Literature of Knowledge and Literature of Power

Thomas de Quincey

I’m very much aware that when you read this essay for the first time, your mind went blank half way. And then
you attempted to read it a few more times in hopes of understanding it, but eventually gave up because it made
absolutely no sense. Well you’re not alone. Fortunately, after reading it about 18 times, I believe I’ve grasped
the meaning of it, so here we goooo. :D

1. INTRODUCTION

Thomas my babe started the essay by mentioning the common description of Literature, which is “everything
that is printed in a book”. Which is true to some extent, he agrees. But then he doesn’t appreciate that definition
because it’s.. well it’s basically stupid shit. Yes de Quincey thinks that definition is stupid shit BECAUSE there
are some books that don’t have this certain important element of literature, which is “to relate to a general or
common interest of man”. And a lot of those who DO have that essential element are never printed in a book.
Like those homilies in the mass that you never listen to, or Shakespeare’s dramas that weren’t published until
a long period of time. So now the question is, what definition DOES he approve of? Well, the funny part is that
he never actually answers that lol. Instead, he talks about the two functions that literature fulfills. He calls these
the Literature of Knowledge and the Literature of Power.

2. DESCRIPTION

So the distinction of the two is pretty easy. TdQ says “The function of the first is to teach, the function of the
second is to move.” This is pretty self-explanatory, but Thomas, being the little shit that he is, decided to allot
two pages worth of analogies so we can have a better understanding of the two. Some of those is by comparing
Lit of Knowledge to an oar (as in a boat paddle) and then the Lit of Power is a sail. Or saying that Lit of
Knowledge is dry light, while Lit of Power is humid light. But then again, what does it all really mean? Well, it’s
like this: Think of the house of your crush right now. Now imagine running to his/her house. Tiring, right? But
worth it, kasi get you’re at your crush’s house. You’ve progressed, from one place to another. You’ve reached
a destination. THAT is Literature of Knowledge. You see, when you learn something that is purely knowledge,
you will never leave the surface you’re in. You can run and run and circle the entire world 3141592 times but you
will never leave the earth. But with Literature of Power, each step you take moves you upwards until eventually,
the earth is forgotten. Compare the feeling you get when you read a science book and then a John Green book.
When you read the former, you’re like, “oh shit my cells are having sex inside my body and multiplying infinitely
to keep me alive. this is so fucking awesome.” but when you read something of the latter, it’s more of “oh shit
what are these feelings i’m so enlightened I FEEL LIKE A NEW PERSON”. Chances are, when you read
something of Lit of Knowledge, you simply learn. You could learn how to stay alive. But when you read
something of Lit of Power, you may not learn survival skills, but the feelings you get stay with you for a long
time. They can even shape who you’ll be in the future.

3. LITERATURE OF POWER (a.k.a. deep sympathy for the truth)

See, TdQ had this whole section just for this and sort of ignored Lit of Knowledge for a while, so lemme tell you
what happened there.
First, he explained why a lot of these works considered as Lit of Power lasted through the ages. And it does
make you wonder, though, WHY do these really old and gross emotional Shakespearean stories still exist after
centuries of new people and cultures and whatnot? Well see, his explanation is everyone’s “moral capacities”.
Meaning everyone, as in all the tao in the buong world (jk) has this…relationship with emotions. We’re not
robots who feel nothing and strive on truth and knowledge. Deep down, all of us have emotions that want to
be stimulated. We all want to learn about things inside of us. We’re not animals that work monotonously. We
have morals and thoughts, and we all strive on the thrill that emotions bring. This is why whenever an
emotionally stimulating book is made, it usually lasts centuries. Sometimes for eternity. And this is why
Literature of Power has much more impact than Literature of Knowledge.

