Sunday, February 12, 2012
Copy Cat
Amie Thomasson contends that two different writers who create the same work, word for word, have not created the same piece of literature. This is because "a literary work is best conceived not as an abstract sequence of words but as an artifact that had to be created in those original circumstances in which it was created" (Thomasson 146). This seems to rely too heavily on the theory of New Historicism, which contends that one must understand the historical context and zeitgeist of when a work was written in order to understand the work. While this may be more important for some books than for others (it is, as Thomasson says, crucial to understand that Animal Farm is a satire), I think this does not leave room for modern readings of a text. While it is important to understand the age a work was written in, it is also important to understand the context and zeitgeist of the age in which the modern reader is reading.
Standards of Non-Fiction
Must non-fiction meet standards of literary value?
Our introduction to the "Fiction" section says that "Although works of nonfiction are readily accepted and taught as literature, they are more of a rarity...it is not clear why nonfiction has a more marginal status, but it does. Fiction, on the other hand, takes in much more than works of literature, because fiction can be nonverbal in form...and because it need not meet even minimal standards for literary value..." (109)
It seems to me that non-fiction can have both of these components, as well. Non-fiction can certainly be nonverbal; the same way seeing shapes in clouds can be fiction, me placing my hands across my throat to indicate that I'm choking can be non-fictional, non-verbal communication. Non-fiction also need not meet any standards for literary value; just as there is fiction that isn't literature (like some comic books), there is non-fiction that isn't literature (like my shopping list). While these elements are important, they are not useful distinctions between fiction and non-fiction.
Our introduction to the "Fiction" section says that "Although works of nonfiction are readily accepted and taught as literature, they are more of a rarity...it is not clear why nonfiction has a more marginal status, but it does. Fiction, on the other hand, takes in much more than works of literature, because fiction can be nonverbal in form...and because it need not meet even minimal standards for literary value..." (109)
It seems to me that non-fiction can have both of these components, as well. Non-fiction can certainly be nonverbal; the same way seeing shapes in clouds can be fiction, me placing my hands across my throat to indicate that I'm choking can be non-fictional, non-verbal communication. Non-fiction also need not meet any standards for literary value; just as there is fiction that isn't literature (like some comic books), there is non-fiction that isn't literature (like my shopping list). While these elements are important, they are not useful distinctions between fiction and non-fiction.
Truth in Non-Fiction
Q&A Question #2: Does an element of fiction taint a work of non-fiction? That is, if a work is almost entirely non-fictional, but has one fictional element, should we call the work fiction or non-fiction?
This certainly does not work in the reverse; elements of non-fiction do not taint works of fiction.
It seems, though, that a work claiming to be non-fictional should strive not to have any fictional elements. It also seems relevant whether or not the author intended the elements to be fictional, which is to say whether or not he knew they were fictional. Perhaps, as a lie needs intent to deceive, fiction must be intended to be fiction.
It does, however, seem next to impossible not to include elements of writing which stray from the absolute truth of what really happened. In putting the event into writing, the author puts her own style into the piece; she chooses what to include and what not to include. We never can see a perfectly full recollection of past events.
I think that an author should strive not to include fictional elements in a work of non-fiction, as that further skews the reality of the story, and is somewhat of a lie to the readers.
This certainly does not work in the reverse; elements of non-fiction do not taint works of fiction.
It seems, though, that a work claiming to be non-fictional should strive not to have any fictional elements. It also seems relevant whether or not the author intended the elements to be fictional, which is to say whether or not he knew they were fictional. Perhaps, as a lie needs intent to deceive, fiction must be intended to be fiction.
It does, however, seem next to impossible not to include elements of writing which stray from the absolute truth of what really happened. In putting the event into writing, the author puts her own style into the piece; she chooses what to include and what not to include. We never can see a perfectly full recollection of past events.
I think that an author should strive not to include fictional elements in a work of non-fiction, as that further skews the reality of the story, and is somewhat of a lie to the readers.
Fiction & Coherence
Q&A Question #1: Does fiction adhere to a coherence theory of truth?
Truth as coherence is when a statement coheres with other statements (word-word). Truth as correspondence is when a statement corresponds with the way the world works (word-world).
In a work of fiction, a statement does not need to correspond with the world (and often doesn't, like with works of science fiction), but does need to cohere with other statements within the work. This is similar to what Nicole mentioned in class about when an author writes an inconsistency. An author sets down statements or rules that govern the world of her work of fiction, and then must take care to have the rest of her statements cohere with those rules.
In class, DKJ said that with fiction there is "lots of stuff going on, but none of it is in the world." All of the goings-on occur in the mind of the reader. However, once the signs on the page enter the reader's mind, and plants an idea there, those signs can create a behavior change. In some small way, then, I think the reality of a book can transfer over to the reality of our world.
Truth as coherence is when a statement coheres with other statements (word-word). Truth as correspondence is when a statement corresponds with the way the world works (word-world).
