Culture, speaking, choice

[moongirlk]

On science vs humanities in dealing with literature, Dave responded 
to Rita's:
 
> > Surely *real* Humanities types would be psychoanalyzing the 
author 
> from the work, explaining how the novel is a model of class warfare 
> or patriarchy, unravelling little strings of the text that can be 
> proclaimed as influences from past literature or current pop 
> culture... 

With: 

> I believe not.  I think this type of activity belongs either to 
> science types lost in the humanities world and grasping at straws, 
or 
> humanities types suffering from science-envy and trying to make 
their 
> field 'scientific'.  Concepts like class warfare and patriarchy can 
> be very useful tools for understanding things, but allowed to 
become 
> the defining principle of all analysis they are worse than nothing.
> 
> No, I was thinking of good old-fashioned literary criticism.  

The turn this discussion has taken has been enlightening for me.  I 
have a niggling suspicion that my masters studies in French lit were 
more than just misguided.  I started out studying language, and 
literature was just part of the package.  I've always loved reading, 
so it seemed natural enough to me, but I didn't much enjoy literary 
theory and criticism.  I like reading because it takes me somewhere 
new (sort of the sitting at the feet of the author thing that Dave 
described).  Too much literary theory was like messing with the man 
behind the curtain - ruined the mystery of it all.  I now think that 
had I focused on something more scientific in the field of language 
(like linguistics), instead of literature, I may have stuck it out in 
grad school, and not have had some of my favorite books 'ruined' for 
me.

So what I'd like to know is, how exactly do you know on which side of 
this particular fence you belong?  I mean, I knew growing up that 
humanities were harder for me, but I liked a challenge, and 
considered the other classes boring except during those "eureka" 
moments when a new concept clicked.  So am I the only one so out-of-
touch with herself that she didn't figure this out, or is this a 
common confusion?  The tests given by guidance counsellors sure 
didn't help.  The one I took in highschool suggested I should be a 
camp counsellor or (drumroll please) Santa Claus.  Was a little 
discouraging for a 17 year old girl with body image issues, let me 
tell you.  

David the Brave also said:

> Generally, once I get into my stride, I enjoy presentations at 
> conferences and the like.  It is easier than a sermon (I have done 
> that, too), because of the slides, but there is something about 
> establishing a rapport with your audience which is unlike anything 
> else in life.  Questions and answers are the best of all.

Can I rub your head or something?  Public speaking makes me queasy.

> David, wondering if Mrs Norris formerly belonged to Erwin 
Schrödinger

Hee!  I've had a soft spot for him since college when an art-major 
friend did a thing he called "Fictioanthropologica" (or something 
like that) for his senior exhibition.  It was odd items and their 
fictional inventors.  One of the items was a fish-bomb invented by a 
well-intentioned guy trying to cure world hunger.  Another was a 
walking mechanical cat he built out of junk he found.  The inventor 
was, of course, Schrodinger - I guess guilt drove him to build the 
indestructible cat.

Does anyone else think the cat thing was a little over-elaborate?  
Weird science, if you ask me.

kimberly