I often ask my students why the 20th
century, and now the 21st, produced no great epic poems. I have yet to receive an answer, any
answer. After 30 years of such
questioning, I suspect I never will.
So here, in pedagogical desperation, I do
what I seldom do: I give them the answer
they never gave me. It is not my own; it
comes from Russell Kirk, as does so much that explains what’s wrong with the
world.
Great literature, Kirk insists in his
“English Letters in an Age of Boredom,” habitually hovers around four enduring
themes: religion, heroism, love, and
human variety.
But, he says, (1) a society, like ours, which
has lost its religious convictions and its piety, denies itself the first
theme. (2) A society that denigrates true
greatness denies itself the second. Think
about them what you wish, girl-smitten vampires are not heroes. (3) A society that takes love for nothing more
than carnal gratification denies itself the third. (4) A society that conceives of humans as little
more than accidental, soulless, interchangeable, cogs in a mechanistic nexus
denies itself the fourth. “The springs
of the imagination thus are dried up,” Kirk pronounces truly, tragically, and
finally. In that springless desert, not
even satire can flourish or long exist, for with the loss of the great themes
and imagination comes the loss even of mockery.
There, in one paragraph, is why great
literature died in our hands. We stopped
believing the right things. We stopped
asking the right questions. In our
hands, the perennial issues and the perennial questions to which they gave rise
all died. We have the opposite of a
Midas touch. What we handle turns not to
gold, or even to garbage, but to ghosts.
You can expect nothing else from the
culture of death.
No cure for it can be found, save the
Word of Life, which we meticulously have banned from the public square, the
academy, the laboratory, and the arena.
Wyndham Lewis, it turns out, despite his
pessimism and complaints, was too optimistic.
He thought human reason might save us.
He never asked what, or Who, might save reason.
Lewis forgot that while we human
creatures are capable of reason, because of our selfish desires and unruly appetites,
we are rarely ever reasonable. Thinking
is hard work; thinking rationally harder still.
We are not at all well suited, by birth or by habit, either to hard work
or to thinking, much less to both.
Kirk could have gone on, could have
continued his litany of epic killers.
Had he done so, he might have included impatience, the sort bred from
years spent planted squarely before a television set, years during which we
acquired the habits and rhythms of sitcoms and soap operas – thereby inexorably
acquiring a taste only for problems that can be raised and solved in 30 minutes
minus commercials, problems like a torn prom dress or backing your dad’s car
into a tree. For us, if it can’t be
handled in 22 minutes, it’s too long and too difficult. Reduced to those shrunken dimensions,
Milton’s epic panoply (or Dante’s) becomes a mere screenplay, a script, replete
with artificial laugh lines, clichés, and crudities, wherein inane anatomical
utterances replace eloquence and wherein scatological shock replaces beauty,
truth, and goodness, things far more difficult to conceive, write, produce, and
to communicate than garish, slapstick stunts and juvenile vulgarity. For shrunken sensibilities like ours, the
word “epic” means two hours of TV watching for three nights in row. On any or all of those three nights, thinking
is optional, hardly required.
That shrunken sensibility stands behind
what I hear too often from my students. For
example, while discussing Beowulf in an English literature survey
course, and the fact that while sometimes you slay the monster, in the end the
monster slays you, I asked Jen, a most delightful sorority girl, what monsters
she faced. She said: “Every day, when I get up, I don’t know what
clothes to wear.”
Somewhere
in the 20th century, the scope of battle shrunk; the monsters withered; and so, apparently, did we.
1 comment:
The tenthiesth century has seen a prevalence of both Philosophic materialism and Postmodernism. Both of these views denies the existence of any meta-narratives. No meta-narratives means no epic stories, and without epic stories there can be no epic poetry.
Post a Comment