Este tópico está presentemente marcado como "inativo" —a última mensagem tem mais de 90 dias. Reative o tópico publicando uma resposta.
Basically anything by these authors will have a worldview that would make the casual “collective Utopian” think they had ingested slow poison. They are pro western civilization, pro individual rights, and pro enlightened self-interest. The kind of thinking that just cannot be tolerated in political correct society these days.
I think that I understand what you are trying to get at with this statement, but there are some astoundingly good works of fiction that are highly political in nature. Think Nineteen Eighty-Four, Catch-22, The Jungle, etc.
I would perhaps change that statement to good fiction is non-ideological. When authors try to shoehorn a story into an ideological framework, it often comes out as contrived and weak. Character development in particular tends to suffer. Just look at the works of Ayn Rand and you can see that to great effect.
I find some of Walker Percy's fiction to be both conservative and very good. By very good, I mean it is not ideological, a non-thinking person would not recognize the politics, and the plot and characterization is not hampered by the politics.
Lancelot is the book that comes to mind, but also Love in the Ruins, which I lost in one of my many moves, and miss greatly.
I did find this article commenting on Catholic Moral Theology in Love in the Ruins. I pass this along without comment or conviction, as I only skimmed it.
I am touching on one tiny facet from a vast array of crushingly hateful imagery that comes back to mind from that book. Condescension, derision and bile poured out in staggering quantities over nearly every aspect of western concretive culture, the lit teachers call it satire but then gibber on and on about the wonderful insight and understanding of the author, the supposed courage he had to break out of the pattern and write a story making fun of the war. I know he served, I know I own him the respect due to anyone who serves honorably. However for the way he demeans and degrades his own I can only see him like I would see an incontinent animal shitting in its own bed or food. I see him as ungrateful for the country that welcomed his parents, the system that afforded him the opportunity for his education and the military that defeated the socialist dictator who was killing his people like animals.
If his sense of morality needed to vent in an eruption of literary excrement were there no real deserving targets out there? Did he simply not see the communists murdering their own people by the millions at the time? Could he not be bothered to pick a better target for his hatred?
I am firmly of the believe that every story is a teaching story, every time a human puts more than a few words together they are introducing you to their worldview as completely as they are introducing you to their cast of characters . It is not always conscious propaganda, it is probably regularly not conscious. Human nature and creativity will put their own worldview, arguments and actions in the storyline of the characters the author sees as good. The opposite will also be true, behaviors attitudes and point of view the author sees as unattractive will end up in the characters the reader is not intended to like. I respect any person’s right to express their opinions in story or on the street corner and would never sensor any book. I do however consider our education system suspect in the choice to force feed this to school children, when the work more resembles the expression of the authors bowls then the reasoned expression of an opinion then at least leave the choice of reading it up to the individual, not the institution.
For me, the major heavyweight is Willa Cather, whose stock just keeps going up as the time passes and the smoke from high modernism clears. (Joan Acocella's Willa Cather and the Politics of Criticism is a first-rate appreciation of Cather, though it's better to start simply by reading the novels, which are excellent.) Although a person can definitely make a case that Cather was neglected because she was conservative, she also benefitted from praise from high profile conservatives like Mencken. I think critical parochialism (i.e, an East Coast suspicion of rural or historical subjects) accounts for a lot in the relative neglect of Cather.
Regarding businessmen: Cather doesn't use reductive stereotypes, in my recollection. Henry James' The American also offers a sympathetic depiction. Although it's been a long time since I read it, William Dean Howells's Rise of Silas Lapham embraces the idea of a businessman hero.