

frican5merican Women;s 3istor".? The Te>as Revie 8%.85( 78&&(9: J&)8.

Wi#t, Gudith. 6ortion, Choice, and Contem-orar" Fiction. Chicago: 1 of Chicago P,8&)&.

W"att, Gean. ?2iving +od" to the Word: The 4aterna# !"m6o#ic in Toni 4orrison;s

+e#oved.? P4L 8$) 78&&%9: ''5)).

+" Games Phe#an, 0hio !tate 1niversit"

8/10/2019 Style 1998


/as#ov: 4aking, Taking, and Faking Lives: The Ethics of Co##a6orative Life Writing.

Prema: Couser, 2. Thomas, !t"#e, $$%&'(%), !ummer&), !ve*ak. %(, +ro (.+a*a


4I/2, TI/2, /D FI/2 LIE!: T3E ET3IC! 0F C0LL+0RTIE LIFE

WRITI/2

Whose 6ook is thisM

554a#co#m

#though issues of #iterar" ethics ma" arise in an" genre, ethica# di#emmas seemto 6e 6ui#t into co##a6orative #ife riting in a"s -ecu#iar to it.7 n89 With <ction,

ethica# criticism is usua##" concerned ith issues of meaning and of rece-tion: in

the sim-#est terms, does the te>t have 6ene<cia# or harmfu# e=ects on its

audienceM +ut non<ction genera##" and #ife riting s-eci<ca##" raise other

concerns. Indeed, a#though Wa"ne +ooth #imits his sco-e to <ction in The

Com-an" We ee-, he asks ke" @uestions that are -erha-s even more com-e##ing

for #ife riting than for <ction: e.g., ?What re the uthor;s Res-onsi6i#ities to

Those Whose Lives re 1sed as ;4ateria#;? 78%$9, ?What re the uthor;s

Res-onsi6i#ities to 0thers Whose La6or Is E>-#oited to 4ake the Work of rt

Possi6#eM? 78%89, and ?What re Res-onsi6i#ities of the uthor to TruthM? 78%(9.With co##a6orative #ife riting, es-ecia##", ethica# concerns 6egin ith the

-roduction of the narrative and e>tend to the re#ation of the te>t to the historica#

record of hich it forms a -art.

Ethica# issues ma" 6e -articu#ar#" acute in co##a6orative auto6iogra-h" 6ecause it

occu-ies an akard niche 6eteen more esta6#ished, more -restigious forms of

#ife riting. 0n one side is so#o auto6iogra-h", in hich the riter, the narrator,

and the su6ect 7or -rotagonist9 of the narrative are a## the same -ersonB at #east,

the" share the same name.7 n(9 0n the other side is 6iogra-h", in hich theriter and narrator are one -erson, hi#e the su6ect is someone e#se.7 n%9 In the

midd#e, com6ining features of the adacent forms55and thus cha##enging the

common5sense distinction 6eteen them55is as5to#d5to auto6iogra-h", in hich

the riter is one -erson, 6ut the narrator and su6ect are someone e#se.7n'9 The

ethica# dicu#ties of co##a6orative auto6iogra-h" are rooted in its near#"

o>"moronic statusB the sing#e narrative voice55a simu#ation 6" one -erson of the

voice of another55is a#a"s in danger of 6reaking, e>-osing conHicts of interest

that are not -resent in so#o auto6iogra-h". #though the -rocess 6" hich the

te>t is -roduced is dia#ogica#, the -roduct is mono#ogica#B the to voices are

-ermitted to engage in dia#ogue on#" in su--#ementar" te>ts55foreords andafterords55and even there, the dia#ogue is managed and -resented 6" one

8/10/2019 Style 1998


8/10/2019 Style 1998


the im-#ications of the form are unavai#a6#e to the su6ect, there is the danger of

misre-resentation that i## go undetected 6" him or her. 1#timate#", hoever, no

matter ho invo#ved the su6ect is at each stage of the -roect, the -artners

6ring di=erent ski##s and contri6utions to the <na# -roectB their #a6or is of

di=erent kinds, and most of the ording of the <na# te>t is attri6uta6#e to the

?riter.? In the <na# ana#"sis, then, the -artners; contri6utions are not on#"di=erent, 6ut incommensurate, entities55on the one hand, #ived e>-erience

mediated 6" memor"B on the other, the #a6or of e#iciting, recording, inscri6ing,

and organi*ing this materia#.

The inherent im6a#ance 6eteen the -artners; contri6utions ma" 6e com-#icated

6" a -o#itica# im6a#ance 6eteen themB often, co##a6orations invo#ve -artners

hose re#ation is hierarchi*ed 6" some di=erence55in race, cu#ture, gender, c#ass,

age, or 7in the case of narratives of i##ness or disa6i#it"9 somatic condition. 3aving

-oer or rank over someone is not the same as over-oering that -erson, of

courseB the #atter is a -itfa## that ma" 6e evaded. In the scenario t"-ica# of

ethnogra-hic auto6iogra-h", hoever, the su6ect ma" indeed 6e su6ect to the

riter;s domination, in -art 6ecause the su6ect is #ike#" to 6e one of ?those ho

do not rite?55in Phi#i--e Leeune;s -hrase. This has historica##" 6een the case

ith merican racia# minorities55frican mericans in the case of s#ave narrative

and /ative mericans in the case of hat rno#d ru-at ca##s Indian

auto6iogra-h" 7%$9, and much recent criticism has 6een devoted to recu-erating

the -oint of vie of su6ects ho are -eo-#e of co#on 4" on recent ork on

narratives of i##ness and disa6i#it" suggests that, #ike other margina#i*ed grou-s,

-eo-#e ho are i## or disa6#ed ma" therefore a#so 6e at a disadvantage ith

res-ect to their co##a6orators. The -o#itica# im6a#ance #atent in narratives of

i##ness and disa6i#it" is -erha-s most o6vious and most -ro6#ematic in those

cases in hich the com-#etion and -u6#ication of the narrative devo#ve u-on a

survivor ho narrates another;s termina# i##ness. For e>am-#e, I have found that

re#ationa# 7-articu#ar#" -arenta#9 narratives of ga" men ho die of ID! are often

unitting#" homo-ho6ic to some degreeB 6ecause the" are genera##" ritten and

-u6#ished -osthumous#", the su6ect has no o--ortunit" to audit them.7nJ9 +ut

there are other circumstances in hich disa6i#it" or i##ness ma" com-romise the

ethics of the co##a6orationB for e>am-#e, disa6i#ities that make so#o auto6iogra-h"

im-ossi6#e ma" a#so make it dicu#t for the su6ect to revie the manuscri-t andmandate changes.

Even here such revie is -ossi6#e, the -rocess ma" invo#ve unintentiona#

misre-resentation. case in -oint is that of I Raise 4" E"es to !a" Kes, 6" Ruth

!ienkieic*54ercer and !teven +. a-#an. !ienkieic*54ercer has 6een severe#"

disa6#ed from 6irth 6" cere6ra# -a#s", so that she can neither s-eak nor riteB

una6#e to kee- her at home, her fami#" sent her to a state faci#it" here she as

misdiagnosed as menta##" retarded and in e=ect ?arehoused?55su-ervised rather

than educated. Eventua##", she as a6#e to make her a6i#ities knon, and -art#"

in res-onse to the disa6i#it" rights movement, she has 6een a6#e to move out of

8/10/2019 Style 1998


the state faci#it". 3er stor"55hich, as a stor" of #i6eration, is akin to a s#ave

narrative55as ritten ith the co##a6oration of a #a"er and advocate for -eo-#e

ith disa6i#ities through an e>treme#" #a6or5intensive -rocess. !ienkieic*54ercer

ou#d scan customi*ed ord56oards to se#ect a categor", and through a -rocess

of @uestions and ansers she ou#d sketch out a ske#eta# account of an incidentB

a-#an ou#d then Hesh this out and read it 6ack to her for an" corrections.

I see no reason to dou6t the accurac" of her narrative, hich !ienkieic*54ercer

had the o--ortunit" to edit. nd there is no @uestion of e>-#oitation: a-#an

serves de#i6erate#" and faithfu##" as her advocate. +ut there is a serious

discre-anc" 6eteen !ienkieic*54ercer;s #eve# of #iterac"55as a-#an descri6es

it, she reads ?at 6est, at a <rst5grade #eve#, recogni*ing on#" sim-#e ords -#aced

6efore her in a fami#iar conte>t? 7vii955and the voice of the narrative, hich is that

of a co##ege graduate and Huent riter. !uch discre-ancies ma" 6e characteristic

of man" ghost5ritten or co##a6orative narratives, and the" ma" not a#a"s 6e as

-ro6#ematic as academics make them out to 6e. 0ne cou#d argue that an account

re#"ing on her diction and s"nta> might have 6een un-u6#isha6#e 7and virtua##"

unreada6#e9B is it not 6etter to have a te>t ritten from her -oint of vie than no

stor" at a##M Furthermore, a te>t reHecting her #eve# of #iterac" might have given a

mis#eading indication of her sensi6i#it" and inte##igence: sim-#e s"nta> ma"

connote, even if it does not -ro-er#" signif", sim-#e mindedness. !ti##, hen

mediation is ignored, the resu#ting te>t ma" 6e 7mis9taken for a trans-arent #ens

through hich e have direct access to its su6ect 7rather than to its author9. nd

it is here that the veracit" of the narrative as a <rst5-erson account of

!ienkieic*54ercer;s #ife ma" 6e ca##ed into @uestion. 0n the one hand, a-#an

-rofesses his concerns a6out -ossi6#e distortionsB on the other, he -roduces a

te>t that !ienkieic*54ercer cou#d never have -roduced even if some ondrous

techno#og" cou#d trans-ose ords direct#" from her mind to the -age. a-#an;s

c#aim that though ?most of the ords ere not generated 6" Ruth ... the

thoughts and emotions, the im-ressions and o6servations e>-ressed 6" these

ords, are Ruth;s a#one? 7>ii9 assumes too much inde-endence of content from

form, message from medium. The #i6erties a-#an takes ith ?trans#ation? in

e=ect h"-ernorma#i*e !ienkieic*54ercer 7if that is not an o>"moron9. The

-ro6#em is that the mono#ogica# -rose 6e#ies the ver" #a6or5intensive dia#ogica#

-rocess 6" hich it as -roducedB in fundamenta# a"s, it masks or erases thedisa6i#it" that has so -rofound#" sha-ed its su6ect;s #ife. 3ere, then, e have an

odd ethica# di#emmaB the ver" mediation that seeming#" em-oers !ienkieic*5

4ercer is dece-tive in some fundamenta# a". Re-resentation in the -o#itica#

sense and re-resentation in the mimetic sense seem fundamenta##" at odds: in

his desire to s-eak for her, a-#an s-eaks as her in a a" that mis5s-eaks her.

In the scenario t"-ica# of ce#e6rit" auto6iogra-h",7n9 the -o#itica# d"namics are

reversed: here the su6ect t"-ica##" outranks the riter in ea#th and c#out. The

6a#ance of -oer favors the 6etter knon -artnerB there is on#" one 4adonna,

and she can -resuma6#" have her -ick of -artners.7n)9 We might schemati*e

8/10/2019 Style 1998


co##a6orative auto6iogra-h", then, 6" imagining e>am-#es as #"ing a#ong a

continuum from ethnogra-hic auto6iogra-h", in hich the riter outranks the

su6ect, to ce#e6rit" auto6iogra-h", in hich the su6ect outranks the riter.

#though I ou#d estimate that most co##a6orative narratives are situated at the

ends of the continuum, signi<cant num6ers of te>ts can 6e found c#oser to the

midd#e. t the ver" center, e ou#d <nd te>ts -roduced 6" -artners ho aretrue -eers55e.g., dua# auto6iogra-hies55in hich each -artner contri6utes a

se-arate narrative, and tru#" co5authored 7rather than as5to#d5to9

auto6iogra-hies.7n&9 C#ose to the center, 6ut toard the ethnogra-hic end of the

continuum, ou#d 6e found those sing#e5author te>ts that Pau# Gohn Eakin ca##s

re#ationa# #ives55e.g., !-iege#man;s 4aus55and that I ca## ?autoS6iogra-hies,? for

memoirs of -ro>imate others, such as c#ose re#atives or -artners, are often

co##a6orative in some sense or degree. In these te>ts there is more than one

su6ect, and the act of co##a6oration ma" itse#f 6e -art of the narrative rather

than treated in su--#ementar" te>ts, as is the case at the ends of the continuum.

Wherever e are on the continuum, it makes #itt#e sense to discuss the ?ethics? of

co##a6orative auto6iogra-h" in iso#ation from the -o#itics of co##a6oration55or, for

that matter, the economics of co##a6oration55for ethica# -ro6#ems are most #ike#"

to occur here there is a su6stantia# -o#itica# or economic di=erentia# 6eteen

-artners. Furthermore, di=erent ethica# issues tend to arise de-ending u-on

here the te>ts are #ocated on this continuum. For e>am-#e, vio#ation of -rivac"

tends to 6e more of an issue in re#ationa# #ives, here the -artners kno each

other intimate#", than in most other forms of co##a6orative auto6iogra-h".

Ethica# vio#ations55ine@uities55occur main#" in to distinct 6ut interre#ated as-ects

of the -roect55the -ortra"a# and the -artnershi-. The ustice of the -ortra"a# has

to do ith hether the te>t re-resents its su6ect the a" the su6ect ou#d #ike

to 6e re-resented, ith hether that -ortra"a# is in the su6ect;s 6est interests,

ith the e>tent to hich the su6ect has determined it, and ith the degree and

kind of harm done 6" an" misre-resentation. 3arm can 6e done to the su6ect;s

-rivac", to his or her re-utation, even to his or her integrit" as an individua#.

