My first, very obvious question regarding these readings: why is everything capitalized? Is this simply in the style of the age, or is there a specific reason? It seems to me to communicate some kind of authority and objectiveness, which somewhat contrasts the fact that these periodicals are concerned with ideas and human nature rather than facts or news.
I observed that in several of the selections, the majority of the piece is written in third person, but switches to first person at the end (with the exception of Tatler 107, which is entirely first person). I think the initial writing in third person emphasizes the universal nature of these discussions, and the fact that they are intended to apply to humanity generally rather than the author or any individual specifically. It also may explain their wide appeal! However, the final switch to first person provides a reminder that this entirely impersonal approach is infeasible, and that of course, though these ideas may be widely applicable, the level at which they can be implemented is individual. Similarly, this "I" contrasts the alleged objectivism of ordinary periodicals, distinguishing The Tatler and Spectator from other publications (and perhaps implying that since true objectivism is impossible, publications should make no illusion of presenting unbiased facts and news, and instead concern themselves with "self-definition" and social theory). Tatler No. 225 seems to further comment on journalism. It explains that "he that is now a Wit in Conversation, would be considered as a Spreader of false News is in Business," perhaps implying that just as Wit may be perceived as good until we realize that it does not make polite conversation, bearers of actual news, though they may seem truthful,, are often biased and inaccurate.
On a different note, I noticed a significant emphasis on the importance of pleasantries and a focus on the good rather than the bad. Tatler No 225 explains how in polite conversation, "we should always be inclined rather to hide than rally each others infirmities," and Spectator No 291 similarly explains, "a true Critick ought to dwell rather up on Excellencies than Imperfections." Here, the multidimensional nature of humanity is recognized, however, in order for society to function properly (in conversation or in criticism), it is necessary to sweep imperfections under the rug. What is important is not brutal honesty, but rather presentation, and adhering to social standards.
Spectator 411 and 414 address similar ideas in the discussion of nature and art. It is described how though humans like nature better than art, "we find the works of nature still more pleasant, the more they resemble those of Art" (414). Nature itself is wild and unruly, but humans like it when its appears on the surface to resemble Art, something controllable, created, and civilized. This suggests that humans are basally attracted to disorder (nature), but because of social norms and expectations, value the appearance of civilization and rationality.
Relating to these ideas about surface pleasantries and order versus underlying character are the ideas about wit and logic. Spectator 291 advocates the necessity of a "clear and Logical head" in both authorship and criticism, and the value of reason more generally is espoused continuously through these selections. Reason, logic, and wit are all to some extent related here: wit requires some degree of logic, however, it also is deemed inappropriate in the context of criticism, and, "in an improper place . . . is impertinent and absurd." On one hand, reason is ideal, and wit undermines the proper operation of reason. On other hand "productions of a great genius, with many lapses and inadvertencies, are infinitely preferable to the Works of an Inferior kind of Author, which are scrupulously exact and conformable to all the rules of correct writing." Though though reason is preferable, "lapses and inadvertencies," i.e. what allows wit, are necessary for the creation of Art. Again, the human tendency away from order and reason is emphasized. This is presented as an inevitable truth, rather than a call for reform, illustrating the contemplative, rather than prescriptive or informative purpose of these periodicals.
Though the human taste for chaos is presented, Spectator 409 provides a contrast to this in its focus on defining "good taste" in writing. This illustrates the immense value placed on this quality of good taste, and thus the social focus on self-betterment and intellect. The "conversant among the Writings of the most Polite Authors" or "conversation with Men of a Polite Genius"described here are valued much more highly than the "polite conversation" described in Tatler 225, because they enable an individual to hone their personal characteristics. This "good taste" is in opposition to "wit," although, in the picture drawn by the Tatler and Spectator, humans inevitably possess both. "Good taste" surpasses wit because whereas wit represents degradation of something for the sake of humor, whereas "good taste" represents a desire for improvement. Here, "turns of Wit, and forced conceits, which have no manner of Influence, either for the bettering or enlarging of the Mind of him who reads them." Ironic, given that these pieces are quite "witty" themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment