Molendinarius and Benjaminus
M: For some time, I have wanted to write, but have held myself back. I keep returning to the idea of writing using the vehicle of the dialogue.
B: What exactly drew you to this, and what held you back from writing plain prose?
M: For one thing, I can seldom make up my mind on a topic, I usually have several strands of thought and these flow together, twisting and turning, sometimes congruent, sometimes in opposition. The format of a dialogue might allow me to more clearly express myself.
B: Are you simply not admitting defeat, that you are, in some way, weak minded?
M: There are perhaps some who might argue that. In this initial dialogue, I am not hiding myself behind fictitious characters, and the views expressed are clearly my own.
B: Are you saying that the views you are ascribing to Benjamin in this dialogue are vacuous?
M: That would be for the reader to determine - whether Molendinarius truly represents myself, or is a literary device? I would say that both characters in this dialogue are aspects of myself, yet perhaps neither of them represent my own thoughts, just possible thoughts I might have entertained. The dialogue allows a certain freedom, it is a format that I find highly attractive. For some years I have had this genre in mind as a vehicle for expression, but ....
B: But?
M: But I felt I didn't want to express myself. I felt that my thoughts on any matter were of small consequence. Why bother? All men are worms. Of what consequence are the thoughts of a worm?
B: That may be so, but are not all men also only slightly lower than the angels, creative agents in their own right, creators of worlds?
M: That is the paradox we live with. Just as scientists experiment with nematode worms to unlock the secrets of our genes, so too, perhaps, this worm might put itself forward as an experimental subject.
B: Tell me more about why you are drawn to writing dialogues, and not essays, or novels? Or indeed, poetry?
M: I used to write poetry, once,when I was young. My blood runs colder nowadays. I am more clinical. Poetry no longer suits me, unless it is the dusty kind. I like dryness, dustiness,and hard argument. I have always had an argumentative streak.
B: Dialogues used to be all the rage once, no? They were a mainstay of European literary expression for hundreds of years....yet now almost no-one sets out to write dialogues, on any topic? Why?
M: Perhaps dialogues suited the turmoil of the Renaissance, and the Age of Enlightenment. Great arguments raged across Europe, arguments of faith, arguments about the very nature of what should constitute Western Civilisation. Once a modus vivendi was reached, once the great argument ceased, and religion in the West retired to a comfortable armchair, the impetus for debate faded away. Culture became monolithic. There was no room in it for this artform. Thousands of books of dialogues were printed in Europe during the Renaissance, amounting to hundreds of thousands of dialogues. Many were written in Latin, but a great number were also penned in the vernacular.. Most of their authors are now forgotten, and their works remain unread.
B: Maybe. Maybe it was simply that literature at this time period was still held close in the arms of the ancients,and Renaissance authors were simply experimenting with ancient models - the dialogue, from the time of Zeno of Elea, being a mainstay genre of classical literature. Just as the novel was resurrected, and the theatre, with new art forms derived from it, opera and such like - so too, we could simply argue that Renaissance authors were using this genre because it had been used by Plato, Socrates, Cimmias, Seneca, Tacitus, and so on? Just about every genre of ancient literature was resurrected during this period. Some flourished, others faded away. The dialogue certainly was rejuvenated as an art form, and flourished for hundreds of years, right through to the late 1700s, when it suddenly faded away. Whatever the case may be, it is arguably the case that humanism and the dialogue go hand in hand.
M: Do you then think that writing dialogue is in itself a political act of sorts? That this genre is an expression of humanism?
B: I think that could be cogently argued. We are living in an age where debate is increasingly being closed down. This is particularly the case where it comes to the interaction of some of the sects of Islam with the West, where there is a concerted effort to close off debate, just as the Catholic Church attempted to close off debate in the past. The parallels are striking. Perhaps the format of dialogue as a literary genre will enable a real engagement with these issues, an engagement that would not otherwise be possible using more conventional literary forms, which are possibly too polemic, or confrontational. Dialogue allows for a multifaceted argument, and at times, these issues are so complex, that a single point of view cannot encompass or map the territory of the argument. This is particularly the case where it comes to the confrontation of values that has arisen between some sects of Islam and some Islamic thinkers, and the Epicurean philosophy that underpins the modern culture of the West. This is an age old battle, it is nothing new. What is new, is that after a period of dormancy, it has begun to rage yet again.
M: Yes, I agree. Certainly, for myself, this genre allows me express myself, I feel a freedom in writing that is absent when I attempt to engage with these matters as an essayist, or a writer of articles, or standard blog entries.
B: Well, I wish you good luck in your endeavours. I am curious about what you will come up with. Will this be a patch of infertile ground, or a fecund meadow? Will thorns grow here, or marigolds?
M: I would hope that there would be thorns and flowers in equal measure.
B: Cura ut Valeas, Amice.
M: Vale et tu.
