I know one deals with literature and the other with history, but both are subjects that are revisited and re-seen and reevaluated over time. Both subjects remain in a single point of view- that of the author. As Winston Churchill pointed out, "History is written by the victors." Examples include Germany as 'bad' in WWII and the United States being successful in Vietnam. I'm not arguing that Germany was 'good' or the United States failed persay, but you see where I'm going...
I wonder how Lukacs [would have] reacted [if] when he read Shelley's Defense. Both of their arguments center on "changes over time." I also wonder whether Shelley would count as the "Romantic-reactionary" or the ideal "Voltaire"-esque writer (910). Shelley does "grasp the salient features of their world with a bold and penetrating realism," like the writers Lukacs discusses; though, whether or not he saw the "specific qualities of [his] own age historically" is up for discussion.
(My fault for being this late. Not only did I have class until 8:15 and didn't post beforehand, but I subsequently forgot what account and password I was using for this site. - Diana)
No comments:
Post a Comment