|
Against Armchair Literature (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| dj_alfi |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
And, when doing the research for a novel that purports to be realistic, the author should also link to the reference material he used, so the readers can have access to the same material. |
That is a really, really dumb idea. I'll get into the specifics of why when I get back from the dentist, if you'd like, but I don't really have the time now.
And Jenny McCarthy's son doesn't have autism anymore. He peed it out. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
*does research on Crichton*
Indeed, this doesn't seem to be mentioned at all. However, wouldn't you say that his acquaintance with science (even if far from perfect) made Jurassic Park more credible and gave palaeontology a bit of a popularity boost? |
The book (and subsequent film) gave palaeontology a massive boost, which I'm sure all concerned were very pleased with. However, almost every single piece of science in that book is riddled with errors, and indeed Crichton commits a hatchet job on the scientific community at one point. Have a read of this: http://www.aycyas.com/jurassicpark.htm
Crichton is a particularly dangerous example of this. Other books of his try and justify racism against the Japanese and denial of climate change with this paper-thin manipulation of science to his own ends. He loved using false documents or references to real scientists to create a false air of verisimilitude.
The trouble is, authors don't do research to learn if their fantastic story idea is actually plausible. They do research to flesh out their idea and ignore any contrary evidence. Nobody's going to bin a fantastic idea because the science doesn't add up. It's only fiction, after all. They simply cobble together enough bad science to make it all sound plausible, and most of the time only experts in the relevant field will notice their mistakes. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| You know Lira, they have these things called "annotated versions" of books. I'm not sure what your problem is. |
|
|
| Konijn |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
When authors incorporate concepts from academia |
using the academic technique (footnotes/insular vocabularies/etc.) in novels has been a trend among 'upper-echelon' authors/poets since the mid-'80s; when it's done well -- don delillo, david foster wallace in books and essays; j.h. prynne in poetry -- it's insightful; most of the time, it's dense-sounding garbage. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Hmmm... fair enough. What would you say the source of the problem is? |
I would say that the problem is not one of writing, but one of reading. Specifically, most readers are not adequately equipped to critically analyze the ideas presented to them: whether in narrative form or otherwise. This deficiency could be remedied--to some extent, at least--through educational reform.
Although there is considerable variation among educational systems around the world, I have yet to read about any that is not glaringly deficient. We do not teach our children logic or reasoning skills; instead, we teach them to simply accept the facts that their instructors present. Science is taught as a collection of facts, not as a method of enquiry; yet, we extoll the value of literature, and expose children to literary works without providing them with the skills to engage with them in any meaningful way. We preach open-mindedness when we should be preaching skepticism. Hell, what proportion of the general public do you suppose could even clearly explain what a cognitive bias is?
Most individuals never reach the level of education at which the process by which conclusions are reached is emphasized as much as the conclusions themselves--and for those who do, it often comes too late in life, with many foolish and erroneous ideas already having been calcified within their minds. We engineer the general population to be passive receptacles of information with no capacity to distinguish the reliable from the unreliable.
I closed my previous post (rather abruptly, as I was interrupted while writing it) by pointing out that the typical consumer of narrative literary works has no expectation that supporting research material would be referenced by the author and that most would ignore any references even if they were provided. That is another way of stating what I view to be the problem. When these people read the narrative, they aren't wondering what research the author performed in crafting the narrative, nor are they contemplating what premises would be required in order for the sequence of events described in the narrative to be logically sound. So, if and when they draw erroneous conclusions as a result of the narrative, it is not because that information was somehow missing or obscured. Rather, it is simply because they have never learned how to draw conclusions in a manner likely to avoid error. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I would say that the problem is not one of writing, but one of reading. Specifically, most readers are not adequately equipped to critically analyze the ideas presented to them: whether in narrative form or otherwise. This deficiency could be remedied--to some extent, at least--through educational reform. |
That's sort of what I'm getting at (so, Jenny, this reply to Arbiter may serve as an elucidation to what I've got in mind... I know annotated versions exist). But can't, in a way, writing/story telling influence reading in this way?
