Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Groundhog Day. (fp)

Banned in Tucson. (kw)

The Best and Worst of 2011 in Race and Law (kw)

Tortured to death for trespassing. (fp)

Drones of contention. (fp)

DOJ still coddling banks. (fp)

Creative destruction? Thank banks. (fp)

Blog about a new book, on how to talk to little girls--stressing smarts not cutes.   LAC

Macey on the heroic Rakoff. (fp)

Captured NY Fed. (fp)


solicitors

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • Paul Robichaux on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • JR on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • Jan on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • Mark on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • Shag from Brookline on Omelets and Eggs

    • Shag from Brookline on Omelets and Eggs

    • Joe on What Exactly is Wrong With Polygamy?

    • Phil on What Exactly is Wrong With Polygamy?

    • Lee on Lifecycles and the Firm

    • Car accident claim lawyers on Symposium Next Week on "A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents"

    • Andrew MacKie-Mason on Can't the Supreme Court Just Say No to Cameras?

    • Joe on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Shag from Brookline on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Joe on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Joe on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

Nicholas Mosley: Style and Substance

posted by Frank Pasquale

effortsattruth.jpgI was happy to see the British magazine Prospect carry an interview/review of the work of the fascinating novelist Nicholas Mosley. Mosley’s Hopeful Monsters is an extraordinary novel of ideas. It’s easy to make a hash of that genre, but Mosley’s protagonists are so viscerally committed to their fields of study (one’s a physicist, the other an anthropologist) that it’s easy to see why they care about the interplay of philosophy and science in the mid-twentieth century. The book can even be taken as an extended meditation on the degree to which the model of natural sciences can be extended to social science.

(That theme is more explicitly treated in his autobiography, Efforts at Truth. This memoir also contains one of the most bizarre accounts of an alleged “defamation by fiction” I’ve ever seen.)

A few more thoughts after the break. . .


Skidelsky argues that Mosley’s interest in questions of good and evil is a great corrective for the modern literary world’s obsession with style:

For him, style is important only as a vehicle of moral truth—indeed, style is moral truth. It is inseparable from his moral vision. . . . Mosley’s conflict with the literary world came to a head in 1991 when. . . he was invited to join the Booker prize judging panel. It was a disaster. “. . . I could see no point in their books at all. To them it was all style, you see, style, style, style. Nowadays we specifically like books that don’t have any meaning.” Mosley resigned from the panel, firing off with an article in the TLS defending the “great tradition” against the modern novel of elegant despair.

His technical experiments are admired, but his intimations of meaning, of good emerging out of evil, are regarded as somewhat embarrassing. The standard modern view sees life as a battle for sex and power, fought under empty skies. Literature’s job is simply to reflect this meaninglessness in elegant and interesting prose.

Mosley’s protest here strikes me as complementary to (but much more necessary than) Virginia Postrel’s project in The Substance of Style. He’s trying to get us to see that at least some corner of literature must address the most important questions we face. Style about nothing may be entertaining, but wrongly aspires in words for what is really only possible in nonprogrammatic music and perhaps nonrepresentational art. Consider John Carey’s argument in What Good are the Arts?, as related by Michael Dirda:

In his last chapters, Carey persuasively argues for literature as the supreme art because it is, essentially, the most people-oriented one, dealing with moral issues, revealing life’s complexities without reducing them to formulae and allowing us to address virtually any issue whatsoever. It is, after all, an art built on reasoning. “Literature gives you ideas to think with. It stocks your mind. It does not indoctrinate, because diversity, counter-argument, reappraisal and qualification are its essence. But it supplies the materials for thought. Also, because it is the only art capable of criticism, it encourages questioning, and self-questioning.” What’s more, English literature, perhaps all literature, persistently displays a distinct “antagonism to pride, grandeur, self-esteem and celebrity” — in other words, to the inhumanity so prevalent among the lucky, the good-looking and the privileged.

A recent interview with James Boyd White suggests what this type of literary sensibility–a sensibility that insists on the interdependence of judgments of proficiency and morality–can do for the lawyer. White has been reflecting on a text by Simone Weil, which tries to get us to avoid “habits of mind and imagination by which we dehumanize others or trivialize their experience.”

Our double task is to . . . see as well as we can how we are the captive of evil forces in our world—and to learn how “not to respect” the empire, that is, how to resist it in our own thought and imagination and feeling.

How does this relate to law and to the life of the lawyer? Directly, in my view, for the meaning of law depends entirely upon the way in which it is practiced, in the aims and understandings that move those who inhabit its world. What we call law can on the one hand be a salient and powerful instrument of empire, denying humanity and trivializing human experience; or, on the other, it can be an important way—perhaps our best way—of seeing, recording, resisting empire. It depends entirely upon the way in which law is done, upon the quality and direction of the lawyer’s or judge’s mind at work: does it seek to understand the empire of force at work in the world and in the self and learn how not to respect it? If so, and only if so, that mind, and the law itself, may become capable of love and justice.

I highly recommend the rest of White’s interview.


 August 31, 2007 at 7:40 am   Posted in: Law and Humanities, Philosophy of Social Science   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (2)

  1. Dudley - August 31, 2007 at 6:15 pm

    I greatly enjoyed Hopeful Monsters and several other Mosley novels (Serpant, Impossible Object, Children of Darkness and Light). Reading him reminds me of another novelist of Dostoyevsky.

    I’ve lately been reading Bakhtin’s “Problems of Dostoyevsky’s Poetics,” which makes a similar point–that Dostoyevsky’s stylistic pyrotechnics were all in the service of probing ideas, grappling with difficult issues, and taking serious every considered point of view.

  2. Thank you - September 1, 2007 at 3:08 am

    This is the best blog post I have ever read. Thanks for introducing me to a new author.

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Derek Bambauer
Gabriella Coleman
andré douglas pond cummings
David Gray
Brishen Rogers
Joseph Turow
Elizabeth A. Wilson













Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Marvin Ammori
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ann Bartow
Steven Bellovin
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Josh Blackman
Joseph Blocher
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Ryan Calo
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Glenn Cohen
Jennifer Collins
Caroline Mala Corbin
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
Maxine Eichner
Jessica Erickson
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Joshua Fairfield
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Mary Anne Franks
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Brian Frye
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Kyle Graham
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jonathan Hafetz
Meredith Harbach
Michelle Harner
Jeffrey Harrison
Hosea Harvey
Erica Hashimoto
Jennifer Hendricks
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Gilbert A. Holmes
Nicole Huberfeld
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Shavar Jeffries
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Jeff Jonas
Courtney Joslin
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Alicia Kelly
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Margaret Lewis
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Matthew Lister
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Kevin Noble Maillard
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Michael J. Pitts
Marc Poirier
David Post
Amanda Pustilnik
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Marc Roark
Sasha Romanosky
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
David Schraub
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Olivier Sylvain
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Ari Waldman
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
Access to Justice
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Derechoalderecho
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Just Books
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
TeachPrivacy Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress