Skip to main content

Writers and Confrontations

Image result for vonnegut


"Students like to say that they stage no confrontations because people avoid confrontations in modern life. “Modern life is so lonely,” they say. This is laziness. It’s the writer’s job to stage confrontations, so the characters will say surprising and revealing things, and educate and entertain us all. If a writer can’t or won’t do that, he should withdraw from the trade."
- Kurt Vonnegut

One of my Facebook friends posted this quote recently. I like it, and that will have to be my complete excuse for including it here. 

Comments

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maybe the quotation is out of context, but it makes little sense to me. I assume that "Students ... stage no confrontations" means that student writers of fiction and plays omit confrontations from their plots. I don't know how that is possible, but let that go. Then we learn that the reason that they stage no confrontations is that people avoid confrontations in modern life. I don't know what evidence they have for the belief that people avoid confrontations in modern life, but I'll let that go.

    The students seem to be saying that their fiction and plays should reflect modern life, but they don't say why it should. Then students say, "Modern life is so lonely," but what does that have to do with what precedes it? Are they saying that modern life is lonely BECAUSE people avoid confrontations? I don't see the connection between loneliness and avoiding confrontations. People can enjoy themselves together without confrontations, and I see no reason to conclude that people who avoid confrontations are more lonely than people who engage in confrontations. But, if we do conclude that, then why don't students conclude that their fiction and plays would be more interesting if they included confrontations? Is it that reflecting modern life is more important than writing interesting fiction and plays?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...

The Growing Block Theory of Time

My own disposition, in regard to the philosophy of time, is toward the "growing block" theory. This is the view that past events remain realities, that present-moment events are also realities, but that future events are not yet real. The image is of the universe as a block with an edge on (say) the right-hand side. The block is expanding because that edge is moving ever further right, and that edge is what we call the present, or, simply, "now." Everything to the left of that edge is both static (the past is complete) and, still and forever, real. Think of the phrase "the moving finger writes." The chief alternatives to the growing-block theory are "presentism" (only the now-edge itself is real) and "eternalism" (past, present, and future are all real." I believe that time is a growing block because (1) that's what it feels like, (2) we should stick with the introspective phenomenon unless we have good reason to abandon ...