Grammars of Creation

It seems to me that George Steiner is a sworn enemy of what Ortega (disparagingly) called the "barabarism of specialization." Although one may quibble that his work exhibits a lack of the "rigor" (as one reviewer put it) that comes with specialized knowledge, I submit the following thesis, which is certainly contestable: Mr. Steiner's lack of "rigor" is the precise point of its work and its value.

I, for one, believe that just as one not need be schooled in literary theory to appreciate and understand literature, so one need not vex oneself in the labyrinthine specifics of analytic philosophy to understand philosophical concepts. Mr. Steiner is "un hombre de las letras," in the precise sense that Ortega meant (lest I annoy the reviewer who complained of untranslated text in Steiner, that's Spanish for a "man of letters"). It is of greater concern to me that there are not more Steiner's in our barbarously specialized age, than that the Steiner we have might overlook a few details.

Man, whose science has classified himself "homo sapiens," which we render as the "thinking being," has lost the ability to see things in their totality, i.e. to think. Gone is the age of the synoptic genius. Or so it would seem. But man is still man, and modern man labors under the curse of skepticism and scientism that he pronounced upon himself. Speculation is, or was until recently, a legitimate and enviable philosophical gift. Steiner has the gift in spades.

If George Steiner troubles and challenges readers who have not his classical erudition, I say that he has done his job. If Steiner irks the rank and vulgar skepticism of those schooled in the horrifically delimited contours of empirical science, I say good. If Steiner manages to get even a single reader to think outside the conceptual categories of a debased and debasing materialist metaphysics, I say, "Amen."

Grammars of Creation is Steiner's best work. It says more about more than anything else he has written. If he is right, that it is "closing time in the gardens of the West," the fact that he is not appreciated by the American reading public is, in my mind, proof of it. I close by saying that he is proof to me that it is still possible, in an age of stultifying scientific tunnel-vision, to think.

Basically George Steiner repeat himself : you cant find here what he said in "Real presences" or in "No passion spent" or in "Errata" : for those who never read a book of this author, "Grammars of creation" can be a good introduction to the Steiner's thought.

I admit that there is a certain degree of unfairness in this review, having read only 25 pages of the book; but that's all I needed to become more than suspicious of Steiner's ingenuity. Four examples: 1) Steiner says that historical evidence shows that "inhumanity is perennial", that there have not been "communities of justice". Not being myself an expert in the subject, a minimal acquaintance with the works of Marija Gimbutas or Humberto Maturana (the latter giving not historical but biological evidence of the primordial man living in sharing and colaboration) is enough to discredit that affirmation; 2) Steiner's account of Hope as something exclusively trascendental and relative to the future is poor and superficial: the person who hopes is not only walking 'towards' Eternal Life, but is already walking 'in' Eternal Life, walking the Kingdom; 3) Negative theology is not concerned with the "vacuum [God] leaves behind", but with the vacuum that God actually is; to that vacuum refers John of the Cross when talking of "un entender no entendiendo", "un no se que que quedamos balbuciendo" (an understanding which does not understands, a something which we can nothing but stammer at). God as Silence; the Father of the christian Trinity as that Silence, as Raimon Panikkar insightfully reminded to us. 4) "No religion lacks a creation-myth". That is simply not true. Check, for instance, not just buddhism (which only a very narrow concept of religion would consider it not one) and jainism, but various traditional religions of Africa.

In sum, Steiner's lack of rigour turns out to be unbearable. I could identify some of his misguiding asseverations in certain issues, mainly concerned with religion, as another reviewer did in relation to the field of Mathematics. And that misguidance inevitably leads to distrust and suspicion, feelings that you might expect when reading "Mein Kampf", but not a book with such a beautiful title -reason for the two stars- as "Grammars of Creation".

I enjoy Mr Steiner's writing very much and I also enjoy reading about language and its impact on culture - so there are two basic reasons for my approach to this book. Even when Mr Steiner is not making sense for me - and I'll explain why below - his writing is clear and a pleasure to read (even though he does occasionally use a sentence structure with an inserted phrase that does not read well for me - requires me to read again and try to rephrase in my own mind).

Why does Mr Steiner not make sense sometimes? Well, I suspect that most readers will not have the breadth of knowledge that Mr Steiner draws on in this book. Arguments that appeal to Dante, say, do not convince me because I simply haven't read Dante (yet). By chance, arguments that point to Stravinsky or Schwitters are ones that I can support or challenge. But it is my belief that all readers will only have a subset of Mr Steiner's knowledge and so, more or less, some of the book will not 'make sense' to some readers. But there are areas which Mr Steiner covers and admits less background than he would like - mathematics for example. At one point he suggests that mathematicians are less likely to be 'mad' than other creators, but I would maintain (and perhaps I have a more developed knowledge on mathematics than Mr Steiner - although I hesitate to think this might be possible) that eccentrics like Ramanujan and Erdos (who Mr Steiner does refer to) show all the same extremes as are shown by creators such as van Gogh. Should Mr Steiner not have written of this area - is his scholarship, for once, lacking? Since his main arguments centre on the differences between creation and invention the book would not have been possible without him doing this.

But the most annoying aspect of this work for me was one of editorship. There are so many quotes in foreign languages that I certainly can't read. These are truly without meaning. Even if the timbre of the sounds (and without knowing how to pronounce the words this will never be accurately expressed in the printed word), or the flow of the words - rhythm and shape - were the keys to the quotes, I believe that, as a courtesy to all readers, translations should be provided. Surely it can't be suggested that these quotes are untranslatable?

So what did I get out of the book? I found a valuable discussion on the difference between invention and creation. A wonderful quote "The whispers of shared ecstasy are choral". And another: "If, as Galileo ruled, nature speaks mathematics, far too many of us remain deaf". And a thought provoking discussion on the difference in the life of created works - Schoenberg does not cause us to abandon Monteverdi - Dali does not discount our appreciation of da Vinci - Rushdie does not cause us to no longer want to read Shakespeare. And yet, Einstein in some ways does cause us to overlook Newton (although we do not disregard Newton for all this - and the Newtonian understanding is often adequate to solve problems) - Euclid has been supplanted by later geometers, we would never spend time reading Galen when modern medical texts are more appropriate.

My last comment about this book is also an editorial comment. I would have liked a bibliography to quoted works, both primary sources and secondary ones.

Steiner has written a difficult and rewarding book on the modes of creation. Based on a doctoral seminar in Comparative Literature and Poetics, it calls for a reader appreciative of the broad spectrum of arts and European literature .

What are the structures and sources of creation in philosophy, literature, painting, sculpture, music, architecture, mathematics and science? How do these structures relate to each other? How has the twentieth century transformed these grammars? Steiner explores these questions, guided by the classics(Commedia, Book of Job) and the voices of seminal figures(Goethe, Shakespeare, Wittgenstein). Steiner concludes, " the story out of Genesis has ended". Duchamp and the Dada movement mark the end of creation once driven by theological impulses, fears of mortality, and desire for artistic permanence. The twentieth century has seen the exponential ascent of science and technology. Discovery and invention have emerged as the dominant grammars of human expression.

As an engineer, I appreciate Steiner's reflections on the creative aspects of science. Although I am not convinced about his conclusions , I still find the arguments engaging and the style entertaining enough to reread the text now and then.