In these readings, I was struck by the question of truth that seems to be posed by the works in one shape or another. There seems to be a longstanding dialogue, spanning cultures and eras, about whether the truth is something that can be defined by certain characteristics or whether it is simply felt and cannot be pinned down. Lippmann’s Liberty and the News, which could not feel more relevant despite being published 100 years ago, asserts that there is some factual truth and while there should be “freedom” of information, a society depends on the quality of the information that is disseminated; a quote that encompasses his points well is “…liberty is the name we give to measures by which we protect and increase the veracity of the information upon which we act” (p. 68). Calvino joins in this dialogue with his case for exactitude. He speaks more to emotional truths which are exhibited in artistic endeavors and posits that society is infected with a “plague” that makes artists tend to the abstract and the infinite, rather than crisp, clean precision. Both Lippmann and Calvino make a strong case for the notion that certain things can be defined as good, factual and/or true and are therefore the best things for the public to consume. However, the poems we read from Williams and Moore point in the other direction: there are certain ways in which language can be used that evokes a truth that exists on some other plain than the literal and cannot be simply defined.

I think I am somewhat torn between these two camps. I don’t find Lippmann’s definitions of truth and liberty very compelling, especially as it seems like it would quickly become censorship. I think the author I agree with most is Calvino in Six Memos for the Next Millennium; I like “exactitude” best but still want to read and appreciate authors who seek the infinite. I also really liked and agreed with Ketaki’s analysis about Calvino’s concern for carelessness in use of language.