August 12, 2026 – 11:45 am
Earlier it was determined that :
Literature is a performance of language use (of a particular kind) and has natural elements of assessment as a performance of a certain kind. (They may not be the only elements of assessment, but they are the fundamentals.) In the particular case of fine literature as we are understanding it, those natural elements of assessment are exactly the elements of literature determined to be relevant to the two sources of pleasure in literature that we have identified: storytelling and language play. Excellence in literature will be judged by the degree to which excellence is displayed in those elements.
Functions Determine the Virtues
According to a long-established understanding of the nature of excellence in general, the excellence of a performance has to be understood in terms of the fitness of certain elements for the achievement of the purpose of the performance. This view of excellences can be most obviously traced to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, in which the excellences (αρεται, virtues) of character were determined to be traits or dispositions tuned to the achievement of happiness (eudaimonia) through the exercise of practical reason. In the argument to that point, Aristotle noted that excellences or virtues in other things that were described as good of their kind were precisely those qualities that fitted those things to perform their characteristic functions well – the sharpness of a knife, the skill of a flautist, the speed of a horse, etc.
The difficulty here, however, is that the functions of the two modes of linguistic performance – storytelling and language play – are, respectively, mysterious and merely vestigial. In the case of language play (let us call it the ludic mode,) it was argued earlier that the original function was to provide a mode of linguistic behaviour in which language competence could be demonstrated or honed and that the pleasure found in it functioned to reward participation in performances in that mode. That being the case, it would be reasonable to assume that the virtues in that performance are precisely those characteristics of the performance that demonstrate the competence of the performer, and which give pleasure to the audience. The same will of course apply to the performances in that mode which are the continuations of that juvenile mode into maturity.
In the case of storytelling (the narrative mode,) the function is not so clear, though, as was suggested previously, there have been hypothesized uses in social display or cultural transmission. Those uses, however, cannot constitute the function: the function properly performed has those uses. We can say no more than that the function of performances in the narrative mode is to transmit a structure of events and other contents in an interestingly integrated form. We are correspondingly required to deduce the virtues from the observation of the characteristics that give pleasure in the narrative mode – assuming, as we did for the ludic mode, that those pleasures are fitted to encourage the characteristics important to the function. The identification of those virtues will require us to distinguish the relevant pleasures from others that may be due to functionally irrelevant features of a performance (or of any performance.)
Constraints on the Literary Virtues
Two further points made be made that will assist in determining whether some identified characteristic of a literary performance can really be a virtue of that mode. In the first place, we may note that every virtue of a mode of performance can be present in any particular performance; which is to say that none of the virtues can be mutually exclusive. That this is generally assumed to be the case for the classical virtues of character, for example, is apparent when Socrates is able to claim that they can be united in deriving from knowledge. More generally, it seems to be simply a matter of the meaning of the terms that if something counts as an excellence of a mode of performance it can be expected to be present in any particular performance.
In the second place, we shall assume that each of the virtues exists on a continuum and that the virtue does not consist in a simple maximisation of that particular characteristic. In this respect, again, we assume a similarity with the virtues of character. There is a distinction to be drawn here between those virtues and certain other kinds of positive characteristics. At first sight we might not be inclined to say, for example, that the right degree of sharpness in a knife was anything less than the sharpest it could be, that the right level of skill in a flautist was anything less than the best he could manage, or that the right speed for a horse (a racehorse, anyway) was anything less than the fastest a horse could go – and we note also that such characteristics are exactly the sorts of characteristics that cannot all be maximised (present at their ‘right’ degrees) at the same time. In practice, however, the sharpness of a knife, for example, its safety, its comfort of use, its strength, and so on are all characteristics that need to be balanced against each other in order for the knife to be optimal at its intended function, whereas virtues of the other kind have to be balanced against the function of the mode of performance itself. Therefore, both kinds of virtue (if the distinction is accepted) can be considered means in the Aristotelian sense.
It’s finally worth recalling the observation made in part 1 that we do not approach the identification of literary virtues alone or as an entirely new project. Literary critics and the general population from ancient times until today have had many opinions on the appropriate characteristics of fine literature guided by their relevant intuitions and operating on long experience of the form. It makes very good sense to take their opinions seriously.
