Letters to the Editor

March 28, 2007

To the Editor:

I want to respond to last issue’s commentary on literature by Jen McShane’s “Reading the Future” (the Collegian, Feb. 28). The article speculates about what the future holds for classroom literature studies. McShane proposes that in 50 years our children will be studying The Notebook, The Five People You Meet in Heaven, The Da Vinci Code and the like in their college literature classes. Personally I am one to disagree. I feel that great literature should not only have an effect on the reader for a short while but also a long-lasting effect on society in general, which means the novel should effectively comment on the culture of that society, as well as remain relevant as time progresses. Furthermore, a “great” book also has the quality of originality: taking a dry image or story and remolding it into something vibrant. Though the books that McShane mentioned are nice reads, I’m not sure if they can qualify as “great.”

McShane insinuates that a book doesn’t need to be “complicated” in order to be “great.” However, upon reading any fiction, one finds that this is generally not the case. There’s always a degree of complexity behind any great literary work, which is why a person could potentially write hundreds of pages of commentary on a single page of poetry or a single image in a work of prose. Even if the language and the style are easy to read, the message is not always the easiest to comprehend. For instance, take anything by Kurt Vonnegut or Ernest Hemingway, or even a contemporary author like Tobias Wolff, and you’ll see that even though the language is clear-cut, the true depth of the message usually is not.

A great book has deep characters that drive the plot, not solely a thrilling plot in and of itself. This is what separates The Da Vinci Code and The Five People You Meet in Heaven from the “great” books. Both have interesting plots, but neither have characters I genuinely care about, nor do they comment on anything in a new way. On the surface, these books might seem deeper than they really are, but upon further introspection, they fall apart.

This is not to say that all modern literature is clichéd or sentenced to oblivion and thus never to be studied. This is simply untrue. In contemporary literature classes throughout the nation, people are studying still-living writers like Tobias (Old School —not to be confused with the Will Ferrell movie), Alice Munro (Runaway) and Joyce Carol Oates (Blonde and several other works). There are also plenty of solid literary anthologies that might prove fruitful for future study, including the Pushcart Prize books and the O. Henry Prize collections. Though not perfect, many of these annual anthology series contain the elements of literary fiction—in particular, enduring, character driven tales that comment on the human condition.

Though not all modern novels or stories are crap, not everything on the bestseller list will make it into the future’s lit classes. A lot of attention must be paid to details like character and theme before it can be put on the bookshelf alongside Goethe’s Faust or Orwell’s 1984. More importantly, though, the work needs to endure the test of time—to not only be relevant to one group at one time, but to be applicable for generations to come.

Salvatore Mignano, Freshman
mignanos1@lasalle.edu

---

To the Editor:

I am writing in regards to last week’s article by Kevin Hall arguing the lack of Catholicism and Catholic values at La Salle (“Writer feels La Salle isn’t Catholic enough,” p. 7, March 21). I found the article misinformed and extremely narrow-minded. To begin, Hall used this past Christmas season as an example of one of the most severe lacks of Catholicism at La Salle. He claims the University has, for the sake of those who are not devoutly Catholic, abandoned the traditional religious meanings behind Christmas. Rather than nativity scenes and exclamations of “Christ is born,” he found only snowmen and commercial Christmas decorations and phrases. He says La Salle was not upholding the real tradition of Christmas or the Lasallian mission. I would like to ask, however, how La Salle has not upheld these things.

This Christmas I saw trees around campus asking for Christmas donations for the poor and less fortunate. I saw students giving up their precious time before exams to wrap these presents and deliver them, ensuring a happy Christmas to those less fortunate than themselves. I saw students volunteering in soup kitchens to bring warm meals to people who would otherwise have gone hungry.

Hall also laments the lack of crucifixes around campus, how few symbols there are of the religion La Salle is founded upon and upon which our founder built his mission. But, I cannot see how symbols equate upholding our values. This campus is full of students doing exactly what St. Jean-Baptiste de La Salle intended them to do. Students every year go to Kentucky, Mexico and Africa to volunteer their time and spread Lasallian good will. Students work with AIDS patients and do community clean-ups. Other students are working to mend troubles between La Salle students and our neighboring community, as well as participating in tutoring programs. If all this is not enough, La Salle offers daily services, religious retreats and seminars called “Faith, Fellowship, and Free Food” for students to share their beliefs. While students are not required to take a class specifically on Catholicism, everyone must complete two general religion classes.

If Hall needs a nativity, which could be found in the lobby of Olney incidentally, and crucifixes to be Catholic, that is fine. But their absence on campus does not mean Christian values are lost. I say Christian here, not Catholic, because even though St. Jean-Baptiste de La Salle and his followers were Catholics, his mission statement, as quoted by Hall, reflects universally Christian values that La Salle and its students hold dear and follow daily. We educate, we learn to lead good lives and above all, we are inspired.

Erin Cameron, Senior
camerone1@lasalle.edu