Cultural clarifications

[davewitley]

Dicentra spectabilis alba, the Dutchman's Breeches, wrote: 

> I haven't been in contact with the lit crit world since HP became 
> big, but I'm fairly sure it is not held in high regard for the 
> following reasons:
> 
(entertaining rant snipped)

My original cultural differences post concerned people who I 
dubbed 'humanities types' and 'scientific types', both of whom are to 
be found in HPFGU.

The snooty critics described by Dicentra (and, I now realise, alluded 
to by Rita) may be a special case of the humanities type - but we 
don't seem to have them here.

The HPFGU humanities people, represented (IMO) by Heidi, Pippin, 
Elkins, Amy et al are decent common-sense people who are not in 
thrall to any grand theories or analytical techniques.  I just think 
that they don't read fiction in exactly the same way that I (as a 
person trained in scientific modes of thought) do.

Kimberly asked:

>So what I'd like to know is, how exactly do you know on which side 
of this particular fence you belong?

I feel responsible, having raised this whole topic.

1) You don't have to belong to either side - I really don't believe 
this is something hard wired into our brains.  There are many ways of 
looking at things and reading fiction.  I enjoy mine, but I like to 
learn new ways - hence the pleasure of HPFGU.  You don't have to 
accept one and reject the other.

2) The distinction between scientific and humanities cultures is of 
course not my invention.  I'm a bit hazy as to the details but it was 
brought to public consciousness round about 1960 by CP Snow in an 
essay (I think) entitled The Two Cultures.  I didn't mention all that 
before because I was trying to make sense of my experience as I saw 
it.

3) I don't know how you tell where your own background is, if you are 
not comfortable in it.  When I was a child I loved fiction (still 
do), but I also enjoyed, and still do, factual books.  At the age of 
fifteen I would get chemistry textbooks from the library and read 
them for pleasure.  When reading fiction my concern was with what 
happened, not what the characters were like or what the story told me 
about humanity or freedom or love or anything like that.  OTOH, part 
of the enjoyment of science fiction for me was the attempt to follow 
up an idea.  For example time travel, or Asimov's Laws of Robotics 
and psychohistory.  It was only later, e.g. with Ursula le Guin's 
Dispossessed that the human side began to interest me more.  Reading 
Jane Austen, where you get tiny body-language or hesitation clues to 
the inner life of the characters was a revelation to me later still.

In Harry Potter, is it the imaginary world or the way the people may 
develop that grabs you?  If the answer is 'both', then just enjoy 
it.  If it's only one of those things, or soemthing else, still enjoy 
it but consider that there might be more to be had out of it (and 
other literature).

David