Seven Ludic Literary Virtues
- Syntactic Innovation
The ability to deploy or discover non-normative ways of constructing meaning-bearing locutions that do not stray so far from the bounds of normative syntax that the meaning becomes overly difficult to recover, or where there is ambiguity that that be intended. The associated vices of defect and excess would be respectively a too strict adherence to supposed syntactic norms and a too liberal departure from those norms. Note that a failure to master the grammar is just grammatical illiteracy.
- Lexical Invention
The ability to coin new terms according to implicit rules of word construction, or to deploy unusual or non-standard terms in ways that expand their semantic field. The associated vice of defect would be displaying a too limited capacity for invention and expansion of the language’s capabilities, while the vice of excess would be showing too great a tendency to employ unusual, jargon, erudite, specialist, exotic, or invented terms in which meaning is obscured beyond desirable limits. Note that simple errors in word use (using the wrong word, for example) or just not knowing the available vocabulary adequately is just lexical illiteracy.
- Semantic Density
The ability to clearly express complex or multiple meanings within a limited compass by the artful use of language. This sort of semantic compression may involve alternative possible intended interpretations, intended ambiguities, metaphors, similes, irony, and a range of other techniques of semantic subversion, overlay, or extension. The associated vice of defect would be an inadequate degree of semantic sophistication resulting in a pedestrian, plodding text, while the vice of excess would be a text that is so heavily saturated with semantic possibilities that it presents too formidable a barrier to comprehension. Unintended ambiguities, possible interpretations etc. are simple errors of clarity and intention.
- Affective Control
The ability to direct the emotional effects of a text by the skilful use of language. This control may be effected through management of the tone, mood, atmosphere, reader response, etc. of a text. The associated vice of defect is the failure to adequately control the affective aspects of the text. Since every text necessarily has all the types of affect, this failure risks allowing the uncontrolled affect of the text to be irrelevant or distracting or contradictory to the intention of the author or the type of text. The vice of excess runs a similar risk by imposing affects where they are irrelevant or distracting or contradictory to the intention of the author or the type of text. In unskilled hands, attempted affective control can be seen as incoherent or manipulative.
- Stylistic Distinction
The ability to create and maintain a style of expression in a text that distinguishes that text from others of a comparable kind by means of artful use of language – structure, lexicon, literary devices, etc. The associated vice of defect is the inability to develop a distinct style resulting in derivative, banal, or confused text stylings. The vice of excess risks producing texts whose stylings are distracting, idiosyncratic, confusing, etc. Note that a notably poor style that is not intended as such by the author is just the result of a lack of sensitivity to the language, not a form of stylistic distinction.
- Musical Engagement
The ability to use features of language to create sonic effects pleasing or, at least, engaging to the ear. The relevant features include meter, rhyme, alliteration, assonance, and repetition amongst many others. Obviously, this is particularly important in poetry (perhaps even definitively so,) but it has a role in any text. The associated vice of defect is to fail to create such pleasing effects making the text either not pleasant or even unpleasant. The vice of excess risks making the text confusing or inappropriate to its genre. It is well known that these features are not easily handled, despite their popularity.
- Structural Complexity
The ability to create semantically coherent complex structures in a text – including an overall structure for any particular text. The structure may be defined in narrative, semantic, thematic, or other terms. The associated vice of defect is an inability to impose a semantically coherent structure beyond, of course, limited syntactic units, resulting in a text that lacks a unifying principle or principles and is experienced as fragmentary, pointless, or incoherent. It is worth noting that a second level of the vice is seen where only very simple overall structures are attempted, in which case there may be a risk only of tedium or predictability. The vice of excess risks producing texts whose structures are overly complex and prove unintelligible to the reader, producing confusion and frustration. Attempted structures that fail of coherence are just incompetent constructions.
Seven Narrative Literary Virtues
Although the characteristics that constitute ludic literary virtues are relatively little studied, at least quâ virtues, the narrative virtues turn out to be very well known and require little explanation. They are conveniently associated with the literary elements that are commonly listed as requirements for any piece of literature (meaning fine narrative fiction.)
- Theme
- Plot
- Conflict
- Character
- Setting
- Narration
- Tone
Tags:
Posted in Art, Language | 1 Comment »
