In his article "Pietism and the American Character" William G. McLoughlin almost did a through job convincing me about the idea of American culture being founded and shaped by religious ideals. I liked his examples about how there were protests that united people across denominations and religions. I liked the idea of even our material culture being shaped by religious piety.
Then he started talking about books and poetry. Fine. I respect that. But when you admit that you are an amateur when it comes to interpreting American Literature, why would you take such a huge tangent to discuss it as a major example of your argument? I found it to totally detract from his other points...when you start talking about how everything in American literature is inherently religious...to be honest, I feel as though he confused religion with spirituality. They're not the same thing. This flaw, his one minded focus upon religion forming everything in literature, to the point that it's the only way to understand it, really revealed his amateur status. I felt like he ignored alternate causes, just to make his point, and it ultimately made it fall apart.
No comments:
Post a Comment