I began thinking of emergent literature as merely the "latest." BRAND NEW. Then re-reading Eliot's Quartets I imagined emergence as the lotus that emerges from the dry pool. Below the lotus emerges from water.
When one emerges, does one simply shake off the water from one's leaves?
Does one shift from bud to flower? It seems that the answer for the lotus is yes, but for emergent literature? Really? Is low-brow emergent literature the flowery offspring of high-brow literature? At first glance I would say Hardly! Secondly, I must remind myself that one of my favorite books is Matilda.
So I must rescind my rash reply and agree with Christina: "Who is to say that any truth or beauty contained in a "lesser" work is any less valid or any less moving than truth contained in masterpieces."
Oh the butterfly. . . the soul. . . the psyche.
When the butterfly emerges from its cocoon and stretches it's wings, it flashes a very different (and one might argue more beautiful) costume than it's previous caterpillar self. And yet, it is still the same being shifted shapes.
Professor Leubner talked about Proteus the shape-shifter today.
According to the Index of Homer's The Odyssey
"PROTEUS (proh'-tyoos): the Old Man of the Sea, servant of Poseidon and father of Eidothea, 4.408."
Proteus never loses any piece of himself in the process of shape-shifting. Similarly, if we consider emergent literature as stories or truths that are merely retold in a new shell, then the "latest" literature is not lesser than the literature of "intellects", but is rather just housed in a more aesthetic form.
No comments:
Post a Comment