ocracy and the mass media would put the future of culture in doubt. For Flaubert, as for Proust, literature was a religion, and was treated with the seriousness of a religion. Literature made Flaubert’s life meaningful and challenging. Literature gave Flaubert something to respect, and something to be proud of. It elevated him above the trivial, the material and the mundane. It helped him to cope with life, and it helped him to face death. The example of Flaubert shows that modern man can use literature to help in developing a new religion, a religion that will fill the void created by the decline of Christianity, a religion based on philosophy, psychology and art, not based on God, sacred texts, and divine commandments. 21. Objective or Subjective? Flaubert believed that literature should be impersonal, that literature shouldn’t be a vehicle for the author’s feelings and experiences. This was a widespread view in the late nineteenth century; it was a reaction against Romanticism, against the Romantic tendency to write in a personal, subjective way. Since Flaubert’s time, the view that literature should be objective has been embraced by many writers and critics. In support of the objective theory of literature, one could argue that some of the best literary works are objective; Homer’s works, for example, don’t express their author’s feelings, or describe their author’s experiences. In opposition to the objective theory of literature, one could argue that some of the best literary works are personal and subjective. Most of the outstanding Western writers since the Middle Ages have been subjective. Ibsen, for example, was subjective; Ibsen said, “If you want objectivity, then go to the objects. Read me so as to get to know me!”(10) Great literature can be objective or subjective, just as great literature can be realistic or unrealistic. 22. Dostoyevsky wrote in a subjective way;...
