... these dangerous times require the moral imagination of the novel as much as ever. And this in two specific respects: first, in the capacity of the novel to be more humble than the pamphleteer with regard to ideology; and second, in its capacity to listen to and be affected by moral worlds very different from one's own."Nicely argued.
Just one problem: do the people who need heart and opinion transplants actually read novels?
3 comments:
Sharon,
This made me swear off Rushdie.
http://www.the-tls.co.uk/this_week/story.aspx?story_id=2111914
Spot on.
Thank you Mr Roth.
Thanks so much for posting this link, Irman. I thought this paragraph particularly interesting:
"If Rushdie really believes that novels make nothing happen, he concedes far too much for the sake of his own freedom. True, a work of art does not become valuably subversive simply by trying to be so, but novelists may change our lives and this isn’t just humanist bromide: Azar Nafisi’s recent memoir, Reading “Lolita” in Tehran (2003), shows how a Muslim woman in Iran can find reading Nabokov and Henry James as valuable, liberating and counter-cultural an experience as reading The Satanic Verses."
People are so easily swayed by what other people think and say.
Post a Comment