"Literature can tell you far more about an author, far more about a society, than the author him/herself or a even a sociologist can."
I'll certainly agree with you about the author part, but possibly not about the society. One of the interesting things about sociological studies is that getting into the head of the author does not guarantee that you've gotten into the head of one of the other members of the same society. After all, you're seeing things through a narrow view.
This has actually been an interesting back and forth dialogue between Post-Modern and Standard History, to which no conclusion that I'm aware of has been reached. It's a question of how much you can know about the conditions in which things took place, and how much of what was described really happens, but I appear to be about to distance myself from the actual argument.
The point is, even though what you've said is true, for ninety percent of the students who go through those classes, it's not going to matter. Even for me, the use is marginal. I have a nine page flashy brochure, written by a committee, to outline the purpose and goals of the OSG collaboration. None of the skills I have is sufficient to get it to tell me what they actually want me to do, or give me enough of an insight into them to predict what they are planning next. Most people operate like this, like it or not.
This may be part of the problem. Although it may be neat to study the human condition (and from the history side, I am required by law to say that it's much more rewarding to study their condition through historical study rather than the study of literature-but take that with a grain of salt), I don't think it's for everyone. I agree that it's good to study it, because people may discover that they really like it. What I was trying to say above is that it's bad to assume that everyone will like it, or even see a great advantage in it. It's not that I don't think there are worthy goals; it's just that I believe that they are rewards that not everyone responds to.
To ask from my own viewpoint, the question is not whether I can get inside the mind of James Joyce, the question is, do I want to get inside the mind of James Joyce?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-03 03:51 pm (UTC)I'll certainly agree with you about the author part, but possibly not about the society. One of the interesting things about sociological studies is that getting into the head of the author does not guarantee that you've gotten into the head of one of the other members of the same society. After all, you're seeing things through a narrow view.
This has actually been an interesting back and forth dialogue between Post-Modern and Standard History, to which no conclusion that I'm aware of has been reached. It's a question of how much you can know about the conditions in which things took place, and how much of what was described really happens, but I appear to be about to distance myself from the actual argument.
The point is, even though what you've said is true, for ninety percent of the students who go through those classes, it's not going to matter. Even for me, the use is marginal. I have a nine page flashy brochure, written by a committee, to outline the purpose and goals of the OSG collaboration. None of the skills I have is sufficient to get it to tell me what they actually want me to do, or give me enough of an insight into them to predict what they are planning next. Most people operate like this, like it or not.
This may be part of the problem. Although it may be neat to study the human condition (and from the history side, I am required by law to say that it's much more rewarding to study their condition through historical study rather than the study of literature-but take that with a grain of salt), I don't think it's for everyone. I agree that it's good to study it, because people may discover that they really like it. What I was trying to say above is that it's bad to assume that everyone will like it, or even see a great advantage in it. It's not that I don't think there are worthy goals; it's just that I believe that they are rewards that not everyone responds to.
To ask from my own viewpoint, the question is not whether I can get inside the mind of James Joyce, the question is, do I want to get inside the mind of James Joyce?