Q: Comma power and evaluating the media
Dennis sent in this intriguing question:
"Novels, remarkable only for their exaggerated pictures, impossible ideals, and specimens of depravity, fill our young readers with wrong tastes and sentiments" (Science and Health, p. 195).
Was Mrs. Eddy against all literature, or was she speaking of just trashy novels? I noticed that you have Wuthering Heights in your library so I assume Christian Scientists are not against all fiction.
Jesus spoke in parables so I assume He would not be against fiction with a lesson. What is your take on this?
This is certainly grist for the conversation mill, isn't it? One person's literature is another's trash. What I'd like to focus on first are two commas in MBE's statement—the one after the word "novels" and the one before the word "fill."
MBE wrote her book in a time when authors were much looser in their use of the comma. In contemporary writing, commas appear for very specific purposes. We're so used to this that we read older texts with what would be today's meaning. I believe this doesn't result in an accurate reading of the older texts.
For example, in the passage in question. Today, I believe she'd write that sentence without those two commas. My opinion is that the phrase from "remarkable" to "depravity" is meant to be a qualifier for the novels she's discussing. Meaning, she's only talking about novels like that. She's not casting aspersions on *all* novels, nor is she saying that all novels carry those characteristics. Those commas, however, make us, readers of today who are used to commas meaning exactly that, think that she's against all fictional literature.
Try reading the sentence without those two commas and with a slight edit: Novels [that are] remarkable only for their exaggerated pictures, impossible ideals, and specimens of depravity fill our young readers with wrong tastes and sentiments. I think this is closer to what she meant and how it applies to today. It also makes a lot more sense as a recommendation, since it would be hard to believe that a well-read and cultured woman such as MBE would tell her readers to eschew all literature. She *wrote* fiction herself as a young woman.
I am in no way suggesting any alteration is needed to Science and Health—we each need to approach it with our own individual inspiration. I think, however, in our reading of it, we need to gain a knowledge of the context of the times in which it was written, and then expand the meaning to find its relevance for today. For example, today I would add television, film, radio, magazines, the Internet—really any media—to the arenas regarding which I should be discriminating and which I should shield my children when appropriate. (Hence the "discussions" I've had with my son about Grand Theft Auto.)
As far as evaluating the media, the core criteria for me is: does it uplift or degrade my self-definition or my definition of others? Some of most violent films ever made (Saving Private Ryan, Children of Men) uplifted my outlook, while some of the most well-made and award-winning (Silence of the Lambs, Jaws) left me only horrified. So now I look for the uplift.
Thanks for your question, Dennis! What does everyone else think?
Your ideas and inspiration are welcome! Please comment below or Contact Laura.
Email this posting to a friend with the envelope icon below.