Modern Applications of Universal Truths
As I've mentioned here before, William Faulkner's 1949 Nobel Prize acceptance speech is one of my favorite things to read. The core idea of it, that love, honor, pity, pride, compassion and sacrifice are the six universal truths upon which all good writing must be based, is something that's stuck in the back of my mind since I first read the speech, in Miss Brady's 10th grade English class.
Over the weekend, I thought about it some more. I reread JD Salinger's Nine Stories (because I couldn't find my copy of Catcher in the Rye, for whatever reason). The book is a little pretentious, in an 8th grade sort of way, but certainly taps into the universal truths. It's wartime writing, written 10 years after the war, which is almost cheating. Like writing your college essay about death, or divorce. The emotions of returning soldiers or unfulfilled war widows are such shorthand for the universal truths that Salinger doesn't have to work very hard (which, actually, might suggest that the writing's not as good. I'm not sure).
At any rate, it wasn't Salinger that made me think about Faulkner. It was JK Rowling. I'm a little hesitant about posting about Harry Potter AGAIN (especially since by now, I'm being mocked for it), but I will anyway. Just to note that the HP series is like a study in employing the universal truths, which is why the books are a) so well-received and b) such good reading material for kids (they teach the right lessons).
And last night, as I watched the third to last episode of Six Feet Under, then again this morning, when I read this Virginia Heffernan article about the episode (tons of spoilers, and reg required), I started thinking about the presence of universal truths in that story. Heffernan suggests that Six Feet Under is a part of the sentimental school of storytelling. I suppose that's true to some degree, but I associate sentimentality with shallowness (or faux depth), and I think that SFU is multi-dimensional. (To be fair, I'm pretty sure Heffernan would agree, since she obviously sees Brenda as a fairly unsentimental character.)
What I do think, though, is that Nate represents something Faulkner warned against: the distortion of the universal truths. Faulkner talks about weak writing confusing lust with love, and of writing with the glands. Clearly, Nate is guilty of this sort of superficiality.
Heffernan writes of sincerity, as compared to authenticity. She views SFU as settled near the sincere end of the spectrum. I think, though, that Nate's death is a statement about the value of authenticity of character.
Regardless, I can't wait for the next two episodes.
Over the weekend, I thought about it some more. I reread JD Salinger's Nine Stories (because I couldn't find my copy of Catcher in the Rye, for whatever reason). The book is a little pretentious, in an 8th grade sort of way, but certainly taps into the universal truths. It's wartime writing, written 10 years after the war, which is almost cheating. Like writing your college essay about death, or divorce. The emotions of returning soldiers or unfulfilled war widows are such shorthand for the universal truths that Salinger doesn't have to work very hard (which, actually, might suggest that the writing's not as good. I'm not sure).
At any rate, it wasn't Salinger that made me think about Faulkner. It was JK Rowling. I'm a little hesitant about posting about Harry Potter AGAIN (especially since by now, I'm being mocked for it), but I will anyway. Just to note that the HP series is like a study in employing the universal truths, which is why the books are a) so well-received and b) such good reading material for kids (they teach the right lessons).
And last night, as I watched the third to last episode of Six Feet Under, then again this morning, when I read this Virginia Heffernan article about the episode (tons of spoilers, and reg required), I started thinking about the presence of universal truths in that story. Heffernan suggests that Six Feet Under is a part of the sentimental school of storytelling. I suppose that's true to some degree, but I associate sentimentality with shallowness (or faux depth), and I think that SFU is multi-dimensional. (To be fair, I'm pretty sure Heffernan would agree, since she obviously sees Brenda as a fairly unsentimental character.)
What I do think, though, is that Nate represents something Faulkner warned against: the distortion of the universal truths. Faulkner talks about weak writing confusing lust with love, and of writing with the glands. Clearly, Nate is guilty of this sort of superficiality.
Heffernan writes of sincerity, as compared to authenticity. She views SFU as settled near the sincere end of the spectrum. I think, though, that Nate's death is a statement about the value of authenticity of character.
Regardless, I can't wait for the next two episodes.
posted by Kit Pollard at
11:48 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home