There is a quote widely attributed to Ernest Hemingway that goes like this: "There is nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and bleed." Hemingway is something of an American hero, and this is a sentiment that can explain our feelings about literature, including his. Whether or not something can "make us bleed" is how we gauge the worthiness of art. The problem is that recently we have taken that to mean, anything that isn't tragic isn't art.
Think about this; really think about it. When was the last time you picked up a book with a sticker on the front, whether it be Pulitzer, Pen Faulkner, Nobel, etc. and when you were done you thought, that was uplifting. I'm not saying that tragedy is done, and we shouldn't do it anymore. I simply think that we've narrowed our view of art to something so small that no one is interested any longer. Art should be inclusive, and not the exclusive opinion web of university professors it has become. The late (and great) Gore Vidal saw this coming as early as the forties, and wrote several essays on the topic, "The Hacks of Academe" being my personal favorite. Vidal decried what he called "the university novel" and its narrow scope of reference.
While he was never a fan of television because he believed it was taking away from the more noble art of novel writing, (which point I won't argue. Novel writing is the pinnacle.) I tend to believe that at least part of his prickly nature on the subject was the product of generational golden age thinking. So where does television stand? We know where the world of Academia falls on this issue, but where do you stand? We are the ones who read (or don't) and watch TV (you probably do). If we have to accept the novel as an exercise in desensitization, then why should TV not fill the void? Does television not make us bleed? I read every day, and I pride myself on that point, but television is a great passion of mine as well. I believe they can and should exist within the same sphere. All you have to do is browse social networking sites like Tumblr or even this site, to see that we really care about our TV shows and their characters. This is a fact that we prove repeatedly.
In 2004, The Known World by Edward P. Jones won the Pulitzer Prize for novels. How many of you knew that? In the same year 52.46 million people watched "The Last One." You probably don't need me to explain that, but if you do—that's the last episode of Friends. A well written show is a work of art. 52.46 million people bled for the departure of our favorite friends. "No one is interested in the arts anymore," is something I hear often, but it simply isn't true. People are interested, and heavily emotionally invested. There is an overwhelming audience for the arts that have been alienated by the intimidating and oppressively narrow view of art being perpetrated by universities across America. Those people have taken refuge in the comfort of characters on screen, and have left those on the page.
So bring us back; we have not reached the point of no return. Can you hear us Academe? Include Harry Potter in literary discussion or analyze plot arcing in Friends, and maybe we'd be more inclined to empathize with the plight of Nathan Zuckerman, or Julien Sorel (Philip Roth and Stendhal characters respectively). And *clutch the pearls* perhaps consider that some of these things might actually fall under your category of "art" that you've held tight to the chest for so long. Some might take this to mean art has been redefined, but really it hasn't. We're just trying to take art back to where it was before, back to its roots— what makes us bleed.
Share This Article