Pro6#ems in the -ortra"a# ma" 6e manifest in the te>t55or in its re#ation to other

te>ts55and thus re#ative#" eas" for critics to detect. 70f course, as critics, e

cannot correct 6ut on#" correct for these -ro6#ems.9 Pro6#ems ith -ortra"a# are

most #ike#" to cro- u- hen the su6ect;s a6i#it" to audit and edit the manuscri-t

is #imited55that is, main#" in the ethnogra-hic scenario. In cases #ike this, the critic

ma" act, in e=ect, as the advocate of the su6ect, hose #ife ma" have 6een

inaccurate#" -ortra"ed or unfair#" a--ro-riated.

In man", -erha-s most, cases of ethnogra-hic co##a6oration, the su6ects never

confront their -u6#ished a#ter egosB their ?#ives? a--ear in -rint e#sehere, amongthose ho do rite, and the" are damaged neither 6" the -rocess nor 6" its

8/10/2019 Style 1998


-roduct 7hich is not to sa" that the -rocess ma" not 6e in some a"

e>-#oitative9. +#ack E#k !-eaks, 6" Gohn 2. /eihardt, hoever, o=ers an

interesting case in hich the su6ect of the narrative as discom<ted 6" it in

a"s he cou#d not have antici-ated.7n8$9 The -roduction of this stor" invo#ved

not ust trans#ation from +#ack E#k;s Lakota to /eihardt;s Eng#ish 6ut a com-#e>

cross5cu#tura# co##a6oration invo#ving mem6ers of +#ack E#k;s fami#" and tri6e andmem6ers of /eihardt;s fami#". Des-ite /eihardt;s good intentions, it is no

-ossi6#e to te##, thanks to the recu-erative ork of Ra"mond De4a##ie, that55and

ho55/eihardt im-osed his on agenda on the resu#ting te>t. In -articu#ar, he

as at -ains to su--ress the evidence of +#ack E#k;s accu#turation. To this end,

/eihardt ended the narrative ith the massacre at Wounded nee in 8)&$ and

omitted an" mention or ackno#edgement of +#ack E#k;s conversion to Roman

Catho#icism ear#" in the tentieth centur".

In theor", it ou#d have 6een -ossi6#e for +#ack E#k to have revieed the te>tB it

cou#d have 6een trans#ated 6ack to him 6" the same co##a6orators ho -roduced

the transcri-ts. !uch a -rocess ou#d have 6een dicu#t, hoever, and it ou#d

not necessari#" have ena6#ed him to assess the im-#ications of -u6#ishing this

account of his #ife. s it ha--ened, he as not given the o--ortunit" to audit the

te>t. nd, as De4a##ie revea#s, hen the 6ook as -u6#ished, it 6ecame a source

of some discomfort to him. The reservation c#erg" ere u-set that the 6ook

-ortra"ed their mode# convert as an unreconstructed ?#onghair.? #though e

have no a" of knoing +#ack E#k;s fu## res-onse to this, e do kno that he fe#t

im-e##ed to ?s-eak? again55in a document that rearmed his Christian faith.

Indeed, he com-#ained that he had anted /eihardt to inc#ude a cha-ter

narrating his conversion. #though it is tem-ting to read these com-#aints as

induced 6" c#erica# -ressure, it a--ears that /eihardt;s re-resentation of +#ack

E#k did not com-#ete#" conform to his se#f5image and the acce-ted image of him

in his communit". The aftermath of -u6#ication suggests that he fe#t that the 6ook

did him some inustice 7De4a##ie J$9.7n889

The e@uit" of the -artnershi- has to do ith the conditions and division of #a6or

and the distri6ution of the -roceeds. !ince this as-ect has more to do ith the

-rocess than ith the te>tua# -roduct of the co##a6oration, vio#ations here ma"

not 6e manifest in the te>t and are #ess eas" for critics to detect. 7Issues of

onershi- and distri6ution of the -roceeds of the co##a6oration are genera##"

#east accessi6#e to our ins-ection.9 In the case of +#ack E#k, the e@uit" of the

-artnershi-, as e## as of the -ortra"a#, have come into @uestion: De4a##ie;s

research uncovered a #etter in hich +#ack E#k com-#ained that he had not 6een

com-ensated as -romised for his contri6ution to the 6ook 7De4a##ie &5J%9.

-rime concern ith an" -artnershi- is hether co##a6oration is tru#" vo#untar"or someho coerced. 4ost of us ou#d imagine ine@uities of -artnershi- as

8/10/2019 Style 1998


occurring e>c#usive#" in the ethnogra-hic scenario, as -art of its -resuma6#"

im-eria#istic nature, 6ut the" ma" occur in the ce#e6rit" scenario as e##. There

the re#ationshi- 6eteen su6ect and riter is sometimes e=ective#" that

6eteen em-#o"er and em-#o"ee, ith a## the -otentia# for a6use that #ies in such

re#ations. ccording to ndre !*anton, a -rofessiona# riter of auto6iogra-hies,

7n8(9 riters have more at risk economica##" in these co##a6orations than su6ectsdo, since the -roect often re-resents the riters; #ive#ihood 6ut rare#" that of the

su6ects, ho are genera##" <nancia##" secure. That economic securit" ma", of

course, make them generous. In some instances, su6ects ma" in e=ect give

aa" their #ife stories, 6ut these are genera##" not the most marketa6#e ones. In

an" case, there is some -otentia# even in the ce#e6rit" scenario for economic

e>-#oitation.

case of a riter c#aiming e>-#oitation is that of Wi##iam /ovak, ho agreed to a

Hat fee for riting his <rst ce#e6rit" auto6iogra-h", Iacocca, hich then sur-rised

him 6" 6ecoming a 6est5se##er. When his re@uest for a share of the -a-er6ack

ro"a#ties as turned don, /ovak fe#t he had 6een cheated out of his fair share of

the -roceeds. 3e com-#ained -u6#ic#", to no avai# 7W"den9. Des-ite an" ine@uit"

in the distri6utions of -roceeds, /ovak had no #ega# recourse, having signed a

contract that a=orded him no ro"a#ties, and his ethica# -osition as undermined

6" the fact that Iacocca donated his ro"a#ties to charit". In an" case, to the e>tent

that his career took o= after 7and as a resu#t of9 his riting of Iacocca, the

ine@uit" as at #east -artia##" redressed.

nother ethica# di#emma characteristic of ce#e6rit" auto6iogra-h" is the -ossi6#e

conHict 6eteen the riter;s o6#igation to -ortra" the su6ect as he or she ou#d

ish and the o6#igation to the historica# record. 4ichae# orda has ritten

instructive#" on the -ro6#em that Rona#d Reagan;s se#ective memor" -osed for his

co##a6orator, Ro6ert Lindse". For e>am-#e, Reagan remem6ered a tete a tete ith

4ikhai# 2or6achev in a 6oathouse on Lake 2eneva as a turning -oint in his

negotiations ith 2or6achev in /ovem6er 8&)B in fact, the to had not 6een

a#one together 6ut rather surrounded 6" a num6er of trans#ators and securit"

-eo-#e 7orda &(9. 4ore -ro6#ematica##", a#though Reagan s-ent the ar "ears in

3o##"ood, he remem6ered having 6een -resent ith the 1nited !tates !igna#

Cor-s at the #i6eration of the 2erman concentration cam-s55a memor"

a--ro-riated from documentar" <#m of that -rocess 7&%9. !uch #a-ses in memor"

force co##a6orators to choose 6eteen serving as com-#iant corro6orators and

functioning as rea#it" checks, 6eteen #o"a#t" to their su6ects and <de#it" to

historica# truth. Each co##a6orator needs to decide ho aggressive#" and

e>tensive#" to check the accurac" of the record he is he#-ing to create. The

6iogra-her;s -osition is di=erent: for him or her, there is a c#ear o6#igation to

check the record and no necessar" o6#igation to the su6ect55e>ce-t in the case

of the authori*ed 6iogra-her. uto6iogra-hers, interesting#", are genera##" not

vieed as o6#iged to research their on #ivesB the -resumed su6ectivit" of the

genre gains them a degree of #atitude.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


The -rofessiona# auto6iogra-her ma", #ike ndre !*anton, think of his ro#e as

ana#ogous to that of the defense attorne", ho ma" kno more than he divu#ges

and hose ethica# o6#igation is to -ut the 6est -ossi6#e face on his c#ient;s

6ehavior ithout outright dece-tion. This ma" 6e the -ro-er ethica# stance forthe -rofessiona# co##a6oratorB the -rofessiona# critic, hoever, is usti<ed in

-utting a higher va#ue on historica# truth. In cases, es-ecia##" ethnogra-hic ones,

in hich the mode#, or source, is taken advantage of 6" the riter, the ethica#

dut" of the critic ma" 6e to defend the disenfranchised su6ectB in the case of

ce#e6rit" auto6iogra-h", the ethica# dut" of the critic ma" 6e to -rotect the

historica# record.

Co##a6orations, #ike these, ith ce#e6rities are a#a"s consensua#B in an" case,

the" a#so have 6ui#t5in checks and 6a#ances that ma" deter or at #east minimi*ee>-#oitation. Each -artner ma" use for #everage the indis-ensa6i#it" of his or her

contri6ution. Ce#e6rit" su6ects ou#d seem to have the u--er hand, since

-resuma6#" their stories are the sine @ua non of the -roect7n8%9B the" can

threaten to cease coo-erating and choose other -artners. +ut their #ives are not

co-"righta6#e, and if the" cease coo-erating, their co##a6orators ma" -oint out

that, in order to -rotect their investment of time and #a6or, their on#" a#ternative

is to turn hat ere to 6e auto6iogra-hies into 6iogra-hies. Their #everage #ies in

the fact that, though -resuma6#" not as marketa6#e as co##a6orative

auto6iogra-hies, 6iogra-hies do not have to 6e as Hattering. 7+iogra-hers; ethica#

o6#igations to their su6ects are @uite di=erent from those of co##a6oratorsBindeed, contem-orar" 6iogra-h" ou#d suggest that 6iogra-hers fee# #itt#e or no

ethica# o6#igation to their su6ects.7n8'99 In the case of co##a6orative ce#e6rit"

auto6iogra-h", then, the d"namics of the co##a6oration serve to minimi*e the

-otentia# for ine@uit" in 6oth dimensions55that of the -ortra"a# and that of the

-artnershi-B su6ects unha--" ith their -ortra"a#s can demand revisionsB riters

unha--" ith the terms of the co##a6oration can tr" to renegotiate them.

/everthe#ess, such checks and 6a#ances sometimes fai# to -revent dissensionB

#ike the marriages to hich the" are often com-ared, co##a6orative -artnershi-ssometimes come a-art, sometimes acrimonious#". -ertinent case here is the

stor" of the fai#ed co##a6oration 6eteen Fa" incent, the former commissioner of

6ase6a##, and David . a-#an. incent ithdre from the co##a6oration on his

memoir, +ase6a## +reaks Kour 3eart, as the manuscri-t as nearing com-#etion

in 8&&', a--arent#" 6ecause he as re#uctant to -u6#ish a 6ook that ou#d revive

the controversies in hich he had 6een invo#ved 7!andomir9. 7incent did not

cha##enge the accurac" of the manuscri-t 6ut rather its toneB the rea# issue

seemed to 6e hosti#e references to -eo-#e he as dea#ing ith at the time, such

as 2eorge !tein6renner. Im-#icit#", then, he as suggesting that -u6#ication of

the 6ook ou#d do him harm: cause him -ain 6" rekind#ing some of theantagonisms of his "ears in oce.9 In the summer of 8&&, a-#an took incent

8/10/2019 Style 1998


to court, c#aiming the right, as co5author and oint co-"right oner, to -u6#ish the

6ook on his onB his c#aim as, in e=ect, that incent had de-rived him of the

fruits of his #a6or.

!uch a conHict 6eteen co##a6orators -oints u- an issue c#ose to the heart of

co##a6orative auto6iogra-h": hose -ro-ert" is the co##a6orative#" -roduced #ife

stor"M incent;s -osition is that, a#though he shared co-"right ith a-#an, he

retained contro# of the <na# manuscri-tB as his #a"er remarked: ?3o cou#d it 6e

an" other a"M 0therise, it;s giving "our #ife stor" to someone e#se.? The

anser to the @uestion ?Whose #ife is it, an"a"M? ma" not 6e as sim-#e as

incent;s #a"er suggests, since the manuscri-t in @uestion as in -art the

-roduct of a-#an;s ork55inc#uding inde-endent research. The non-artisan #ega#

o-inions cited in the /e Kork Times, hoever, come don most#" on incent;s

side, on the -rinci-#e that, un#ess he e>-#icit#" gave u- contro# over the

manuscri-t, he shou#d sti## 6e assumed to have it. s one co-"right #a"er -ut it:

?-eo-#e orking on a co##a6oration a6out their on #ives tend to contro# their

stories, unti# the" give u- contro#.? 7This is not as tauto#ogica# as it sounds.9 +ut

incent;s case rests uneasi#" on ?ora# agreements? he c#aims to have made ith

a-#anB in a -re#iminar" ru#ing, the udge ?rote that he as not -ersuaded that

the co5authors ere 6ound 6" an ora# contract.?