4. RELATIONSHIP

No, not your ex. I mean relationship of Lit of Knowledge and Lit of Power. Since he goes back to that later on
in the essay. Actually, all he does is expound more why Lit of Power is more important than Lit of Knowledge.
He did this analogy: When a science book is published, for example, everyone’s all “wow shit science”. But
eventually, some genius motherfucker’s gonna read that shit and think, “HEY THAT’S WRONG” and he’s gonna
correct that science book. Or expound it. And soon, the original science book will be thrown into trash. But
haven’t you noticed that a classic, such as The Great Gatsby or Catcher in the Rye will never be corrected,
expanded, or revised? THAT IS CONSIDERED PLAGIARIZING. Therefore, such a classic will remain untouched
because that’s just the kind of power it has on people. And that is why it is called Literature of Power.

Don’t get me wrong, though. Literature of Knowledge is also important. In fact, these two kinds of Literature
work together. Always. Because technically, Lit of Power DOES aim to teach also, it just so happens that it
pushes you to apply what you learn. The point is, these two work hand in hand always. Aaaaand that’s basically
all Thomas de Quincey was trying to say.
 Why Literature?
Mario Vargas Llosa
Out of the three, this is actually my favorite essay.
Mainly cause it’s the one that made the most sense
and had the most profound ideas. But don’t worry,
I’ll keep this short to spare you and your brain cells.
TO THE BULLET FORM WE GO!
the purpose of the essay is to prove that literature
is an ESSENTIAL NEED
unfortunately, we’re being populated by shitheads
and reading’s become just another common
recreational activity
wHICH IS WRONG
and mario vargas was so mad about it because the
number of literature-appreciators in the world is
continuously decreasing
IN SPAIN, NEARLY HALF THE POPULATION HAS
NEVER READ A BOOK
bad spain
also most readers are women
which is so fucking sexist tangina
anyway according to llosa, whenever people
prioritize their activities, reading usually ends up at
the bottom of the list
OBVIOUSLY this must end
which is why, after the introduction, he went on
ranting about the numerous reasons why reading
is important okay
NUMBER ONE
literature helps maintain peace among people
NUMBER TWO
it enhances our ability to express ourselves and
NUMBER THREE
reading is a vital component for the critical mind
like literally we’d get really stupid without
literature
we’d be satisfied with injustice and accept false
things as truths
NEXT he imagined a world without literature
he thinks it’s really fucking scary
i mean first of all, the people will be divided
he talks about specializations and shit
basically proves that reading is a unifying factor
and helps us all remember that we come of
common origin and have the same goals and shit
as he said, “Literature has been, and will continue
to be, as long as it exists, one of the common
denominators of the human experience.”
although what DOES make literature such a
unifying factor?
again he gives us several reasons
FIRST
the topics for literature isn’t limited
SECOND
we learn shit about different lives and different
cultures and different generations
THIRD
ANYONE and EVERYONE can relate (most of the
time)
also unlike science, literature doesn’t really aim to
satisfy specific needs, it mostly aims to make our
lives better in any way it can
after this, mario vargas moves to what would
happen to life without literature
FIRST
he points out that without literature, our
vocabulary would be pretty shitty
i mean literature doesn’t only give us more words
to use, it also EXPANDS our minds
so without it, we’d be pretty stupid too
SECOND
we’d lack intellect and imagination
we won’t get to EXPRESS OURSELVES
then he gets to this sidetrack about Bill Gates
cause he gave a speech in spain about how his
greatest goal is to put an end to paper books
lol pakyu po
PAPERBACK BOOKS ARE IMPORTANT
in fact, Llosa said that if he was there during the
conference, he would’ve screamed “BOOOOO”
well, putangina nga naman ni Gates
Llosa points out that there’s no future for literature
without paper books
THIRD
reading is essential to critical thinking
this is similar to the first statement
but he expounds more by saying that literature
helps MOVE us
literature PROVOKES CHANGE
it has the power to OPEN OUR MINDS to the
shittiness of life and we’re moved to DO
SOMETHING ABOUT IT
Llosa also discusses how literature is for
malcontents
that means it’s intended for dissatisfied people
he states, “Literature is the food of the rebellious
spirit…the refuge for those who have too much or
too little in life.”
again, literature pushes us to change
FOURTH
we would resemble a community of deaf-mutes
aphasics (as in speechless)
because our means of communication would be
poor
we’d suck at expressing ourselves (as
aforementioned)
FIFTH
our civilization would waste away
we’d have few words
a lot of our adjectives right now won’t exist
words like quixotic, Kafkaesque, Rabelaisian,
Orwellian, sadistic, masochistic
we won’t even get to identify the things that are
acceptable and unacceptable in the society
like without literature i could enjoy punching
people in the face but no one would think it was
wrong
all of our ideals right now wouldn’t be as they are
and our minds wouldn’t be open to certain aspects
of our conditions in life
we’d basically be blind to the terrible things in life
“Uncivilized, barbarian, devoid of sensitivity and
crude of speech, ignorant and instinctual, inept at
passion and crude at love” that’s his main
summary of a life without literature
aaaaand at the end, he mentions that it’s highly
improbable that life WOULD be devoid of
literature
but you know, just in case, we should really act on
it
“more precisely, we must read”
 An Introduction
Kamala Das