M: For some time, I have wanted to write, but have held myself back. I keep returning to the idea of writing using the vehicle of the dialogue.
B: What exactly drew you to this, and what held you back from writing plain prose?
M: For one thing, I can seldom make up my mind on a topic, I usually have several strands of thought and these flow together, twisting and turning, sometimes congruent, sometimes in opposition. The format of a dialogue might allow me to more clearly express myself.
B: Are you simply not admitting defeat, that you are, in some way, weak minded?
M: There are perhaps some who might argue that. In this initial dialogue, I am not hiding myself behind fictitious characters, and the views expressed are clearly my own.
B: Are you saying that the views you are ascribing to Benjamin in this dialogue are vacuous?
M: That would be for the reader to determine - whether Molendinarius truly represents myself, or is a literary device? I would say that both characters in this dialogue are aspects of myself, yet perhaps neither of them represent my own thoughts, just possible thoughts I might have entertained. The dialogue allows a certain freedom, it is a format that I find highly attractive. For some years I have had this genre in mind as a vehicle for expression, but ....
B: But?
M: But I felt I didn't want to express myself. I felt that my thoughts on any matter were of small consequence. Why bother? All men are worms. Of what consequence are the thoughts of a worm?
B: That may be so, but are not all men also only slightly lower than the angels, creative agents in their own right, creators of worlds?
M: That is the paradox we live with. Just as scientists experiment with nematode worms to unlock the secrets of our genes, so too, perhaps, this worm might put itself forward as an experimental subject.
B: Tell me more about why you are drawn to writing dialogues, and not essays, or novels? Or indeed, poetry?
M: I used to write poetry, once,when I was young. My blood runs colder nowadays. I am more clinical. Poetry no longer suits me, unless it is the dusty kind. I like dryness, dustiness,and hard argument. I have always had an argumentative streak.
B: Dialogues used to be all the rage once, no? They were a mainstay of European literary expression for hundreds of years....yet now almost no-one sets out to write dialogues, on any topic? Why?
M: Perhaps dialogues suited the turmoil of the Renaissance, and the Age of Enlightenment. Great arguments raged across Europe, arguments of faith, arguments about the very nature of what should constitute Western Civilisation. Once a modus vivendi was reached, once the great argument ceased, and religion in the West retired to a comfortable armchair, the impetus for debate faded away. Culture became monolithic. There was no room in it for this artform. Thousands of books of dialogues were printed in Europe during the Renaissance, amounting to hundreds of thousands of dialogues. Many were written in Latin, but a great number were also penned in the vernacular.. Most of their authors are now forgotten, and their works remain unread.
B: Maybe. Maybe it was simply that literature at this time period was still held close in the arms of the ancients,and Renaissance authors were simply experimenting with ancient models - the dialogue, from the time of Zeno of Elea, being a mainstay genre of classical literature. Just as the novel was resurrected, and the theatre, with new art forms derived from it, opera and such like - so too, we could simply argue that Renaissance authors were using this genre because it had been used by Plato, Socrates, Cimmias, Seneca, Tacitus, and so on? Just about every genre of ancient literature was resurrected during this period. Some flourished, others faded away. The dialogue certainly was rejuvenated as an art form, and flourished for hundreds of years, right through to the late 1700s, when it suddenly faded away. Whatever the case may be, it is arguably the case that humanism and the dialogue go hand in hand.
M: Do you then think that writing dialogue is in itself a political act of sorts? That this genre is an expression of humanism?
B: I think that could be cogently argued. We are living in an age where debate is increasingly being closed down. This is particularly the case where it comes to the interaction of some of the sects of Islam with the West, where there is a concerted effort to close off debate, just as the Catholic Church attempted to close off debate in the past. The parallels are striking. Perhaps the format of dialogue as a literary genre will enable a real engagement with these issues, an engagement that would not otherwise be possible using more conventional literary forms, which are possibly too polemic, or confrontational. Dialogue allows for a multifaceted argument, and at times, these issues are so complex, that a single point of view cannot encompass or map the territory of the argument. This is particularly the case where it comes to the confrontation of values that has arisen between some sects of Islam and some Islamic thinkers, and the Epicurean philosophy that underpins the modern culture of the West. This is an age old battle, it is nothing new. What is new, is that after a period of dormancy, it has begun to rage yet again.
M: Yes, I agree. Certainly, for myself, this genre allows me express myself, I feel a freedom in writing that is absent when I attempt to engage with these matters as an essayist, or a writer of articles, or standard blog entries.
B: Well, I wish you good luck in your endeavours. I am curious about what you will come up with. Will this be a patch of infertile ground, or a fecund meadow? Will thorns grow here, or marigolds?
M: I would hope that there would be thorns and flowers in equal measure.
B: Cura ut Valeas, Amice.
M: Vale et tu.
No comments:
Post a Comment