In ethnogra-hic auto6iogra-h", here the 6a#ance of -oer favors the riter

over the su6ect, the ethica# -itfa##s are @uite di=erent. Co##a6oration issu--osed#" a matter of give and take, 6ut in the ethnogra-hic scenario the most

o6vious danger is the taking of #i6erties55the a--ro-riation of a #ife stor" for

-ur-oses not shared, understood, or consented to 6" the su6ect. This is a

-articu#ar danger of the ethnogra-hic scenario 6ecause55as as evident#" the

case ith +#ack E#k55di=erences of cu#ture ma" im-ede or -revent the o6taining

of tru#" informed consent. The same ma" 6e true, as indicated a6ove, of

di=erences in age or somatic conditionB indeed, I ou#d -ut most -arenta#

memoirs of chi#dren and some disa6i#it" narratives in the ethnogra-hic categor".

For instance, 4ichae# Dorris;s +roken Cord, his account of raising an ado-ted son

hose deve#o-ment as a=ected 6" Feta# #coho# !"ndrome, <ts 6oth categories:

it is a -arenta# memoir of a disa6#ed chi#d that conforms distur6ing#" to the

ethnogra-hic scenario. 0ne conse@uence of Dorris;s discover" of the source of

dam;s -ro6#ems55his 6irth5mother;s a#coho#ism55is the tendenc" to treat him as a

t"-e rather than as an individua#. Whi#e the ear#" cha-ters focus on dam;s

-ro6#ems of deve#o-ment, he is -ortra"ed there as a fu##" individua#i*ed

character. s is the case in most -arenta# narratives of im-aired chi#dren, the

em-hasis is on e=orts to ma>imi*e his -otentia#, des-ite his #imitations. Em-hasis

6egins to shift to hat dam cannot do after Dorris and Erdrich ado-t other

/ative merican chi#dren, ho e>em-#if" ?norms? that dam doesn;t measure u-

to 7see, for e>am-#e, 8($, 8(5(&9. This tendenc" cu#minates in the 6ook;s

-eroration, hich o=ers a #itan" of things dam i## never understand or

a--reciate 7(J'9.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


fter the moment of ?diagnosis,? dam tends to 6ecome a t"-e and his stor" a

case histor"B em-hasis shifts to his generic 7genetic9 traits and to #arger cu#tura#

-ro6#ems. nd eventua##", as narrator, Dorris a6andons the ro#e of advocate for

his son and takes u- the ro#e of crusader against the use of a#coho# 6" -regnantomen. Indeed, insofar as dam;s -ro6#ems are seen to resu#t from cu#tura#

-atho#og" in the /ative merican communit", the 6ook veers toard

ethnogra-hic #ife riting, or even ethnogra-h" -ro-er. Dorris assumes the ro#e of

the outside e>-ert or anthro-o#ogica# authorit"55usua##" a non5native55ho en#ists

in a co##a6orative #ife5riting -roect a native su6ect not otherise inc#ined to

generate an auto6iogra-h". It is unusua#, and trou6#ing, that in this instance the

ro#e of the anthro-o#ogist is assumed 6" a -arent and that the ?informant? is his

son. The crucia# di=erence from most ethnogra-h", hoever, is that here the

dis-arit" 6eteen the to -arties is not a di=erence in race or cu#tureB rather,

that dis-arit" is a function of dam;s congenita# F!5re#ated cognitive disa6i#ities,hich, though re#ated to -atterns of Indian a#coho# a6use, are not intrinsic to his

cu#tura# heritage. In -ractice, then, though for ver" di=erent reasons than those

o-erating in most ear#ier te>ts, this 6ook;s -roduction invo#ved the sort of

as"mmetrica# co##a6oration t"-ica# of ethnogra-hic auto6iogra-h", in hich the

editor tends to e>ercise cu#tura# authorit" over his ?su6ect.?7n89

What is tendered as autonomous se#f5re-resentation55the a--ended narrative 6"

the son, ?The !tor" of dam Dorris 6" dam Dorris?55is in e=ect mediated in a"s

the -utative auto6iogra-her cannot understand or contro#. Gust as he seemedinca-a6#e of adusting his a--earance in ever"da" #ife to the e>-ectations of

others, dam cou#d not fu##" imagine, and thus cou#d not censor, the a" he as

6eing -resented to a reading -u6#ic. In this case, the su6ect is -ut at a

disadvantage not so much 6" his cu#ture as 6" his disa6i#it". Des-ite Dorris;s

no6#e intentions, then, he -roduced a 6ook in hich disa6i#it" assumes the ro#e of

cu#tura# di=erence in de<ning and su6ugating the 0ther in anthro-o#ogica#

discourse. #though Dorris did e#icit dam;s testimon", that testimon" serves

main#" to corro6orate Dorris;s characteri*ation of dam in the narrative that

-recedes and introduces it. dam;s te>t is contained and de<ned 6" his father;s.

0n the ho#e, then, Dorris seems to have arrogated authorit" in a"s reminiscentof ?co#onia#? ethnogra-h".

Co##a6orative auto6iogra-h" is inherent#" ventri#o@uistic. The d"namics of the

ventri#o@uism, hoever55the direction in hich the voice is ?thron?55ma" var"

ith the #ocation of the co##a6oration on the continuum descri6ed ear#ier. In

ethnogra-hic auto6iogra-h", the danger tends to 6e that of attri6uting to the

su6ect a voice and narrative not originating ith him or her55and that he or she

ma" not have edited. +#ack E#k !-eaks is a c#assic e>am-#eB indeed, the most

fre@uent#" @uoted -aragra-hs have turned out to 6e ho##" /eihardt;s invention. This danger e>ists, of course, in ce#e6rit" auto6iogra-h", as e##B some

8/10/2019 Style 1998


ce#e6rities55nota6#" Darr"# !tra6err" and Rona#d Reagan55have notorious#" not

read, much #ess ritten, their so5ca##ed ?auto6iogra-hies.? +ut, un#ike +#ack E#k,

the" cou#d have revieed the -rose ascri6ed to them. In ce#e6rit" auto6iogra-h",

-erha-s the greater danger is the reverse d"namic, in hich the su6ect assumes

or is given more credit for the riting than is #egitimate. #though I am otherise

e>c#uding ghostritten auto6iogra-h" from consideration here55that is, the use of an unackno#edged co##a6orator55I ou#d -oint out that, 6" academic standards,

ghostritten auto6iogra-h" is tantamount to -#agiarism. If the ghostriter

consents to 6eing anon"mous, as is usua##" the case, the -rocess is not

-#agiarism in the sense of a--ro-riation of another;s inte##ectua# -ro-ert" ithout

-ermission: the arrangement is that the riter;s com-ensation takes the form of

a -a"check and not a 6"#ine,7n8J9 so there;s no vio#ation of the -artnershi-. nd

of course the ide acce-tance of the -ractice55#ike that of Presidentia#

s-eechriting 6" ghosts55suggests that there is not considered to 6e an"

dishonest" invo#ved 6ecause none 6ut the most naive might 6e foo#ed. 3ere is a

good e>am-#e of a case here the ethics of trade -u6#ishing and those ofacademic -u6#ishing di=er shar-#". +ut a ghostritten auto6iogra-h" does, I

think, raise a minor ethica# issue ith regard to the truthfu#ness of the -ortra"a#.

The te>t im-#icit#" fa#si<es 6oth the histor" of its su6ect55ho did not in fact #a6or

sing#ehanded#" to -roduce it55and his or her image: he or she ma" not 6e a

-erson ca-a6#e of riting such a te>t.

Looked at from another ang#e, the -roection of the voice of the riter or

inter#ocutor onto the su6ect is tantamount to forger".7n89 This occurs main#"

ith ghostritten ce#e6rit" auto6iogra-h", here the signature of the source ma"

6e orth more than the signature of the riter. s Phi#i--e Leeune -oints out,

ith ethnogra-hic co##a6oration, the ?stor" takes its va#ue, in the e"es of the

reader, from the fact that the su6ects 6e#ong 7that the" are -erceived as

6e#onging9 to a cu#ture other than his on, a cu#ture de<ned 6" the e>c#usion of

riting? 78&J9. com-#e> 6ut re#ative#" mi#d form of this -ro6#em seems to have

occurred in the #iterar" aftermath of the death of Diana !-encer. ndre 4orton,

the author of a 6iogra-h" ca##ed Diana, 3er True !tor", c#aimed, after her death,

that his tit#e had 6een an understatement: the 6ook as not mere#" a true stor"

6ut her stor" in the sense that she as its -rinci-#e source 73oge9. ccording#",

he rushed into -rint a ne version ith the amended tit#e: Diana, 3er True !tor"55In 3er 0n Words. In e=ect, then, 4orton c#aimed that a 6ook -resented

origina##" as ?his? 6iogra-h" of her as in fact a covert#" co##a6orative #ife5riting

-roect55a sort of ghostritten 6iogra-h", or -seudon"mous auto6iogra-h" in the

third -erson. 3is c#aims raise ethica# issues aside from the @uestiona6#e -ro-riet"

of his attem-t to ca-ita#i*e on Diana;s death 6" reviving his ?#ife? of her. If his

c#aim is not true, then this case is an instance of one ethica# vio#ation, forger"55

the fa#se attri6ution of materia# to the ?su6ect? of the 6ook in order to heighten

its a--arent authenticit" 7and thus, not incidenta##", its a#read" considera6#e

commercia# va#ue9. If it is true, the act is -ro6a6#" a vio#ation of a -#edge to kee-

her contri6ution con<dentia#.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


Forged or ventri#o@uistic auto6iogra-h" ma" take #ess 6enign forms than this55if

e 6roaden our sco-e 6e"ond those -ractices usua##" deemed #iterar" or

anthro-o#ogica#. s 4argreta de 2ra*ia has -ointed out, a fa#se confession

o6tained 6" means of torture might eu-hemistica##" 6e descri6ed as?co##a6orative auto6iogra-h"?B such a te>t ou#d o6vious#" invo#ve ine@uit" in

-ortra"a# as e## as of ?-artnershi-?B in such cases, 6oth the -rocess and the

-roduct ma" 6e e>treme#" harmfu# to the su6ect. Indeed, here the faking of a #ife

ma" @uite #itera##" invo#ve the taking of a #ife. The e>tortion of a true confession55

that is, a confession to a crime the confessor did commit55cou#d a#so 6e descri6ed

on#" eu-hemistica##" as a co##a6orative auto6iogra-h". The d"namics of the

?confessions? of condemned -risoners in Eng#and in the eighteenth centur" can

i##ustrate ho the ethnogra-hic and the ce#e6rit" scenarios ma" com-#ement one

another. In5house confessions ?dictated? to -rison ordinaries and distri6uted at

the time of e>ecution55as if s-ontaneous and simu#taneous ith the e>ecution55ere sometimes su--#emented 6" e>tramura# accounts ritten 6" ourna#ists for

a -o-u#ar audience. The in5house ?confessions,? hich ere coerced, sometimes

6" torture, reHected the authorit" of the state in more than one sense: the" ere

scri-ted according to narro conventions and reHected the a--arent

interna#i*ation of se#f5condemning socia# norms. 7The" ere confessions in the

re#igious and mora# as e## as the #ega# sense.9 In contrast, convicts might

arrange to -roduce, ith the co##a6oration of an inde-endent ourna#ist #ike Danie#

Defoe, a @uite di=erent sort of testimon"55a kind of crimina#;s ce#e6rit" memoir.

Prisoners ou#d 6e treated more favora6#" in terms of 6oth -rocess and -ortra"a#

in the e>tramura# confessions than in the intramura# ones. Though the" might 6eformu#aic, these te>ts ere more vo#untari#" -roduced, and the su6ect as more

in contro# of his on re-resentation. Whi#e these accounts might 6e -referred on

ethica# grounds 6ecause of their #ess com-u#sor" @ua#it", the" ou#d of course 6e

more at odds ith the ocia# ethos.7n8)9

Further e>am-#es of su6t#" coercive55and thus unethica#55co##a6orative #ife riting

ma" 6e found in a6uses of -s"chiatric -ractice. 4ost forms of -s"chothera-"

invo#ve55indeed, consist of55hat might 6e seen as ?co##a6orative auto6iogra-h".?

What is idea##" a 6enign and thera-eutic -rocess, hoever, is #ia6#e to ethica#misuse 7#ike an" co##a6oration ith a -rofessiona#, such as a -h"sician or #a"er9.

06vious e>am-#es ma" 6e found in the ?recovering? of fa#se memories of a6use

or other trauma55e>ce-t that here e have not coerced confession 6ut coerced

accusation55auto6iogra-h" as character assassination.

nother re#evant distinction 6eteen co##a6orative #ife5riting scenarios ma" 6e

found in the degree of -rofessiona#i*ation of the authors. Toda", ethnogra-h" in

the narro sense is -roduced 6" -rofessiona# anthro-o#ogists, ho are current#"

haunted 6" the com-#icit" of ethnogra-h" in im-eria#ism, cu#tura# or otherise.Indeed, ethnogra-h" and ethnogra-hic #ife riting have 6een so thorough#"

8/10/2019 Style 1998


theori*ed and ana#"*ed as to have 6een virtua##" -ara#"*ed. +" a 6roader

de<nition, of course, the ethnogra-hic scenario inc#udes amateur -ractices, such

as /eihardt;s co##a6oration ith +#ack E#k, in hich -rofessiona# ethics are

none>istent or not high#" deve#o-ed. !imi#ar#", those ho rite ce#e6rit"

auto6iogra-h" for a #iving are not organi*ed -rofessiona##"B the" are a re#ative#"

sma## num6er of free#ancers ho function according to their on #ights, ratherthan an" esta6#ished ethica# discourse or guide#ines 7!*anton intervie9. Fina##",

those ho co##a6orate in scenarios toard the midd#e of the continuum 6eteen

ethnogra-hic and ce#e6rit" co##a6oration55for e>am-#e, -arenta# 6iogra-hers of

chi#dren or those ho co##a6orate ith the i## and the disa6#ed to rite their #ives55

are genera##" even #ess conscious of 6eing -art of a -rofessiona# grou- ith

ethica# restraints.