An Introduction” is Kamala Das’s most famous poem in the confessional mode. Writing to her, always served
as a sort of spiritual therapy: ”If I had been a loved person, I wouldn’t have become a writer. I would have been
a happy human being.”

Kamala Das begins by self-assertion: I am what I am. The poetess claims that she is not interested in politics,
but claims to know the names of all in power beginning from Nehru. She seems to state that these are
involuntarily ingrained in her. By challenging us that she can repeat these as easily as days of the week, or the
names of months she echoes that they these politicians were caught in a repetitive cycle of time, irrespective
of any individuality. They did not define time; rather time defined them.

Subsequently, she comes down to her roots. She declares that by default she is an Indian. Other considerations
follow this factor. She says that she is ‘born in’ Malabar; she does not say that she belongs to Malabar. She is
far from regional prejudices. She first defines herself in terms of her nationality, and second by her colour.

I am Indian, very brown, born in Malabar,

And she is very proud to exclaim that she is ‘very brown’. She goes on to articulate that she speaks in three
languages, writes in two and dreams in one; as though dreams require a medium. Kamala Das echoes that the
medium is not as significant as is the comfort level that one requires. The essence of one’s thinking is the
prerequisite to writing. Hence she implores with all-“critics, friends, visiting cousins” to leave her alone. Kamal
aDas reflects the main theme of Girish Karnad’s “Broken Images”-the conflict between writing in one’s regional
language and utilizing a foreign language. The language that she speaks is essentially hers; the primary ideas
are not a reflection but an individual impression. It is the distortions and queerness that makes it individual, in
keeping with Chomsky’s notion of ‘performance.’ And it is these imperfections that render it human. It is the
language of her expression and emotion as it voices her joys, sorrows and hopes. It comes to her as cawing
comes to the crows and roaring to the lions, and is therefore impulsive and instinctive. It is not the deaf, blind
speech: though it has its own defects, it cannot be seen as her handicap. It is not unpredictable like the trees
on storm or the clouds of rain. Neither does it echo the “incoherent mutterings of the blazing fire.” It possesses
a coherence of its own: an emotional coherence.

She was child-like or innocent; and she knew she grew up only because according to others her size had grown.
The emotional frame of mind was essentially the same. Married at the early age of sixteen, her husband
confined her to a single room. She was ashamed of her feminity that came before time, and brought her to this
predicament. This explains her claim that she was crushed by the weight of her breast and womb. She tries too
overcome it by seeming tomboyish. So she cuts her hair short and adorns boyish clothes. People criticize her
and tell her to ‘conform’ to the various womanly roles. They accuse her of being schizophrenic; and ‘a nympho’.
They confuse her want of love and attention for insatiable sexual craving.

