I'm looking forward to reading his book when it comes out later this year.
5.13.2008
Literature and science.
While this may strike some as one more optimist's solution to the crisis of purpose in the humanities, I thought it was a really interesting idea. On a self-serving note, it also mirrors what I've been trying to do in my last few papers on popular culture: Get and analyze data to support or disprove my theories about gender analysis. I especially like the part where he disproves the "Death of the author" as it's always been one of my least favorite literary theories. Um, no authors = no new books = no readers = no one to "kill" meaning...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I just read the article, thanks for doing a post on it! I have to say that (on first reading) this strikes me as a little odd (scary?).
I actually really like the idea of interdisciplinary studies but that is because each discipline has its own methodology and use of evidence and we can all learn from each other--not so that we can all come to some idea of consensus about methodology across the academy or stop doing what we do in order to do something else.
Perhaps I should just work up a blog post on this.
Also, the death of the author thing--being a historian is great for that! I don't really have to have an opinion. On the one hand, I can imagine a very good, serious work that explores readers' diaries and talks only about the readers reactions and ideas about the books. On the other hand, most of the time historians only have the work itself so authorial intention is all we have to go on--no data from the other side!
Yup, this needs a blog post of its own. Perhaps in 10 years when I've finished grading these papers!
Post a Comment