Co##a6orative auto6iogra-h" is -racticed toda" ith great fre@uenc" and

o-enness. t #east, this is one im-#ication of a recent !teiner cartoon in the /e

Korker. The scene is an e#ementar" schoo# c#assroom, com-#ete ith a g#o6e on

the teacher;s desk and a Hag in the corner. To students, a 6o" and a gir#, stand

ne>t to the teacher;s desk, facing the rest of their c#ass. The 6o" smi#es smug#",

hands c#as-ed 6ehind his 6ack, hi#e the gir# reads from a -a-er she is ho#ding:

?AWhat I did #ast summer,; 6" !cott !eningen, as to#d to !amantha 2erhart.?

The teacher;s e>-ression is im-ossi6#e to read, 6ut one onders a6out the

e#ementar" ethics hereB hat ou#d c#ear#" 6e cheating, if done surre-titious#"55

the riting of one student;s com-osition 6" another55is a--arent#" acce-ta6#e

hen done o-en#". The oke is, I guess, that co##a6orative auto6iogra-h" has

trick#ed don to the #eve# of the c#iched <rst assignment of the schoo# "ear. If this

cartoon is an indication, co##a6orative auto6iogra-h" i## on#" 6ecome more

commonB if that is so, e need to e>tend and intensif" our consideration of the

fu## range of ethica# issues it raises.

We ma" a--#" ethica# standards in to di=erent scenarios. 0ne is retros-ectiveB

e ma" investigate and stand in udgment of the ethics of -u6#ished te>ts. The

other is -ros-ectiveB e ma" seek to head o= ethica# vio#ations 6" setting forth

guide#ines to inHuence future #ife riting. Whichever scenario e o-erate ithin,

our inHuence and -oer are indirect and di=use. We need to remem6er that, as

critics of #ife riting, e occu-" a distinct and akard -osition ith res-ect to

the -ractice of itB our ethics ma" 6e at odds ith the ethics of those55-rofessiona#

as e## as amateur55ho -ractice co##a6orative #ife riting. nd e need to 6e

attentive to the 6ene<ts as e## as the #ia6i#ities of co##a6oration. For e>am-#e, it

ma" 6e tem-ting to decr" ethnogra-hic auto6iogra-h" insofar as it ma" seem

inherent#" to reduce its su6ects to t"-es. +ut such an o6ection to ethnogra-h"

ma" invoke va#ues, such as that of the uni@ueness of the individua#, that are a#ien

to some of the cu#tures it seeks to re-resent. It ma" 6e, too, that the recu-erative

6ene<ts of ethnogra-h" outeigh its costs. For e>am-#e, it cou#d 6e argued that,

des-ite /eihardt;s taking of some #i6erties in his co##a6oration ith +#ack E#k, the

te>t the" -roduced co##a6orative#" has he#-ed to -reserve and to disseminate

8/10/2019 Style 1998


Lakota cu#tureB +#ack E#k and his -eo-#e have 6ene<tted from the co##a6oration in

a"s he ma" not fu##" have antici-ated. In an" case, it ma" 6e unise for us to

devise ethica# -rinci-#es that ou#d e=ective#" censor or censure ho#e genres of

#ife riting. Literar" critics ma" have an im-ortant ro#e to -#a" in the ongoing

deve#o-ment of co##a6orative #ife riting55-articu#ar#" if e e>tend our

consideration 6e"ond the te>ts traditiona##" considered #iterar"556ut e need to6e carefu# of se#f5righteousness55of devising, in the iso#ation of the ivor" toer,

e>cessive#" fastidious -rinci-#es.

/otes

7n89 0ther forms of #ife riting a#so invo#ve co##a6oration55more so than is

sometimes ackno#edged. +iogra-h"55even hen not authori*ed55is never done

sing#e5handed#", at #east hen #iving sources are consu#ted. uto6iogra-h" is

often, -erha-s a#most a#a"s, a re#ationa# enter-rise. Even hen it is not, it ma"

re@uire 6ackstage consu#tation ith others to <## in memor";s ga-s. I con<ne

m"se#f, hoever, to auto6iogra-hica# -roects that invo#ve conscious and active

coo-eration.

7n(9 4ore technica# terms for narrator and -rotagonist are ?the su6ect s-eaking?

and ?the su6ect s-oken,? as used 6" de 2ra*ia 7(&$9. Whi#e usefu#, these terms

a#so seem to me c#ums".

7n%9 ?!u6ect? is toda" an am6iguous, mu#tiva#ent term: grammatica##", itsuggests agenc"B -o#itica##", it suggests the o--osite55-assivit" or su6ordinationB

in -oststructura#ism, it suggests constructedness and -rovisiona#it". 3ere I use it

in none of these senses, 6ut rather the ever"da" sense of ?to-ic?55in this case,

the -erson the 6ook is a6out.

!ome critics refer to the su6ect of co##a6orative auto6iogra-h" as the ?dictator?

others as the ?s-eaker.? In the case of ethnogra-hic auto6iogra-h", ?dictator?

seems too often ironic, in vie of the -o#itica# meaning of that termB that is, it

im-#ies a kind of dominance not characteristic of the usua# s-eakerB in the casesof ce#e6rit" auto6iogra-h", it ma" 6e more a-t, 6ut even there it underestimates

the agenc" of the co##a6orator.

The -ro6#em ith using the term ?s-eaker? for those Phi#i--e Leeune refers to as

?those ho do not rite? is that some ho do not rite do not s-eak either. I am

thinking here not so much of deaf -eo-#e, ho ma" use !ign to communicate

their narratives and ho genera##" can read the ritten narrative their

co##a6orators -roduce, 6ut rather those hose disa6i#it" ma" -revent s-eech and

!ign as e## as riting55such as those ith cere6ra# -a#s" or other such disorders.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


In an" case, ?s-eaker? im-#ies the a6i#it" to s-eak, hich is not universa##" the

case, and cases of disa6i#it" are e>treme#" interesting and -ro6#ematic in this

regard. !ee m" discussion of !ienkieic*54ercer 6e#o.

What to ca## the other -artner is a#so -ro6#ematic: ?author? is sometimes

technica##" correct, 6ut sometimes the co##a6orators are co5authors. Even hen

the" are not, ?author? ma" ascri6e the resu#ting te>t unfair#" to one -artner.

!imi#ar#", ?riter? ma" overstate the intervieer;s ro#e, hi#e ?editor? usua##"

understates it. +ecause in most cases one -artner does most of hat e usua##"

mean 6" ?rite?55inscri6e ords 6" hand in #asting form55I use ?riter? for the

-artner more res-onsi6#e for the com-osition of the te>t.

7n'9 In the c#assic ana#"sis of ?The uto6iogra-h" of Those Who Do /ot Write,?Phi#i--e Leeune minimi*es the di=erence 6eteen so#o and co##a6orative

auto6iogra-h", arguing that co##a6orative auto6iogra-h" e>-oses the di=erent

ro#es invo#ved even in the -roduction of so#o auto6iogra-h":

-erson is a#a"s severa# -eo-#e hen he is riting, even a## a#one, even his

on #ife. ... +" re#ative#" iso#ating the ro#es, the co##a6orative auto6iogra-h"

ca##s into @uestion again the 6e#ief in a unit" that under#ies, in the

auto6iogra-hica# genre, the notion of author and that of -erson. We can divide

the ork in this a" on#" 6ecause it is in fact a#a"s divided in this a", evenhen the -eo-#e ho are riting fai# to recogni*e this, 6ecause the" assume the

di=erent ro#es themse#ves. n"one ho decides to rite his #ife stor" acts as if he

ere his on ghostriter. 78))9

Whi#e this is a shred o6servation, it can 6e disregarded here 6ecause an

intra-ersona# division of #a6or does not raise the ethica# issues inherent in an

inter-ersona# co##a6oration.

7n9 nd, as it ha--ens, those in the -u6#ishing 6usiness sometimes use the

marriage ana#og" for co##a6orative riting -artnershi-s.

7nJ9 !ee m" cha-ter ?3ISID! and Its !tories? in Recovering +odies: I##ness,

Disa6i#it", and Life Writing, es-ecia##" the section ?Fami#" P#ots: Re#ationa# ID!

4emoirs.?

8/10/2019 Style 1998


7n9 I am tem-ted to ca## this form of #ife riting ?ce#e6ritor"? sic auto6iogra-h"B

I regard it as a -ecu#iar modern version of hagiogra-h".

7n)9 Rosemar" G. Coom6e has argued that ce#e6rit" identit" is authored

co##a6orative#" and co##ective#", rather than individua##". /everthe#ess, in the

market-#ace, the ce#e6rit" has the advantage of #icensing hisSher on re-#ication.

7n&9 n e>am-#e of the former ou#d 6e Cancer in To oices 6" !andra +ut#er

and +ar6ara Rosen6#um.

7n8$9 For a fu##er account of this e>am-#e, see m" cha-ter ?+#ack E#k !-eaks With

Forked Tongue,? in #tered Egos: uthorit" in merican uto6iogra-h", 8)&5($&.

7n889 I do not ant to -ortra" +#ack E#k as mere#" a victim in this -rocess. It is

#ike#" that the 6ook reHected his shred use of an unfami#iar medium55

auto6iogra-h"55to conve" his vision to a #arger audience. Each -artner ma" have

used the other in a"s of hich the other as unaare.

7n8(9 !*anton has ritten the memoirs of Eugene Wigner, a 3ungarian56orn4anhattan Proect -h"sicist, and of Char#es Evers, a civi# rights #eader and

6rother of 4edgar EversB he is current#" riting the memoirs of former

4assachusetts !enator, Edard +rooke.

7n8%9 !uch stories are not a#a"s orth hat -u6#ishers -a" for them. For

e>am-#e, according to 4ichae# orda, of !imon and !chuster, a#though

Presidentia# memoirs usua##" #ose mone", -u6#ishers ma" sti## 6e seduced 6" the

g#amour of having an e>5-resident as a ?author? 7))9.

7n8'9 It is hard to imagine a contem-orar" 6iogra-her conc#uding, as 4.0.W.

0#i-hant did one hundred "ears ago, that a 6iogra-her ho discovers une>-ected

Has in his or her su6ect ?might e## consider not riting the 6iogra-h" at a##?

7+ergmann %9.

7n89 For a fu## consideration of this 6ook, see m" essa" ?Raising dam.?

8/10/2019 Style 1998


7n8J9 Indeed, ust as riters ho take -ride in their craft ma" insist on contro##ing

the <na# te>t, the" might a#so -refer not to have attri6uted to them a ork that

reHects the ver6a# invention of their su6ects.

7n89 !ee de 2ra*ia on the distinction 6eteen -#agiarism and forger" 7(&&9.

7n8)9 4" account of these memoirs is inde6ted to 3a# 2#adfe#der;s 8&& 4L

-a-er, ?AI Want to Te## Kou;: 2host uthors and Crimina# !u6ects in the

Eighteenth Centur".?

Works Cited

+ergmann, Linda !. ?Widos, 3acks, and +iogra-hers: The oice of

Professiona#ism in E#i*a6eth gassi*;s Louis gassi*: 3is Life andCorres-ondence.? S+: utoS+iogra-h" !tudies 8(.8 7!-ring 8&&9: 85(8.


Ca#ifornia P, 8&)).

+ut#er, !andra, and +ar6ara Rosen6#um. Cancer in To oices. !an Francisco:

!-insters, 8&&8.

Coom6e, Rosemar" G. ?uthorSi*ing the Ce#e6rit": Pu6#icit" Rights, Postmodern

Po#itics, and 1nauthori*ed 2enders.? Woodmansee 8$85%8.

Couser, 2. Thomas. #tered Egos: uthorit" in merican uto6iogra-h". /e Kork:

0>ford 1P, 8&)&.

55555. ?Raising dam: Ethnicit", Disa6i#it", and the Ethics of Life Writing in 4ichae#

Dorris;s The +roken Cord.? +iogra-h" (8.' 78&&)9: '(85''.

55555. Recovering +odies: I##ness, Disa6i#it", and Life Writing. 4adison: 1 of

Wisconsin P, 8&&. de 2ra*ia, 4argreta. ?!anctioning oice: Ouotation 4arks, the

6o#ition of Torture, and the Fifth mendment.? Woodmansee ()85%$(.

De4a##ie, Ra"mond G. Introduction. The !i>th 2randfather: +#ack E#k;s Teachings

as 2iven to Gohn 2. /eihardt. Ed. Ra"mond G. De4a##ie. Linco#n: 1 of /e6raska P,

8&)'. %5&&.

Eakin, Pau# Gohn. ?Re#ationa# !e#ves, Re#ationa# Lives: The !tor" of the !tor".? True

Re#ations: Essa"s on uto6iogra-h" and the Postmodern. Ed. 2. Thomas Couser

and Gose-h Fichte#6erg. West-ort: 2reenood, 8&&).J%)8.