She explains her encounter with a man. She attributes to him not a proper noun, but a common noun-“every
man” to reflect his universality. He defined himself by the “I”, the supreme male ego. He is tightly
compartmentalized as “the sword in its sheath’. It portrays the power politics of the patriarchal society that we
thrive in that is all about control.It is this “I” that stays long away without any restrictions, is free to laugh at his
own will, succumbs to a woman only out of lust and later feels ashamed of his own weakness that lets himself
to lose to a woman. Towards the end of the poem, a role-reversal occurs as this “I” gradually transitions to the
poetess herself. She pronounces how this “I” is also sinner and saint”, beloved and betrayed. As the role-
reversal occurs, the woman too becomes the “I” reaching the pinnacle of self-assertion.

Song Birds of Pain

Garry Kilworth
the story starts with a few paragraphs from the
climax of the story
everything that follows those paragraphs is a
flashback
(that’s already like two points for the test lol)
so yeah it starts with anita’s state during the climax
and then she reminisces on how she got there
it all starts with philip
philip is a whore
no rly i hate him so much for being an ass to anita
and cheating on his wife
yeah anita’s a mistress
so basically the first thing she says about him is that
he indulges her
philip spoils her and gives her everything she can
ask for
they’re kind of like cuddle-buddies/fuck-buddies
because of this anita’s become really dependent on
him
obviously it’s not vice-versa
anyway back to the story so yeah philip spoils her
and anita talks about this certain sum of money that
she needs
philip first questions her how she’s planning to get
it and she talks about selling her flat (it’s kind of like
an apartment in england) and her coat and other
possessions
so of course philip’s all ‘wat da fuq wut do u need da
money 4’
and she says she needs it for an operation in
Algarez, Brazil
before philip can get worried, she explains that
she’s not sick or anything, it’s actually just to give
her “a beauty that would remain outstanding” since
she thinks her beauty at her current age of 26 will
fade
you see, anita’s really insecure
she doesn’t think she’s clever or cool or anything so
beauty is really all she can have
she compares herself to marjorie, philip’s wife, who
has a great personality
anita doesn’t think she has a great personality :(
anyway yeah philip asks about the operation and
what it really does and shit
anita mentions sarah shields
she’s an actress who’s popular for undergoing that
operation and philip’s all 'whoa her yeah she looked
beautiful but so unrecognizable’
but anita doesn’t care because she just really
wanted beauty
as you can see, that has a deeper meaning. anita
doesn’t just mean wanting or needing physical
beauty, she’s also longing for the kind of beauty
that people love you for
like i said, she’s insecure
sHE JUST WANTS LOVE
anywho, it ends with her asking philip for money
and he sort of just looks at her as if to say “yeah okay
i understand. i’ll be your sugar daddy na nga”
lolz
at this point anita describes philip
she says that he’s the most generous man but then
wears a protective shield around his heart
it was a thin shield, like wine-glass thin
but it was still resistant
she mentioned “having to break it at times” which
means she sometimes had to manipulate him to be
more generous to her, breaking the shield around
his heart for him to “love” her
like right now while she’s asking for money
moving on
anita reminisces more a bit and talks more about
philip’s story
like he was married at 25 and was very successful
and that philip’s definition of success was money
and the pleasures that went with it
but then his pleasures aren’t really the rich boy stuff
like yachts and cars and swimming pools
mostly affection and emotional support
anita deduced that he also had some insecurity and
that’s why he needed anita in his life, to support him
further
she describes him as nouvea riche which basically
means “new rich” meaning he used to be kinda poor
but he worked hard and now he isn’t poor yay
also he was 32 when they met and he gave her a ride
home after her work
he was a supplier in the store she worked at
yeah enough about philip
cause at this point in the story, he says he’s gonna
go home
and then they make landi landi pa cause anita’s all
pakipot in not wanting him to leave and he’s like
offering to stay for another hour and she’s like 'wag
na go back to your wife you bastard’
well she didn’t really say that, she said it was fine
and that he could leave but yeah i bet that’s what
she really wanted to say
anyway when she leaves, anita accidentally spills
hot coffee on her leg
her first impulse was to scream “PHILIP”
but he wasn’t there
that was a turning point, for her, that’s when she
realized
oh shit
i’m too dependent on this guy
i need to change
i need to be independent
i need to love myself more
gOD DAMN IT I AM GOING TO BRAZIL AND I WILL
BE BEAUTIFUL
yeah a month after, she was already in the plane
she called him on the phone except the line was
kinda choppy
as if he wasn’t really there
and she ended up needing him more
needing him desperately
which was a really fuckin horrible revelation for her
anyway she arrives at algarez and goes straight to
the hospital
the surgeon’s first words were “You realize there
will be a great deal of pain.”
anita nods and he talks about giving her painkillers
except only to a certain amount
at some point she has to endure it or else she’ll
come out of the hospital a drug addict
this is a type of indirect analogy in the story, cause
the doctor talking about painkillers is similar to
anita using philip as HER painkiller and now she’s a
drug addict. she’s addicted to philip. she needs him
anyway the surgeon starts discussing the operation
and how despite the pain, she’ll look breathtaking
he’ll straighten out any defects in the limbs and take
away any excess and basically make her look
perfect
