Isn't there a difference between theme and subject just as there is between what is called subject and content in art? wc
________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 4:29:49 PM Subject: Re: Rand Chapter 4: Basic principles of Literature Chris reports: [Ayn Rand presents the Novel as "the" major literary form, and tells us that its four attributes, in order of importance, are "Theme, Plot, Characterization, and Style". Rand has found something called 'theme'("the summation of a novel's abstract meaning") and shoved it in at the very top.] I take Rand's judgment on this issue to be so wrong-headed as to make me wary/suspicious of any comparable judgment about "art" she might ever pronounce. When I was in school, I disagreed with how they taught "understanding literature" in school. "Read for the theme, kids -- what the story means!" But a theme is never what makes a story great. 'War is hell, jealousy is bad, man needs his illusions, you can't recover the past.' A million awful stories have exactly those august, commonplace themes. Moreover, the search for a story's alleged theme literally leads students away from where the cherishable rewards are. There are more good "themes" in ten pages of David Hume's A TREATISE OF HUMAN NATURE than in half a thousand novels -- and they are all far more cogently articulated and argued in Hume. Besides, stories don't have a "the meaning of". Rand's position moves Chris to recall his youth: [Which isn't all that unusual, is it? Didn't your high school literature teacher always want to talk about the 'theme' of "David Copperfield" or "Silas Marner"? That annoyed me than and it annoys me now.] I share Chris's pain. To compound the joy-killing effect of focusing on "theme", the teachers chose books like SILAS MARNER to instill a love and "understanding" of literature in their students. Awful.
