Literature is not innocent Essay Example

Literature is not innocent Essay Literature is not innocent. It is guilty and should admit itself so. What does Bataille mean by this, and is he justified? When Emily Brontes Wuthering Heights1 was published, it was deemed by many to be a story of sinister and evil content, and this view was especially centred on the character Heathcliff. Many readers, in general terms, would see the novel as guilty as opposed to innocent (it must be remembered here that Bataille uses the words guilty and innocent not with their everyday meanings, but with meanings that he constructs for the purpose of his argument), and this is perhaps why Georges Bataille chose to include it in his study, Literature and Evil2, and also why the title quote is so relevant to the book. But what does Bataille actually mean in this quote? What is his definition of innocent and guilty? Also, how does this relate to Wuthering Heights (the text we shall concentrate on here) and is Bataille justified in the conclusions he makes? It is important then to firstly attain a good idea of the meaning of Batailles terms, as a starting point for this essay. We will write a custom essay sample on Literature is not innocent specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Literature is not innocent specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Literature is not innocent specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer When we think of the word innocent, the word good also comes to mind. Innocence is the state of having done nothing wrong, and so something that commits no wrongs must then be good, and therefore free from guilt. Bataille gives this utilitarian based view of Good; it is based on a common interest which entails consideration of the future3. So something that is not based on a common interest, and does not consider the future and consequences of itself cannot be classed as Good, or innocent, and so must be bad, and therefore can be said to be Evil. Something that is Good has limits, or restraints on it, to ensure it adheres to the rules of what Good is. So it must follow that Evil, in opposition to Good, lacks these restraints, and does not consider the future it merely exists in the moment it presents. This is why it is so relevant to literature when we read literature we are just existing in the moment of the novel it takes no consideration of anything but that moment that it presents. It allows us to explore this world, with no consequences. We are able to suspend our disbelief, and enter the mystical state4 of the novel that we can experience in this solitude. Also, if the content reveals a narrative where there are also no restraints, then this state is intensified. This is where Bataille makes a link with eroticism. In the sexual act, one concentrates simply on the moment, in a manner unique to our species, and nothing else at that point matters. We do not think of external constraints when experiencing sex or literature; both create a world in our minds opposite to that which we live in no constraints or consequences exist there. Bataille sees Evil and love to be closely related with each other. He states death seems to be the truth of love, just as love is the truth of death5. It seems he believes that inside love there has to be a recognition of death, because if you love another life, you are aware it will end, as all human experiences do, and so you recognise that your love is finite it is not unlimited. So love is therefore Good, as it at least has this limit imposed upon it. But perhaps its bad side can be said to be in its physical manifestation eroticism where the persons involved are living in that moment that it creates, and they are free of any limits; it is not done for any future benefit, but just for its own sake. So this could be said to be an evil part of love; but as we will see later, there has to be Evil for good to exist, so this paradox is inevitable. As we know, the love of Catherine and Heathcliff is the focus of Wuthering Heights, so there is much to be explored here the issue of the love presented in the novel, the status of the characters involved, and how this all relates to Batailles opinion on the guilt of literature in general. The character Heathcliff lives life by his own rules, and he sees no limits on himself or his actions he simply does what he wants simply because he can. Is he, then, Evil? It would seem so, as he does not comply with the rationality of the world we live in. Bataille even goes so far as to call him a sadist he hurts others because he knows he can, and he seems to take pleasure in this fact, or, at least, he is indifferent to the other characters plights. He has no concern for any excepting of course the object of his love. Bataille believes we need to comply with reasonable adult conventions6 in order for society to survive, but Heathcliff doesnt want to participate in this order of things. He wants to keep his infantile freedom7, where the laws of society and conventional politeness do not affect Catherine and himself. Bataille believes this is his main reason for acting as he does, because he has been banished from the kingdom of childhood, but wants to return to it, so will sto p at nothing to regain it8, and the freedom he had in it. But isnt Bataille contradicting himself somewhat here? He is saying now that Heathcliff does what he does as a means to an end, rather than just doing it out of pure sadism, so perhaps his deeds are not purely Evil? However, despite this possibility of contradictions, Heathcliff must still be deemed as Evil, because for whatever reason he commits the sins against others, he is doing it because he can, and he disregards the consequences for his victims, which is in itself intrinsically Evil. So in the eyes of the world, Heathcliff represents Evil, and all it stands for. But, as Bataille himself says, Heathcliff believes he represents Good and reason9. Heathcliff is questioning society and its limits, and this is where the theme of transgression becomes important. Heathcliff is trying to transgress through society and its laws, and so he represents opposition to social restrictions. Bataille describes this transgression as a tragic violation of the law, which leads the novel to have a certain affinity with Greek tragedy atonement is connected with transgression. Bataille