Customer Reviews

The Language of War: Literature and Culture in the U.S. from the Civil War through World War II

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I do not recommend this book, which is a jungle of deconstructionist jargon in which there are a few lucid lakes in plain English containing important quotes and insights about the challenge of war to morality. The theme is that war has always challenged the rule of law (Cicero: "Silent enim leges inter arma" -- in time of war the law is silent [pg. 200]) and the fog of war confuses any sense of moral rectitude and certainty (Clausewitz: "`In the conduct of war, perception cannot be governed by laws.' War produces `a kind of twilight, which, like fog or moonlight, often tends to make things seem grotesque.'" -- I had not appreciated that Clausewitz applied "the fog of war" far beyond the battlefield.). For those who believe that language defines thought and law and culture (as Dawes does), war tortures language to such a degree that it must be reconstructed (in literature) after the war's end to return to a sense of moral meaning to life. I do not share his views, as I find a greater meaning and deception in the power of symbols than in the power of words. Further, he seems to believe in an idealistic precision of language, and is perplexed, not by change, but by the twists of ambiguity that war engenders. For my part, I find that the flexibility of language allows it to cover the unparseable complexity of the real world, with the down side that humans can sea-lawyer their way out of almost any intended meaning (as in the application of the Geneva Conventions -- Dawes cites the Netherlands attempted refusal to classify Indonesian prisoners in the 1950 war as Prisoners of War under the convention of 1949 because the convention states that it should apply "even if the state of war is not recognized by one of [the parties]" -- it did not say "one or more" and neither side did... The pressure of the international community forced them to back down, and the wording of the COnvention was subsequently changed. [pg. 206])

His thesis: in the literature of the U.S each major war has brought forth authors with a different post-war perspective which has revised the language and its use (Catch-22: "` Didn't they show it to you?' Yossarian demanded, stamping about in anger and distress. `Didn't you even make them read it?' `They didn't have to show us Catch-22, the old woman answered. `They don't have to.' `What law says they don't have to. What law says they don't have to?' `Catch-22.'" [pg 180] -- la plus ça change...). The book is interesting for calling one's attention to such forgotten passages as this one that are so relevant today, and particularly for his deconstructive analysis of Hart Crane and Hemmingway...

However, his "insights" are not at all original or exceptional (although our present regime in its war enthusiasm blithely ignores them and their implications). They are certainly hard won for the author through the obscurity of the borrowed jargon he uses in his approach to literature -- and thus the more so for the reader.

In today's world, this book is a must read if you want a better understanding of much of what you're reading and hearing. I can't recommend it highly enough!