I recently ran across Reading and Christian Charity
(by way of this blog
, which I noticed in my referrer logs pointing at the Greek dialects discussion). What struk me especially is how the author is defending literature against essentially the same arguments post-modernists use to deform literature.
The post-modern agenda is essentially moral. One might of course object that the agenda is actually immoral, but my point is that the goals are phrased in terms of morality, in particular a political morality. In defense of this morality they deploy their incoherent epistemology to literature to one of two goals. First, they can simply declare a work repressive after suitable and verbose analysis, and toss it out the door. Second, they may analyze a work a decide that, say, really
, when you read in the right way, Ovid was a proto-feminist, or a proto-post-colonialist, or whatever. Now this sort of thing has been going on a good long while. By even pagan Greeks, Homer was either condemned (Xenophanes, Plato) or reanalyzed to fit some other doctrine (neo-platonists, such as Julian the Apostate). The article I link to above briefly touches on Christian variations of the same in the course of its arguments.
I doubt any Textkit reader needs to be convinced of the value of Greek and Latin literatures which might not perfectly match our own morality, but the article might be good preparation for the day someone you encounter does object. Non-christians will need to read the article itself with charity. It's steeped in Christian sentiment and world-view. I just internallay translated "original sin" to "human nature" and it flowed nicely from there.