Possibilities for Literary Analysis-Part 1

Here are some thoughts I have had lately:

I have been thinking lately about a software program which might
analyze any given work of literature, and profile in based on certain
criteria.


If a piece of software could take the text of a novel, and tally up
certain things; for example, simple things like first person narrative vs
third person or a raw count of verbs nouns; or how many words in the
work are devoted to pure description, and break that down further,
into nature descriptions, bodily/facial descriptions, animate,
inanimate, descriptions of feelings, moods.


Someone could analyze a work manually and establish the criteria.
But then if the analytical process could be automated to analyze
hundreds of works it might reveal something interesting.


Conceptually... it is possible to analyze a work from various criteria...
and come up with some sort of measure.

The thing to do is start with the manual process of analysis, and
define what it is we want to measure/tally emotional vs rational etc

That would be stage one. If stage one seemed fruitful/productive....
then stage two would be to attempt to automate the process.


How many romantic passages are there per author, like the
provocative flirtatious sentences in Hardy; one feels a repressed,
simpering sensuality?



The manual analysis is something any one of us could undertake. We
must define what it is we want to measure. That is a huge
undertaking though.


There are sentences which are description (and descriptions can be
broken down by category). There are sentences which are action..
something happens/changes.


There are sentences which are moral judgements or philosophical
propositions.




In the text questions are asked at times; at other times answers are
given.


One might measure passages of joy vs sorrow vs terror vs humor etc
but... then... to come up with a profile/numbers/graph for each
author, for each genre, for each historical period, enabling one to
compare Homer and Virgil with... Dante and Milton... for example


You may possibly ask how would we benefit from such statistics?
What would they tell us? But I feel that if you never seek, you shall never discover. One must look for patterns.... trends, and then ask if they have
meaning. Look how many centuries it took for us to figure out and be certain
that matter is composed of atoms (which cannot be seen)

Then there is the matter of literature which is just a good story...
vs.... symbolism hidden meanings.

I was looking at "Little Women" and thinking that perhaps there are
not hidden levels as in Milan Kundera.


Of course, not everything one reads has to be loaded with symbolism
and allegory.

There is the question of WHY each writer wrote. Some authors really
needed money. Others were independently wealthy. Some had one
agenda or another. A few were reclusive like Emily Dickenson.


I realize that not everything is deeply analyzable, certainly.


Or the question of why the author wrote the book.


My problem, or addiction if you will, is that I seek out such literature,
looking for the profound, and i attempt to write like that as well. But
there are whole other worlds, other ways, other reasons to write and
read.


Look at that long period in history where authors works were
SERIALIZED in newspapers or magazines, and where they were paid
sometimes by the word, at other times by the page. Dickens may
have been prolific based on such economic considerations.


How does that serialization affect the structure, style , plot? (you
know.... each chapter fits in a magazine...with cliff hangers)


In Hemingway's "Moveable Feast," he describes how Fitzgerald
confesses to "tweaking" his stories so the magazines will buy, and
Hemingway is scandalized by such prostitution.

What was scandelous to various generations and how did that
scandal affect the author? For example, Hardy, who retreated to
years of poetry after the poor reception of Jude the Obscure.




I simply mention Hardy as an example of someone who changed their
emphasis based on public criticism.

There are people who say that people like us who dwell upon
literature have no life of our own.

Is it the case that people who write and read are escaping from real
life/experience?


What makes one write novels like crime and punishment?
Or read them for that matter.

Mark Twain said that the definition of great literature is something
that everyone wants to be able to say they have read, but no one
wants to take the time and effort to actually read it.


What we enjoy as children vs adolescence vs young adults vs mid life,
vs old age.... acquired tastes.... we dont like something initially, but
we grow into it... because we change...


Do we change in our tastes because we have changed as a natural
function of aging ..... or is it the reading itself which changes us,
transforms us.



This is a topic to which people may bring their actual life experiences.
How I HATED Pride in Prejudice in high school, but now I can truly
enjoy it: people can bring to the table such experiences. How I LOVED
Catcher in the Rye as a teenager, but now find it tedious. Why the
difference? What changed?


Discussion of such issues offers new possibilities, potentials.


People might look at the suggested topics and find something which
really interests them but which they never would have thought about
otherwise.


If folks can get an idea of what what such discussions are like... and it
may snowball (grow larger and larger like a ball of snow rolled down a
hill)... snowball the process so that it gains momentum and size.


There are people who read the books but for one reason or the other
do not post any comments at the forum; the "lurkers."