this is another double meaning cause when she
leaves philip in the end, she’ll also feel immense
pain but then she’ll get to straighten out herself and
be a better person
and then the operation starts
first, the pain was a bearable feeling, located in
separate parts of her body
(metaphor with how her beast pain used to be
bearable, this was when philip wasn’t with her yet)
but then soon, the pain worsened
it developed a sharpness, spreading like wildfire
through her whole body, and she couldn’t pinpoint
the source
until she realized she was the pain
this is the introduction of the beast pain
the pain is her, literally, because the pain of her
limbs being broken brings pain throughout her
body
but metaphorically, the pain is her because it’s her
fault
the beast pain is inside of her and it is her fault that
it’s there
it was unbearable
she tried to remove it from her body but then
eventually
it begins to sing to her
what the fuck does that mean lol
it means she accepts the pain
she accepts what she’s feeling
she accepts the beast pain
she harnesses it
and soon she can control it
eventually, the operations come to an end
her body’s remodeled, she’s a different looking
person, as beautiful as she imagined
and then she feels like herself
she says “in there, deep inside, lay the
quintessential spark of being, where she was pure
anita.”
from the pain, she woke up and reached this spark
she found herself
she was overwhelmed
soon enough, she was back in england
except at the airport, when she saw philip, she
didn’t come to him
they were eye to eye at first, and he was waiting for
her to show signs that she was anita
but she just went past him
why?
no, she’s not a masochist
but she realized that she needed it
The Myth of Sisyphus
Albert Camus
she was STRONG ENOUGH to leave someone who
she equates to her LIFE
but he was bad for her
and because she harnessed her beast pain, she was
able to let go
and that was the story…although there’s more to it
anita’s insecurity got worse because of philip
he didn’t make her feel special, rather used her to
make himself feel special
because she was affectionate to him and gave him
emotional support
in return, philip spoiled her, thinking that was
enough to make her happy
….it wasn’t
it just made her empty
but at the same time, he made her love him
but how do you love someone when you cannot
love yourself?
that’s exactly the point
because she didn’t love herself, she gave everything
to philip
loving and needing him more than he could ever
love or need her
that’s basically her beast pain
she realizes this when she spills her coffee, just to
remind you guys
also the concepts of pain and beauty are directly
linked to each other here
if there are any other questions or concepts i missed
kindly inform me okay that’s it baiz :3
 The central concern of The Myth of Sisyphus is what Camus calls "the absurd." Camus claims that
there is a fundamental conflict between what we want from the universe (whether it be meaning, order, or
reasons) and what we find in the universe (formless chaos). We will never find in life itself the meaning that we
want to find. Either we will discover that meaning through a leap of faith, by placing our hopes in a God beyond
this world, or we will conclude that life is meaningless. Camus opens the essay by asking if this latter conclusion
that life is meaningless necessarily leads one to commit suicide. If life has no meaning, does that mean life is
not worth living? If that were the case, we would have no option but to make a leap of faith or to commit suicide,
says Camus. Camus is interested in pursuing a third possibility: that we can accept and live in a world devoid of
meaning or purpose.
The absurd is a contradiction that cannot be reconciled, and any attempt to reconcile this
contradiction is simply an attempt to escape from it: facing the absurd is struggling against it. Camus claims
that existentialist philosophers such as Kierkegaard, Chestov, and Jaspers, and phenomenologists such as
Husserl, all confront the contradiction of the absurd but then try to escape from it. Existentialists find no
meaning or order in existence and then attempt to find some sort of transcendence or meaning in this very
meaninglessness.
Living with the absurd, Camus suggests, is a matter of facing this fundamental contradiction and
maintaining constant awareness of it. Facing the absurd does not entail suicide, but, on the contrary, allows us
to live life to its fullest.
Camus identifies three characteristics of the absurd life: revolt (we must not accept any answer or
reconciliation in our struggle), freedom (we are absolutely free to think and behave as we choose), and passion
(we must pursue a life of rich and diverse experiences).
Camus gives four examples of the absurd life: the seducer, who pursues the passions of the moment;
the actor, who compresses the passions of hundreds of lives into a stage career; the conqueror, or rebel, whose
political struggle focuses his energies; and the artist, who creates entire worlds. Absurd art does not try to
explain experience, but simply describes it. It presents a certain worldview that deals with particular matters
rather than aiming for universal themes.
The book ends with a discussion of the myth of Sisyphus, who, according to the Greek myth, was
punished for all eternity to roll a rock up a mountain only to have it roll back down to the bottom when he
reaches the top. Camus claims that Sisyphus is the ideal absurd hero and that his punishment is representative
of the human condition: Sisyphus must struggle perpetually and without hope of success. So long as he accepts
that there is nothing more to life than this absurd struggle, then he can find happiness in it, says Camus.
Camus appends his essay with a discussion of the works of Franz Kafka. He ultimately concludes
that Kafka is an existentialist, who, like Kierkegaard, chooses to make a leap of faith rather than accept his
absurd condition. However, Camus admires Kafka for expressing humanity's absurd predicament so perfectly.

