The basic form of my question is: As people feel emotions differently, how can the use of literary style communicate emotion consistently to all readers?
The answer to this appears fairly straightforward - it cannot do so. While literary style can indeed communicate emotion, no matter what form of literary style is chosen there will always be at least some people who are not able to identify with the emotional content. This is especially true, I think, in regards to contemporary novels with radical, controversial styles; even critically acclaimed works of this types, such as Khaled Hosseini's Kite Runner, William Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury, or Tony Morrison's Sula, can still present emotions in ways which do not speak equally to every reader.
However, this is not to imply that literary style is useless in communicating emotion. If one takes one's audience into mind when writing, one can at least increase the percentage of readers who are able to identify with the emotions contained in one's works. Of course, some works are undoubtedly intended for a general audience, and it is in cases such as these that one is probably best off using a less literary style.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Q&A 1, First Answer
The basic form of my question is: What sort of love does Nussbaum refer to in her text?
Nussbaum does make some effort to distinguish between types of love before going on the use the term in her thesis. She states that she will be focusing on 'erotic/romantic love'. Unfortunately I can't say that I found this especially helpful. The term 'erotic' has definitively sexual connotations; 'romantic' less so. While some people define romance as being inarguably sexual in nature, others set it apart from this, either as a particularly strong sort of platonic attachment, or as the platonic elements in a sexual relationship. The fact that, by some people's definitions, romance can exist without any sort of sexual connotations is evidenced by the fact that asexuals exist and that many of them define their relationships as romantic.
While obviously I have no way of determining this for certain, I would suggest that Nussbaum may not have distinguished between the two quite different types of love because for her (and, indeed, for many people) they are never present without one another. Alternately, she may personally define romance as being inextricable from sexual feelings, and simply failed to address the fact that not all people associate the two to that extent.
Nussbaum does make some effort to distinguish between types of love before going on the use the term in her thesis. She states that she will be focusing on 'erotic/romantic love'. Unfortunately I can't say that I found this especially helpful. The term 'erotic' has definitively sexual connotations; 'romantic' less so. While some people define romance as being inarguably sexual in nature, others set it apart from this, either as a particularly strong sort of platonic attachment, or as the platonic elements in a sexual relationship. The fact that, by some people's definitions, romance can exist without any sort of sexual connotations is evidenced by the fact that asexuals exist and that many of them define their relationships as romantic.
While obviously I have no way of determining this for certain, I would suggest that Nussbaum may not have distinguished between the two quite different types of love because for her (and, indeed, for many people) they are never present without one another. Alternately, she may personally define romance as being inextricable from sexual feelings, and simply failed to address the fact that not all people associate the two to that extent.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Response: Dialogue Format in Philosophy
In response to Corey Sloane's post "On Love and Knowledge" (January 24, 2012):
In this post, Corey Sloane suggested that the dialogue format which Plato utilised in his writings is a less-than-perfect format for conveying this sort of information. He proposed the possibility that a more straightforward, premise-premise-conclusion type format might be easier to understand. While I understand his point, I still find myself in disagreement. Plato's dialogues are wonderful examples of the dialectic method of instruction in action - a method which I think is one of the best ways of imparting information so that the student will actually understand it. By presenting his theories (or the theories of Socrates) in this format, Plato brings the reader as close as possible under the circumstances to actually partaking in a philosophical discussion with his characters, and by extension himself. As one character asks a question of another, the reader has a chance to contemplate that question and draw their own conclusions before going on to read the views Plato presents. In a sense, Plato is instructing the reader by means of dialectic instruction (or, perhaps more appropriately in this context, the Socratic method). This style of writing invites the reader to think independently about the subject matter, rather than simply attempting to absorb the views of the writer without first considering them and understanding the reasoning behind them.
In this post, Corey Sloane suggested that the dialogue format which Plato utilised in his writings is a less-than-perfect format for conveying this sort of information. He proposed the possibility that a more straightforward, premise-premise-conclusion type format might be easier to understand. While I understand his point, I still find myself in disagreement. Plato's dialogues are wonderful examples of the dialectic method of instruction in action - a method which I think is one of the best ways of imparting information so that the student will actually understand it. By presenting his theories (or the theories of Socrates) in this format, Plato brings the reader as close as possible under the circumstances to actually partaking in a philosophical discussion with his characters, and by extension himself. As one character asks a question of another, the reader has a chance to contemplate that question and draw their own conclusions before going on to read the views Plato presents. In a sense, Plato is instructing the reader by means of dialectic instruction (or, perhaps more appropriately in this context, the Socratic method). This style of writing invites the reader to think independently about the subject matter, rather than simply attempting to absorb the views of the writer without first considering them and understanding the reasoning behind them.