What is it that inhibits certain people from posting comments, or
sharing their poetry or prose? Perhaps, they fear failure or criticism or
rejection.




Another topic for discussion.... "why do some remain silent lurkers..."
Some people are shy.


Some people feel that others have more to say, or say it in a more
clever manner.

There are casual readers, and then there are more serious readers.


But sometimes you enjoy an activity MORE, when you have some
coaching. Just like, you enjoy a sport more, like golf or tennis or
whatever, when you have some coaching to sharpen your
performance.



Just the other week, I opened Hardy "Far from the Madding Crowd"....
and found a passage about Bathsheba's lower and upper lip quivering,
the lower corresponding to baser emotions vs the upper
corresponding to more etherial concerns. One may look at that and
say.... "well, Hardy feels under the gun to be creative, innovative, so
he comes up with a notion,... and it is clever, but is it valid,... is it
contrived.... and can one use it again?


Some feel it is unnecessary to analyze and find deep hidden
meanings for such an approach is a more cerebral approach, more
analytical.


Reading and writing literature is analogous to chess. One can learn
enough about chess in one afternoon to play a simple game with
another beginner. O one can devote ones life and attempt to be a
grand master. Both ways are possible. Not everyone wants to be a
grandmaster.



Kids can shoot baskets, but then they also go to see Magic Johnson
and people in that league. Sometimes I think that every kid wants to
be a Magic Johnson.

There was a TV show, Ally McBeal where A lawyer was
encouraging her secretary to go to universtiy, get a law degree etc
the secretary said, 'but you do realise that not everyone want to be a
lawyer.. I am happy doing the secretarial work' and that is a valid
choice.


Perhaps not everyone wants to be a Magic Johnson either.
Some people are happy shooting hoops over the weekend.


They always encourage young children to say "oh, I want to grow up to
be president' or make them think they have to want to be a
doctor/lawyer. They feel that such ambitions are EXPECTED of them,
and that it is politically incorrect to aspire otherwise.

A passtime is of one degree, an avocation is of another degree, a
vocation is yet another degree


Sometimes one just wants to enjoy a nice meal without worrying
about the ingredients and cooking methods and such nice meals
should be balanced, or eventually, one's health suffers... especially
where young students are involved (though certainly not that everyone is a young student)



Arnold Schwartznegger used to say "no pain, no gain"



There are several places in Plato's dialogues where Socrates
discusses the notion that equates misanthropy with misology.
isology is a reluctance to engage in the kind of deep, prolonged,
focused Socratic dialogue which Plato recorded.


Misanthropy is hatred of ones fellow humans


It is a fascinating notion which i have always wanted to understand
better in Plato's dialogues


Some find it a harsh notion, but it is what Plato discusses, and some
lenght, in several dialogues... I dont pretend to throughly understand
what Plato is getting at with the misology/misanthropy argument.


We can enjoy a simple scenry without knowing the type of trees
growing, kind of animals living there.


I am thinking of that Walt Disney song,.... "would you like to
swing on a star, carry moonbeams home in a jar..."



The song basically is saying that if we work hard, we can be improve
ourselves..... or... well.... the story of the ant and the grasshopper...
the ant worked all summer while the grasshopper fiddled and played.
Come winter, the ant was comfortable and the grasshopper was
starving.


Should we strive to appeal to the greatest number of people, or is it
ok if we are understood by only a very small audience.


Moses Maimonides, circa 1120, reckoned the greatest rabbinical
thinker of all times, dedicated his greatest work "The Guide for the
Perplexed" to "that ONE PERSON, who seeks to understand better..."
... i.e. he did not address vast multitudes, but only a select few
Some may call that pure elitism or intellecutal snobbery, an attitude
which alienates many. Maimonides' position is an interesting historical fact.
Maimonides was wise in many ways to take that stance. Let us say
that you are someone who desires to be more light hearted, fun, easy,
friendly. I mean, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You can't
be an olympic weight lifter and a couch potatoe or play chess for fun,
and be a grand master as well.


If I were Maimonides... you might be telling me that you really don't
want to make the efforts necessary to participate in a reading of the
"Guide for the Perpelxed". So Maimonides would say "Okey dokey, I
guess I shall dedicate to that small minority of one or two who DO
want to go through the labor."



It's fun to see the breathtaking view from the top of Everest.... but if
you want to see it with your own eyes, you must spend the time to get
in shape and master mountain climbing. Otherwise, it is just National
Geographics photos for you.