2#adfe#der, 3a# 2i6son. ?AI Want to Te## Kou;: 2host uthors and Crimina# !u6ects

in the Eighteenth Centur".? 1n-u6#ished -a-er. 4L, Toronto, () Decem6er 8&&.

3a#e", #e>. ?E-i#ogue.? The uto6iogra-h" of 4a#co#m , 6" 4a#co#m , ith #e>3a#e". /e Kork: 2rove, 8&J. %)%5'J.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


3oge, Warren. ?/o It Can +e To#d: 8&&( Te##5## +ook;s !ource Was Diana.? /e

Kork Times, %$ !e-tem6er 8&&: .

orda, 4ichae#. ?Prom-ting the President.? /e Korker J 0cto6er 8&&: ))5&.

ru-at, rno#d. For Those Who Come fter: !tud" of /ative merican

uto6iogra-h". +erke#e": 1 of Ca#ifornia P, 8&).

Leeune, Phi#i--e. ?The uto6iogra-h" of Those Who Do /ot Write.? 0n

uto6iogra-h". 4innea-o#is: 1 of 4innesota P, 8&)&. 8)5(8.

!andomir, Richard. ?Co5uthor !ues to Pu6#ish incent +ook.? /e Kork Times, 88

ugust 8&&: (8, ( 7!-orts9.

!-iege#man, rt. 4aus I: !urvivor;s Ta#eB 4" Father +#eeds 3istor". /e Kork:

Pantheon, 8&)J.

55555. 4aus II: !urvivor;s Ta#eB nd 3ere 4" Trou6#es +egan. /e Kork: Pantheon,8&&8.

!teiner, P. Cartoon. /e Korker 8 !e-tem6er 8&&: (.

!*anton, ndre. The Reco##ections of Eugene P. Wigner, as to#d to ndre

!*anton. /e Kork: P#enum, 8&&(.

55555. Te#e-hone intervie. 88 /ovem6er 8&&.

55555, and Char#es Evers. 3ave /o Fear: The Char#es Evers !tor". /e Kork: Gohn

Wi#e", 8&&.

Woodmansee, 4artha, and Peter Gas*i, eds. The Construction of uthorshi-:

Te>tua# --ro-riation in La and Literature. Durham: Duke 1P, 8&&'.

W"den, Peter. ?The +#ock6ustering of Lee Iacocca.? /e Kork Times +ook Revie

8% !e-tem6er 8&): 8, '5.

+" 2. Thomas Couser, 3ofstra 1niversit"

/as#ov: Wh" Ethica# Criticism Can /ever +e !im-#e. Prema: +ooth, Wa"ne C.,


Com-#ete.

W3K ET3ICL CRITICI!4 C/ /EER +E !I4PLE

uden;s assertion that -oetr" doesn;t make things ha--en is a tid" conceit for a

me#ancho#" afternoon;s tea 6reak, 6ut as the -ra"ers smoke from the mos@ue

8/10/2019 Style 1998


and the "oung thousands chant ra-, m" era i## re5e>amine hat is ha--ening.

/or in that circum5audient air can one den"55terrif"ing, some of it55the -oer of

-rose.

553ortense Ca#isher

I

This essa" is one of man" recent e=orts, 6" m"se#f and others, to cha##enge to

critica# schoo#s -o-u#ar through much of this centur": those ho think ethica#

udgments have nothing to do ith genuine ?#iterar"? or ?aesthetic? criticism, and

those ho think that ethica# udgments a6out stories can never 6e an"thing more

than su6ective o-inion. 4" thesis is thus dou6#e: ethica# criticism is re#evant to

a## #iterature, no matter ho 6road#" or narro#" e de<ne that controversia#

termB and such criticism, hen done res-onsi6#", can 6e a genuine form ofrationa# in@uir". It is true that it i## never -roduce resu#ts near#" as

uncontroversia# as deciding hether it rained in /e Kork "esterda", or even

hether President C#inton #ied. What;s more, man" of its udgments, such as

P#ato;s e>aggerated attacks on 3omer, i## 6e reected 6" most serious ethica#

critics. Ket hen res-onsi6#e readers of -oerfu# stories engage in genuine

in@uir" a6out their ethica# va#ue, the" can -roduce resu#ts that deserve the trick"

#a6e# ?kno#edge.?7 n89

The ver" -hrase ?ethica# in@uir"? is for some thinkers an o>"moron. Ethica#indictment of a stor"M 0f course "ou can have that, as a -ersona# e>-ression.

Ethica# ce#e6rationM ## right, if it i## -#ease a co##ection of fe##o 6e#ievers. +ut

in@uir"M The ord im-#ies the chance of arriving at esta6#ished, decisive

conc#usions: kno#edge. 6out ethics, man" sti## c#aim, there can 6e no such

conc#usions55and thus no genuine in@uir" a6out them. For some these da"s, the

c#aim has 6een strengthened 6" a Hood of aggressive and often care#ess#"

-erformed denigrations of <rst5c#ass orks on grounds of se>ism, racism, anti5

!emitism, or ?c#assism.? Though se#dom trave##ing under mora# or ethica#

termino#og", these intrusions of ?ideo#ogica#? interests have seemed to some a

tota# corru-tion of the forma# or structura# standards that dominated criticism inmid5centur".7 n(9

4eanhi#e, over5con<dent ethica# or mora# indictments and ca##s for censorshi-

seem increasing#" fashiona6#e, man" of them -ursued so irrationa##" as to -rovide

evidence that genuine in@uir" ma" Hee henever @uestions a6out ethics enter

the room. The res-onses to those ou#d56e censors are often e@ua##" su6ective

and o-inionated, too often divorced from an" serious digging into the -otentia#

dangers for readers ho rea##" #isten to hat the stor"5te##er te##s. 7From here on I

use the term ?#isten? to cover a## serious engagement ith stories, hether 6"readers or vieers or #isteners9. 4an" of the defenders against censorshi-,

8/10/2019 Style 1998


resting strict#" on <rst amendment grounds, ta#k as if to engage in ethica# or

mora# criticism is itse#f an act of censorshi-: once e ste- onto the s#i--er"

s#o-e55?this stor" is ethica##" fau#t"?55the censors i## 6u" our ords and hurt#e us

on to the 6ottom.

4ore cha##enging e=orts to ru#e out ethica# criticism come from those ho fear

that it i## destro" our most -recious narrative -ossession: the ?aesthetic?

domain, the or#d of true art, a or#d that is not ust di=erent from the @uotidian

or#d of mora# conHict 6ut in e=ect far su-erior to it. s Wend" !teiner sa"s in

the conc#usion to The !canda# of P#easure, genuine art ?occu-ies a di=erent mora#

s-ace? from the or#d of -ractica# a=airs. For her, since art is o6vious#" ?virtua#,?

not -rimari#" concerned a6out ?rea#it",? it shou#d not 6e su6ect to the kind of

mora# criticism e o=er hen ever"da" 6ehavior in the so5ca##ed rea# or#d

o=ends us 7(889.

What is striking, hoever, is that hether or not critics defend or attack ethica#

criticism, and hether or not ?ideo#ogica#? critics use ethica# terms, near#"

ever"one concedes that no matter hat e do or sa" a6out the ethica# -oers of

art, those -oers are rea#. /ot even the most ardent o--onents of censorshi- or

ethica# criticism den" that man" stories can actua##" harm at #east some of those

ho ?take them in.? nd even the most ardent attackers on immora# art orks

im-#" 6" their ever" gesture that certain other orks, in contrast, are not ust

mora##" defensi6#e, not ust 6ene<cia#, 6ut essentia# to an" fu## human #ife.

C#aims a6out the transformative ethica# -oer of a## art are -erha-s #east

@uestiona6#e hen e turn from ?a## art? to #iterar" art, art that, 6ecause its ver"

nature entai#s #anguage #oaded ith ethica# udgments, im-#ants vies a6out ho

to #ive or not to #ive. When the ord ?#iterature? is e>-anded to inc#ude a## stories

that e ma" #isten to55not ust nove#s, -#a"s, and -oems, 6ut a#so o-eras,

memoirs, gossi-, soa- o-eras, T and movie dramas, <ctiona# and ?rea#,? stories

heard in chi#dhood55the -oer of narrative to change our #ives, for good or i##,

6ecomes undenia6#e.

That -oer is, hoever, tacit#" denied 6" man" a critic, sim-#" 6" riting as if the

ethica# e=ects of stories are irre#evant to @ua#it". In a recent #ength" favora6#e

account of the thirt" nove#s 6" !te-hen ing, 4ark !inger has not a ord a6out

hat ing;s three hundred mi##ion so#d co-ies have taught the or#d;s most#"

unso-histicated readers: a6out hat actions are rea##" contem-ti6#e or

admira6#e, a6out hat vies concerning a#iens and -hantoms are naive or

so-histicated or menta##" destructive, a6out hat narrative devices are in e=ect

ethica# corru-tions. The on#" ethica# udgments !inger intrudes are against critics

8/10/2019 Style 1998


#ike me, hat he ca##s ?ar6iters?: those ho, ?ithout 6othering to read ing, fee#

comforta6#e dismissing him as a hack.?7 n%9

s m" am6iguous use so far of the ords ?ethica#? and ?mora#? suggests, one

reason no -rogress is made in our 6att#es is that too man" reduce 6oth terms to

the narroest -ossi6#e mora# codes. The essentia# issue for critics55-erha-s in

contrast ith -o#iticians55is not hether some -art of a given stor" vio#ates this or

that mora# codeB rather, it is the overa## e=ect on the ethos, the character, of the

#istener. nd that e=ect is not to 6e measured 6" some sim-#e stud" of overt

6ehavior after #istening: it must inc#ude the ver" @ua#it" of the #ife #ived hi#e

#istening.

ctua# e=ects on 6ehavior are e>treme#" e#usive and i##, I sus-ect, never 6econc#usive#" demonstrated. It;s true that henever I ask adu#t readers if the" can

think of orks that changed their #ives in a signi<cant a", hether recent#" or in

chi#dhood, a#most a## of them o=er at #east one -oerfu# e>am-#e. !ometimes

the" stress their regret 7?3o I ish I had not stum6#ed u-on Gack erouac;s 0n

the Road hen I as si>teenB I ent Aon the road; for a fu## "ear, se#f5

destructive#"?9.7 n'9 4ore often the" e>-ress dee- gratitude 7?Reading To#sto";s

Resurrection in m" forties transformed m" attitude toard re#igionB I had 6een an

atheist for tent" "ears, and after reading that ork55thank 2odQ55I as not?9.

When the @uestion is genera#i*ed55?Do "ou think that a #arge share of "our ethica#

education, "our construction as a -erson, as -erformed 6" stories, from infanc"onM?55most anser decisive#" ?Kes.? The" agree that hen e rea##" engage ith

the characters e meet and the mora# choices those characters face, ethica#

changes occur in us, for good or i##55es-ecia##" hen e are "oung.

To under#ine m" -oint once again: no one ho has thought a6out it for #ong can

den" that e are at #east -art#" constructed, in our most fundamenta# mora#

character, 6" the stories e have heard, or read, or vieed, or acted out in

amateur theatrica#s: the stories e have rea##" #istened to. Their authors 6ui#t

successfu# stories 6" creating characters, characters e>hi6iting an ethos thatcou#d 6e thought of as a co##ection of virtues and vices, -resented as admira6#e

or contem-ti6#e.7 n9 Though man" modern authors tr" to disguise this fact 6"

dea#ing overt#" ith character @ua#ities not ordinari#" thought of in mora# terms55

such virtues as uncom-romising -ursuit of e>istentia# truth or honest -ro6ing of

-ost5modernist m"steries55I can think of no -u6#ished stor" that does not e>hi6it

its author;s im-#ied udgments a6out ho to #ive and hat to 6e#ieve a6out ho

to #ive.

The -oint is under#ined hen e think a6out ho the or#d;s most successfu#mora# teachers have taken it for granted: the" have chosen to te## stories. Rather

8/10/2019 Style 1998


than resorting to 6#unt, non5narrative -reaching, the" have im-#anted their

messages into engaging narrative or#ds. Whi#e it;s true that some mora#i*ers

have turned their ta#es into -rosaic sermons, ith sim-#e summari*ing mora#

tags, the most e=ective teachers55those ho recogni*e mora# com-#e>ities55have

chosen narrative, ith its inevita6#e am6iguities, as the chief vehic#e.

Wh" did the authors of the +i6#e choose main#" to 6e stor"te##ers rather than

6#unt e>horters ith a mora# tag at the end of each stor"M The" did not rest ith

the #a"ing don of 6are codes, #ike a #ist of Hat commandments. Though the"

sometimes tried the 6rief commandment #ine,7 nJ9 the" more often to#d stories,

#ike the one a6out a trou6#ed a6andoned5chi#d5hero ho, as #eader of his

#i6erated -eo-#e, a#most 6otches the o6 of o6taining some divine ru#es -rinted

on a ta6#et, and a6out a -eo-#e ho #arge#" 6otch the o6 of receiving and

a6iding 6" them. The -ious -reachers did not ust -rint out the sermons of a

saviorB the" -#aced the sermons into a stor", and the" surrounded them ith

other stories, es-ecia##" the one a6out ho the hero himse#f gra--#ed ith

@uestions a6out his status as savior, and a6out ho he to#d scores of radica##"

am6iguous -ara6#es that forced his #isteners into mora# thought. The" did not

o-en#" -reach that for 2od to 6e incarnated as a man entai#s irreso#va6#e

-arado>esB the" to#d a stor" a6out ho the 2odSman at the moment of su-reme

mora# testing is ridden ith dou6t and cries out, as an" of us ou#d have done,

?4" 2od, m" 2od, h" hast thou forsaken meM?