Movimientos de Rebeldia

Gloria Anzaldua
 In Gloria Anzaldua's book, Borderlands the second chapter titled Movimientos de rebeldia y las
culturas que traicionan, discusses Anzaldua’s ability to leave the family, life and culture she grew up in order to
live the life she decided, “I had to leave home so I could find myself, find my own intrinsic buried under the
personality that had been imposed on me” (38). Anzaldua is a Chicana lesbian, who grew up in Texas. Anzaldua
believe that nothing in her culture approved of her and imposed that some thing was wrong with her.

With a strong cultural connection Anzaldua describes the rebel that lives in her, the Shadow-Beast.
This beast is in constant battle with the cultural constraints/outside authority. The Shadow-beast is apparent
when limitations are placed on Anzaldua, she states that, “At the least hint of limitations on my time or space
by others, [the shadow-beast] kicks out with both feet. Bolts (38).

The chapter continues by explaining the different limitations that family, culture, and religions can
place on a person and how the three are intertwined with each other. Anzaldua also explains how sexuality and
gender differences are perceived and how culture effects these perceptions. Anzaldua focuses on the idea of
half and halfs (being both male and female), a practice that is looked down upon in her culture. However is
primal cultures with magico-religions thinking the half and half individual was believe to have supernatural
powers and that there abnormality (being half and half) was the price the person had to pay for their
extraordinary gift.

One of the most important aspect of the chapter is Anzaldua statement that, “half and halfs are not
suffering from a confusion of sexual identity, or ever from a confusion of gender. What we are suffering from is
an absolute despot duality that says we are able to be one or the other” (41). This goes against the western
understanding that everyone is either male or female – with no alternatives. Anzaldua is challenging this
understanding by implying that people can be one, the other or a combinations of the two.

In concluding Anzaldua was able to leave her family and culture because it didn’t accept her because
her choices fell out side the social norms and values. Anzaldua beliefs that she can create a culture of her own
that will give her the freedom to be whom ever she wants with out persecution. This is something she has not
been able to find in the white, Mexican or Indian cultures she can identify with.