Imaginative Inventions: A Purposive Account of Literature in Response to Nicholas Boyle

Abstract

IN SACRED AND SECULAR SCRIPTURES: A Catholic Approach to Literature, Nicholas Boyle undertakes a self-styled quest to explore and chart region where and secular writings intersect as bearers of revelatory (1) His aim, in part, is to offer a foundation for how Catholics readers and Catholic educational institutions might interpret and teach works from that unique standpoint. Eschewing any need to present an apologetic for sake of this perspective, Boyle instead takes it as his task to open up a space for dialogue about how this perspective can fruitfully discover and interpret ethical dimensions of works. His quest begins with a historical analysis of ways in which thinkers like Herder, Hegel, Levinas, and Ricoeur understood Bible as a form of literature. Using a number of conceptual tools from these scholars, Boyle then reframes his approach by examining how we might understand literature to be a reflection of Bible. One crucial aspect of this project involves mapping boundary lines between several types of discourse: between writings and literature and between literature and other nonliterary forms of secular discourse. Unfortunately, Boyle's definition of secular literature raises two serious problems. First, it conflicts with our ordinary understanding of value of literature. Second, it appears to defeat very purpose for which Boyle seeks to use it in his project. The focus of this article will be to analyze this definition of literature and difficulties it produces and to propose a friendly amendment to this definition that might better serve his project. Boyle categorizes secular literature as writing that is in nature. In describing literature in this manner, he intends to distinguish it from more utilitarian forms of communication, particularly those that appear ill-suited as potential bearers of sacred meaning, such as law documents, scientific or academic articles, and lab reports. Boyle further defines secular literature as discourse designed simply for sake of giving pleasure to its audience, and he regards this feature as mark that distinguishes secular literature from literature. My concern with this account is that authors often intend their work to be instructional in nature, and readers intentionally regard it as such. When we immerse ourselves in dissatisfaction and emotional scars of main characters of Michael Chabon's The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, or grapple in anger with foolish decisions of Briony in Ian McEwan's Atonement, we expect to encounter novel perspectives and ways of thinking that will influence our own views regardless of whether we agree with them or even take pleasure in them. Thus, trying to insist on identifying literature as nonpurposive seems to deny to literature an aspect that we ordinarily regard as essential to it: its capacity to teach us about ourselves and others. This issue in itself might not be much of a difficulty for Boyle to overcome, but it is coupled with an additional, weightier problem. Boyle asserts that literature is site of meaning--that one can read literature as a source for learning sacred truths. Yet such a view presupposes that literature is instrumental in sense that readers and authors alike regard works as instruments that convey universal truths and facilitate self-discovery. If Boyle is correct in saying that secular literature contains such truths, then we must regard literature as having a purposive nature. This consequence undermines Boyle's attempt to differentiate literature from other secular forms of discourse and thereby open up a space where and the literary (as Boyle defines it) might intermingle. To elucidate concerns noted above, I will first sketch ideas that shape Boyle's account. Numerous strands of thought influence final picture he draws. …