## those 6i6#ica# authors must have knon, -erha-s ithout knoing hat the"

kne, that serious stories educate mora##"55and the" do so more -oerfu##" than

do stor"5free sermons. Gust imagine ho #itt#e e=ect on the or#d Gohn +un"an

ou#d have had if he had -ut into non5narrative -rose the various messages

em6odied in Pi#grim;s Progress.7 n9

In short, the great te##ers and most of us #isteners have knon in our 6ones that

stories, hether <ctiona# or historica#, in -rose or in verse, hether to#d 6"

mothers to infants or 6" ra66is and -riests to the e#der#" and d"ing, hether#a6e#ed as sacred or -rofane or as teaching good mora#it" or 6ad55stories are our

maor mora# teachers. !ome stories teach on#" a -articu#ar mora# -ers-ective,

one that can 6e ca-tured ith a mora# tag, as in some of eso-;s fa6#es and the

sim-#er 6i6#ica# ta#es. 4an" of them teach a mora#it" that "ou and I ou#d reect.

+ut a## of them teach, and thus in a sense the" are o-en to mora# in@uir", even

hen the" do not seem to invite or to#erate it.

In the face of this genera# ackno#edgement of the -oer of stories, ho cou#d it

ha--en that entire critica# schoo#s have reected criticism that dea#s ith such-oerM 0ne o6vious anser is that critics have anted to esca-e the threatening

8/10/2019 Style 1998


Hood of controversia# udgments e #and in as soon as ethica# udgments are

invited into aesthetic territor". Ethica# udgments are 6" their nature

controversia#: the ver" -oint of uttering them is to aaken or cha##enge those

ho have missed the -oint. Conse@uent#" henever a feminist critic, sa", udges

a nove# or -oem to 6e se>ist, she can 6e sure to 6e attacked 6" someone ho

sees her va#ues as skeed. To -raise or condemn for -o#itica# correctness iside#" sco=ed at as a6surd: -o#itica# udgments are mere#" su6ective. To udge

a## or -art of a -oem according to re#igious va#ues is seen as even more a6surd,

since re#igious vies are ide#" seen as even #ess su6ect to rationa# argument.

second -oerfu# reason for su--ression is the fear a#read" mentioned: that

ethica# criticism of an" kind, even hen critics agree ith the -roc#aimed va#ues,

is an invasion of ?aesthetic? territor". s Char#es #tieri re-orts in ?L"rica# Ethics

and Literar" E>-erience? 7a6ove9, to 6e seen as an ethica# critic can trigger

thought#ess res-onses from -urists ho fear that the ?#"rica#? or the ?6eautifu#?

i## 6e sacri<ced to -reaching.

The third reason, m" main interest in this essa", is too often over#ooked in

toda";s controversies. ?Literature? itse#f is not ust a controversia# term: the orks

it covers are ethica##" and aesthetica##" so diverse, 6oth in their intent and in their

rea#i*ation in mu#ti-#e acts of #istening, that an" one critica# method can at 6est

?cover? no more than a fraction of actua# orks. The conse@uence is that a #arge

share of attem-ted ethica# criticism deserves to 6e attacked as unfair orirre#evantB methods and stances a--ro-riate to one kind of stor" can 6e use#ess

or destructive hen a--#ied to other kinds.

In hat fo##os, I e>-#ore, for the <ve hundredth time in the histor" of criticism,

some of the varieties of #iterar" intention, as the" inevita6#" reinforce the

conHicts a6out ethica# criticism. 4" 6asic argument is that on#" a fu##" deve#o-ed

critica# -#ura#ism, of -rinci-#es, of methods, of -ur-oses, and of de<nitions of

su6ect matter can ever reduce the @uantit" of -oint#ess @uarre#ing over ethica#

matters. Di=erent genres, di=erent intentions, invite or reect di=erent ethica# udgments.7 n)9

II

Even the ord ?intention? a#read" #ands us in dee- controvers". The anti5

intentiona#ists have dominated man" <e#ds in recent decades, as the" have for

the most -art ignored the -oerfu# arguments and distinctions made 6" Wi##iam

Em-son, Rona#d Crane, E. D. 3irsch and others throughout the ?/e Critica#?

ars.7 n&9 The most im-ortant of these distinctions, o6scured6" a## of those ho

have dec#ared the author and his or her intentions dead, is 6eteen the Hesh5

and56#ood author, hose intentions, hether or not recorded outside the ork,are on#" #oose#" re#evant to one;s reading of the ork, and the actua#i*ed te>t;s

8/10/2019 Style 1998


intentions: hat one can infer from the co##ection of choices that ever" ork

orth 6othering a6out revea#s. The author im-#ied 6" those choices made them,

conscious#" or unconscious#", and our udgments of the orth of an" ork

de-end on our decision, again conscious or unconscious, a6out hether the

choices ere good ones. Whether e use the ord ?intentions? or not, e are a##

de-endent, in ever"thing e sa" a6out a ork, on an im-#ied re#ation 6eteenour intentions and the intentions em6edded in the author;s choices.7 n8$9

/o as ever"one ho ever consu#ts her on sou# knos, our intentions in rea#

#ife, as in an" construction of a nove# or -oem, are manifo#d in kind and often

confused or am6iva#ent in -roduct. We are socia# se#ves, mu#ti-#e se#ves, most of

us moving a#a"s, or a#most a#a"s, in man" directions at once. Though

sometimes e manage some degree of focus in dai#" choices, our genuine

focusing usua##" comes hen e move in the direction of artistic or techno#ogica#

-roduction: the e=ort to -u## the -arts of #ife into some coherent interre#ation. It is

hen e aim for a goa#, es-ecia##" hen e tr" to make something coherent,

that our mu#ti-#icit" sometimes 6ecomes reduced to a sing#e, hoever com-#e>,

target. Like the 6adge5inning infantr" riHeman I aimed to 6ecome in m" Wor#d

War II 6asic training, e concentrate so intent#" on the target that ever"thing

e#se is, for the time 6eing, sim-#" forgotten.

rtists55-ainters, musicians, nove#ists, -oets55genera##" achieve something #ike

that concentration, s#oughing o= man", though usua##" not a##, of their riva#se#ves. 4an" have testi<ed to the a" in hich, as the" -ursue draft after draft,

the manifo#d -ossi6i#ities get reduced to a range of centered choices. Even those

ho have -retended to have no center, to ce#e6rate their on uncontro##a6#e

richness, have in fact 6een forced, 6" the ver" nature of -roducing an"thing

hatever, into a reduction of mu#ti-#e or divided se#ves toard hat critics used

to ca## a ?unit".?

4" favorite i##ustration of this -oint, one that I;ve -rinted severa# times 6efore,

as m" encounter ith !au# +e##o, 6ack in 8&J( or 8&J%. 4emor" re-orts it #ikethis:

W+: What are "ou u- to, !au#M

!+: We##, I;m s-ending a6out four hours a da" revising a nove# that;s sti## much

too #ong.

W+: What;## it 6e ca##edM

!+: 3er*og.

W+: What are "ou actua##" doing, as "ou s-end four hours a da" revisingM

8/10/2019 Style 1998


8/10/2019 Style 1998


3o man" kinds of #iterar" e=ect are thereM It i## 6e usefu# <rst to trace !he#don

!acks;s three, though to me the" fa## far short of e>hausting the -i#e.

First, think of the a6surdit" of ru#ing out ethica# criticism hen e dea# ith orks

that are overt#" -o#emica#: stories that revea# themse#ves to ever" e>-erienced

reader as satires.7 n8(9 !uch stories, if the" earn an" #asting interest, do e>hi6it a

great man" #iterar" or aesthetic @ua#ities: origina# st"#e, gri--ing -#ots, amusing

characters. +ut in reading them 7or vieing dramatic -roductions9, our attention

is not -rimari#" on the action the" -resent as action 6ut on the targets the" are

attacking. To read 8&)' as a ?nove#,? as if it ere designed -rimari#" to "ie#d

-#easure or e>citement a6out its -#ot, is to 6e an ignorant reader. To engage in

criticism of such a ork ithout a--raising the va#idit" of 0re##;s attack on

various -o#itica# and mora# outrages ou#d o=end not on#" the im-#ied author,?2eorge 0re##.? The Hesh5and56#ood author, Eric +#air, ou#d ca## us ust -#ain

stu-id. To discuss the movie Dr. !trange#ove ithout addressing its satirica#

message might -ass in some cinematogra-hic @uarters, 6ut the makers of the

<#m ou#d fee# sim-#" 6"-assed.

The di=erence 6eteen such satires and other stories can 6e determined55hen

controvers" arises556" hether or not a## of the te>t;s choices can 6e defended as

in the service of the satirica# -oint. In ever" satire, one <nds e#ements that ou#d

not 6e usti<ed if the -oint of it a## ere on#" to engage us in a -oerfu# stor". 0n

the other hand, if the satirica# force is in an" detai# sacri<ced for the sake of

heightening a 6eautifu#, coherent -#ot, then the ork is not fu##" a satire: it;s

either a 6ung#ed mi>ture or it has 6ecome55something e#se. Whatever that

something e#se is i## 6e su6ecta6#e to ethica# in@uir", 6ut since it does not

demand it o-en#", as the center of an a--ro-riate res-onse, the in@uir" i## itse#f

6e transformed into55something e#se, something radica##" di=erent from hat is

invited 6" satire.

Turning from satire to a second kind, think ho a6surd it ou#d 6e to ru#e out

ethica# considerations from an" discussion of Dante;s Divine Comed", or 4i#ton;s

Paradise Lost, or Toni 4orrison;s +e#oved or Paradise. In a## of those orks, as in

thousands of contem-orar" so5ca##ed nove#s, the centra# organi*ationa# -oint is

not the e=ective action or -#ot, and a#so not a s-eci<c satirica# target, 6ut the

-ro6ing or incu#cation of an idea or co##ection of ideas that the author is

dramati*ing. Whi#e such orks i## never succeed ithout em-#o"ing innumera6#e

#iterar" devices, inc#uding interesting stor" #ines, the u#timate drive is toard

-atterning the or#d of ideas in a -ersuasive form. The" are hat !he#don !acks

ca##ed a-o#ogues.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


Gust imagine ho Toni 4orrison must fee# hen critics misread and dismiss

Paradise for having a muddied -#ot #ine, hen hat she rote is an immense#"

com-#e>, dicu#t ork that enforces, #ine 6" #ine, thought a6out race re#ations

a6out tem-tations to vio#ence and a6out ho forms of ?hite? vio#ence have

in<#trated the ?6#ack? or#d. To discuss her +e#oved according to its nove#istic

structure, a--raising it as either a gri--ing or moving or 6ung#ed stor", ithoutdiscussing one;s agreement or disagreement ith its ever5-resent -enetrating

thought, ou#d 6e, I fee# sure, o=ensive to the author55at #east to the im-#ied

author.7 n8%9

4oving 6e"ond satire and a-o#ogue, e come to orks that are designed to gri-

us as hat !acks ca##ed ?actions?: nove#s #ike those of Gane usten or Cormac

4cCarth" or, moving don the #ine in @ua#it", gatha Christie or Louis L;mour.

Though the" often contain satirica# and a-o#ogic e#ements, those e#ements are

su6ordinated to the center, hich is the action55the engagement ith characters

ho are themse#ves caught in an action that the -ro-er reader comes to care

a6out. Ever" detai#, hen e>amined c#ose#", revea#s itse#f as having 6een chosen

to heighten the e=ect of the action, and thus of the reader;s engagement ith

the stor" #ine. It is not sur-rising that man" an author ho has tried to rite an

e=ective action has 6een furious hen -ost5modernists and ethicists have

im-osed ethica# criticism on this or that va#ue im-#icit in the action or made

e>-#icit 6" heroes or narrators. /or is it sur-rising that anti5ethica# critics o6ect

strong#" hen e ethicists critici*e <rst5c#ass action5creators for anti5!emitism,

racism, or se>ism. For them, the 6eautifu##" formed action, conve"ed in 6eautifu#

or itt" or origina# st"#e, is hat counts. Consign the ethicists to he##, here the"

6e#ong.

1n#ike satires and a-o#ogues, action5stories thus do not o-en#" demand ethica#

criticism. The" in e=ect im-#" a 6att#e 6eteen the im-#ied author and an"

ethica# critic ho comes -#oughing into the scene asking, ?Is reading this stor"

good or 6ad for "ouM? That 6att#e must 6e conducted in a"s entire#" di=erent

from the encounters invited 6" satires and a-o#ogues.

!o much for !he#don !acks;s account of three maor kinds of authoria# invitation.

Though !acks himse#f never made this -oint, it is to me o6vious that he as

c#assif"ing <ctions -recise#" as -hi#oso-hers55from P#ato through ant to the

-resent55have c#assi<ed human goa#s in genera#: authors -ursue either the good

7through satire, attem-ting to make the or#d 6etter9, or the true 7through

a-o#ogue, teaching a truth9 or the 6eautifu# 7through creating -erfected actions

or -#ots9. 4uch controvers" cou#d 6e avoided if critics made c#ear ust hich of

these three goa#s the" -ursue as the" -raise or condemn this or that stor".

