“Jettisoning blandly rational appeals, Dickens hoped that fiction—or, I will argue, an enchanted mode of reading—would be key to social progress, twenty thousand times more powerful than facts. In other words, Dickens believed he could enchant readers into a consideration of ethics.”
[1] Plourde 271
The consumption of art welcomes a variety of techniques, all in the name of communication. Whether it may stem from a moral didactic guide, an academic endeavor, the affirmation of one’s actions, etc. No matter what a consumer may lean towards, the idea of “entertainment” and “fun”- such rhetorical expressions so undefined. As I personally find lots of “enjoyment” in anything that matches the mapping of my goals as a consumer, generally as a human- and so do you. I will preface that much is relative between you and me, and especially between one of my goals and another. If a collective commonality within the variety of goals can be actively considered in our process of reading literature, watching film, conversing with friends, academic discourse, etc- then have it be known that surely; we’re having quite the fun party!
I’ll be focusing this blog post on an array of techniques used by myself to engage in my goals, through the mode of literature consumption. However, it’s important to recognize some approaches to reading literature (or general media consumption), as described in Plourde’s paper Enchanted Reading and Ethical Selfhood in A Christmas Carol. It highlights an interesting approach to interpreting media through a spectrum of “reading methods”. One such approach is somewhat anti-constructivism, a passive reading: “Dickens, advocating for the continued survival of “fancy,” believed that readers engage with fiction through a certain kind of reading—the kind we might label enchanted or even uncritical” [1]. On the other side of the spectrum, an adherence to principles and the emphasis of empirical observation: “”school of suspicion,” for example, he [Paul Ricoeur] identified a strain of reading that guarded against the text so as not to absorb bad ideologies or ethics” [1]. Perhaps you can consider suspicious reading a filtering based on established ideologies (literary principles and general categorization), however the same can be said about enchanted reading on the basis of descriptive emphasis; biological reaction and functions (nothing’s truly passive). Both have the capabilities of toxic conclusiveness based on a prescriptive utilization, which celebrates or condemns any descriptive observation.
Any arguments that utilizes such rhetoric of art being too dangerously influential, or principles being too dangerously dismissive- such arguments rely on the goal of the situation. I think it’s important to recognize the multi-faceted descriptive world that we live in, no matter how much we’d like to narrow such chaos into an organized goal. In the situation of artistic mediums, the emphasis on didactic incentives or presenting an “air of realism”- they’re both valuable, but situations will dictate the sort of “balance” required to reach a goal. The metaphor of “balance” itself is also important to consider, as the center of gravity on any object is at the mercy of external factors (goals)- rather than a universal balance based on the metaphor of objectivity. Sometimes a 70/30 might be a desirable balance in favour of preservation, sometimes a 45/55 in favour of progression- depends on various factors, especially the goal. Recognizing both our biological functions and evolutionary pressures as the factors to such “goals” is necessary for understanding the conception of disputes. Which brings me to a consideration of the situation of prescriptive ideologies on artistic mediums and consumption habits.
I’ve personally been quite worried, however, by the desire to narrow the goals of art to “make sense” in accordance with principles. Something to note while I discuss this: “In a poem, a play or a prose work, the resources of the language, including grammar, are used not only for efficient communication of ideas, but for effective communication in a broader sense: communicating and interpreting people’s experience of life, individual and collective” [2]. How would you communicate an individual’s ideas and personality through conventions and principles if it’ll rely on “fixing” the ungrammatical? Perhaps an efficient (precise grammar and principles) form of communication will account for universality and consensus, however that isn’t necessarily going to express something’s broad descriptions- just as humanizing a distant species to make sense to humans lacks authenticity. To simply have a translation and consider it comparable is essentially subjugation based on the ideology and superiority for universal communication. Which, keep in mind: this isn’t necessarily a discussion of good or bad. But it’s important to recognize that a principled approach follows a basis of goals, and not all goals coincide. We choose which goals are worth pursuing, and then use rhetorical statements and ideologies to suggest their objective status.
What I’m worried about is the prescription of certain elements and their functions in art. Often you will hear in critical analysis of media that a “plot lacks conflict”, a “character fails to adequately develop”, or “the colour design sucks”- the two quotes proceeding the initial contain rhetorical expressions: fail and sucks. The initial quote more or less can be construed as condemning and prescriptive (it’s only good if there is conflict), rather than purely a descriptive statement. Using the metaphor of linguistics, grammar is important for efficient communication internationally; what other than the standard varieties of English would a non-speaker learn if their goal is to communicate with the most English speakers? However, the goal of communication relies on various “balances”- if the goal is to learn about someone as authentically as possible, translation isn’t effective. It may be efficient if your goal relies on a more narrow result such as “wash the dishes”. But if you want something like “tell me about your ideologies”, simply translating one’s perspective as “you’re an atheist” lacks comprehension. You have to learn their culture and language, which is something Indigenous cultures of Canada prompt individuals to do: instead of pursuing the study of Indigenous culture through the Western academic system, which may be efficient in some cases- effectively (a more niche communication) learning the broader scope of the culture and language will provide a versatile comprehension. An important value of effective communication is that it isn’t constrained to universal efficiency, but a broader goal that is counterintuitively developed from a niche context. If you turn your back on learning a language because it isn’t codified (written in a dictionary), then your goals are narrow; considering a “language” based on a certain familiar or common categorization is efficient. But if you pursue your goals with the flexibility of considering the niche (learning their context), perhaps you’d develop a new appreciation and desire for things a certain community may provide; effectively learning by using their categorizations rather than yours. Although, the former has an edge: narrow goals promote progress. It’s important to recognize how to balance these forms of communication based on the situation; even flexibility can be quite toxic!
