In The Republic, Plato acknowledges the power of the arts (chiefly music and literature) to shape impressionable young souls. Concerned parents today, worried about the music their children listen and the books they read (if they read at all), may appreciate why Plato has Socrates say, in his discussion of a theoretical "just city" (i.e., just society), that youngsters should not be exposed to dangerous ideas -- such as Homer's depiction of the gods as powerful, spoiled brats. In the modern era, Plato has often been accused of being against art, music, and poetry, but I've always thought this a gross distortion to what he is actually saying in The Republic. He acknowledges the immense power of the arts to form -- or deform -- the soul, and he suggests that those who are destined to be leaders should be taught to be wise. The reason he infamously forbids poets in the just city is that he wanted to present young souls with inspiring images, and he just didn't find Homer and Hesiod to provide healthy inspiration. The imaginations of the future rulers of the just city should not be infected with the bad examples of the poets' gods.
Since Plato found the popular literature of his day to be unwholesome for impressionable young people, he made up edifying stories of his own. In fact, each one of Plato's great philosophical works is itself a made-up story, meant to lead the reader toward the truth. He peopled his stories with figures familiar to himself and his fellow Athenians: Socrates the great truth-seeker, and the men with whom Socrates often associated, each of whom typifies some particular point of view. Anyone who has ever read The Republic with any attention will be unlikely to forget Thrasymachus, the belligerent young man whose idea of justice was something like "might makes right"; Thrasymachus drops out of the discussion of justice pretty early on -- he just doesn't have the patience for it. But Glaukon (modeled on Plato's own brother) hangs on Socrates' every word, and follows the discussion closely, asking questions and advancing ideas. Socrates, who is trying to get his young interlocutors to glimpse the true nature of justice, makes up one story after another to illustrate the points he hopes they'll grasp. Plato's Socrates never teaches didactically; he always tries to help the others to see the truth in their mind's eye, using both their intellect and their imagination.
For more than two thousand years, this is what "high" literature took as its task: to illustrate some truth about the human condition or the world which would impress itself on the reader's imagination, to "form the soul," to use Plato's terminology. It is a sad fact that this literary project has largely been abandoned by writers today, even those with "literary" pretensions. Contemporary literature seldom makes any attempt to be edifying. Indeed, most contemporary writers would hotly deny that they have any moral obligation to the reading public, aside from being true to their own "vision." But a diseased eye cannot have clear vision.
This may be the reason that so many parents and educators who are concerned about presenting young people with edifying stories return to the great classics, written in ages when literature, like art and music, was intended to elevate the soul, to allow it to glimpse heights where the truth dwelt -- but to do so using forms familiar from daily life. In such works, the writer has taken great care to find a balance between portraying human nature as it is and showing it as it ought to be and can be.
|Great stories of the past should continue|
to shape great stories of the future.
As many readers of this blog will already know, I'm currently working on what I call a "Catholic science fiction novel." It is intended to be "Catholic" in both senses: it has characters who are Catholic (one is even a priest) and it illustrates themes that will resonate with Catholic experience: growth in virtue, the redemptive value of suffering, and others. But it is also meant to be Catholic in the broader sense I just mentioned: to present a reality that has depth, in which superficial appearances cover metaphysical depths, in which the natural and the supernatural coexist and correspond. I hope that this vision will imprint itself on the imaginations of my readers.
|Many speculative novels|
paint a bleak future.
And yet, when I began to think about the shape of my story, I found that it contains remarkable parallels to ancient epics, such as Homer's Odyssey and Vergil's Aeneid. I was surprised to realize that it also parallels American history, in depicting people escaping a world in which religion is often persecuted to create a new home, in a distant land, where a new society may be built, guided by Christian principles -- much as the English Pilgrims did when they came to North America. Biblical echoes can also be found in it. Why? Because my imagination, quite unconsciously, has been shaped by the great stories most familiar to me and has fashioned a tale that bears a familiar resemblance to them.
I'm sure few readers will be conscious of these allusions, any more than I was conscious of them as I began shaping my story, But perhaps my story will make an impression on the imaginations, and the souls, of my readers, similar to the way ancient epics and Holy Scripture have made an impression on my own. I'd like to think so. I'd like to believe that, like Plato, I have created a story that helps my readers glimpse some aspect of truth that had previously eluded them, or that, like Flannery O'Connor, I have drawn vividly enough for the blind to see unsuspected beauty in the ordinary struggles of life.