The widely translated Dutch novelist Arnon Grunberg attempts to end our ongoing exchange over the very possibility of letting Satan speak again in the novel by claiming "A good novelist adds something to the tradition, if this is too meager (or too ironic) for Schliesser I can only say: we don’t need another novelist who is proud of making grandiose statements. One Norman Mailer was enough." Grunberg here sides with Coetzee's vision in ("What is a Classic?") that the novelist's role is to be a steward of the tradition. Grunberg overlooks the great novelist, who transforms the tradition and, in doing so, saves it by giving it and her readers the oxygen of life. (There is an analogy with the role of philosophic prophecy in philosophy; see also here and here.) Thus, Grunberg tacitly confirms my assertion that the modern novelist is complicit in his (her) self-marginalization.
Grunberg admits that there can be novels that have "been dangerous." But he insists that there is a trade-off between dangerousness (Ayn Rand) and excellence (Giorgio Bassani)--Grunberg goes so far as insisting that I may be confusing "power and influence with quality." (I return to this below.) Again, with Coetzee we can grant that education into our craft demands from us a constant re-examination of the tradition and this is the very grounds of judgments of quality. To put this in terms of philosophy, it's only by a constant engaging, re-examining, and renewing of the history of philosophy that we will learn to discern quality as opposed to mere faddish-ness.
Grunberg seems to think that I equate irony with cowardice. But I agree with him "that even passivity can be resistance and that irony doesn’t necessarily equal cowardice." (Grunberg is describing Bassani--whom I am now eager to read!) Let me grant that from the point of view of, say, the do-no-harm principle, Grunberg is correct that the "combination of paranoia and irony might still be the best answer to the horror of our times." This is why I had ironically claimed that we should "be grateful for small mercies." But to let Satan speak does not mean that Satan has to lead a political party (power) or a new religious cult (influence), or some combination thereof. Grunber's attitude is fundamentally conservative--the status quo often presents itself as the party of justice. But sometimes the party of humanity sides with Eve's "rash hand in evil hour/Forth reaching to the fruit, she plucked, she ate..."
I had started this exchange by invoking Coetzee's Elizabeth Costello, a novel I co-taught with Grunberg once. Now, I read Coetzee's novel as, in part, a novelist not-so-gently reminding philosophers that we avoid self-domestication. Maybe some philosopher needs to write a book reminding the novelists that right now their role is not to be the lapdogs of the status quo.
Recent Comments