Comprehension - Comprehension Passage 2

The literary distaste for politics, however, seems to be focused not so much on the largely murky practice of politics in itself as a subject of literary representation but rather more on how it is often depicted in literature, i.e., on the very politics of such representation. A political novel often turns out to be not merely a novel about politics but a novel with a politics of its own, for it seeks not merely to show us how things are but has fairly definite ideas about how things should be, and precisely what one should think and do in order to make things move in that desired direction. In short, it seeks to convert and enlist the reader to a particular cause or ideology; it often is (in an only too familiar phrase) not literature but propaganda. This is said to violate the very spirit of literature which is to broaden our understanding of the world and the range of our sympathies rather than to narrow them down through partisan commitment. As John Keats said, ‘We hate poetry that has a palpable design upon us’.

                    Another reason why politics does not seem amenable to the highest kind of literary representation seems to arise from the fact that politics by its very nature is constituted of ideas and ideologies. If political situations do not lend themselves to happy literary treatment, political ideas present perhaps an even greater problem in this regard. Literature, it is argued, is about human experiences rather than about intellectual abstractions; it deals in what is called the ‘felt reality’ of human flesh and blood, and in sap and savour (rasa) rather than in alid and lifeless ideas. In an extensive discussion of the matter in her book Ideas and the Novel. the American novelist Mary McCarthy observed that ‘ideas are still today felt to be unsightly in the novel though that was not so in ‘former days’, i.e., in the 18th an 19th centuries. Her formulation of the precise nature of the incompatibility between ideas on the one hand and the novel on the other betrays perhaps a divided conscience in the matter and a sense of dilemma shared by many writers and readers: ‘An idea cannot have Loose ends, but a novel, I almost think, needs them. Nevertheless, there is enough in common for the novelists to feel. .. the attraction of ideas while taking up arms against them – most often with weapons of mockery.’

The literary distaste for politics, however, seems to be focused not so much on the largely murky practice of politics in itself as a subject of literary representation but rather more on how it is often depicted in literature, i.e., on the very politics of such representation. A political novel often turns out to be not merely a novel about politics but a novel with a politics of its own, for it seeks not merely to show us how things are but has fairly definite ideas about how things should be, and precisely what one should think and do in order to make things move in that desired direction. In short, it seeks to convert and enlist the reader to a particular cause or ideology; it often is (in an only too familiar phrase) not literature but propaganda. This is said to violate the very spirit of literature which is to broaden our understanding of the world and the range of our sympathies rather than to narrow them down through partisan commitment. As John Keats said, ‘We hate poetry that has a palpable design upon us’.

                    Another reason why politics does not seem amenable to the highest kind of literary representation seems to arise from the fact that politics by its very nature is constituted of ideas and ideologies. If political situations do not lend themselves to happy literary treatment, political ideas present perhaps an even greater problem in this regard. Literature, it is argued, is about human experiences rather than about intellectual abstractions; it deals in what is called the ‘felt reality’ of human flesh and blood, and in sap and savour (rasa) rather than in alid and lifeless ideas. In an extensive discussion of the matter in her book Ideas and the Novel. the American novelist Mary McCarthy observed that ‘ideas are still today felt to be unsightly in the novel though that was not so in ‘former days’, i.e., in the 18th an 19th centuries. Her formulation of the precise nature of the incompatibility between ideas on the one hand and the novel on the other betrays perhaps a divided conscience in the matter and a sense of dilemma shared by many writers and readers: ‘An idea cannot have Loose ends, but a novel, I almost think, needs them. Nevertheless, there is enough in common for the novelists to feel. .. the attraction of ideas while taking up arms against them – most often with weapons of mockery.’

The literary distaste for politics, however, seems to be focused not so much on the largely murky practice of politics in itself as a subject of literary representation but rather more on how it is often depicted in literature, i.e., on the very politics of such representation. A political novel often turns out to be not merely a novel about politics but a novel with a politics of its own, for it seeks not merely to show us how things are but has fairly definite ideas about how things should be, and precisely what one should think and do in order to make things move in that desired direction. In short, it seeks to convert and enlist the reader to a particular cause or ideology; it often is (in an only too familiar phrase) not literature but propaganda. This is said to violate the very spirit of literature which is to broaden our understanding of the world and the range of our sympathies rather than to narrow them down through partisan commitment. As John Keats said, ‘We hate poetry that has a palpable design upon us’.

