Science and Literature

The effect that science has had in shaping literature has been notably underestimated in the light of philosophy, psychoanalysis, and other esoteric followings. For instance, Thomas Pynchon's first three novels (V., The Crying of Lot 49, Gravity's Rainbow) are like scientific manuals in everything from organic chemistry to rocket science (though they do become estoteric themselves when Pynchon begins interweaving Kabbalistic mysticism with other sciences). Italo Calvino uses scientific processes as a way of developing plots (take, for instance, the first story from t zero called 'The Soft Moon' in which the earth's metal and silicon surface is covered with great green globs of organic material that have been pulled to the earth by its own gravity, and now we, as human beings--the only rational animals on the planet--, must dig ourselves out of this mess and uncover our ancient steel edifices. And the list goes on and on . . . Kurt Vonnegut, Joseph Heller, &c. But the facts still stand, science has, historically, been ousted from many forms of literary art in favour of religion, sociology, psychology, and so on. Are we afraid of science because it makes literature seem less human?

I don't think science makes literature less human. I'm just not that interested in science. Aren't there fewer people interested in both as there are in all of one or the other?

From my standpoint, I feel very encumbered by science (I rarely use a computer for anything, I'm only on this site because I could find no one else to talk to about my books) I love to escape to another century. And since books have been socially accepted much longer than science has, they are my refuge. My husband, on the other hand, is the complete opposite of me and I've had to share our bookshelf with his more practical modern scientific books.

Funny you should say that Shea... escaping to another century and all that. I'm the same way. I make my own costumes for Ren Faires (see diycostume.com).

However I see things like technology and the Internet as a blessing. Like you alluded to they allow you to connect with people similar to yourself. When I was growing up I played a little D&D, just a wee bit, because there wasn't many people to play with in my little rural home town. Thanks to the Internet though I can play a mud (think Everquest without the graphics) with thousands of other people.

I'm a huge nerd, I admit it. I started out majoring in genetics in college, so I'm very interested in science. I run this and 15 other websites, so I'm interested in technology. Then I do alot of reading, especially of fantasy literature or other literature that takes place in a Medieval like setting.

So... long post short... I don't see how one has to preclude the other.

Ok, I must go off the subject here...
Admin, you make your own costumes for Ren Faires? The picture on my Avatar is of my husband and I at our wedding at the local Ren Faire!! (I've been meaning to put a better shot on there) I made my own dress and my husband's shirt (I didn't have time to make the kilt so we rented it at one of the booths). :D I make a lot of different period clothing and my excuse to wear them is because I play a harp.

Sorry, I know that had nothing to do with the subject matter, I just had to say it. :oops:

I see no reason why the two can't share a relationship. Michelangelo and Lionardo daVinci both felt compeled to study human anatomy thru dissection at a time when such a practice was strictly forbidden by the church. daVinci stands still today as one of the greatest scientists and mathmeticians to ever grace our little rock. Many writers would benefit from learning more of science, myself included. It gives you a greater understanding of how things work, and helps you develop different thought processes. Even if you are writing about human conflict, analytical thinking helps you see the strory from all sides, helping you better convey what you are attempting to say. As always, I am babbling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gatsbysghost

I see no reason why the two can't share a relationship. Michelangelo and Lionardo daVinci both felt compeled to study human anatomy thru dissection at a time when such a practice was strictly forbidden by the church. daVinci stands still today as one of the greatest scientists and mathmeticians to ever grace our little rock. Many writers would benefit from learning more of science, myself included. It gives you a greater understanding of how things work, and helps you develop different thought processes. Even if you are writing about human conflict, analytical thinking helps you see the strory from all sides, helping you better convey what you are attempting to say. As always, I am babbling.