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Although there is considerable variation among educational systems around the world, I have yet to read about any that is not glaringly deficient. We do not teach our children logic or reasoning skills; instead, we teach them to simply accept the facts that their instructors present. Science is taught as a collection of facts, not as a method of enquiry; yet, we extoll the value of literature, and expose children to literary works without providing them with the skills to engage with them in any meaningful way. We preach open-mindedness when we should be preaching skepticism. Hell, what proportion of the general public do you suppose could even clearly explain what a cognitive bias is? |
Precisely. That's why I believe we'd profit from a friendlier presentation of the scientific (and philosophical, for that matter) methods of inquiry. Literature done that way, I believe, could both become a more interesting medium AND an introduction to a completely different way of thinking.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Most individuals never reach the level of education at which the process by which conclusions are reached is emphasized as much as the conclusions themselves--and for those who do, it often comes too late in life, with many foolish and erroneous ideas already having been calcified within their minds. We engineer the general population to be passive receptacles of information with no capacity to distinguish the reliable from the unreliable. |
Agreed.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I closed my previous post (rather abruptly, as I was interrupted while writing it) by pointing out that the typical consumer of narrative literary works has no expectation that supporting research material would be referenced by the author and that most would ignore any references even if they were provided. That is another way of stating what I view to be the problem. When these people read the narrative, they aren't wondering what research the author performed in crafting the narrative, nor are they contemplating what premises would be required in order for the sequence of events described in the narrative to be logically sound. So, if and when they draw erroneous conclusions as a result of the narrative, it is not because that information was somehow missing or obscured. Rather, it is simply because they have never learned how to draw conclusions in a manner likely to avoid error. |
Precisely. But what if writers try to pull readers in the framework? It's not like detective stories don't attempt to do something similar. Even TV shows like House, despite their occasional blunders (and the justifiable success of the protagonist's inferences to the most awesome explanation), show very superficially something akin to how one can solve a problem through a systematic inquiry. Of course, the very failure of these TV shows to change even the slightest thing about the way viewers think about the problem is very telling: A creationist friend of mine from grad school (it's Brazil, after all) loves the show, but seems to see House as a mythical figure rather than a character with very human traits - some of which she can emulate as a scientist herself.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
The book (and subsequent film) gave palaeontology a massive boost, which I'm sure all concerned were very pleased with. However, almost every single piece of science in that book is riddled with errors, and indeed Crichton commits a hatchet job on the scientific community at one point. Have a read of this: http://www.aycyas.com/jurassicpark.htm |
I did. That's why I tried to find the only good consequence I could find (namely, that people started to care about palaeontology)...
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Crichton is a particularly dangerous example of this. Other books of his try and justify racism against the Japanese and denial of climate change with this paper-thin manipulation of science to his own ends. He loved using false documents or references to real scientists to create a false air of verisimilitude. |
This is what worries me about my own idea.
Imagine Dan Brown founded a religion, and this religion came to be followed by 10% of the American Population (making it much more influential than Scientology). This happened in Brazil with Chico Xavier, and I've had real trouble in life because of how members accosted me - quite often friends from whom I drifted away and even family members who now know better, all because everything Chico Xavier wrote is arguably proven (!) by science. Of course, being a linguist, I decided to see what his arguments about language are, and needless to say, I was less than impressed. But then, the friend I had who was a staunch believer in Chico Xavier was also duped by The Fourth Kind, showing how gullible these people are.
Therefore, if you mask something as scientific - even when it's not - the "trustworthiness" it borrows from science can be even more damaging... unless, of course, people can spot sheer bunk when they see it.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
The trouble is, authors don't do research to learn if their fantastic story idea is actually plausible. They do research to flesh out their idea and ignore any contrary evidence. Nobody's going to bin a fantastic idea because the science doesn't add up. It's only fiction, after all. They simply cobble together enough bad science to make it all sound plausible, and most of the time only experts in the relevant field will notice their mistakes. |
Makes sense... but I'm still trying to find a way to circumvent this problem. Even if can't figure out how. Or whether it's worth the trouble.
| quote: | Originally posted by Konijn
using the academic technique (footnotes/insular vocabularies/etc.) in novels has been a trend among 'upper-echelon' authors/poets since the mid-'80s; when it's done well -- don delillo, david foster wallace in books and essays; j.h. prynne in poetry -- it's insightful; most of the time, it's dense-sounding garbage. |
Actually, I wanted to do it the other way around: rather than making literature more dense, I'd rather make science/philosophy more accessible and pleasant to read. |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
1. I disagree. Both are important sources of ideas and interpretations about the world and the difference between science, philosophy and literature is more of a continuum than anything firmly established.
