![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Gaudy Night, integrity and the work ethic.
Gaudy Night is a detective story; a love story; a psychological novel; an Oxford book, in the sense that Oxford is not merely the setting but also a character; a book that sings; that rare thing, a nearly perfect book.
It is also a book about integrity. Harriet Vane has betrayed her personal integrity by having a sexual relationship with Philip Boyes, whom she did not love (and frankly, who could?) The main barrier between her and Peter Wimsey is the debt of gratitude that prevents them from meeting on equal ground. Harriet feels that she is 'base coin'; that no two-sided relationship can take place between them.
So she flees back to the college she attended as an undergraduate, because the intellect is the only part of her life she hasn't 'betrayed and made a mess of'. But it seems as though the life of the intellect can in turn betray, in the shape of twisted and spiteful 'poison pen' letters being distributed in the College.
Harriet is a fundamentally honest person. It is significant that her face is 'plain' and she wears virtually no make-up, because she deals plainly as well. She has no disguise, and one of her attractions to Peter is that she forces him to be honest as well.
The rival claims of 'head' and 'heart' occupy a large part of the novel.Is it possible to retain intellectual integrity while achieving emotional satisfaction? That is the problem Harriet struggles with simultaneously with the detective problem.
The idea of intellectual integrity is very imporant in Gaudy. I had the advantage of coming to it (as a teenager) from a family background in academe. I was brought up to think of intellectual property as such, that plagiarism and falsifying data were crimes and not acknowledging a source a misdemeanour. One of my sources of pocketmoney was proof-reading my father's citations at £2 a shot, perhaps a hundred for one research paper.
The situation of science is simpler for that of art; science must be true, while art has to be beautiful as well. That is another form of integrity, but a more subjective one.
If a job is worth doing, it is worth doing well, and if you do not do it well, perhaps it is not your 'proper job'. But even if circumstances prevent you from doing your proper job, I think that the job in front of you should still be done to the best of your ability.
What makes a work of art good is not the intentions but the workmanship. 'Potboilers' are not necessarily lacking in integrity. You may wish to write 'highbrow' works, but if detective noevls keep meat on the table and pay the school fees, there is no shame in writing them, and no reason that they should not be as good specimens of their kind as is possible. As Harriet and Sayers herself proved.
What artistic integrity is not is the attitude which says 'I have created great word; if the audience fails to appreciate it, it must be the audience's fault.' Sometimes that may be the case, but is the fault not just as likely to be with the author? The AOL generation expressive itself more concisely, if less coherently, in the words (so to speak) 'NOT A MARY SUE PLZ R&R NO FLAMES WFT!!!11!'
Fanfiction gives me good examples of what I am talking about. Media tie-in novels are potboilers, or as one who ought to know called them, 'burger flipping'. The franchise I know best, Star Wars, has a lot of derivative fiction, both fan and pro. And the pro stuff is by and large trash. The films themselves, for all their flaws, are good work. They have been crafted, and they bear the mark of having been loved, and loved well. The tie-ins are a different matter. Whether by a total lack of research (Courtship of Princess Leia), insufficient resources (Crystal Star), or a thinly disguised contempt for the whole story (Kevin J Anderson's books), the authors are not interested in creating 'good work'. One the other hand, I have read many fan-fictions (my friends list has several shining examples) that were good work, as carefully crafted as many a published novel and more so than most. The difference is the fanworks were created for the love of the story they are telling.
And that perhaps is the only reason for writing at all. Just as the great advances in science do not take place as a result of consciously trying to advance science and technology, but to 'gratify a liberal curiosity', great literature is not created by trying to write great literature. Many works which were written as entertainment, for fun by both author and readers, that are considered 'Eng Lit' today. (Dickens and Scott are the first examples I think of). It is the old paradox of the looking-glass house.
So, what about the tension between intellect and emotion? On my latest rereading, I was reminded of the F/T (Feeling/Thinking distinction in the Myers-Briggs system. As I'm just on the F side of the borderline (but getting more T by the day, it seems), I know the dilemma. Even down to such a small thing as 'tell the truth, or spare someone's feelings', which side do you follow? Let alone a life-changing decision such as the one Harriet is working up to in Gaudy Night.
I think it's Peter who voices Sayers' solution. Not perfect tranquility, but 'the balance of opposing forces'. And if you turn to Psalm 84, which Sayers as Christian certainly would have known, Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other. Opposing forces poised in balance...
As for Peter and Harriet, Peter wins her by being totally honest with her, allowing her to see all his vulnerabilities as he knows hers. Their relationship is only fulfilled on the basis of integrity.
