Counter-Statement statements (part 1)

In no particular order (that would be a valuation I am not ready for)
1. In "The Status of Art" Burke returns to his friends from the first chapter, specifically all those L'art pour l'art dudes. He traces some ideas about utilitarianism in art, and those who would defend the lack of utility by claiming art is a-moral, that is, outside the sphere of moral (and therefore consequential). Art for them is beauty. Beauty, apparently has no use. But isn't this why I started reading Burke in the first place? Because I was trying to figure out why I loved reading dystopias, only to find myself coming to purpose statements? And Burke said it was okay to read literature as purposeful, not just beautiful. That artful words do in fact have social consequences.
2. Eliot, qtd in Burke: "We fight rather to keep something alive than in the expectation that anything will triumph." Isn't this what dystopias do? They fight to preserve the current state, not for us to go overthrow the government of today. Keep alive the "freedoms" as they are, and we do not have anything that must be triumphed over?
3. The symbolists are always appearing in my classes, and I still don't know them like I should; unlike the way 11 dimensions are coiled up in quantum mechanics, I cannot explain them in my own language. The emphasis is on the image and the succession of images, but we are still in language, not visual rhetoric, so the images themselves must be described in a logical, noneliptical manner. The symbolists seem to have something to do with consubstantiality, with identification, as I asserted in my paper on Elizabeth Bishop, but I am still uncertain how Burke would read such progressions across images as rhetoric. ????????
4. The Mass Audience: "Mass market paperback" is a term that has tugged at my consciousness because the connotations attached to it bespeak of bourgeois identity issues. Burke outlines how mass literacy has led to pockets of "real" readers (those interested in "art for art's sake") but that texts have a mass audience. We should not separate them based on the old L'art pour l'art, an idea created for the utilitarianism of the previous century. There may seem to be an elite readership, but we must acknoledge that even non-savvy readers are acquiring the text, and may not even desire to engage in the reading that they are sometimes forced to do.
5. Literature as enthymetical argument? Burke compares a book's argument and need fulfillment properties to that of a politician's proposal for change. A book does not have to reveal the root of the problem; the premise can be left unstated, almost intuitive. A politician must, however, make explicit his desires and appeals for the best results. A book can fulfill our need for nature without pointing to our current dissatisfaction. A politician cannot propose a beutifying plan without pointing to the squallor of the city. Does that make literature more subversively suasatory because it is missing one premise that we all are already in identification with? (Random question without answers?)