While I like what Ron Charles says here in the Washington Post about how silly it is to suggest that ‘social responsibility’ should in some way be used as a criteria to determine literary merit:
"Hillary Jordan’s first novel, Mudbound, arrives emblazoned with the Bellwether Prize, a biennial award established in 1999 by Barbara Kingsolver "to support a literature of social responsibility." That sounds like wearing a "Kick Me" sign on the literary playground, but sneer all you want, O Decadent Literati. These judges know that "social commentary in our art is frequently viewed with suspicion," and they’re determined "to address this deficiency" by giving $25,000 every two years to the author of a previously unpublished novel.
Even by the grandiose standards of award statements, the Bellwether Prize is something of a prizewinner. "Socially responsible literature," the Web site intones, "may describe categorical human transgressions in a way that compels readers to examine their own prejudices." But don’t go thinking that’s what all good literature does. "The mere description of an injustice, or of the personal predicament of an exploited person, without any clear position of social analysis invoked by the writer, does not in itself constitute socially responsible literature." Note that emphasis on clarity, comrades. Ambiguity, Subtlety and Wit, go wait outside; we’ll tell you when the meeting is over."
Novels which at least grapple with important, universal moral dilemmas do tend to end up in the Canon more frequently than those that don’t. And deservedly so. Authors who possess a certain moral seriousness, which is instilled in their writing ‘wittily, subtly and with ambiguity’, tend more often to produce work that lasts. I’m thinking here of Chris Cleave and Little Bee/The Other Hand and the plight of refugees. I like what he says here:
Readers are smart and I’m not in the business of lecturing them. I see my job as providing new information in an entertaining way. Readers will then use that information as the spirit moves them. I think the job is important because there’s something you can do in fiction that you don’t have the space to do in news media, which is to give back a measure of humanity to the subjects of an ongoing story. When I started to imagine the life of one asylum seeker in particular, rather than asylum seekers in general, the scales fell from my eyes in regard to any ideological position I might have held on the issue. It’s all about exploring the mystery and the wonder of an individual human life. Life is precious, whatever its country of origin.
And who he quotes here on why he writes:
“Ours is essentially a tragic age, so we refuse to take it tragically. The cataclysm has happened, we are among the ruins, we start to build up new little habitats, to have new little hopes. It is rather hard work: there is no new road into the future: but we go round, or scramble over the obstacles. We’ve got to live, no matter how many skies have fallen.”
- D.H. Lawrence
(opening lines of Lady Chatterley’s Lover)
Not a bad candidate for the Bellwether, Chris. I’d say. Clearly.
Incoming search terms:
- moral dilemmas in literature
- Dilemma literary
- literature with moral dilemmas
- moral dilemma in literature
- mudbound criticism
- novel with moral dilemmas