Response: What is Literature?
In response to Jacob Wheeler's post "Degrees of Literature" (January 25, 2012):
The technical definition of literature is 'written works with artistic value'. While at first glance I thought that this was so vague as to be almost useless, on second thought I decided that, while as an independently-standing definition it really is vague, when taken in the context of Nussbaum's text it is actually quite helpful. Many philosophical treatises are focused on one goal only - to present, explain, and support an idea as accurately and in as straightforward a manner as possible. They typically omit flowery or metaphorical language because such language tends to obscure meaning. However, in some cases they may include such language, because it actually helps to explain a concept (for example, a text on aesthetics might use vivid imagery). This is problematic, because invoking emotion (which, in this context, is the goal of flowery language) relies on the subjective perceptions of the reader.
Regardless - the difference, I think, between literature and philosophical or scientific writing is the reason for using flowery language. While philosophical writing might occasionally utilise such language, the purpose of doing so is to clarify whatever it is they are trying to explain. In literature, flowery language is used for aesthetic value. It does not have to help the reader understand anything; it does not even have to evoke emotion (although in many cases this may be its purpose in literature as well); all it has to do is be aesthetically pleasing. Thus, defining literature as 'written works with artistic value' actually seems to aid in distinguishing it from other forms of writing.
The technical definition of literature is 'written works with artistic value'. While at first glance I thought that this was so vague as to be almost useless, on second thought I decided that, while as an independently-standing definition it really is vague, when taken in the context of Nussbaum's text it is actually quite helpful. Many philosophical treatises are focused on one goal only - to present, explain, and support an idea as accurately and in as straightforward a manner as possible. They typically omit flowery or metaphorical language because such language tends to obscure meaning. However, in some cases they may include such language, because it actually helps to explain a concept (for example, a text on aesthetics might use vivid imagery). This is problematic, because invoking emotion (which, in this context, is the goal of flowery language) relies on the subjective perceptions of the reader.
Regardless - the difference, I think, between literature and philosophical or scientific writing is the reason for using flowery language. While philosophical writing might occasionally utilise such language, the purpose of doing so is to clarify whatever it is they are trying to explain. In literature, flowery language is used for aesthetic value. It does not have to help the reader understand anything; it does not even have to evoke emotion (although in many cases this may be its purpose in literature as well); all it has to do is be aesthetically pleasing. Thus, defining literature as 'written works with artistic value' actually seems to aid in distinguishing it from other forms of writing.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Humour in Informative Writing
In class on Monday, we discussed the use of literary style in informative writing, such as philosophical essays. One particular type of literary style which I think can be especially helpful when incorporated into such settings is humour. While it may not help explain the content or communicate it emotionally, as beautifully crafted prose might do, it does help to keep a reader's attention and interest focused on what they are reading. Humour and wit can aid in making an otherwise dry or pedantic text dynamic and engaging. Furthermore, unlike metaphors or similes, humour rarely necessitates obscuring the meaning of the writing in which it appears. It may, admittedly, extend the length of a text by adding in additional sentences or words which pertain solely to the humour rather than to the informative content of the text, but I think this is a fair trade-off considering the increased level of interest that it will likely produce in a reader.
Humour can also help readers by making a text less intimidating. While serious students of philosophy, logic, science, or other subjects which typically require a lot of technical reading may not hesitate when faced with an intellectual, possibly tedious text, other students who have no experience with such reading may find this sort of task daunting. A text which includes humour, which addresses the reader conversationally rather than in a more lecture-like format, may seem friendlier and easier to tackle than a purely academic work of writing.
Humour can also help readers by making a text less intimidating. While serious students of philosophy, logic, science, or other subjects which typically require a lot of technical reading may not hesitate when faced with an intellectual, possibly tedious text, other students who have no experience with such reading may find this sort of task daunting. A text which includes humour, which addresses the reader conversationally rather than in a more lecture-like format, may seem friendlier and easier to tackle than a purely academic work of writing.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)