says that it is not the laws that Heathcliff is trying to transgress that are denounced, but the domain that these laws deny, the forbidden domain. Humanity banishes this domain to us, but Bataille says this only serves to magnify it, and so in essence make us want it more the ban beautifies that to which it prevents access10. In trying to reach this domain, the perpetrators suffer; Catherine dies due to her infidelity to the spirit, and Heathcliff has to endure the agony of life without her. Therefore, in the unlimited world of literature, it can be said that we are given lessons on what happens to those who try and transgress the laws of our society. Over time, as Bataille points out, reason has replaced the primitive taboos, and we have learnt that certain things should be avoided if we do not want to suffer. This can occur easily through literature, as no real beings suffer, but we can recognise what it would be like if there were no rules or limits to live by, or if we refused to live by those limits. Literature can reveal a process of breaking these laws without trying to create another order, simply because it can do this. It only needs to be what it is; it does not need to create anything else. Perhaps literature provides the lesson we need to avoid trying to go beyond rationality in our lives? So, if literature does perform this task, then can it still be called guilty? Would not this make it more of a constraint on society rather than something that could be cal led a bad influence? So perhaps the instant of escape that literature provides can be seen as similar to the eternal escape that death provides? The two can be similarly described both are unlimited in certain senses. In literature, we lose ourselves in something other than ourselves, and this is also true of death, and as Bataille says, what this other thing11 is is not important it is still something that transcends the common limitations we are all subject to. Both provide an escape of some kind, even if one is of more of a permanent nature. Through literature, we are exploring the world of the moment that it presents, and by death we are exploring whatever (if there is anything at all) lies beyond this life. Bataille believes that, in writing Wuthering Heights, Emily Bronte had fathomed the very depths of Evil12. From his study, it seems that perhaps you have to be Evil yourself to write literature at all, because you have to be unlimited free of restraints and as we know, to lack these constraints is seen as Evil. Jacques Blondel13 believes Bronte emancipated herself from all prejudice of an ethical or social order, and he believes this liberation is necessary to every artist. He also says this can be felt most intensely by those in whom ethical values are most deeply rooted14, as they have a thorough knowledge of Good, so can easily present the opposite. Due to these values, Bronte is able to resolve the problems in her novel this manly being the purity of love being regained in its intimate truth, which as Bataille said, is that of death. It seems true to say that only by knowing Good can you know Evil to know the opposite of something is essential in defining it, for example, the states of hot and cold. Also, we could say that Brontes own views may have been reflected in Catherine; someone who is capable of total love (we know this when she says, I am Heathcliff15) but also recognises the need to live by the restraints of life, even though in her case it seems to do her little good in the end (admittedly, had she not followed the constraints bound upon her in her patriarchal society, then her and Heathcliff may have married and ended up as beggars, but Heathcliff would probably have preferred this anyway, so this can be seen in two ways). Bataille also says that Bronte identified herself with Catherine, and both were absolutely moral 16 this is in fact what causes Catherines demise, as she cannot detach herself from loving the man she did as a child. Also, she was unable to love without limits, as Heathcliff did, and so she died paradoxically she achieved a love without limits through death which she could not achieve in life. But to extend the paradox further, she now has this lo ve that she needed in life, but has no use for it now in death. Bataille says that Evil therefore, if we examine it closely, is not only the dream of the wicked; it is to some extent the dream of the Good17. If we accept this, and accept Batailles use of the term Evil, then can literature be as guilty as we first thought? We have seen that it is indeed guilty in a number of ways it is outside our social constraints, and can do whatever it pleases, so much so that we can perhaps even call it dangerous, and Bataille even believes it can be compared to the severity of the infringement of moral laws18. As with the sexual act, literature allows us to turn inwardly to ourselves, and to forget the rules we normally live by when not in this mystical state. It is an extension of the passion that we experience through eroticism an extension of the moment of disregard for the future and its consequences. However, perhaps this Evil is necessary to us? Bataille says this Evil may help us recognise that a sovereign part of ourselves is free from the limitations and necessities which we acknowledge in everyday life, and perhaps this sovereign part takes over when we die? This could explain our inner attraction towards death, as the release from these constraints of mortal life. So, as Bataille says Evil is always the object of an ambiguous condemnation19. It is bad to have no concern for the future or rationality, so when literature causes this in us, then it must be found guilty. So it seems Bataille is justified in pointing to the guilt of literature, as it culpable of the charges he brings to it, but the important question is whether or not this causes literature itself to be Evil? I do not think it can, because as we have seen, it may do more good than harm to society, because we can learn from it the consequences of refraining from following rationality and order in life. Bataille is, then, justified in saying literature is guilty, because he proves his case, but it cannot be said that it is guilty of anything bad, so the conclusion we must draw here seems to be that literature is guilty of something but something other than being evil.