Jacob, about your essay ON THE NOVEL, ...there are three premises to your argument:
(1) Communication requires clear, concise, unambiguous language,...
Z, we agree on that. Since reading Forster's essay 'Aspects Of The Novel' moved me to write my own, I'll be referring to the capitalized parts in the following extract from ENCARTA:
--"Forster, E.M. (1879-1970), English novelist and essayist, whose novels, written in a style notable for its CONCISENESS and FLUIDITY, EXPLORE the attitudes that create barriers between people.
His first novel, Where Angels Fear to Tread (1905), appeared when Forster was 26 years old and displays remarkably mature style. This was followed by The Longest Journey (1907) and A Room with a View (1908). The construction of these three novels was a REACTION to lengthy, formally plotted Victorian fiction. Somewhat autobiographical, they also SOUNDED A THEME prevalent in Forster's ESSAYS: the need to temper middle-class materialism with due consideration of things of the mind and imagination, in order to achieve harmony and understanding. This theme is treated more fully in Forster's masterpieces, Howards End (1910), with its MESSAGE "Only connect," and A Passage to India (1924). The latter, the last novel Forster wrote, deals with the conflict of cultures in terms of the AMBIGUOUS personal relationship between an English visitor and an Indian during British rule."--
My essay reads, with now added capitalization:
--'Positivistic,' 'Analytic and Linguistic Philosophy' principles allow for clear, concise, unambiguous language, the main tool for conveying MESSAGES, the elements of communication. In the NOVEL, the language tends to be SOMEWHAT lyrical and a MEASURE of flourish is fine. But mainly, the novelist does not purport to INTENTIONALLY convey a message to the reader!--
Thus, I make a distinction between the language for strict communication of messages, and the language for novelistic purposes.
(2)...that the novelist must wax poetical in his endeavors to create "a compelling work of fiction," and that if a "deliberate message" is incorporated into a text, then that text cannot be considered a novel.
My text says that the language TENDS to be SOMEWHAT lyrical. The novel, to be effective, must be: a) COMPELLING at least to a large group of intended readers; b) a work of FICTION. This is axiomatic, as the word 'novel' implies.
(3)...it follows that in "the mature fantasy of a novel" there is no room for an intended, underlying message. The premises upon which this conclusion rests, however, are far from axiomatic. If we look at each of them in turn, I think we will be able to agree that the argument, as it exists now, is at the very least a questionable one:
3a) To begin with, predefining the novel as a text that does not contain a deliberate message and then offering this definition as a premise in defense of the position that a novel does not contain a deliberate message is fallacious (begging the question). Let us take that statement, then, as a reiteration of your argument and move on.
Why "reiteration."? There is no 'circular reasoning' here, because I do not offer the definition as the proof. In literature, it is an axiom that a novel is a work of fiction. This axiom is my stepping stone. No fallacy here, because the rules of valid argument are not violated. The premises are: 1. Novels are fictional stories. 2. This book serves a specific didactic purpose. The conclusion: This is not a novel.
...(3b)...in the communication of a truth, a higher degree of clarity is desired (more so than in the case of a casual opinion, or a descriptive paragraph found in a novel)... our tools in this endeavor to convey a message --words-- lack any objective merit of their own. Even the most specific words or phrases remain abstract... (These abstract words) act as metaphors,...
Z, you accepted in an e-mail that by 'abstract' you refer to 'symbols.' You added further thoughts, which I comment upon at the end.
Being symbols, written (or spoken) words represent an idea agreed upon by a collectivity. They are easier to write than cuneiform or hieroglyphics. They cannot act as metaphors single-handedly. Only phrases can do that. Phrases are complex systems made of symbols called words. Axiomatically, the phrase is more than the sum of the component words.
...like an icon (more correctly, the "shortcut" attribute of the icon) on a PC desktop, pointing to an exact object, but without the ability to instantiate that object of its own accord. In the case of a desktop icon, I must "click" on it, to create an instance of the object it refers to.
I consider an icon in a PC as representing a switch opening the desired object, saving the expense of finding it.
...(3c) In the case of conceptualization, one must associate the abstraction (word or phrase) to an instance --or collection of instances-- of the object referred to. Each word spoken (or written), then, attempts to imply something; if it is our goal to understand the communication, we must attempt to infer the IMPLIED meaning. It follows that the process of linguistic communication involves the initial creation of abstractions, and the stringing of a group of them in a meaningful way, followed by the recipient of the message's inductive reconciliation of each abstraction to its associated object.
Let us use examples: The word CAT makes me think of lots of unspecific, "abstract" cats I've seen. The phrase CALICO CAT reminds me of a few cats, including one that I considered as part of the family. The phrase "PITZY, the queen mother," is not abstract, but very concrete, referring exclusively to that cat. Linguistic communication is based on clearly constructed phrases. Redundancy is recommended, as when Jacob told his uncle, "I wish to marry Rachel, your youngest." Even so, for lack of a written document --the ultimate redundancy-- Jacob ended up spending a whole week with Lea, and then many more whole weeks with both (and a few others, to boot).
...Doesn't a novelist do this? His language, while more flowery than that of the philosopher, is still expressive; each statement is carefully designed to elicit a process of conceptualization...
