barrypierce's review
3.0
In this book-length essay, Sartre asks some fairly simple questions. 'What is writing?', 'Why write?', 'For whom does one write?' etc. Does he answer them? I mean, I guess.
The major idea to come from this essay is Sartre's distinction between prose and poetry. That prose is utilitarian and that the author is always mirrored in their prose. Prose is the author making you see things from their point of view. Poetry however is not like this, it is much closer to a painting, as the viewer instead looks at a poem and gives their own interpretation. Therefore prose has the far greater revolutionary benefit.
Which, well, just isn't true is it? I suppose Sartre was unfortunate to have written this in 1948. Perhaps back then it was possible to assert such dichotomy between the political usage of prose and poetry, but surely just a couple of years later was Sartre not proven wrong by the Beats and the New York School?
There are some snippets I enjoyed in here. Like Sartre's rage against so-called 'poetic prose' in which the message of the text seems to be lost between the pages of the author's thesaurus (which is very similar to what Orwell writes in his 'Politics and the English Language').
Also the essay's final line, 'Of course, all of this is not very important. The world can very well do without literature. But it can do without man still better.' The line is almost laughably Sartrean, which is why I enjoy it so much.
I wouldn't call What is Literature? essential Sartre. But I am pleased to have read it. As is often the case with Jean-Paul, it is nice to have his ideas floating about you but just within touching distance. There is a danger in getting too close.
The major idea to come from this essay is Sartre's distinction between prose and poetry. That prose is utilitarian and that the author is always mirrored in their prose. Prose is the author making you see things from their point of view. Poetry however is not like this, it is much closer to a painting, as the viewer instead looks at a poem and gives their own interpretation. Therefore prose has the far greater revolutionary benefit.
Which, well, just isn't true is it? I suppose Sartre was unfortunate to have written this in 1948. Perhaps back then it was possible to assert such dichotomy between the political usage of prose and poetry, but surely just a couple of years later was Sartre not proven wrong by the Beats and the New York School?
There are some snippets I enjoyed in here. Like Sartre's rage against so-called 'poetic prose' in which the message of the text seems to be lost between the pages of the author's thesaurus (which is very similar to what Orwell writes in his 'Politics and the English Language').
Also the essay's final line, 'Of course, all of this is not very important. The world can very well do without literature. But it can do without man still better.' The line is almost laughably Sartrean, which is why I enjoy it so much.
I wouldn't call What is Literature? essential Sartre. But I am pleased to have read it. As is often the case with Jean-Paul, it is nice to have his ideas floating about you but just within touching distance. There is a danger in getting too close.
More...