8/10/2019 Style 1998


+ut these three -i#es are much too genera# to dea# ith the man" di=erent

varieties of goods and truths and 6eauties that authors have -ursued. For

e>am-#e, as Char#es #tieri argues, the trou6#e ith too man" defenses of ethica#

criticism, even those that honor one kind of 6eautifu# structure, is that the" have

ignored the ethica# im-ort of one as-ect, or kind, of the 6eautifu#: hat he ca##s

the #"rica#.7 n8'9 Toard the end of his #ife, !acks himse#f as e>-#oring the needto add a fourth kind to his three, using #tieri;s ord for it. Reading and re5reading

irginia Woo#f;s nove#s, he cou#d not get them to <t under the #a6e#s of satire,

a-o#ogue, or action. What the" -ursued as an evocation of the fu## aesthetic

fee#ing of #ife hen dramati*ed 6eautifu##", 6ut not as a coherent -#ot or action

6ut rather a#most #ike a series of 6eautifu# i##ustrations. The" did not rea##" ork

as actions: readers ere o=ered nothing remote#" resem6#ing a -oerfu# -#ot.

Even more o6vious#" the" did not ork either as a-o#ogues, teachers of coherent

thought, or as satires, attackers on sins or fo##ies in the or#d. To udge this #"rica#

kind 6" the same standards one ou#d a--#" to the other three ou#d 6e, he as

6eginning to sus-ect, a radica# distortion.

+ut the e>-ansion to this fourth kind sti## oversim-#i<es the #andsca-e of stor". It

can never 6e reduced to a <na# #ist of kinds.7 n89 Though the kinds cannot 6e

in<nite, it seems c#ear that #iterar" devices and @ua#ities can 6e used to achieve

ever" conceiva6#e 7or defensi6#e9 e=ect: sheer farce, for the rom-ing fun of it 7a

s-ecia# form of ?#"ricismM?9B sheer arning a6out im-ending disaster 7a su65

version of the -ursuit of ?goodness,? 6ut @uite di=erent from satires or

a-o#ogues9B stimu#ation of intense 6ut disorgani*ed thought and #inguistic

-ro6ing, as in Finnegans Wake 7in the sense a -ursuit of ?truth,? 6ut a truth so

diverse and un-in5dona6#e that no truth emergesB it ou#d 6e a6surd to

condemn this nove# 6ecause one or another #ine or character as considered

mora##" o=ensive9. With a #itt#e e=ort e can tist an" #iterar" e>-erience into the

service of im-roving thought, im-roving the or#d, or creating a ne -iece of

6eaut".

I

The #iterar" kind that I think is most im-ortant in a## considerations of ethica#

criticism 7and the one I care for most9 has no #a6e# and is most resistant to sim-#e

ethica# categories. When stories manage not on#" to engage us in serious thought

a6out ethica# matters, 6ased on the reinforcement of certain ethica# -ositions as

admira6#e and others as @uestiona6#e or indefensi6#e, 6ut a#so hook us into -#ots5

of5conHict that are inse-ara6#e from that thinking, e meet hat I consider the

most admira6#e invitation to ethica# criticism. The -#ot, in such stories, does not

ust -resent virtue and vice in conHictB the stor" itse#f consists of the conHict of

defensi6#e mora# or ethica# stancesB the action takes -#ace 6oth ithin the

characters in the stor" and inside the mind of the reader, as she gra--#es ith

conHicting choices that irresisti6#" demand the reader;s udgment.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


Take as a -rime e>am-#e the nove#s of 3enr" Games, hich are sometimes

descri6ed as a6ove mora#it" or immune to ethica# criticism. 3is ta#es are never

mora#istic, in the sense of 6eing reduci6#e to a sim-#e code, o6edience to hich

i## -roduce u#timate 6#essing. 0n the other hand, the" a#a"s revea#, to an"

carefu# reader, an e>tensive #ist of udgments a6out hat constitutes defensi6#e

and indefensi6#e human 6ehavior. /othing is more naive than criticism of hisorks as if the" ere ethica##" neutra#. n" reader of The Portrait of a Lad" ho

fai#s to udge 2i#6ert 0smond as a monstrous#" immora# vi##ain ou#d shock me

and -erha-s infuriate Games. 3o can e think that an" author ho ou#d revise,

for a second edition, 0smond;s vie of Isa6e# from ?as 6right and soft as an -ri#

c#oud? to ?as smooth to his genera# need of her as hand#ed ivor" to the -a#m,?

as not anting to guarantee a negative udgment of the mani-u#ator.7 n8J9 t

the same time, no reader can reduce the action to an" easi#" reso#ved conHict

6eteen such a vi##ain and our heroine. Games thus dou6#es the -#ot: it is enacted

6oth ithin the stor" as ritten and ithin the mind of the reader ho engages

fu##" ith the di#emma faced 6" Isa6e#.

n even more striking e>am-#e of this unnamed su65c#ass of a-o#ogue, the

thought5inducing action that resists reduction to summar" or thesis, is Games;s

The Wings of the Dove. The -#ot cannot 6e summari*ed ade@uate#", 6ecause it

takes -#ace in four di=erent minds: ithin the mind of ate Cro", as she

e>-eriences the conHicts Games #ands her in throughoutB ithin the mind of

4erton Densher, as he e>-eriences a di=erent set of conHicts forcefu##"

dramati*ed 6" the author, and ithin the minds of the reader and author as the"

e>-erience the dou6#e conHicts of ate and 4erton and the intricacies of -oint5of5

vie that the com-#e> stor" demands.

!ome of the mora# va#ues of this nove# are indeed as une@uivoca# as in an"

!unda" !choo# tract or o-en a-o#ogue: for e>am-#e, Games im-#ies 6ut never

states that it is a#a"s, in a## circumstances, rong to -#ot for the estate of a

he#-#ess d"ing oman 6" -retending to court her hen "ou are rea##" engaged to

another oman. 4erton knos itB Games knos itB the readers Games ho-es for

kno it, though of course some i## not catch it or i## reect it hen the" do,

-erha-s deciding that it doesn;t matter one a" or another.7 n89 +ut hat ou#d

Games think of an" critic ho attem-ted to a--raise the #iterar" merit of Wings

ithout mentioning the 6ri##iance ith hich he -#aces ate;s essentia# admira6#e

@ua#ities into mora# dec#ineM Criticism that ignores the ethica# center of this

aesthetic achievement is sim-#" naive. nd criticism that mere#" descri6es the

conHicts, ithout -ermitting an" statement of agreement or disagreement, is

coard#". n" reader ho thinks Densher shou#d have gone a## the a" ith

ate;s des-ica6#e -#an shou#d sa" so, u- front, earning Games;s and m"

disa--rova#: the fu## aesthetic e=ect of the ork as intended has 6een denied to

an" such reader, ho ma" e## re-#": the nove# is not as great as -eo-#e sa",

6ecause it touts that mistaken Puritan 7or midd#e5c#ass, or ictorian9 virtue.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


8/10/2019 Style 1998


C#intonSLeinsk" a=air. !tart hired to #a"ers to rite the section ca##ed

?/arrative.? 0ne of the authors, !te-hen +ates, ?once studied advanced <ction

riting at 3arvard.? The other had studied narrative theor". !tart kne the

ethica# -oers of stor". +ates and his co##eague kne the ethica# -oers of stor".

2reen6#att knos those -oers: his case is a strong ethica# indictment, shoing

ust ho and h" the narrator of the stor" is more and more ?unre#ia6#e?55thoughnot intended to 6e seen as such. 2reen6#att does not, hoever, o-en#" address

ethics or mora#it". Facing ethica# issues, as a ?cu#tura# critic,? he chooses to dodge

the #anguage. !ee 2reen6#att 7%89.

7nJ9 For e>am-#es that have caused end#ess trou6#e for commentators, Ges and

Christians, and rich fodder for ske-tics, see Gudges 8&5(8, or Deuteronom"

(8:8)(8 and ((:($5((.

7n9 !ome critics ou#d sa" that +un"an;s stor" has on#" one message: em6race

his one right version of Christianit". The" shou#d read the com-#e> stor" again.

7n)9 4" engagement ith critica# -#ura#ism here de-ends on "ears of #iving ith

?Chicago schoo#? -#ura#ists: Richard 4ceon, Rona#d Crane, and E#der 0#sen ere

m" mentors 7see Crane;s Critics and Criticism, ncient and 4odern9B !he#don

!acks as m" co##eague. 3is sad#" neg#ected 6ook, Fiction and the !ha-e of

+e#ief, is most direct#" -ertinent to m" distinction of #iterar" kinds.

7n&9 !ome ho have not read Em-son;s !even T"-es of m6iguit" carefu##" have

re-orted it as anti5 intentiona#ist. The" shou#d read it again.

7n8$9 !ince I have -u6#ic#" mocked some authors for referring to their on orks

too fre@uent#", I hereu-on resist o=ering an" reference hatever to The Rhetoric

of Fiction, a much5neg#ected ork that e>-#ores the issues I am descri6ing here.

7n889 !ee essa"s engaging in ethica# controvers" 6" Richard Posner, 4artha

/uss6aum, and m"se#f in Phi#oso-h" and Literature ((.( 78&&)9.

7n8(9 Ine>-erienced readers do sometimes sti## read 2u##iver;s Trave#s as a

trave#ogue or adventure stor", 6reaking !ift;s heart.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


7n8%9 The on#" ork I;ve met that dea#s ade@uate#" ith the uni@ue critica#

cha##enges -resented 6" a-o#ogues that are ca##ed nove#s is David Richter;s

6ri##iant Fa6#e;s End: Com-#eteness and C#osure in Rhetorica# Fiction.

7n8'9 !ee #tieri, -. (' a6ove.

7n89 !ee m" ?What Does it Take to 4ake a /e Literar" !-eciesM?

7n8J9 great dea# of Games;s #ater revisions for his /e Kork edition ere

s-eci<ca##" addressed to heightening the reader;s aareness of mora# udgments.

!ee es-ecia##" hat he does to the various choices of the mani-u#ative narrator

in The s-ern Pa-ers.

7n89 For a fu## encounter ith the ethica# e=ects of reading The Wings of the

Dove, see m" ?The Ethics of Forms: Taking F#ight ith The Wings of the Dove? in

1nderstanding /arrative. For a further e>tensive discussion of this kind of

?casuistica# a-o#ogue?55to coin a #a6e# that she might o6ect to and that i## never

catch on, see /uss6aum;s discussion of Games;s The 2o#den +o# in Love;s

no#edge 78(5'9.

Works Cited


Ca#ifornia P, 8&)).

55555. ?The Ethics of Forms: Taking F#ight ith The Wings of the Dove.?

1nderstanding /arrative. Ed. Games Phe#an and Peter G. Ra6inoit*. Co#um6us:

0hio !tate 1P, 8&&'. &&58%.

55555. ?0f the !tandard of 4ora# Taste: Literar" Criticism as 4ora# In@uir".? In Face

of the Facts: 4ora# In@uir" in merican !cho#arshi-. Ed. Richard Wightman Fo>

and Ro6ert +. West6rook. /e Kork: Woodro Wi#son Center, 8&&). 8'&5)$.

55555. The Rhetoric of Fiction. (nd ed. Chicago: 1 of Chicago P, 8&)%.

55555. ?What Does it Take to 4ake a /e Literar" !-eciesM? 3"-otheses: /eo5

ristote#ian na#"sis 8 7Fa## 8&&9: 8858(.

55555. ?Wh" +anning Ethica# Criticism is a !erious 4istake.? Phi#oso-h" and

Literature ((.( 78&&)9: %JJ5&%.

Ca#isher, 3ortense. ?Portrait of a Pseudon"m.? The merican !cho#ar J.% 78&&)9:

%5J8.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


Crane, R. !., ed. Critics and Criticism, ncient and 4odern. Chicago: 1 of Chicago

P, 8&(.

Em-son, Wi##iam. !even T"-es of m6iguit". /e Kork: /e Directions, 8&JJ.

2reen6#att, !te-hen. ? !tor" To#d ith Evi# Intent.? /e Kork Times, ((

!e-tem6er 8&&):%8V.

3irsch, E. D. a#idit" in Inter-retation. /e 3aven: Ka#e 1P, 8&J.

/uss6aum, 4artha C. Love;s no#edge: Essa"s on Phi#oso-h" and Literature.

/e Kork: 0>ford 1P, 8&&$.

55555. ?E>act#" and Res-onsi6#": Defense of Ethica# Criticism.? Phi#oso-h" and

Literature ((.( 78&&)9: %'%5J.

Posner, Richard. ?gainst Ethica# Criticism: Part II.? Phi#oso-h" and Literature ((.(

78&&)9: %&'5'8(.

Richter, David. Fa6#e;s End: Com-#eteness and C#osure in Rhetorica# Fiction.

Chicago: 1 of Chicago P, 8&'.

!acks, !he#don. Fiction and the !ha-e of +e#ief; !tud" of 3enr" Fie#ding ith

2#ances at !ift, Gohnson, and Richardson. +erke#e": 1 of Ca#ifornia P, 8&J'.

!inger, 4ark. ?What re Kou fraid 0fM: Terror Is !te-hen ing;s 4edium, +ut It;s

/ot the 0n#" Reason 3e;s !o Po-u#ar55and !o Frightening.? The /e Korker,

!e-tem6er 8&&): J5J.

!teiner, Wend". The !canda# of P#easure. Chicago: 1 of Chicago P, 8&&.

