The Death of Literature

Until the middle of the twentieth century, literature had been attacked on many levels: it is boring, insipid, corrupting, and just plain useless. Yet, until Jacques Derrida announced his theory that there is no "inside" to any text but only an "outside," literature had always been assumed to "say" something of timeless duration to each generation. Derrida and the next generation's deconstructionists, poststructuralists, feminists, and new historicists now insist that the text is little more than a mirror which reflects whatever political ideology motivates its reader. In THE DEATH OF LITERATURE, Alvin Kernan bemoans what he sees as the loss of literature in the sense that his generation both knew and loved. For Kernan, literature always has an "inside" meaning that exists independently of the reader. And it is precisely this which annoys the deconstructionist crowd. Kernan traces the historical growth of literature from the Enlightenment to the present day, less in the evolution of literary genres and more in the changing mediums with which literature appeared. As long as literature was limited to the printed page, its continuity was assured. But with the advent of the technology of the modern age--television, computers, hypertext--emphasis began to focus on replication of that text rather than on its explication. And when the postructuralists suggested that the very words of any text merely pointed to other words in a never ending closed loop of nihilism, then Kernan feels he has no choice other than to write an epitaph to a means of human endeavour that most folks call literature. However, literature has continuously shown a gritty ability to survive any number and means of assault over the ages. Despite the growing use of computers, books sales continue to flourish in a gratifyingly upward spiral. Further, Kernan fails to see that the current trendy deconstructionist destruction of the printed word is but a minor ripple in the pool of human literary culture. At some point, the miasma of Derrida will dissipate, leaving our nation's colleges and universities to wonder just why it took so long for the emperor to be revealed as truly naked as Kernan has long charged.

Even though this book strikes out at every possible enemy that can provide an explanation for the decline in influence of traditional English literature, it does contain some useful information and makes some thought-provoking points. For instance, Kernan points out that English literature departments did not exist until the early days of the twentieth century (p. 34). Twentieth century authors like Kafka, Joyce, Eliot, etc. were taught so as to challenge the complacent minds of middle-class students (p. 60). However, being taught in college conferred on these works a status that made them guides for behavior rather than stimulation for discussion. Students unquestioningly accepted the negative attitudes in these authors (p. 61) and the dark view of life they offered. When the view became even darker and completely irrational and self-destructive in the late twentieth century, the authority conferred by their being taught in college still swayed the students. What to do about all this is something that eludes Kernan. He needs information which he, as a retired English professor from Princeton, does not have. He continues the traditional antipathy to all other fields, particularly the physical and social sciences. For instance, Kernan equates the relativity of Relativity Theory with the relativity of cultural anthropology (p. 80-81), even citing "uncertainty and probability" as marks of this relativity! One consequence of this is Kernan's grouping reader-response theories among the bad guys. "Reader-response or reception aesthetics drain the autonomous work of art of its meaning by relocating the meaning-making power to the eyes of the beholders." (p. 76) This statement presupposes that a work can have no meaning unless it has the same meaning for every reader, certainly a debatable, not to say dubious point. So, his book continues to the end as a kind of lament. He has no solutions to offer. And indeed, turning back the clock to the mindless Traditionalism of the past is no more a solution than continuing the mindless iconoclasm and interest-group politicking of the present. For a book that is able to deal with these problems (because the author is not a traditionalist and has a knowledge of other fields), see A Book Worth Reading. Still, Kernan scores some points against the iconoclasts which could occasion useful debate, but it is unlikely that they will ever read his book.

As a graduate student in literature, I became rather angry at times while reading Kernan's book; ultimately, however, I came to agree with his primary thesis on the death of literature. Kernan takes a polemic view towards feminists, postcolonialists, etc. who have assigned new meanings to old texts, thus introducing subjectivity into literary scholarship and reducing the credibility of literature as an academic discipline. Kernan's negative stance towards these groups remains my only point of contention with the book. Otherwise, his claim that literature no longer extends its influence beyond the university, especially (although not entirely) due to technological advancements and cultural changes, seems to be common sense. In Kernan's view, the death of literature in the university, as evidenced by its nonconformance to scientific standards and by the shift of student demand from literature courses to writing courses, is tantamount to the death of literature everywhere.Kernan's polemic targets numerous other theoretical perspectives on literature; the collective of literary scholars also finds itself under attack. These views were often painful to read but I ultimately decided that Kernan is right. Literary scholars should read this book with an open mind, and with several other open minds in reserve for use when the first no longer wants anything more to do with this text. However, struggling through this book is extremely worthwhile. On the other hand, for anyone wishing to attack the literary establishment in the universities, this book provides plenty of ammunition.