Hasting's thoughts after the book exhibition, or an Argument for Professional Participation in Promoting Literature, as such Participation is both Necessary and Beneficial
You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.
Dear Literature Lovers,
First, I hope you have been all well through the winter vacation, and look forward to your success for whatever matter in this term or semester.
At first, my responsibilities for my current job did not require me to visit book fairs, but last year some of the publishers began to adopt our material to their children's books, so I went there to look for feedback of customers and, at the same time, to look for new ideas and business connections.
Such opportunities brought me dangerously close to books, to you, and to writing to you about what I think about the utter lack of our English professionals in promoting the readership for Anglo-American Literature, as I knew about some of the activities, such as recitation of parts from Divine Comedy in its Italian original. Surely there is not so much depth to talk about in such efforts, and I certainly know there have been tremendous efforts on paper: in research, translation, and introduction written to accompany translations. These certainly are very good, but they aren't enough. Even if I am not precise, one could see more or less such efforts should be redirected to promoting these efforts. I know we should not be very concerned about appearances (while we still bother about clothing and makeup), but should this moral statute prevent us, ladies and gentlemen, from advertising the goodness of literature? Whenever I see missionaries looking for proselytes, I more or less remind myself of the literary studies in the not-so-positive state I had lived with. (By both entering the field, doing a not-so-satisfactory job in studying, and leaving you, I would not exculpate myself a bit.)
If you, ladies and gentlemen, are not yet satisfied so far, let me offer you three reasons for our participation of enlarging the readership of literature, starting with the least palatable and weakest one:
(a) Business-wise, my real appeal (as well as your mandate!) is to appeal to the readers directly. What we have is something like a shop selling shoes in not-yet-so-modern African shoeless tribes (at least that was the story). And what we have to do is to tell the people why wearing shoes would be a good idea. Of course the effort may be fruitless or even risky (as the first salesman in the story says), but don't you think it is at least worth a try in this emerging market? Even if it fails, what do we have to lose?
And let's be more honest: were it not for the government subsidies (thanks to taxpayer money or legal tender produced from the central banks) we probably wouldn't even have the shop. Should I say our passive attitude confirms the saying "That which nobody owns nobody will care for," as we own no departments?
(b) In intellectual terms, this participation also makes a lot of sense. In the duration for you reading the sentence, there are tons of academic papers and research efforts produced throughout the world. But how many of these are worthwhile rereading? And would they have been accepted had it not been for the limited academic interests totally insulated from public opinion? And specifically in literature, are literary theories, with their inexplicable intricacies and unsound beliefs, just as the monetary, economic, and financial systems in the entire world economy professed by bankers and corporatists, not some part of the academic strategy to bewilder the general public and, in doing so, to serve whoever under the banner of theory, regardless of the virtues in individual researchers and their research output? If we care for the quality of literary research produced here, we then must try our best to bring literature to the greatest many.
Of course I cannot guarantee a success will turn the tables overnight, but are we going to do nothing and have nonsense safely ensconced in academia?
(c) Economically, we have to do this if we want to support ourselves by education we have had. I believe we have heard a lot of complaints about how this liberal education we have is irrelevant (and we voiced a lot of them too), especially when we talk about making the means for living. I am always touched when remembering some opinion for preferring teaching literature to mere English, because, as you honorable ladies and gentlemen can testify and agree by your own experience, the best way of learning English is literature. It seems too much trouble to bring literature in some intellectual weakling learning English, but, as Liddell Hart says, "in strategy the longest way round is often the shortest way": it certainly works brilliantly, and you ladies and gentlemen are the most illustrious living examples.
Therefore, we have to seriously consider literature, hitherto some luxury enjoyed by some elite high school students, for the general students. Not only we can enjoy our work a lot more, but also there would be a much brighter economic future for whoever choose to work hard and strive for excellence in the field.
Of course, you may argue against this and say it is in our interests to keep literature within the privileged few of elite and academia, as by serving them we may be paid with a greater lump sum of money while doing much less work. My answer to them is to look at how the successful computer industry works. LCD television sets (as well as any kind of computers, cell phones, and whatever) used to cost a lot more than they are today, but we all know companies producing them earn a lot more today: what was lost in margin quantity more than makes up for it.
With these in mind, what more excuses should we think for not promoting literature in the general public, save inertia and utter reluctance to change? Continuing the footsteps of our teachers and relying on academia for sustenance could be comfortable (as these honorable teachers have shown), but as the second law of thermodynamics suggests, this might change, with more vain pursuit for money and fatuous regulations in academia; we may just want some viable alternatives. And my purpose for all this is to present my humble intention to have us start looking for them in store when we need to weather ourselves through the winter of our discontent, which may not be far away.
A word for skeptics. Why should a reprobate of literature and traitor in academia like me, instead of silently sliding back to the shithole (excuse the expression) of chemistry and business and enjoying all the money, choose to lecture someone still working for both? I have to say that without education and your benevolent guidance I cannot be what I am, and you, represent the foundation stone of education, or the future literally. As a result, I have vested interest in education, no less than you do, and I, if hoping for a bright future, have to invest in that. Otherwise, to say nothing else, is there any meaning in money and material enjoyment? If you, with all your professionalism, are willing to listen to someone who knows a little bit more of something else, I owe you all love, gratitude, and support.
Respectfully,
Hasting G. Chen 陳宗佑
沒有留言:
張貼留言