What Happened To Epic Poetry?

The only kind of poetry I really enjoy is the epic form. Generally with a story to tell, and a moralistic, mythological story at that, which presents the ideals and strivings of sometimes an entire people (in the older contexts). The epic form seems to have lost steam in the contemporary world. Much poetry now is more personal, individual, narrow. Perhaps this has to do with the turn in the modern world toward the individual and away from the community. Of course, this cannot be the whole story, because the life and experience (even internally) of the individual can contain that of the entire cosmos in a way which makes the individual's story a truly universal one (Dante's "Divine Comedy" and Homer's "Odyssey" are two famous examples).

One thing we seem to have lost appreciation for in our contemporary context is a love for the universal, the broad and expansive theme, the attempt to construct a justification for our world, and our place in it. This project is to make sense of our lives, and give meaning to our actions. It is, of course, no wonder that this project has lost much of its luster, due to our failure to specify a particular type of project that is the sole human project, our failure in this pluralist society to define what Aristotle calls our telos, or purpose/end. Without a telos, however, there can be no universal theme, no ultimate justification of our actions. Given that the denial of a single human telos seems implicit in our contemporary pluralist society (Alasdair MacIntyre has written a bit on this), we are left in the position of having no coherent epic to tell. Our lives consist of episodes, and are fragmented, with our current goals and their attendant behaviors based on current desires. We seem unable to provide the narrative thread to tie these fragments together. Part of the difficulty is that our society, our culture, teaches us that if we require such narratives, we must construct them ourselves, for ourselves. This is a statement of contemporary liberalism. However, this is to misunderstand how such narratives work in our lives. There can be no single narrative thread making sense of our lives and giving them purpose without a communal narrative. The stuff of the epic is not that of one person creating meaning within a meaningless society, but rather of the individual exemplifying the meaningful narrative of the society as a whole. Just as there can be no drama without a cast of characters, there can be no narrative thread to one's life without a community out of which the narrative is constructed. Thus, the epic suffers its sad fate in our contemporary world. The question now becomes--is there a way to recreate today the communal and the sense of a purposive world on which the epic thrives? Let's hope so!

Anyway--I'm getting into a bunch of epics now: reading through Dante's "Divine Comedy". I read the first part of this, the Inferno, probably 10 years ago, and enjoyed it but wasn't bowled over by it. This time, it's different. I can appreciate the power of Dante's work as a spiritual creation, as a map of the mystical journey of the soul from death to life. It is this, it seems to me, that is the central purpose of Dante's work, as a guide for those seeking God. I can now better appreciate this magnificent work.

After Dante, I intend to move on to Milton's "Paradise Lost" and "Paradise Regained", the Ramayana, Beowulf, Buddhacarita, the Norse Edda, and also I'll read again Longfellow's "Song of Hiawatha". Look out for reviews!

Joseph Campbell--"The Hero With A Thousand Faces"

A decent read. I think Campbell overstates the case for thinking that the multitude of myths of all societies follow a certain pattern--a notion he calls the "monomyth." This seems to belie an unjustified zeal for systematization. Campbell, throughout the book, constructed an outline of this basic monomyth that he took to be exemplified by all the hero myths of the world. However, in arguing for these similarities, he would often point out myths which seemed to fit his monomyth construction, but would ignore others which do not fit this pattern. I tend to be skeptical of claims to show that all or most of one kind of thing exemplify a certain pattern or are all versions of the same thing somehow, and my skeptical attitude is strengthened through Campbell's book. Certainly the more modest claim that there are startling similarities in many mythological and religious systems throughout the world would have been interesting enough, as well as having the added virtue of being true. However, for many scholars, some similarity just isn't enough. "The data simply must fit my unified theory!" comes the quixotic cry of systematic mythologists, philosophers, historians, and scientists in the modern era (though it seems that scholars are getting a little better at this since Campbell's time--there's not quite as much passion for systematizing everything...except perhaps in physics). A similar claim I've heard recently comes from Karen Armstrong, who, in her book "The Great Transformation" argues that the "axial age" philosophical systems and religions all bear certain similarities which show that they spring from the same point in human development. Karl Jaspers, of course, was probably also overreaching in trying to piece together the "axial age" in the first place.

On the positive side, near the end of the book Campbell discusses the modern age and its rejection of the mythological. This seems correct to me. 'Myth' in contemporary speech often comes to stand for something like 'falsity'. However, I do think that Campbell is wrong in claiming that we have rejected mythology, even though we surely have rejected what we mythology. The mythological mind is live and well--we continue to project our notions of the operation of the universe onto it, without evidence and without experience. In fact, we probably never could have the requisite experience and evidence to justify our beliefs and mythological constructions concerning the world we live in and the universe, given the nature of reason itself, and various well worn and seemingly intractable problems in philosophy (skepticism, the mind-body problem, etc.). When I say we have not given up myth today, however, I do not mean "religion" by myth. Scientific myth inserts itself into the role of the mythological standard bearer as easily as does religion, and our various scientific myths seem to be working toward outpacing our still extant religious myths. Whether it will eventually be successful in this, I'm sure no one can say. Whether it ought to be so successful--no one can answer this either.

Check it out. 3/5 stars.

