/lit/ - Literature

>>4368437

The difference, in my view, is simply a matter of perspective.

Both agree that the world is harsh, cruel and ultimately tragic.

The difference is that many leftists or liberal authors dwell on the sadness and inhospitable conditions of life, and find ultimate salvation in the ability of humans to empathize with the existential plight of others -- usually, but not exclusively, through compassionate and self-denying acts. The central message is that our world is irrevocably evil, and we need to work together to achieve a world full of goodness (whether that world is Heaven-sent or built by man). Thus, these people hold a life-denying perspective.

On the other hand, while many traditionalist or right-wing authors agree that life is difficult and full of struggle, they find salvation and joy in the act of overcoming barriers that are thrown up against them. They also tend to use the ugly aspects of the world as a means to better accentuate moments of undeniable beauty and happiness. Thus, they turn even the most horrific scenes into life-affirming occasions.

One example of these two competing perspectives might be found by comparing the WWI works of Ernst Junger and Henri Barbusse. Barbusse paints the war as a brutal, ridiculous nightmare from beginning to end. On the other hand, Junger depicts the war much more cheerfully; he never denies the horrors, but he uses them to celebrate small moments of beauty and bravery that he witnessed as a front-line officer.