2. I don't understand what you're getting at here.
|
The basic point in both cases is that interpretations of anything are never neutral. In perceiving anything we warp it, which is simply part of our existing as an individual in the world...
Now, in terms of science etc, the 'facts' are given far more neutrally- we're able to more easily access the facts. Art is ALREADY a fantastical interpretation, and not a direct representation of the world. When we look at it then we're interpreting and interpretation: We're analysing not the world as we can experience it (like reading a science journal), but are analysing the intentional thought of another person (the artist)---
In this way, our 'seeing' art, and our analysis of it is drastically different than our analysis of science. Art is not a reflection of nature, its a reflection of an INTERPRETATION of nature. Science (at least claims to be) a direct reflection, art is not.
science has one level of bias (our eyes), art has two or more (our eyes looking through another person's eyes at a scene which we have no way of validating since we ONLY have access to the interpretation, and never the source (the Artistic thought which motivated the artistic act)). |
|
|
| -FSP- |
| Go to your grocery store or drug store and look at all the cheesy dime novels out there. Escapism sells, truth does not. :( |
|
|
| Meat187 |
Lira, if we ever meet in person I shall answer your every silly pseudo-philosophical question at length.
For now, quickly reading through the OP, it sounds like you want literature (which I love) to bow to philosophy (which I hate) and science (which is what I escape from with literature).
NEVER, YOU HUMANIST HIPPY! NEVER!!! |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
The basic point in both cases is that interpretations of anything are never neutral. In perceiving anything we warp it, which is simply part of our existing as an individual in the world... |
And I agree.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
Now, in terms of science etc, the 'facts' are given far more neutrally- we're able to more easily access the facts. |
Hmm... they're not really given "neutrally", but rather within a "framework". That's why different frameworks amass different data.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
Art is ALREADY a fantastical interpretation, and not a direct representation of the world. |
Actually, neither is science. Like I said, there's the framework on the way, and that's not exactly "neutral".
That's not to say it's subjective either, mind you.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
In this way, our 'seeing' art, and our analysis of it is drastically different than our analysis of science. Art is not a reflection of nature, its a reflection of an INTERPRETATION of nature. Science (at least claims to be) a direct reflection, art is not. |
I disagree. Science is a set of instructions of how you can interpret and manipulate events: It's successful because if I tell you something as scientifically trivial as "water consists in two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen", you should be able to manipulate water and interpret the experiments involving it.
The difference here is just one of degree: You don't expect that from art because you can just make stuff up. If an artist says "Poseidon is the God of the seas and can control water", you won't ask "Yeah, but how?" because that's not the point. But, in principle, the artist could come up with in-universe explanations as to how Poseidon could wreak havoc under the ocean. These explanations need not be valid in this case (as Poseidon doesn't even exist). But, when writing realistic literature, all else being equal, it's almost irresponsible to come up with lousy explanations that are known to be false, for example.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
science has one level of bias (our eyes), art has two or more (our eyes looking through another person's eyes at a scene which we have no way of validating since we ONLY have access to the interpretation, and never the source (the Artistic thought which motivated the artistic act)). |
As a scientist myself, I can't see it that way.
| quote: | Originally posted by -FSP-
Go to your grocery store or drug store and look at all the cheesy dime novels out there. Escapism sells, truth does not. :( |
I know. It's like the girls from SNSD. I know they don't exist and they're just computer generated images... but if they did exist, this would definitely be the best of all possible worlds :( :p
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
Lira, if we ever meet in person I shall answer your every silly pseudo-philosophical question at length.
For now, quickly reading through the OP, it sounds like you want literature (which I love) to bow to philosophy (which I hate) and science (which is what I escape from with literature).
NEVER, YOU HUMANIST HIPPY! NEVER!!! |
Not really. I don't want science to be above art. I want science and art to join hands and walk on the beach. I want art and science to become companions, not enemies. I want science and art to engage in a lustful, lascivious, lewd, libidinous, amorous, lickerish, libertine, fulsome, lecherous, concupiscent, carnal, ruttish, salacious exchange of fluids, ideas and concepts whenever possible.
But art can be devoid of science, of course. Otherwise there would be no fantastic fiction, would there? |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| quote: | Originally posted by Silky Johnson
You know Lira, they have these things called "annotated versions" of books. I'm not sure what your problem is. |
|
|
|
|
|
