{"product_id":"2940013762978","title":"The Late Mattia Pascal","description":"In the world of natural history there is a Kingdom reserved for\u003cbr\u003ezoology because it is inhabited by animals.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAmong the animals which so inhabit it is man.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAnd the zoologist may talk of man and say, for example, that man is\u003cbr\u003enot a quadruped but a biped, and that he does not have the tail that\u003cbr\u003ethe monkey, the donkey, or the peacock has.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThis \"man\" of which the zoologist speaks can never be so unfortunate\u003cbr\u003eas to lose, let us say, a leg and replace it with a wooden one; or to\u003cbr\u003elose an eye and replace it with a glass one. The zoologist's man\u003cbr\u003ealways has two legs, of which neither is of wood; and always two eyes,\u003cbr\u003eof which neither is of glass.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAnd we cannot argue with this zoologist. For if we confront him with\u003cbr\u003eMr. A. who has a wooden leg, or a glass eye, he answers that he does\u003cbr\u003enot know the gentleman, because Mr. A. is not \"man\" but \"a man.\"\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eIt is true that we, in our turn, can retort to the zoologist that the\u003cbr\u003e\"man\" he knows does not exist, but that individual men do exist, and\u003cbr\u003emay even have wooden legs and glass eyes.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eWe may ask at this point whether certain commentators regard\u003cbr\u003ethemselves as zoologists or as literary critics when, in reviewing a\u003cbr\u003enovel, or a short-story, or a comedy, they condemn this or that\u003cbr\u003echaracter, this or that situation, this or that motive, not in terms\u003cbr\u003eof art, as would be proper, but in terms of a humanity which they seem\u003cbr\u003eto know to perfection, as though it really existed outside that\u003cbr\u003einfinite variety of individuals who are in a position to commit the\u003cbr\u003eabove mentioned absurdities--absurdities which do not need to seem\u003cbr\u003elogical and natural because they are true.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eIn my own experience with such criticism I have observed one curious\u003cbr\u003ething: that whereas the zoologist understands that man is\u003cbr\u003edistinguished from other animals by the fact, among others, that he\u003cbr\u003ecan think while animals cannot, these critics regard thinking--the\u003cbr\u003etrait most distinctive of mankind, that is--not, if you please, as an\u003cbr\u003eexcess, but rather as a downright lack of humanity in many of my not\u003cbr\u003eover-cheerful characters. \"Human-ity\" would seem, in their view, to\u003cbr\u003ereside rather in feel-ing than in reasoning.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eBut--if I may be permitted a generality in my turn--is it not true\u003cbr\u003ethat a man never thinks so hard (I don't say, so well) as when he is\u003cbr\u003eunhappy and in distress, precisely because he is determined to\u003cbr\u003ediscover why he is unhappy, who is responsible for his being so, and\u003cbr\u003ewhether he deserves it all? Whereas, when he is happy, when everything\u003cbr\u003eis going well with him, he does not reason at all, accepting his good\u003cbr\u003efortune as though it were his due.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eIt is the lot of the lower animals to suffer without thinking. But for\u003cbr\u003ethese critics, a man who is unhappy and thinks (thinks--because he is\u003cbr\u003eunhappy) is not \"human\"; from which it would follow that a man cannot\u003cbr\u003esuffer unless he is a beast, and that only when he is a beast can he\u003cbr\u003ebe \"human.\"\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e* * *\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eBut recently I have found a critic to whom I am very grateful. In\u003cbr\u003econnection with the \"unhuman\" and it would seem incurable\u003cbr\u003e\"cerebrality\"--|n connection with the paradoxical \"implausibility\"--of\u003cbr\u003emy plots and my characters, he has asked such critics how they arrive\u003cbr\u003eat their criteria for so judging the world of my art.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\"From 'normal life,' so-called?\" he asks. \"But what is normal life but\u003cbr\u003ea system of relationships which we select from the chaos of daily\u003cbr\u003ehappenings and arbitrarily call 'normal'?\" And he concludes that \"the\u003cbr\u003eworld of an artist can be judged only by criteria derived from that\u003cbr\u003eworld itself.\"\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eTo remove any suspicion that I am praising this critic because he\u003cbr\u003epraises me, I hasten to add that in spite of this view of his, in fact\u003cbr\u003ebecause of this view of his, he is inclined to judge my work\u003cbr\u003eunfavorably; for he thinks that I fail to give a universally human\u003cbr\u003evalue and a universally human significance to my plots and my people;\u003cbr\u003eso much so, that he is not sure whether I have not deliberately\u003cbr\u003econfined myself to the portrayal of certain curious individualities,\u003cbr\u003ecertain psychological situations of a very special, a very particular,\u003cbr\u003escope.","brand":"WDS Publishing","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":47152665067760,"sku":"2940013762978","price":0.99,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0737\/7593\/9824\/files\/2940013762978_p0.jpg?v=1763589930","url":"https:\/\/shop-qa.barnesandnoble.com\/products\/2940013762978","provider":"Barnes \u0026 Noble (DEV)","version":"1.0","type":"link"}