Shyness or insecurity seems like something one should overcome,
but that is easier said than done.



The thing i posted by William Hazlitt. He has something awesome
about this very topic

"The man of greater taste or genius may be supposed to fling down
his pen or pencil in despair, haunted with the idea of unattainable
excellence, and ends in being nothing, because he cannot be every
thing at once."

http://www.csuchico.edu/~egampel/students/why.html

What is the point of asking these impossible questions about the nature of the universe, ourselves, God, the soul, and so on? Questions which hundreds of generations of philosophers, theologians, and other dedicated souls have been unable to answer?

Well.... Notice: this is itself a philosophical question! For any answer would be based on fundamental assumptions about what we can hope to know, and what it would be worth spending one's time on in life. Which is to say:

You can't avoid it!

You can avoid thinking about philosophical issues, but you'll still be living your life in a way that is built on philosophical assumptions, like that it isn't worth asking impossible questions, or that there is (or isn't) an afterlife, or that pleasure is (or isn't) the main goal in life. And most of us reflect on these issues at some point or other in our lives.
Which is to say: Everyone is a philosopher! To be human is to wonder about the purpose of life, whether you are free and responsible for your fate, whether there is any hope for discovering important truths. Philosophy is thus a bit like running: everyone does it, but some people work to improve their natural abilities, through courses and by reading those who have come before. You may not ever win the race, but you may learn something about how to run it better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Socrates

"There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse. Misology and misanthropy arise in the same way. Misanthropy comes when a man without knowledge or skill has placed great trust in someone and believes him to be altogether truthful, sound and trustworthy. Then, a short time afterwards, the man finds the other to be wicked and unreliable; and then this happens in another case. When one has frequently had that experience, especially with those whom one believed to be one's closest friends, then, in the end, after many such blows, one comes to hate all men and to believe that no one is sound in any way at all. Have you not seen that happen?"
Phaedo replies: "I surely have."

"This is a shameful state of affairs, and obviously due to an attempt to have human relations without any skill in human affairs, for such skill would lead one to believe, what is in fact true, that the very good and the very wicked are both quite rare, and that most men are between those extremes...."

"The similarity lies in this: [misology arises] when one who lacks skill in arguments puts his trust in an argument as being true, then shortly afterwards believes it to be false -- as sometimes it is and sometimes it is not -- and so with another argument and then another. You know how those who spend their time studying contradiction in the end believe themselves to have become very wise and that they alone have understood that there is no soundness or reliability in any object or in any argument...."

"It would be pitiable, Phaedo, where there is a true and reliable argument and one that can be understood, if a man who has dealt with such arguments as appear at one time true, at another time untrue, should not blame himself or his own lack of skill but, because of his distress, in the end gladly shift the blame away from himself to the arguments, and spend the rest of his life hating and reviling reasonable discussion and so be deprived of truth and knowledge of reality."

"This then is the first thing we should guard against: we should not allow into our minds the conviction that argumentation has nothing sound about it. Much rather we should believe that it is we who are not yet sound and that we must take courage and be eager to attain soundness, you and the others for the sake of your whole life still to come, and I for the sake of death itself."

From Plato, "Phaedo," in G.M.A. Grube (ed.), Five Dialogues (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1981), pp. 128-129.

---

http://commhum.mccneb.edu/dweber/101...0Challenge.htm

The extreme theoretical nature of philosophy partially explains the impracticality of philosophy, However, there is another factor. There is a growing sense among many academic and non-academic intellectuals that there is plague of misology in Western culture. This word derives from the prefix “mis,” as found in “misanthropy” (hatred of humanity), “misogyny” (hatred of women), or “misogamy” (hatred of marriage)—combined with “ology”—as found in “biology” (study of living things), “anthropology” (study of humans, especially ancient cultures), and “terminology” (the study of correct words or names). Thus “misology” is the hatred of knowledge.

Misology: the hatred of knowledge


For example, from elementary schools to universities, the "smart kids" are often looked down upon. They are not "cool" and are often picked on by their classmates solely because they enjoy knowledge, reading, learning and education. In the TV show, “The Simpsons” Bart is a cultural hero or icon, because of his rejection of learning. In contrast, the character of Lisa is, to some extent, laughed at and put down because of her love of learning. (For a further exploration of this issue, see The Simpsons and Philosophy, by William Irwin, Mark Conard and Aeon Skoble (eds.) chapter 2 “Lisa and American anti-Intellectualism.”)


