From The Boston Globe: Literature Needs To Embrace Science

Full article here.

The patient is etherised upon a table…or so suggests our author. It’s now time:

“…[to] spur a process whereby not just literature, but the larger field of the humanities recover some of the intellectual momentum and “market share” they have lost to the sciences.”

Copy “science” and regain “market share?”

“So instead of steadily building a body of solid knowledge about literature, culture, and the human condition, the field wanders in continuous circles, bending with fashions and the pronouncements of its charismatic leaders.”

Well, this should come as no surprise. Shakespeare and Melville were artists. Studying them gives pleasure, enhancing linguistic expression and understanding within the scope of their creative imaginations. I suspect most literature students want to be great artists as well.

The scientists are…well…doing science.

As Camille Paglia has pointed out, many literature departments have gone the way of cultural relativism.  Too often do they confuse literature with politics and current thinking.  As a result, they’re particularly aimless right now…

…with consequences for all of us.

Market-share?

See Also: How To Study Literature: M.H. Abrams In The Chronicle Of Higher EdShould You Bother To Get A Liberal Arts Education? Allan Bloom, Camille Paglia and Anthony Kronman.


by kinkazzo  Poor Old Harold Bloom

Addition: Andrew Sullivan has more here with a link to Literary Kicks here

Add to Technorati Favorites 

One thought on “From The Boston Globe: Literature Needs To Embrace Science

Leave a Reply to Terry Finley Cancel reply