+" Wa"ne C. +ooth, 1niversit" of Chicago

/as#ov: +ook Revies. Prema: Carrard, Phi#i--e, !t"#e, $$%&'(%), !ummer&),

!ve*ak. %(, +ro (.+a*a -odataka: cademic !earch Com-#ete.

2erard 2enette. Parate>ts: Thresho#ds of Inter-retation. Trans. Gane E. Lein.

Cam6ridge: Cam6ridge 1niversit" Press, 8&&. >>v V '( --. X&.& c#othB

X((.& -a-er.

2erard 2enette. Parate>ts: Thresho#ds of Inter-retation. Trans. Gane E. Lein.

Cam6ridge: Cam6ridge 1niversit" Press, 8&&. >>v V '( --. X&.& c#othB

X((.& -a-er.

8/10/2019 Style 1998


0ver the -ast tent" "ears, 2erard 2enette has -roduced a com-rehensive

theor" of hat he ca##s ?transte>tua#it"?: of the re#ations of te>ts to genre

7Introduction a #;archite>te, 8&&9, to other te>ts 7Pa#im-sestes, 8&)(9, and to the

-arate>t 7!eui#s, 8&)9. s Richard 4ackse" o6serves in his foreord to this

trans#ation of the #atter, and David 2orman has documented in a recent

?check#ist? of 2enette;s orks, Eng#ish5#anguage versions of these studies have6een s#o to come. The rchite>t: n Introduction a--eared in 8&&(, Pa#im-sests:

Literature in the !econd Degree and Parate>ts: Thresho#ds of Inter-retation in

8&&556eteen ten and <fteen "ears after their initia# -u6#ication in French. That

time #ag certain#" has had conse@uences. For man" Eng#ish5s-eaking scho#ars not

conversant ith French, 2enette has remained -rimari#" the author of /arrative

Discourse 78&(B trans. 8&)$9 and /arrative Discourse Revisited 78&)%, trans.

8&))9: a researcher most#" concerned ith constructing mode#s of stor"te##ing,

ho 6e#ieves in such discredited notions as the ?c#osure of the te>t? and is

uninterested in the as-ects of the #iterar" communication that cannot 6e

forma#i*ed55for instance, in the reading -rocess.

The a#most simu#taneous -u6#ication of Pa#im-sests and Parate>ts in Eng#ish,

7and, #et us add, though these studies do not concern transte>tua#it", of

4imo#ogics and The Work of rt9 shou#d go a #ong a" toards dis-e##ing this

#imited vie of 2enette;s endeavor. If Pa#im-sests covers a <e#d that is e##5

knon to s-ecia#ists in #iterature55interte>tua#it"55Parate>ts e>-#ores #ess fami#iar

territories. 1nder the #a6e# ?-arate>t,? 2enette designates the ?unde<ned *one?

hich #ies ?6eteen te>t and o=5te>t,? and hich is #ess a <>ed 6oundar" than a

?thresho#d,? o=ering a 6ook;s -ros-ective readers the ?-ossi6i#it" of either

ste--ing inside or turning 6ack? 7(9. !uch thresho#ds, according to 2enette, -#a"

a decisive ro#e in the ?correct? decoding of a te>t, and the" deserve more

attention than the scho#ar#" communit" has given them so far. For e>am-#e,

2enette asks not so rhetorica##", ?#imited to the te>t a#one ... ho ou#d e read

Go"ce;s 1#"sses if it ere not entit#ed 1#"ssesM? The tit#e, here #ike in man" other

cases, -rovides a ?guiding set of directions,? hich indeed -rove necessar" if e

are to ?take? the ork as it is su--osed to 6e taken.

2enette;s ana#"ses 6" and #arge fo##o the order in hich readers usua##" receive

the messages sent 6" the -arate>t. The" successive#" consider the -u6#isher;s

-erite>t 7i.e., the 6ook;s format, cover, tit#e -age, t"-esetting, and -rinting9B the

name of the authorB the tit#esB the ?-#ease5insert? 7i.e., the 6#ur6s9B the

dedications and the inscri-tionsB the e-igra-hsB the -refaces 7introductions,

foreords, -ostfaces, etc.9B the intertit#esB the notesB the -u6#ic e-ite>t 7i.e., the

e#ements not materia##" a--ended to the te>t that are addressed to the -u6#ic,

#ike revies and intervies9B and <na##" the -rivate e-ite>t 7i.e., the e#ements not

materia##" attached to the te>t that are addressed to a con<dant, #ike #etters and

diaries9. 2enette 6asica##" asks the same @uestions a6out each of these

constituents: here is it #ocatedM hen can e <nd itM 7e.g., did the notes come

ith the origina# te>t or ere the" added #aterM9, ho is it te>tua##" manifestedM

8/10/2019 Style 1998


6" hom is it sentM to homM and to do hatM 0f course, 2enette does not grant

e@ua# s-ace to each item. Thus, he takes a6out one -age to esta6#ish that

?series? e>ist 6ecause ?-u6#ishing ... is structured 6" su6ect? 7(%9, hereas he

devotes a ho#e cha-ter and fort" -ages 78&J5(%J9 to dissecting the ?functions of

the origina# -reface.?

Parate>ts is in man" res-ects an outstanding -iece of ork. 2enette, as he did

ith narrative discourse and interte>tua#it", 6rings order to an area hose

com-onents had 6een investigated se-arate#" 7there are va#ua6#e studies 6"

other -eo-#e of such su6ects as notes, tit#es, and -refaces9, 6ut never surve"ed

in a com-rehensive manner. In the course of these e>-#orations, moreover,

2enette com6ines a--roaches that sometimes are regarded as incom-ati6#e, and

even antinomic. 0n the one hand, he uses current methods of ana#"sis and

c#assi<cation, genera##" 6orroed from <e#ds #ike semiotics and s-eech5act

theor". 0n the other, he su--#ies a stead" Ho of e>am-#es that testif" to his

outstanding kno#edge of traditiona# scho#arshi- 7?erudition?9 and #iterature itse#f.

Wi##iam /e##es, in his revie of the French origina#, noted that the inde> of the

authors cited inc#udes J names, and he stressed that the #ist is ?ide5ranging?

78'(9. Indeed, 2enette can mention Dashie## 3ammett and Gohn +arth on the

same -age, o6serving that the cover of the French, ?Carte /oir? edition of The

Drain Curse accommodates ?an ad for merican cigarettes,? and that one of

+arth;s aims, hi#e riting The !ot5Weed Factor, as to rite a 6ook #ong and

thick enough ?so that its tit#e cou#d 6e -rinted in a sing#e hori*onta# #ine on the

s-ine? 7(J9. In the same ecumenica# s-irit, 2enette constant#" -rovides 6oth

s"nchronic and diachronic ana#"ses. True, he states ear#" that his 6ook is ?an

attem-t at a genera# -icture, not a histor" of the -arate>t,? adding that this

remark is -rom-ted ?6" the 6e#ief that it is a--ro-riate to de<ne o6ects 6efore

one studies their evo#ution? 78%9. Ket most cha-ters inc#ude an e>amination of the

deve#o-ment of the form under scrutin", an e>amination sometimes e>-#icit#"

introduced 6" means of intertit#es #ike ?3istorica# !urve"? 78''9, ?Prehistor"?

78J%9, and ?3istor"? 7%$&9. Furthermore, the fact that 2enette shou#d consistent#"

ask the @uestion ?henM? shos that he does not regard the -henomena he is

investigating as sta6#e and -ermanent. Indeed, hi#e the -arate>tua# com-onent

of ?e-igra-hs? has a diachronic dimension, individua# e-igra-hs 7as e## as

individua# 6#ur6s, tit#es, dedications, -refaces, notes, etc.9 a#so have a histor" oftheir onB the" can, among other things, disa--ear, 6e modi<ed, and rea--ear

over the "ears and the editions55changes that 2enette faithfu##" chronic#es hen

the" are re#evant to his -ur-ose.

If 2enette carefu##" e>amines the structure and evo#ution of the -arate>t, he a#so

concerns himse#f ith its function7s9, that is, the e=ect7s9 it is su--osed to have

on readers. To state this otherise, the -arate>t for 2enette is not on#" a set of

te>tua# marks that can 6e descri6ed 6" a" of semiotic ana#"sis. It a#so

constitutes a *one of ?transaction? 7(9, here a sender 7the author9 transmits a

message to an addressee 7hether the -u6#ic at #arge or more restrictive#" the

8/10/2019 Style 1998


reader of the te>t9. That message ma" have an ?i##ocutionar" force? 78$9. For

e>am-#e, the generic indication ?nove#? on some covers or tit#e -ages does not

signif" ?this 6ook is a nove#? 6ut ?-#ease #ook on this 6ook as a nove#,? as the

authoria# indication ?!tendha#? does mean ?m" name is !tendha#? 6ut ?I choose

the -seudon"m !tendhar? 7889. 2enette;s origina#it" in the ana#"sis of these

negotiations consists of focusing not on the reader 7as merican #iterar" theor"and criticism have done for the -ast tent" "ears9, 6ut on the author ?and his

a##ies? 7(9, that is, on such <gures as the -u6#isher, the editor, and hoever ma"

rite the 6#ur6s or the dedication. ccording to 2enette, the author;s ?vie-oint?

indeed ?sustains,? ?ins-ires,? and ?anchors? the -arate>tua# -erformance, and

critics intent on contradicting that vie-oint must <rst ?assimi#ate? it 7'$)5$&9. 0f

course, 2enette is aare that readers of the -arate>t are not necessari#" ?doci#e?

7%9, nor ?o6#igated? 7'9. +ut he maintains that ?hat one cannot ignore, one is

6etter o= knoing? 7'$&9, in this instance, that critics must reconstruct the

author;s intentions 6efore assuming that hat he or she rites has ?no true

meaning,? or that it has a meaning 6ut he or she ?cannot kno it? 7'$)9.

The manner of Parate>ts i## sur-rise readers ho are not ac@uainted 7"et9 ith

Pa#im-sests, 4imo#ogics, or The Work of rt. dmitted#", 2enette is sti##

enamored ith t"-o#ogies, and one of his chief goa#s remains to c#assif" the

-henomena he is investigating ith as much -recision as -ossi6#e. +ut the 6ook

does not have the stern, so#emn, and humor#ess tone that often characteri*ed the

-roductions of French criticism during the 8&J$s, hen it as seeking to make

itse#f into a ?science of #iterature.? Thus, 2enette fre@uent#" makes ironic, itti#"

se#f5reHe>ive comments a6out his on endeavor, noting for e>am-#e that

e-igra-hs in his s"stem have four functions ?no dou6t 6ecause I didn;t #ook for

more? 78J9, or that the ta6#e of contents in Les 4isera6#es 7a -arate>tua#

monument in itse#f ith its <ve -arts, ') 6ooks, and %J cha-ters9 inc#udes '8)

tit#es ?un#ess I;ve miscounted? 7%$)9. eteran 2enette trans#ator Gane E. Lein

has done a remarka6#e o6 conve"ing Parate>ts;s rigor as e## as its occasiona#

-#a"fu#ness, and one cannot 6#ame her for occasiona##" missing a -un, or rather

-art of a -un. For e>am-#e, the s#ogan ? -oe#e DescartesQ? 7(&9 that <gures on

the 6and of one of Gean5C#aude 3emer";s 6ooks cannot 7on#"9 6e understood as

?Descartes to the stake,? ?-oe#e? denoting a ?stove? or a ?fr"ing -an?B it a#so

means ?Descartes, take "our c#othes o=Q?, as ?-oe#e? is homon"mous ith ?-oi#,?and the inunction ?a -oi#Q? 7?get undressedQ?9 is fre@uent#" used in -o-u#ar

French, either #itera##" or as a -rovocation 7?a -oi# #; auteurQ?9. #ong the same

#ines, it is dicu#t not to notice that Lein has shied aa" from the terseness and

meta-horicit" of the French tit#e !eui#s, choosing instead immediate#" to name

the su6ect of the 6ook and make the tro-e ?thresho#ds? -art of the su6tit#e. +ut

can e ho#d Lein so#e#" res-onsi6#e for this decisionM Did she have ?a##ies? hi#e

making itM 4ore -recise#", did the -u6#isher interveneM nd as 2enette

consu#tedM I don;t kno, and I didn;t ask. +ut the fact that such @uestions arise

after reading the 6ook c#ear#" makes 2enette;s -oint, name#", that the -arate>t in

genera#, and tit#es in -articu#ar, are essentia# to understanding a te>t. In 6rief, it

8/10/2019 Style 1998


is dicu#t u-on <nishing 2enette;s stud" not to ?atch out for the -arate>tQ?

7'8$9, or, at #east tem-orari#", not to atch out more, or to atch out 6etter.

0ther Works Cited

2enette, 2erard. Introduction a #;archite>t. Pads: !eui#, 8&&.

55555. 4imo#ogics. Trans. Thais E. 4organ. Linco#n: 1 of /e6raska P, 8&&. 0f

4imo#ogi@ues: o"age en Crat"#ie. Paris: !eui#, 8&J.

55555. Pa#im-sestes: La #itterature au second degre. Paris: !eui#, 8&)(.

55555. !eui#s. Pads: !eui#, 8&).

55555. The Work of rt: Immanence and Transcendence. Trans. 2. 4. 2oshgarian.

Ithaca: Corne## 1P, 8&&. 0f L;0euvre de #;art: Immanence et transcendance.

Pads: !eui#, 8&&'.

2orman, David. ?2erard 2enette: n ng#o5French Check#ist to 8&&J.? !t"#e %$

78&&J9 %& $

Documents

Style 1998