Clarence Thomas--"My Grandfather's Son"

Since I spend an inordinate amount of my time reading books that have little or nothing to do with my academic field of concentration (philosophy, more specifically ancient Chinese ethics), I thought I might as well write up some reviews of the things I'm reading, so anyone who wants to might enjoy them, or take some tips on what to check out and what to avoid. So, with that in mind, I'll christen this blog, "Angulimala's Book Reviews" (Angulimala is a figure in the early Buddhist suttas, a vicious murderer who later becomes enlightened when taught by the Buddha), and begin with my first post! Enjoy.

I picked up this book, Clarence Thomas' "My Grandfather's Son", on the first of October. That's the day it was released. I'd heard about it a few days before, and was interested to hear the justice's story from his own pen, rather than those of journalists who seemed to have something in for him, from what I heard in various interviews. This book turned out to be a very quick read, only about 270 or so pages, and very engaging. I finished it off easily the next day. I have to say, it's not bad. Particularly enjoyable and inspiring is the first half of the book, where Justice Thomas describes his early life, struggles through school and Yale Law School, and hard times during his early career. It loses a bit of steam later when he starts dealing with the political process, coming to D.C. then becoming a Reagan appointee to head the EEOC, and then from there to the infamous Supreme Court nomination hearings (he never talks about the "pubic hair on the soda" incident or any of that stuff, claiming that he's above stooping to discuss the details of Anita Hill's charges).

No doubt many who pick up this book will be primarily interested in the Supreme Court nomination controversy and Anita Hill, but I found that bit the least interesting part of the book. Also, it felt rather rushed, as if Justice Thomas didn't really want to talk about it but felt obligated to. He himself has said that part of the reason he wrote this book was to counter those unauthorized biographies of him put out recently by less than adoring biographers, who he says make many false claims about him. One really sees this in the sections on the hearings. He also takes every opportunity to bash Anita Hill throughout the book, saying that her work with him was "mediocre at best", and painting a picture of her as a clear opportunist, content to ride in Thomas' wake into a good position. I'm not completely convinced by his portrayal, but I'm also not completely convinced by Anita Hill's testimony at the hearings, either. But this, as I said above, is an uninteresting part of the book anyway.

More interesting is Thomas' talk about the value of his Yale Law degree (he pasted a label onto the framed degree reading 15 cents), and his views on the limitations placed on blacks in the U.S. through affirmative action. Much of this I agree with Thomas on, especially his views on how welfare and affirmative action have served to hinder blacks more than help. His case seems somewhat better for welfare than for affirmative action, though. Also, his discussion lacks some nuance in both of these areas. He does not distinguish between different types of welfare systems or different types of affirmative action-like plans, just generalizes and rejects them all. This comes off as rash, and I hope there is more to Justice Thomas' thinking on these topics than he lets on in his book.

He seems to have purposely avoided talking very much about the abortion issue and his views on that, although he briefly mentioned that he thinks that precedent should not be an important factor in the decisions of the Court--if a Court in the past decided something wrongly, it should be overturned, declares Thomas. I think he is right here. Although I know next to nothing about constitutional law, many of the fields I do know have similar strictures--precedent is often taken as a ground rule to show us what we ought to do now and in the future. In these cases, it is always wrong to yield to precedent, as precedent. An erroneous precedent should not be followed. In addition, he seems to suggest, although he doesn't explicitly say it, that he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. I know this is an unpopular view for academics, but I also think Roe v. Wade should go.

His praise and criticism of the Roman Catholic Church are also high points of the book. He praises the Church for educating him and teaching him that all people of all races are equal and dignified, all created by God and in God's image, but criticizes it for not internalizing this and demanding that American society recognize this (in one incident in 1968 when Thomas attended seminary, one of the seminarians expressed joy at Martin Luther King's death, for example). He criticizes the Church for not fighting as hard against racism then (and now as well, it seems) as it does against abortion today. I share Thomas' sentiments on the Church for the most part.

Where Thomas and I part ways is in his dogged insistence that the Republican party truly represents the ideals which his grandfather taught him, of self-reliance and self-worth, and thus champions the principles necessary to raise black people out of poverty and shame. This seems a bit absurd, especially given some recent events, such as the refusal of the four frontrunners in the Republican Presidential 2008 primary race to attend a debate hosted by Tavis Smiley in Baltimore meant to engage the candidates with black voters. This kind of thing doesn't seem to support Thomas' view that the Republican party really cares about black Americans. At the same time, he's right that the Democrats seem to pander to black voters, saying sometimes irresponsible things to get approval, such as the claim of a number of candidates that drug laws and charges are responsible for many of the problems of the black community. This is ridiculous. Drug laws are not the problem, drug abuse is the problem. Lawmakers are not doing blacks any favors by lessening penalties in drug cases. I speak of this problem, as Thomas does, as a member of the "community". The attitude toward dangerous narcotics in the black community, especially among youth, is appalling. Many act as if the drugs are glamorous, or fun, or necessary, but that it's the law at fault. This attitude is sure to augment the problem, rather than solve it.

All in all, Thomas' book is a good read--short, a tiny bit wanting of detail, but altogether a solid work. Recommended--4/5 stars.