Cross-posted to my own journal,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
talboys and reading_sayers. Isn't Livejournal wonderful--where else could I post something like this?
It is also a book about integrity. Harriet Vane has betrayed her personal integrity by having a sexual relationship with Philip Boyes, whom she did not love (and frankly, who could?) The main barrier between her and Peter Wimsey is the debt of gratitude that prevents them from meeting on equal ground. Harriet feels that she is 'base coin'; that no two-sided relationship can take place between them.
So she flees back to the college she attended as an undergraduate, because the intellect is the only part of her life she hasn't 'betrayed and made a mess of'. But it seems as though the life of the intellect can in turn betray, in the shape of twisted and spiteful 'poison pen' letters being distributed in the College.
Harriet is a fundamentally honest person. It is significant that her face is 'plain' and she wears virtually no make-up, because she deals plainly as well. She has no disguise, and one of her attractions to Peter is that she forces him to be honest as well.
The rival claims of 'head' and 'heart' occupy a large part of the novel.Is it possible to retain intellectual integrity while achieving emotional satisfaction? That is the problem Harriet struggles with simultaneously with the detective problem.
The idea of intellectual integrity is very imporant in Gaudy. I had the advantage of coming to it (as a teenager) from a family background in academe. I was brought up to think of intellectual property as such, that plagiarism and falsifying data were crimes and not acknowledging a source a misdemeanour. One of my sources of pocketmoney was proof-reading my father's citations at £2 a shot, perhaps a hundred for one research paper.
The situation of science is simpler for that of art; science must be true, while art has to be beautiful as well. That is another form of integrity, but a more subjective one.
If a job is worth doing, it is worth doing well, and if you do not do it well, perhaps it is not your 'proper job'. But even if circumstances prevent you from doing your proper job, I think that the job in front of you should still be done to the best of your ability.
What makes a work of art good is not the intentions but the workmanship. 'Potboilers' are not necessarily lacking in integrity. You may wish to write 'highbrow' works, but if detective noevls keep meat on the table and pay the school fees, there is no shame in writing them, and no reason that they should not be as good specimens of their kind as is possible. As Harriet and Sayers herself proved.
What artistic integrity is not is the attitude which says 'I have created great word; if the audience fails to appreciate it, it must be the audience's fault.' Sometimes that may be the case, but is the fault not just as likely to be with the author? The AOL generation expressive itself more concisely, if less coherently, in the words (so to speak) 'NOT A MARY SUE PLZ R&R NO FLAMES WFT!!!11!'
Fanfiction gives me good examples of what I am talking about. Media tie-in novels are potboilers, or as one who ought to know called them, 'burger flipping'. The franchise I know best, Star Wars, has a lot of derivative fiction, both fan and pro. And the pro stuff is by and large trash. The films themselves, for all their flaws, are good work. They have been crafted, and they bear the mark of having been loved, and loved well. The tie-ins are a different matter. Whether by a total lack of research (Courtship of Princess Leia), insufficient resources (Crystal Star), or a thinly disguised contempt for the whole story (Kevin J Anderson's books), the authors are not interested in creating 'good work'. One the other hand, I have read many fan-fictions (my friends list has several shining examples) that were good work, as carefully crafted as many a published novel and more so than most. The difference is the fanworks were created for the love of the story they are telling.
And that perhaps is the only reason for writing at all. Just as the great advances in science do not take place as a result of consciously trying to advance science and technology, but to 'gratify a liberal curiosity', great literature is not created by trying to write great literature. Many works which were written as entertainment, for fun by both author and readers, that are considered 'Eng Lit' today. (Dickens and Scott are the first examples I think of). It is the old paradox of the looking-glass house.
So, what about the tension between intellect and emotion? On my latest rereading, I was reminded of the F/T (Feeling/Thinking distinction in the Myers-Briggs system. As I'm just on the F side of the borderline (but getting more T by the day, it seems), I know the dilemma. Even down to such a small thing as 'tell the truth, or spare someone's feelings', which side do you follow? Let alone a life-changing decision such as the one Harriet is working up to in Gaudy Night.
I think it's Peter who voices Sayers' solution. Not perfect tranquility, but 'the balance of opposing forces'. And if you turn to Psalm 84, which Sayers as Christian certainly would have known, Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other. Opposing forces poised in balance...
As for Peter and Harriet, Peter wins her by being totally honest with her, allowing her to see all his vulnerabilities as he knows hers. Their relationship is only fulfilled on the basis of integrity.
Cross-posted to my own journal,
talboys and reading_sayers. Isn't Livejournal wonderful--where else could I post something like this?