There is another explanation for people’s hesitation towards philosophy: Thinking is difficult: It is easy to live life by simply "going with the flow," letting your emotions and feelings be the pilot. And it is almost as easy to apply a very superficial dose of thought to explain, justify or comfort yourself in following those passive feelings. This is like going through life without any exercise; it is easier, and you can get by for a while. Exercise is like thinking. Both are difficult, get easier with practice, and pay off in the long run.

The alternative is to be caged by the "tyranny of custom" as Russell said. But, in addition, you will also be caged by yourself. While feelings, passions and emotions are the stuff of which an enjoyable life are made, nonetheless, they are passively accepted. If our actions are "dictated" by our feelings, emotions, and passions, then in the most important sense of the term, we are not free. "Free will," in its most important sense, means to have the ability to make your own choices; you need not always follow your instincts and feelings. To follow passively accepted feelings and emotions, means not to choose! If you don't think of the available options, then you will follow whatever your feelings imply. You are, thus, a slave to your passions.

So what? Why should being a slave to your passions, feelings and emotions be a negative thing? Consider the complex area of love and friends. Too often people are severely hurt (mentally, or physically) because they are so (emotionally) sure that he or she loves them despite clear signs of trouble. An abusive spouse, loved or not, is dangerous. Whether you love him/her and whether he/she loves you, are both, in practical terms, irrelevant. Love is a very important emotion, and it is to a large extent what many think to virtually define a good life. To be blunt, however, you can love dangerous people. Here is where reason, especially when practiced carefully, can help. Although very difficult, if we can think and follow reason, no matter what our passive impulses and emotions may want, we can avoid further harm.

Think about the great moments in human history and in people's lives. Often it is their ability to rise above their feelings that makes them great. An obvious example is in competitive sports. Certainly having "pumped" emotions and adrenaline coursing through their veins, are significant factors. However, it is the ability to rationally control their fears, passions and other feelings, and acting "objectively" that virtually defines many great actions. (It's not that courageous people don't have fear; rather they raise above their fears.)

Thus, part of the difficulty of philosophy is i) our resistance to mental work, and ii) our tendency to simply follow our guts, without reflecting and thinking about our feelings. These tendencies are easy to accept, but are not a reliable guide to greater success and happiness. In this sense, philosophical reflection can have a very positive and direct affect on your quality of life. Feelings and emotions are part of the joy of life, but as a guide, they are dangerous.

At this point, I hope you see several things:

Philosophy can be very interesting and even exciting.

It can be liberating. Freedom from the tyranny of custom, and from being a slave to your passions.

It can be challenging.


No philosophy class deserving of the name, can avoid pushing your mental abilities. In what follows, we examine a sample of some of the great ideas in the traditional topics examined by philosophers. As you go through this workbook, carefully reading the quotes and questions, struggling to answer them, not only will you gain a bit of the history of philosophical examination, you will also be developing your own critical thinking abilities.

A brief example: a student, who seemed to struggle a lot with the critical nature and challenge involved in philosophical examination, struggled with one particular argument just prior to the mid-term. After several attempts at grasping the force of the reasoning, she found herself at home reading the text over, and over and over again. She took notes, clarified them and reworded them. In short, she study her posterior off. At the next class meeting, she proclaimed some success over the argument. Without giving up, she willed her mind to do what she wanted it to do, and not simply flow with what she had been accepted in the past. She learned. In the end this student, who seemed to struggle so much, ended up earning a very good grade! And, incidentally, learned something about extra-effort.













This example is perhaps the best example illustrating the value of studying philosophy. In one very clear instance, this student pushed her mind as it has rarely been pushed, and literally gained a higher level of understanding. Whether this particular issue/argument ever plays a direct major role in her life, one thing is clear: the mere fact that she pushed herself that hard, concentrated and worked, is something that will influence her and strengthen her in the years to come. She may no longer be so willing to intellectual give up when given a complex problem. She has learned that, with time and effort, she can grasp very complex problems and arguments. Her mind has reached a higher level. (Remember the exercise analogy here: pushing yourself harder has many direct and indirect consequences.)

Further within this example, lays a suggestion: do not expect this to be one of your easier courses. To gain an education, expect to learn things you did not know before (duh). Learning is rarely easy. So, expect to put significant effort into understanding the quotes and following the arguments. If you do not understand a passage re-read it over and over. Even philosophers re-read passages. That is the nature of complex thinking! Do not be intimidated. Anyone, with effort, can make a significant improvement in their intellectual capacities. It just requires effort.