I must read The five faces of modernity by Matei Calinescu for an exam. I've reached at the decadence part of the book and I am more confused then ever. Before opening this book i had some clues of what modernity is. Now, I know a lot of details about modernity, like the fact that old Greeks did not feel the need to use this word, or that is stated to be used in the Middle Ages. I even know that it has been used derogatorily for a long period of time.Despite all these, I have no clue what modernity is. I suspect that it is rejecting tradition, but then every new trend does exactly this. I got crazy confused when I read that Romanticism was, in a way modernity. Obviously, I need to read this book again.
I hate this style, and so far it seems to be the most popular in scholar reading. They begin making a statement. Then they analyse the word. Then we see how the word was perceived in different periods of the time, and after all this and, with the mercy of God, the authors return to their original statement to try to explain it to you. Sure, you want to show people that you know what you are talking about. No comments here. But do you need to do it in such a way that people miss your original point?
I think that more people would read more if scholars wouldn't be so stubborn to make everything so elitist and difficult.
No comments:
Post a Comment