The subjectivity of Literature is one area where those of a scientific predisposition often choose to attack. A common argument is that Literature is all up to the individual to deciepher and further that over time what is considered the best of literature changes dramatically. In this way literature is viewed as an indeterminate study.
Did anyone read the Georgia Straight this week? There was an article about Darwin.
"Although Darwin could show that evolution by natural selection must be the answer, he couldn't present evidence for that answer in even a single case of evolution by natural selection, observed and documented in the "natural" world. No one, least of all Darwin, had ever seen it actually happen." (Glavin)
The article goes on to show a case study of evolution effected by natural selection in the finches of the Galapagos. Peter and Rosemary Grant show over a course of decades that the beak size and shape of these finches changes to suit thier changing environment. So, bully. A case of evolution. But isn't there a bigger picture here? No evidence for how many years? With how large a body of research subjects?
I have three reactions to this and the point of this post is to determine a reaction inkeeping with our thesis.
1) Evolution has been based on the purely theoretical for so long that those who follow it have no place to criticize the study of Literature.
2) While evolution's huge time scale serves only to hinder its validity, it seems that Literature's vast body of works only makes it all the more useful.
3) Both evolution and Literature are simply a way of associating with a certain period. ie. Waterbabies as a way of fictionalizing the horrible rate of child death in Victorian England and the Peppered Moths turning black to match the soot of the industiral recolution.
Please remember that this is only a rebutle against a possible attack on Literature by the sciences. This was really inspired by the part in Waterbabies about half way through chapter 2 when the narrator is justifying fairies.
source: Galvin, T. "Finches Provide the Proof." Georgia Straight, November 15-22, 2007.
Did anyone read the Georgia Straight this week? There was an article about Darwin.
"Although Darwin could show that evolution by natural selection must be the answer, he couldn't present evidence for that answer in even a single case of evolution by natural selection, observed and documented in the "natural" world. No one, least of all Darwin, had ever seen it actually happen." (Glavin)
The article goes on to show a case study of evolution effected by natural selection in the finches of the Galapagos. Peter and Rosemary Grant show over a course of decades that the beak size and shape of these finches changes to suit thier changing environment. So, bully. A case of evolution. But isn't there a bigger picture here? No evidence for how many years? With how large a body of research subjects?
I have three reactions to this and the point of this post is to determine a reaction inkeeping with our thesis.
1) Evolution has been based on the purely theoretical for so long that those who follow it have no place to criticize the study of Literature.
2) While evolution's huge time scale serves only to hinder its validity, it seems that Literature's vast body of works only makes it all the more useful.
3) Both evolution and Literature are simply a way of associating with a certain period. ie. Waterbabies as a way of fictionalizing the horrible rate of child death in Victorian England and the Peppered Moths turning black to match the soot of the industiral recolution.
Please remember that this is only a rebutle against a possible attack on Literature by the sciences. This was really inspired by the part in Waterbabies about half way through chapter 2 when the narrator is justifying fairies.
source: Galvin, T. "Finches Provide the Proof." Georgia Straight, November 15-22, 2007.
1 comment:
I agree with this post. It illustrates the propensity of scientists to impose a burden of direct utility on a dicipline. I think that John Henry Newman's response to this article would be to celebrate the lack of direct utily in the study of English Literature, for although it may seem vague, its study, balanced with a study of the physical and social sciences, is serving the greater purpose of creating better/more ethical people (and not just better technology).
Kristina
Post a Comment