Russell A. Berman

Broadly speaking, Berman makes a compelling argument that language and literature, as developments of the imagination, are largely liberal (in the classical sense) and democratizing forces. Portions of the argument intersect nicely with the work I am doing for my thesis on literature and praxeology – that is, the intersection of imagination and human action – and the book as a whole is intriguing. I would be interested particularly in the thoughts of my more linguistically/philologically inclined friends on Berman's early chapters about the development of language as an imaginative accomplishment of human beings.

While I do like Berman's argument overall, I do think he is wrong, or in some cases overstates, some of the particulars. It wouldn't be worthwhile to go through every such instance in this review, but I will give one example of each. In Chapter 6, "Religion and Writing," Berman argues that religion – and specifically monotheistic, primarily Judeo-Christian religion – is a necessary component to the individuating nature of literature. Through religion, Berman argues, individuals are able to imagine a counterfactual existence beyond that of everyday experience that provides a teleological perspective to their lives. (That is a very simplistic summation of the argument, of course.) Berman claims this religious influence is necessary to the development of literature as a liberating force, but that claim does not hold up. Certainly Western Judeo-Christian religion has had an influence on literature, and even if it is the path through which we understand most (Western) literature today, it is not at all clear that it is the only path through which literature could have developed into the liberal, democratizing force for which Berman successfully argues throughout the rest of the book. Thus, Berman both gets the argument wrong, in my opinion, and then overstates it by devoting an entire chapter to the idea.

I am somewhat surprised, given the conclusions around imagination and its effect on the real world through human action, that there is no reference to Ludwig von Mises, or Austrian School economists in general, throughout the book, especially in the final chapter around "Imagination and Economy." I would be surprised if Berman were wholly unfamiliar with Mises's ideas, and his assumptions and statements about imagination as a precursor to human action is pretty much right out of [b: Human Action|81912|Human Action A Treatise on Economics|Ludwig von Mises|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1328775326s/81912.jpg|1747054] – in fact, it is the very point on which I am hanging my own thesis. I suppose I shouldn't be too disappointed that Berman doesn't draw the connection, since it allows me to draw it instead. It just seems, to me at least, a rather conspicuous omission.

Finally, for my Tolkien Studies friends, there are a few moments worth mentioning in light of "[b:On Fairy Stories|1362112|Tolkien on Fairy-stories|J.R.R. Tolkien|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1326706200s/1362112.jpg|1351902]." In later chapters, Berman frequently refers (non-pejoratively) to "suspension of disbelief." The way he discusses it, I think he means something akin to Tolkien's concept of a Secondary World created in the mind of the reader, and such an interpolation of Tolkien's Secondary World in place of "suspension of disbelief" in those instances, along with some alternative discussion, I think would make Berman's arguments about imagination and its effects on action that much stronger. Secondly, Berman dismisses the idea of literature as "escapist" (except, offhandedly, in "extreme circumstances," which he never defines): "The reader of imaginative literature should not be thought of as somehow escaping from a real world. On the contrary, it is through the aesthetic education of reading that the individual cultivates a capacity for imagination, for criticism, for alternative sensibilities and therefore for an amplified, not a lessened, ethical participation in the world" (p. 159-160).

All in all, I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in literature as an imaginative pursuit. It is rather dense in some places – it is a technical book of literary theory, and Berman's diction reminds you of that about every other sentence – but it is worth taking the time to work through it.… (altro)