In a work of fiction, a statement does not need to correspond with the world (and often doesn't, like with works of science fiction), but does need to cohere with other statements within the work. This is similar to what Nicole mentioned in class about when an author writes an inconsistency. An author sets down statements or rules that govern the world of her work of fiction, and then must take care to have the rest of her statements cohere with those rules.
In class, DKJ said that with fiction there is "lots of stuff going on, but none of it is in the world." All of the goings-on occur in the mind of the reader. However, once the signs on the page enter the reader's mind, and plants an idea there, those signs can create a behavior change. In some small way, then, I think the reality of a book can transfer over to the reality of our world.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Hirsch
Hirsch hesitantly stipulates that "literature includes any text worthy to be taught to students by teachers of literature, when these texts are not being taught to students in other departments of a school or university" (50). I understand that Hirsch is attempting to provide a definition that does not "confine and constrict the subject [of literature] in a way that makes the teaching and study of literature more narrow and one-sided" (48) (as he thinks all other definitions of literature have done), but I find this definition aggravatingly vague and unhelpful.
My first problem with this definition is that it discourages departmental overlap of subject matter. Because the Philosophy department teaches Plato's "Republic", it is unworthy for a literature professor to teach. This element of Hirsch's definition seems to be causing the very sort of constricting definition he's trying so hard to avoid. Literature is not confined to the English classroom.
Secondly, I wonder which literature is "worthy to be taught." I am unclear as to who decides the worthiness of the literature. I suppose that Hirsch is suggesting that "teachers of literature" decide worthiness, but do they each decide individually, or is there an annual meeting of the literature teachers where they collectively decide which literature is or is not worthy? (Perhaps this conference of literature teachers could be the same weekend as an educated native speakers conference, wherein all ENS decide on a set of grammar rules. Majority vote rules.) It seems far too subjective to allow literature to be whatever one teacher declares it to be. Also, why are the literature teachers the go-to authority here? What about writers, scholars, copy editors?
My first problem with this definition is that it discourages departmental overlap of subject matter. Because the Philosophy department teaches Plato's "Republic", it is unworthy for a literature professor to teach. This element of Hirsch's definition seems to be causing the very sort of constricting definition he's trying so hard to avoid. Literature is not confined to the English classroom.
Secondly, I wonder which literature is "worthy to be taught." I am unclear as to who decides the worthiness of the literature. I suppose that Hirsch is suggesting that "teachers of literature" decide worthiness, but do they each decide individually, or is there an annual meeting of the literature teachers where they collectively decide which literature is or is not worthy? (Perhaps this conference of literature teachers could be the same weekend as an educated native speakers conference, wherein all ENS decide on a set of grammar rules. Majority vote rules.) It seems far too subjective to allow literature to be whatever one teacher declares it to be. Also, why are the literature teachers the go-to authority here? What about writers, scholars, copy editors?
Grammar
Hirsch contends that "All sophisticated linguists know that their job is to formulate explicit rules for what is implicitly known by every native speaker. The native speaker is the court of last resort; he can never be wrong; only the grammarian can be" (47). With this as a basic premise, he decides that "every attempt to make [a single definition of literature], without exception, has ended up being a stipulative definition...which stipulates how the world literature ought to be used, but entirely fails to define how it actually is used by great numbers of educated native speakers" (49).
I love grammar and think it's invaluable to conveying a message through language, but I also understand that part of the beauty of language is the way native speakers bend the rules and evolve the language. I think, however, that Hirsch places too much emphasis on how much sway educated native speakers ought to have on a language (Side note -- Why are they educated native speakers? It seems to me that undereducated native speakers may have even more ability to change a language). Hirsch leaves unanswered what percentage of educated native speakers have to use grammar in a certain way. Since a native speaker "can never be wrong," it seems that a problem would arise when two native speakers disagreed about language usage. Do we need/ought we to have separate sets of language/grammar? Do we already have these multiple sets?
I love grammar and think it's invaluable to conveying a message through language, but I also understand that part of the beauty of language is the way native speakers bend the rules and evolve the language. I think, however, that Hirsch places too much emphasis on how much sway educated native speakers ought to have on a language (Side note -- Why are they educated native speakers? It seems to me that undereducated native speakers may have even more ability to change a language). Hirsch leaves unanswered what percentage of educated native speakers have to use grammar in a certain way. Since a native speaker "can never be wrong," it seems that a problem would arise when two native speakers disagreed about language usage. Do we need/ought we to have separate sets of language/grammar? Do we already have these multiple sets?
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Social Literature
In class on Wednesday, DKJ said, "ethics begins by taking seriously the harm that may befall someone besides yourself. It is a social undertaking." I think, then, that it might be fruitful for learning about ethics also to be a social undertaking. Though we've decided that greatness and popularity are not the same thing, I think having certain works of literature that a large number of people know well is useful for learning about ethics. If one person can reference a scenario or character from a work of literature to exemplify an ethical idea, it will resonate well with anyone else who has read that particular work of literature. That's one of the ways studying together in a class is so beneficial; every student in the room has read (or at least, should have read) the same text. Though the initial act of reading literature is quite solitary, I think it's important for readers to then make literature a social experience by discussing it with others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)