Louis Proyect lnp3
>I realize Lenin praised Tolstoy, etc.
Actually, Tolstoy was a positive saint in comparison to Dostoievsky, but can't we accept "Brothers Karamazov" as one of the greatest novels every written. The purpose of literature is not to change society, but to provide insights into the human condition and to entertain. John Ford's westerns are absolutely reactionary but they are great works. Same thing with Evelyn Waugh's novels. Or Ezra Pound's poetry. By the same token, some works embody progressive political messages but are not much better than hackwork. For instance, I find John Sayles's recent films unwatchable.
^^^^^ CB: Yea, I used to think _Notes from Underground_ was a tract on the illegal party...I got some stories about bureaucrats and prostitutes though.
Just to play the Devil's advocate a bit more , my attitude toward evil geniuses is not to term their works "great" ( I guess the Devil is the archtype evil genius. He does come off as sympathetic in _Paradise Lost_.) . Anyway, I guess I have extra hate, rather than praise, for use of ability to paint a very accurate picture in the service of the Enemy , so to speak. Ford or Dostoyevsky are especially due denunciation, because they abuse their talents. Plus, if they are so smart , they should know better. They are wilfully doing bad. They can't plead ignorance. According to them, they are the opposite of ignorant.
Of course, many of the bourgeoisie and their agents have profound incites into human consciousness and life. That is part of how the ruling class retains its rule. But I despise rather than admire those who help the bourgeoisie by using their great skill in service of bondage rather than freedom.
The sort of original on this in class society in general is Plato, great, fucking poet. Eat shit , Plato.
We shouldn't forget that in origin, the antagonism between predominantly mental and predominantly physical labor correlates with oppressing and oppressed classes. Although, as Marxists we champion the service of intellectuals to the working class, in the long run, there is an elitist scholastic tradition, which is the very opposite of Marxist intelletuals. And we are the newcomer upstarts. Reaction has more to do with "thinkers" in the long run.
The fact that their works are beautiful does not exempt them from political judgment. In fact, the beauty of form demands extra scrutiny because something beautiful is more easily used abusively to persuade people the wrong way.
Maybe we could develop a way for extracting the rational kernels from this. What is the rational kernel in Ezra Pound ? Seriously. It reminds of the question what's so great about Heidegger ?
Why is there the repeated pattern of a Pound and then a Bellow ? Classicism and reaction have a logical affinity. Fascism is a form of Romanticism ( It was even founded in Rome :>0).
Anyway, as intellectuals for the poor, we have sharply distinguish ourselves from the longer term tradition of intellecutuals. ( I notice Bellow tries to make "writers" out as distinct from "intellectuals". Cute)