Thank you for a thought-provoking piece, extremely well written. I was meaning to write a comment a while ago but couldn't decide what I wanted to write, yet now relevant thoughts have sparked! I do share your overall sentiment and aspirations, that's for sure, but I don't share the same anti-enthusiasm about modernism. I don't see a problem being in it. If I were to agree, I'd say it's a symptom but not the cause.
However, here comes the main comment body: The "socially-significant" novel might not be a genre anymore for several reasons, but the main reason is other media do that function exhaustively now (doesn't mean they do it well). The socially-significant novels of the 19th century, be it Dostoyevsky or Dickens etc., were significant because there was no other way to learn about subjects discussed in those books. Before that time, nobody was writing about killers, prostitutes, nihilists, or poor children, etc.—social realism, in a word. They were not covered by the press. There are at least two reasons: censorship and taboo topics. You couldn't talk about the socially significant topics because you were not allowed to in many cases (I'm not saying in all cases), so many writers, in Russia at least, always turned to fiction to do that. That's why there are more famous Russian writers than there are journalists or philosophers. Later on, in the 20th century and now in the 21st century, many taboos have lifted, state and media censorship changed, media itself changed a lot. Now, you can read or watch or find anything on almost any socially significant topic. You're also free to write about it, not on any platform and not in any country of course (which we should acknowledge and respect), but you can find a platform, especially in the internet age. In that sense, these days non-fiction, both written by professionals and amateurs, covers a big chunk of socially significant topics. Writing a fiction novel about that won't surprise people in the same way it used to do. I don't mean socially significant novels cannot exist, it's just the competition for a reader's attention is very high, even within writing medium. However, the woke culture, cancel culture and high political polarisation of our age creates, at least in my opinion, somewhat the same tension that censorship and taboo used to—you are not allowed to talk about certain things because "that's not the way" or you could offend someone. In that sense, there's fertile soil for the resurgence of a social realism novel (not socialist I hope haha).
This is a great comment. The phrase "somewhat the same tension that censorship and taboo used to" points in the right direction for the reemergence of the novel as a significant art form. I'll do my best to help make it happen. Anyone else who thinks they have the ability should try too.
It would take a book to answer that completely; luckily I’m writing such a book.
Briefly: I am much more inclined to agree with anyone using the phrase ‘Art for art’s sake’ than with those who would argue that art should have social utility: Social utility, in the modern sense of helping people with their struggles, with overcoming worldly obstacles, etc, is the death of art.
But more fully: art is not actually for its own sake. It is for the sake of maintaining a religious (in the broadest sense of the word) attitude toward life.
this is great
Thank you
Thank you for a thought-provoking piece, extremely well written. I was meaning to write a comment a while ago but couldn't decide what I wanted to write, yet now relevant thoughts have sparked! I do share your overall sentiment and aspirations, that's for sure, but I don't share the same anti-enthusiasm about modernism. I don't see a problem being in it. If I were to agree, I'd say it's a symptom but not the cause.
However, here comes the main comment body: The "socially-significant" novel might not be a genre anymore for several reasons, but the main reason is other media do that function exhaustively now (doesn't mean they do it well). The socially-significant novels of the 19th century, be it Dostoyevsky or Dickens etc., were significant because there was no other way to learn about subjects discussed in those books. Before that time, nobody was writing about killers, prostitutes, nihilists, or poor children, etc.—social realism, in a word. They were not covered by the press. There are at least two reasons: censorship and taboo topics. You couldn't talk about the socially significant topics because you were not allowed to in many cases (I'm not saying in all cases), so many writers, in Russia at least, always turned to fiction to do that. That's why there are more famous Russian writers than there are journalists or philosophers. Later on, in the 20th century and now in the 21st century, many taboos have lifted, state and media censorship changed, media itself changed a lot. Now, you can read or watch or find anything on almost any socially significant topic. You're also free to write about it, not on any platform and not in any country of course (which we should acknowledge and respect), but you can find a platform, especially in the internet age. In that sense, these days non-fiction, both written by professionals and amateurs, covers a big chunk of socially significant topics. Writing a fiction novel about that won't surprise people in the same way it used to do. I don't mean socially significant novels cannot exist, it's just the competition for a reader's attention is very high, even within writing medium. However, the woke culture, cancel culture and high political polarisation of our age creates, at least in my opinion, somewhat the same tension that censorship and taboo used to—you are not allowed to talk about certain things because "that's not the way" or you could offend someone. In that sense, there's fertile soil for the resurgence of a social realism novel (not socialist I hope haha).
This is a great comment. The phrase "somewhat the same tension that censorship and taboo used to" points in the right direction for the reemergence of the novel as a significant art form. I'll do my best to help make it happen. Anyone else who thinks they have the ability should try too.
curious, what is your personal view of 'art for art's sake'; do you believe it is viable, even desirable?
It would take a book to answer that completely; luckily I’m writing such a book.
Briefly: I am much more inclined to agree with anyone using the phrase ‘Art for art’s sake’ than with those who would argue that art should have social utility: Social utility, in the modern sense of helping people with their struggles, with overcoming worldly obstacles, etc, is the death of art.
But more fully: art is not actually for its own sake. It is for the sake of maintaining a religious (in the broadest sense of the word) attitude toward life.
I agree almost entirely tbh
These pieces have been enlightening. I can't wait for part 3