On Thursday, November 18, 2004 at 5:27:17 PM UTC-8, Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> OFurorHortensis wrote:
> > Rubard opined:
> >
> >
> >>The function of literature, the basis of its cultivation by humanity, is
> >
> > clearly not solely a matter of enjoyment.
> >
> > I abjure this Roundhead hooey, and all those who find it necessary to seek to
> > redeem art by freighting it with trite notions of utility. Pfui. Pfui. Pfui.
> >
> > Phuror
> Hooray! To me the "function" of literature and art is simply to make you feel
> and think.
> Though re-reading what I just wrote makes me feel uneasily like one of Socrates'
> partners in dialogue. I am just waiting for the devastating question to come
> along such as:
> Socrates: My dear friend, do you think that art should make one feel any
> feeling at all or should it be a noble feeling?
> To which I would answer:
> FAM: In my humble opinion, Socrates, the ability of art to move one to any
> feeling is its unique characteristic. It does not matter whether the feeling is
> anger or joy. For, indeed, Socrates, at our own Festival of Dionysus each year
> do we not begin with a tragedy, then present a comedy before the second tragedy
> of the day, then a second comedy before the final tragedy of the day? So do we
> not commend the playwright who is capable of moving the audience through a wide
> range of emotion and thought?
>
> Francis A. Miniter

2022 Update: Class act. Q: Does it matter whether he "approves" or "disapproves"?