Conference Review part 2

So, the conference has been and gone. It was all very enjoyable and I learned a great deal about C21 lit - not one of my strong points! Some very interesting panels and chat. Although I took Sunday off, I did get to the conference dinner in the evening. After the food there was a band (made up of academics from Lincoln - they were very good and played a good lot of T-Rex and The Beatles) and a bit of a dance. Now I am no dancer. I'm alright at a ceilidh but when it comes to jiggling about I just look ridiculous. But it was all good fun and I busted some moves. The organisers did a magnificent job.

Rather than fill you in on all the academic pomposity I thought I'd do a bit of a meditation (ooer!) on the final plenary which asked the far reaching question, "can literature save the world?" It examined a relatively new book called Solar by Ian McEwen. I haven't read it but I was interested in the speaker's argument abut how literature can contribute to/make comment on current issues, namely global warming/environmental disaster etc. I must admit I was pretty sleepy by the final plenary but was struck by the Q&A. A great many of the comments were critiquing the book, which everyone seemed to really dislike. But one question stood out. It came from a well-known ecocritic e.g. someone who reads literature through the lens of environmental issues (a BIG field right now). He was questioning the speaker's use of terminology. His comment was (I paraphrase) "All this is fine but I think we need to work out what we are saving. We aren't saving the world. That'll go on without us. So, what are we saving? (pause) Humanity?" The speaker's response was (again paraphrased) "well, it is difficult to know which words to use and perhaps I do use ideas of...erm...redemption too much".

Fascinating! So, it got me thinking. What are we trying to save? The world will continue with or without our intervention in some form or other. So, are we trying to save humanity and, if we are, what are we saving humanity from exactly? Are we just trying to preserve the species? Why is that an important objective in and of itself? And where does redemption come in? Are we attempting to 'save the world' in response to personal and/or collective guilt? Where does this guilt come from? And, further, why do we think that a subjectively 'beautiful' world is any better than a subjectively 'ugly' world? Where do these values come from?

Strangely, as I thought over the issues I realised I was moving away from ecocriticism and further towards ideas of salvation and redemption. Now, I have a personal knowledge of these two concepts...

"Surely God is my salvation; I will trust and not be afraid. The LORD, the LORD, is my strength and my song; he has become my salvation" Isaiah 12:2.

"Stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near." Jesus in Luke 21:28.

Ah yes, there we are...how strange that in that final plenary we seemed to somehow be searching for salvation and redemption. Granted the above verses probably weren't quite what everyone had in mind, but I was struck by the similarity in nomenclature. So, what are we trying to save...and are we completely sure that someone hasn't already done the saving?

All's well here. Was soundly beaten on the squash court this evening and spent the day at meetings (all very interesting!) and writing a paper for another conference in September. Will get back to the book tomorrow. And it's raining here! After two months of almost perpetual sunshine, British weather has at last returned. Actually it is a bit of a relief to wear a jumper again! A peaceful book-writing week beckons. Have a brilliant week one and all.

CSW