My Sin, My Soul

My Sin, My Soul

My first and largest problem with Mr. Samuel Johnson is the pedantic restrictive view of literature he so adamantly advocates. He claims we should read and write books that "exhibit life in its true state" and rid ourselves of the literature that immortalizes immoral and negative aspects of humanity, preserving "familiar histories" who are didactic in nature showing us (especially easily wayward youths) how to act properly. Granted, Johnson believes that if we rid ourselves of the negative and fantastical literature, we will forget how to be violent, immoral and corrupt. He is looking to solve the problems of humanity by trusting our ability to forget. He acknowledges the archival function of literature and how the written language allows us to remember more. Noble as his efforts are, he is suppressing development of language,literature, poetry and creativity.

A rule when creating new worlds whilst writing is that the new world must have rules in itself. For example, in the magical world of Harry Potter, there are five essential rules to magic that can never be violated, such as one cannot conjure food. There is also a governmental system and as JK Rowling insists, magic does not solve all problems. If these rules did not exist, the Magical World would be less believable thus hindering the reader's ability to engage in the story. So, Johnson is not entirely wrong when he denounces fantastical works that exist unbounded in terms of creation. However, to insist that all stories must reflect our own known world is utterly ridiculous. What authority does he have to claim that he know what humans should and should not read? Before language was written down, before books, when wax tablets engraved with hieroglyphics transmitted knowledge from one person to another. I am absolutely positive that corruption, rape, violence and all other immoral acts (except online pirating or course) were abound in the civilizations. The usage of written communication in its toddler years was used for recording business transactions; things like how many bottles of oil on a ship or how many slaves sold in the market. There was no documentation of vice, and yet it was still present. To outlaw the documentation of evil does not guarantee the eradication of it.  

Johnson insists on the censory of literature, a hot debate among educators today. Literature provides a safe place for experimentation with decisions. To unpack that, let me use an example. I read a book called Tweak that was the biography of a meth addict. It was very graphic with scenes of sex, drug-induced trips, drug deals, withdrawals and physical fights. The book was very raw and unrestrained, making me very afraid of being in the same room as meth. Now the question is, at what age can a "youth" read that? Will the portrayal of a very real problem in our world that happens to be a destructive and vice-filled account destroy the innocence of the child? What if I wanted to teach that in a Health class outlining the dangers of drug addiction? I think there is a very real possibility that the children, being able to experience drug addiction in a safe environment (that is the world created in the narrative), will choose to not engage in drug use. However, I cannot say with absolute certainty that every child will swear off drugs for life because of the book and there may be some youths who will try drugs because of what they read. I cannot make promises, but with the right lesson plan and proper discussion, this Johnson condemned book could be beneficial "morally."

In all, I think Johnson is trying to make the world a safer and more "moral" place, but his censorship denies the possibility that we can learn from mistakes in literature. I also am a firm believer that we need some rain to appreciate the sun, but that is another, less related topic.I cannot imagine a world without Lolita. Banned books don't stay banned.

Changing thoughts but not authors, I was quite interested and agreed much more with the Adventurer piece. When Johnson described the process of oral debate, I was reminded of Selfridge's Daemon theory of mental lexicon access. As a defender of a statements, one has to, "he is entangled in unexpected difficulties, he is harassed by sudden objections...his thoughts are scattered and confounded, and he gratifies the pride of airy petulance with an easy victory." (Johnson, 2) This confusion is similar to the daemons in our lexicon fighting for the loudest voice. This verbal contest is so quick, just milliseconds, if that, that we don't know we are confused or don't know for a little while. But, when the word is repeated often, the victory of comprehension written words seems effortless, just like winning an argument.

The necessity to read, write and engage socially with other people to be that "full man" also mirrors how we process words in parallel models/structures.Our brains use the phonological route for less familiar words, thus learning and making the unfamiliar familiar. But for words used often take the direct lexical route, one that allows nearly instantaneous access to the meaning. We would have serious difficulty learning new words without sounding them out, and we would read slow if we could not directly access the meaning. Without one, we are lopsided readers, similar to Johnson's argument. If we only read, we get lost and blinded by the brilliance of our own thoughts, which speaking to people who hold different views combats, allowing intellectual development. Also, only speaking can cause confusion and writing allows us to organize our thoughts, explore our assumptions to be better speakers or readers.
To rely only on one tool hinders our problem solving ability making road blocks in our life that could be easily overcome, if we work to develop an arsenal of weapons against confusion.

 I very much in love with the statement by Lamb, "I dream away my life in others' speculations." I think it is a beautiful notion of inhabiting another world, another perspective that will increase our intellectual and cultural awareness. It also reminds me of Lewis Carrol's Through the Looking Glass and Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, both being enchanting and fantastical books.