---

It's not that literature and science preclude each other--that wasn't what I was getting at (my fault, I was too vague, once again)--rather, they seem to get passed over as a two-part whole when we think of what makes literature 'literary'. Science-fiction is the realm to which we relegate literature that has, itself, become too far-fetched (a classic euphemism for being too 'scientific') to be taken seriously; this subsequently leads people to think that authors like Phillip K. Dick and his ilk are . . . let me think of a way to word this . . . less 'legitimate' (sorry, that's the best I could do) than writers who indulge in fickle emotion (such as the Bronte sisters). Take the movie GATTACA, for example. It might not be literature per se, but it is certainly a captivating story that interlaces eugenic science with what is, to me, a very profound human message: we are not based solely on our biological properties. I wept like a babe through the entirety of that one. It seems ironic to me that as we 'progress' further and further as a culture technologically, socially, ethically, &c., we still find it hard to accept the idea that science serves a human purpose. Perhaps it's the old cliché of the scientist in the white smock peering out of coke-bottle spectacles around a disordered array of test tubes and bunson burners come back to haunt us.

In the Renaissance there still was this ideal of the homo universalis. It was perfectly normal to be not only interested but also actively involved in science and in culture. In the course of the centuries however, specialisation and accumulation of knowledge have progressed immensely. It has become impossible to be an expert on every field of research. That has created a gap between culture (in the more limited meaning of being related to art) and science.

Moreover, literature has been under severe attack from all sides ever since. Religious groups banned literature, because it was immoral gibberish (protestants were very much against theatre, for instance). Scientists regarded writers as dreamers, creators of impossible worlds, and therefore they saw (and see, btw) literary works as being far inferior to their efforts to describe the world (you understand of course I am generalizing for the sake of the argument :) ). This has had a large impact on literature and the way it is looked upon. Literary theory, for instance, is called literatuurwetenschap in Dutch, litterally translated: literature science (science of literature). Every beginner's course in it begins with an effort to validate literary study and theory as a science.

Readers have sensed this too, of course. And literature has become for many an escape, as Shea points out. And of course it is, to a certain extent. But literature is also a fictional, creative way of looking at the world. It may be one of the very few places where it is allowed to borrow freely from other domains AND to interpret and adapt those borrowings. It gives the opportunity to take on an entirely different perspective, something science is less capable of doing, I believe (because it is limited to description, and bound to the 'laws' it tries to define).

So, it is not all that strange for a writer to include scientific elements in his work - and it would be a capital offence to regard it as non-valid ;) - but at the same time it is not all that strange for the reader, the critic, or the student to overlook this element.

I definitely think its harder for Sci-Fi/Fantasy books to be considered legitimate literature. Tolkein, Wells, and Verne did it though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisvosje

In the Renaissance there still was this ideal of the homo universalis. It was perfectly normal to be not only interested but also actively involved in science and in culture.

---

I think science served a very different purpose for Renaissance thinkers back then than it does for us today. To most, science brought God closer to home through logical interrogation of their experiences. The Catholic church may have labeled the Protestants as 'heretics' and the followers of Galileo as 'agitators', but they never actually rejected the belief in the final manifestation of God and were, therefore, just as guilty of creating 'impossible worlds' (to scientists) as poets are today. Science and culture went hand-in-hand back then; but this is not the case nowadays. It seems that, if anything, science comes as a slap in the face to structured theology; though, I should point out that scholars are beginning to uncover premonitions in ancient Hindu and Catholic texts that presuppose many of the theories that the Quantum physicists have concluded (I won't go into that right now though).

Quote:

---

Moreover, literature has been under severe attack from all sides ever since. Religious groups banned literature, because it was immoral gibberish (protestants were very much against theatre, for instance).

---

That is a little short-sighted if you ask me. The Protestants never banned theatre (or at least not for the sake of banning theatre as a whole). The Protestants' only objection was the use of ghosts in the theatre (which was quite popular at the time, since the Pope had no objections) because of the anti-Catholic belief that souls were not purged in the afterlife and, likewise, did not wander the earth and communicate with people and, accordingly, could not be represented as 'characters' in a performance.

On the contrary, the Protestants were quite fond of literature, but they were even more fond of scientific theories in all of their practical applications (since the Protestant God and science could co-exist easily back then). Even the Catholics were fond of science--in the Aristotlean fashion--which assumed that the world was 'as it appeared to be', which served as an excellent tool to undermine the blasphemous paradoxes that Zeno of Elea had used to heckle the realists (such as Aristotle) in ancient Greece. It wasn't until the 'death of God' (post-WWI) that science really began to dominate the floor, having ousted the less 'progressive' ideas such as philosophy and religion (which were exploited time and time again over the centuries to serve the purpose of those in power). On the contrary, with science, it was nearly impossible to get away with manipulating data; and, at worst, there was always hope that 'progress' would find out who had remained loyal to and who had betrayed 'the facts'.