This long rant comes down to one thing: I hate how we’ve systematically defined art. It generally seems like the value for efficient communication has tilted the balance with its rhetorical ideas. The idea that a story is good if it contains certain elements of conflict, character development, visual appeal, etc. Such elements are often used prescriptively, demoting variety in art and subjugating the undesirable based on principles that are given too much credit. This leads to odd statements such as “I mean… it’s good, but it’s not like a masterpiece or anything.” Especially pathologizing certain varieties of taste by considering them “guilty pleasures”, as if they’re an anomaly in our sophisticated taste pasted down to us by the holy Gods of good art. I’d like to note that I find extensive value in categorizing art and developing principles; they allow us to prevent toxic didactics that may promote harm. They are descriptive of something that exists, suggesting that they are not only efficient but effective to certain groups. However, it’s important to recognize when these statements and ideologies shift from prescriptive enforcement to objective truth. They are essentially descriptive observations; the fact that we like or dislike broccoli, certain skin tones adhere to blue or yellow base principles, a certain melody sounds appealing, or that elements of Western narratives are more effective. But to give these observations so much credit because they are codified as principles, and then communicate these ideologies as objective truth: “it’s objectively not a masterpiece!” Oh man, it boils my blood! Recognize where your goals reside, what the conditions and situations are- because we are not capable of seeing all the factors of the metaphor objectivity.
Another thing I will note is that communication may have the context of subjectivity shaped in the form of prescriptive language: someone saying “it’s not good” may not intend for prescriptive enforcing or objective truth, but is using such language regardless (because it’s effective). They create a situation where the conditions are “principles dictate the conversation” or “relativism dictates the conversation” as the goals may require such approaches. “Good” will then literally become objective in the context of the situation. The issue is when every situation is prescribed in a single perspective: when “good art” is objective no matter what and contests with every goal. In an open-system where there is a lack of consensus, objectivity may become toxically oppressive.
All this drama I’ve written is… well, a preface to the variety of ways I like to consume literature. Often the superior method through the metaphor of immersion is to “let the book consume you” where you sit with zero distractions. This means: put away your notes, no music, no spamming algorithms on your Rubik’s cube, no 2 minute breaks to play a chess game during a dramatic scene, not pausing to analyze the ideas, and especially no reading anything else! And yet… I do all of these. Perhaps not all of them too often, but I tend to have a document of notes and some background music when I read literature. My favourite music to listen to are OSTs from Bloom into You, Adachi to Shimamura, and The Magical Revolution of the Reincarnated Princess and the Genius Young Lady. All yuri light novels (adapted into anime), by the way! I especially stare at the ceiling to think about the literature even when an intensive scene is occurring. Why? Well, I want to note down that Shimamura’s metaphor of relationship contests with Adachi’s feelings. I do the same when watching a film or a TV show too- well, no I don’t listen to music while watching LOL that’d be too far even for me. But when it comes to literature, this is immersive for me- perhaps not the goal of “feeling like you’re in the story” or whatever that means, but I’m actively thinking about the literature. And don’t misunderstand, this doesn’t ruin the immersion for me- if even immersion is all that impressive in the first place. It actually enhances my interest in the literature. My goal of learning about the narrative, characters, the art- I want to let the art influence me. Taking a pause to write down the quotes so I can remember them, pausing to think and make correlations of the metaphors to my own experiences; they all contribute to my goal of learning and communicating the influence.
Oh, the music? Well, yeah you got me there… My initial goal of using the music is to enjoy it with the literature, and the type of music I listen to often reflects what I’m reading quite well. The only issue is… my goals aren’t always like that. Don’t misinterpret, I’m not saying that it’s objectively better to or to not listen to music, but perhaps true to whatever your goal is. Reading The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde while listening to romantic-sad music from Bloom into You, well that doesn’t fit my goal. Or, maybe it will fit my goal if it’s to be experimental?
Anyways, this blog post was intended to be a showcasing of the sorts of notes and observations I make while reading literature. I was going to provide notes from volume 1, chapter 1 of Bloom Into You: Regarding Saeki Sayaka, but I… forgot. I’ll just do it in the next blog post or something. These blog posts don’t make any sense, huh? Are they supposed to be an attempt at a professional article, or random rambles? Well, these blog posts are all just practice! How else will I have any motivations to write? Also, these posts are also a catalogue of information I’ll be using to adapt into videos- which will definitely… definitely be more polished. Probably. And not be written in like 2-3 hours without adequate proof-reading, like this blog post. Probably.
Works Cited
[1] “Another Man from What I Was”: Enchanted Reading and Ethical Selfhood in A Christmas Carol
Circumpolar Congregation 
Leave a comment