A scientific writing, and in a lesser degree, an essay, demands from the reader the capacity to conceptualize (to grasp mentally) abstractions. The novelist must be very concrete, unless he intends to emulate Joyce.
...The only difference for the novelist is that he need not necessarily refer the reader back to the "real world" in a "clear, concise, and unambiguous" manner. His obligation is to communicate clearly those concepts which are important to the comprehension of the fictional world he is attempting to create. A lack of clarity, or a high degree of ambiguity in this regard is unacceptable, and nobody would read a novel to its conclusion if they found the author unable to clearly communicate his conceptualization of the fictional world.
Certainly.
...(3d) Why can't the novel --like words, traffic lights, and trademarks, taken as a complete work-- be used as an abstraction, as a symbol? Are you prepared to say that E.M. Forster, who believed firmly in thematic intent was "just a gifted preacher" or "an inspired social reformer?" Would you say that works such as Animal Farm or Lord of The Flies have no allegorical value? Or, on the other hand, would you like to say that since they have allegorical value they are not novels?
Forster was also an essayist. His original ideas were utilized in the construction of novels. Characters in all novels express beliefs --and act-- in ways that can be allegorical. ENCARTA says:
"Forster's novels, written in a style notable for its CONCISENESS and FLUIDITY, EXPLORE the attitudes that create barriers between people."... "The construction of his first three novels was a REACTION to lengthy, formally plotted Victorian fiction. Somewhat autobiographical, they also SOUNDED A THEME prevalent in Forster's ESSAYS: the need to temper middle-class materialism with due consideration of things of the mind and imagination, in order to achieve harmony and understanding... This theme is treated more fully in... A Passage to India (1924)... which deals with the conflict of cultures in terms of the AMBIGUOUS personal relationship between an English visitor and an Indian during British rule... Howard's End (1910), ...offers the... MESSAGE: 'Only connect.'"
Did the author unabashedly offer messages "for the achievement of harmony and understanding?" Was he preaching? No, he was presenting situations for the reader to enjoy at a high intellectual level, and to reach his own conclusions. No novel should be quoted to "make a point."
Perhaps it would be better if we could agree that there are novels that are written for the pure pleasure of vicarious indulgence, and there are others that are written in such a way as to convey to the reader a message or a moral of some kind. In the same way, we could say that there are some readers who read for pleasure, and others who are mining for the little nuggets of truth which they believe are waiting for them just beyond the turn of the last page...
Certainly we agree. Readers are of many minds. And you have been wary in describing the 'message type' of novel. Whoever read D'Amici's "Heart" was touched by what could be construed as a message of filial love...
Either way, one thing seems clear:
...every novel can be said to have the potential to become the carrier of a message --whether this was the author's intent or not.
Z, another thing seems clear, too: I learned a lot from this dialogue. I believe that this type of activity bespeaks the value of the Internet.
ADDENDUM
June 11, 1999
Jacob, after reading your reply, I have a clearer understanding of your intent. You take "theme" to mean a general sense or implication carried by the novel, as opposed to an empirical value for the text...
Subject: The Novel
Yes! You express it more clearly now:
...while a novel can and often does carry a THEME, it does not present a didactic ARGUMENT.
Precisely! The theme has no specific intention, while everything didactic (a "message") does, being --unreservedly-- teleological.
I am curious as to why you did not post a response within the forum (at your Delphi's homestead), in as much as whatever public eye you have drawn might be interested in reviewing your clarifications. It is one of the things I enjoy about the message boards, being able to follow an exchange from its beginning to its end, to see the point by point exchange as it has unfolded. Perhaps you were waiting for my response? To help you decide whether or not to use complete postings or the 'interdialog' format?
True. You well know that I look for interdialogs that are of interest to others. But indeed, I expected your reaction as part of the dialog. In fact, I wanted to eventually ask your agreement (although not editing), and to know how I should call you. I believe that it is now the time to publish the dialogue as sent to you by e-mail, with follow-ups, if necessary. If you agree, then just tell me how I should present your name.
Well, I should thank you. I have always been a very good learner, but not very often well taught. It's no good when the first thing the pupil sees in the teacher is fallibility; worse still when the teacher compounds the problem by dodging the questions posed by the student. If he who is to learn has the requisite intelligence, however, he will see the fallibility --what remains is for the teacher to show through proofs and by points his ability to rise above it. And this you have been able to do.
I believe both of us would profit intellectually by feedback of this pleasant kind. What you say is very encouraging and its intrinsic value cannot compare to an infinite number of simple manifestations of appreciation for D-SP.
I do not think I can describe accurately the feeling I had upon reviewing your response, before continuing with this email. It was a very calm sensation, a slight bending of the will (a bow?), and the sudden realization that I had missed that distinction entirely --the distinction between theme and argument.
I believe your words might help to enlighten other young minds.
Jacob, you also wrote: "Another thing seems clear, too: I learned a lot from this dialogue. I believe that this type of activity bespeaks the value of the Internet."
I would comment that it goes without saying that I have learned a good deal as well. The Internet marks the first time that certain rare types have had the ability to find and communicate in a somewhat direct manner --the first time they've been able to breach their lack of proximity. And, of course, I'm happy we've had this chance to discourse; I would dare to guess we shall continue to do so for some time.