This doesn't explain why Science Fiction is still so unpopular . . . the popular belief is that you are either a literary enthusiast who enjoys reading the classics or you are a scientist who likes to dabble in less 'serious' literature just to get an idea what all the hype surrounding reading is. I think literature fears science because it reduces the world to a dry misanthropy, whereas, science fears literature because dry misanthropy is the only force keeping the world from returning to the days of 'divine kingship' and 'religious crusades'. You are right to say that science is 'limited to description, and bound to the ''laws'' it tries to define'. But imagine what it would be like if those boundaries were destroyed and that 'anything goes/if you say so, your majesty' mentality were to reemerge. Would we be better off?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Admin

I definitely think its harder for Sci-Fi/Fantasy books to be considered legitimate literature. Tolkein, Wells, and Verne did it though.

---

Nothing could be more true. I thought that the degree of interest a novel sparked in a given number of readers determined whether or not it could be considered literature. In other words, did it withstand the test of time? Tolkien has sold more books than James Joyce ever did (and Joyce is usually considered to have wrriten the book on 'serious' literature), yet people still say that The Lord of the Rings is just a plain and simple Fantasy story. The same goes for Dune, which has me in a fit of raw anticipation to see how the story concludes (anticipation to fall asleep was usually the sensation I had while trudging through Ulysses). We need to give this a little thought . . .

What about the way that literature has shaped science - 'cyberspace' the most obvious example I can think of, trouble is I think most of the writers on the subject were trying to make the point that a VR world would really screw society over and all the geeks picked it up and thought 'hey this is really cool'
I do enjoy a good bit of sci fi but running a lab I get phenomenally pissed off with inaccurate portrayals in both written works and other media, my wife has to calm me down whenever a TV program about such things comes on, but then I have to the same for her about archaeology. Parodies of science on the other hand I love..
Downer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbdoRinbo

That is a little short-sighted if you ask me.

---

I did say I was generalizing. But literature WAS censored by protestants, as it was by catholics (the codex). No doubt both catholics and protestants loved (and love, of course) literature, as long as it didn't contradict their views. But that is a discussion without end. My only point was that literature has been under attack (in many cases because that particular work of literature did not fit in the views of the Bible, another work of literature), and that, over the course of centuries, science was favoured as a means for knowledge about the world (and in many cases, quite rightly so).


But why is SF so unpopular? I don't know. Maybe it is because SF is more obviously fictional? Maybe because many SF novels pay more attention to content than to form (I'm just asking. I have once read a book by A.C. Clarke, a friend said it was the greatest SF ever, and I thought it was quite plain - I realize completely that one book is not enough to base this upon, as I said: I'm just asking)? Maybe because people want to read themselves into the characters and that is harder to do when the setting is alien?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisvosje

No doubt both catholics and protestants loved (and love, of course) literature, as long as it didn't contradict their views. But that is a discussion without end.

---

'As long as it didn't contradict their views' is absolutely right, but I think the question concerning why literature was being 'banned' by both Churches is more complicated. Based on the history that I know (and I could be overlooking some deceptively trivial fact), Protestants and Catholics never really outlawed literature, they merely censored it--as we censor literary content today--in the conventional manner: they ensured one form of heresy or another would never corrupt a valued form of art.

The fact is, literature has only come under attack by the advocates of scientific progress in the last century-and-a-half. But now it seems as though the two are beginning to interlace, yet, we still think of them as being opposed, naturally. Two superb authors, Italo Calvino and Thomas Pynchon, have done incredible work in both fields, though they are seldom paid any credence in the world of science, and only Calvino is acclaimed in the literary world, but only for his awesome story-telling abilities. People still avoid Pynchon because he always was a tough read (i.e. too scientific on one hand, and too literary on the other).

I think the scientists like the solid structure of their field and the literary enthusiasts like the flowing form of theirs, and it might be that way forever. But, ah, how beautiful the two can be when they accidentally supplement each other.