                    Another reason why politics does not seem amenable to the highest kind of literary representation seems to arise from the fact that politics by its very nature is constituted of ideas and ideologies. If political situations do not lend themselves to happy literary treatment, political ideas present perhaps an even greater problem in this regard. Literature, it is argued, is about human experiences rather than about intellectual abstractions; it deals in what is called the ‘felt reality’ of human flesh and blood, and in sap and savour (rasa) rather than in alid and lifeless ideas. In an extensive discussion of the matter in her book Ideas and the Novel. the American novelist Mary McCarthy observed that ‘ideas are still today felt to be unsightly in the novel though that was not so in ‘former days’, i.e., in the 18th an 19th centuries. Her formulation of the precise nature of the incompatibility between ideas on the one hand and the novel on the other betrays perhaps a divided conscience in the matter and a sense of dilemma shared by many writers and readers: ‘An idea cannot have Loose ends, but a novel, I almost think, needs them. Nevertheless, there is enough in common for the novelists to feel. .. the attraction of ideas while taking up arms against them – most often with weapons of mockery.’

The literary distaste for politics, however, seems to be focused not so much on the largely murky practice of politics in itself as a subject of literary representation but rather more on how it is often depicted in literature, i.e., on the very politics of such representation. A political novel often turns out to be not merely a novel about politics but a novel with a politics of its own, for it seeks not merely to show us how things are but has fairly definite ideas about how things should be, and precisely what one should think and do in order to make things move in that desired direction. In short, it seeks to convert and enlist the reader to a particular cause or ideology; it often is (in an only too familiar phrase) not literature but propaganda. This is said to violate the very spirit of literature which is to broaden our understanding of the world and the range of our sympathies rather than to narrow them down through partisan commitment. As John Keats said, ‘We hate poetry that has a palpable design upon us’.

                    Another reason why politics does not seem amenable to the highest kind of literary representation seems to arise from the fact that politics by its very nature is constituted of ideas and ideologies. If political situations do not lend themselves to happy literary treatment, political ideas present perhaps an even greater problem in this regard. Literature, it is argued, is about human experiences rather than about intellectual abstractions; it deals in what is called the ‘felt reality’ of human flesh and blood, and in sap and savour (rasa) rather than in alid and lifeless ideas. In an extensive discussion of the matter in her book Ideas and the Novel. the American novelist Mary McCarthy observed that ‘ideas are still today felt to be unsightly in the novel though that was not so in ‘former days’, i.e., in the 18th an 19th centuries. Her formulation of the precise nature of the incompatibility between ideas on the one hand and the novel on the other betrays perhaps a divided conscience in the matter and a sense of dilemma shared by many writers and readers: ‘An idea cannot have Loose ends, but a novel, I almost think, needs them. Nevertheless, there is enough in common for the novelists to feel. .. the attraction of ideas while taking up arms against them – most often with weapons of mockery.’

The literary distaste for politics, however, seems to be focused not so much on the largely murky practice of politics in itself as a subject of literary representation but rather more on how it is often depicted in literature, i.e., on the very politics of such representation. A political novel often turns out to be not merely a novel about politics but a novel with a politics of its own, for it seeks not merely to show us how things are but has fairly definite ideas about how things should be, and precisely what one should think and do in order to make things move in that desired direction. In short, it seeks to convert and enlist the reader to a particular cause or ideology; it often is (in an only too familiar phrase) not literature but propaganda. This is said to violate the very spirit of literature which is to broaden our understanding of the world and the range of our sympathies rather than to narrow them down through partisan commitment. As John Keats said, ‘We hate poetry that has a palpable design upon us’.

                    Another reason why politics does not seem amenable to the highest kind of literary representation seems to arise from the fact that politics by its very nature is constituted of ideas and ideologies. If political situations do not lend themselves to happy literary treatment, political ideas present perhaps an even greater problem in this regard. Literature, it is argued, is about human experiences rather than about intellectual abstractions; it deals in what is called the ‘felt reality’ of human flesh and blood, and in sap and savour (rasa) rather than in alid and lifeless ideas. In an extensive discussion of the matter in her book Ideas and the Novel. the American novelist Mary McCarthy observed that ‘ideas are still today felt to be unsightly in the novel though that was not so in ‘former days’, i.e., in the 18th an 19th centuries. Her formulation of the precise nature of the incompatibility between ideas on the one hand and the novel on the other betrays perhaps a divided conscience in the matter and a sense of dilemma shared by many writers and readers: ‘An idea cannot have Loose ends, but a novel, I almost think, needs them. Nevertheless, there is enough in common for the novelists to feel. .. the attraction of ideas while taking up arms against them – most often with weapons of mockery.’