> I entirely agree that scientific theories don't predict what will happen
> in science; they predict what will happen in whatever is the subject of
> the science. Now, if literary theories were the same sort of thing as
> scientific theories, we would expect them a) to be about something, and
> b) to be able to predict what would happen in the future to whatever
> they were about.
>
I like that, Peter. And what you ask afterwards about literary theory. To my
mind, there is an enormous and potentially exciting area of work 'waiting to
be done' in literary theory, rather comparable I think to neurology, but as
things are, it remains undone.
Best
Dave
David Bircumshaw
Leicester, England
Home Page
A Chide's Alphabet
Painting Without Numbers
www.paintstuff.20m.com/index.htm
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/index.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Howard" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: Back on Planet Earth - theory in literature
> Candice,
>
> I wasn't sure from your post whether it was David, myself, or both of us
> you thought were perpetrating a breakdown of logic. But I'm not sure
> that there is a breakdown.
>
> I entirely agree that scientific theories don't predict what will happen
> in science; they predict what will happen in whatever is the subject of
> the science. Now, if literary theories were the same sort of thing as
> scientific theories, we would expect them a) to be about something, and
> b) to be able to predict what would happen in the future to whatever
> they were about.
>
> I would have thought that literary theories were about literature,
> though I may be wrong here. If I'm right then you're incorrect to
> parallel up science and literature; any equivalence would be between
> science and literary theory. You seem to be suggesting that literary
> theory is part of literature. If so, then either literary theory is
> self-referential, or it isn't about literature at all.
>
> In any case, I just said that literary theories didn't seem to predict
> much; I didn't specify what sort of thing they would predict if they
> did.
>
> Also, I wasn't intending to criticise literary theory for not being the
> same as scientific theory. It's hardly a surprise if the methodologies
> of studying the subjects of science and literary theory are different,
> since those subjects themselves are so very different from one another.
>
> Best,
> --
> Peter
>
> http://www.hphoward.demon.co.uk/poetry/
>
|