Why don't they matter?

I am about to start a term paper on the novella The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka, and my teacher told the class to use only sources from published writers. That day for homework, she told us to find some resources on the 'net that we could use. One of my classmates brought in something, but my teacher said that the information the classmate brought in could not be used because they are not a published author, just some guy on the 'net giving his own word on the topic. Well, why not? Why should people who gives their own word on something be completely disregarded, and settle for someone else who is published?

Why does being a "published writer" matter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imnotanerd

I am about to start a term paper on the novella The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafla, and my teacher told the class to use only sources from published writers. That day for homework, she told us to find some resources on the 'net that we could use. One of my classmates brought in something, but my teacher said that the information the classmate brought in could not be used because they are not a published author, just some guy on the 'net giving his own word on the topic. Well, why not? Why should people who gives their own word on something be completely disregarded, and settle for someone else who is published?

Why does being a "published writer" matter?

---

Well, it's basic information literacy. An expert on a topic will likely know more and understand the topic better than a non-expert. For example, a doctor will know more about giving the symptoms of a certain disease than someone who is just any old Joe or even someone with a Ph. D. in physics. Basically, the doctor is more likely to give you correct information on the topic.

With art it is a little more complicated. Technically anyone can have an insightful response to art (film, novels, poetry, visual arts). Anyone can even become a well-informed amateur in the sense that they can spend the time to make themselves well-read and well-informed without necessarily acquiring a degree. The expert of art's advantage is that they are likely to have had the opportunity to be more well-versed in the totality of art (read significantly more of the classics than you, so they have a bigger overall picture), more opportunity to develop and practice the critical thinking skills involved with interpreting a piece of art, studied the various aesthetic theories, acquired hard knowledge about art that a tyro may miss or overlook, and read the many interpretations of an artwork by other critics. Experts in the arts tend to be critics with formal degrees and other artists producing work (the idea being that presumably if you can create great works, you'll have a better understanding of great works).

It's an interesting point. It is very possible that someone such as myself (who spends a great deal of time with books, reading and researching, and reflecting, and writing - but who has never published anything) can give you more insight into a certain text than someone who just happened to publish an article about it. That is - there are some really lousy articles out there.

However, everything that Drkshadow mentioned is valid. Adding to that, by getting something published, you are having it criticized by a third party as opposed to someone like me on a forum such as this who could spout the most insane garbage and probably not have it challenged.

For example, did you know that the "giant insect" that Gregor was changed into was actually an octopus? See....when information goes uncheked you don't know what you will end up with.

From an educational standpoint....the Internet is a relatively new concept, especially if you have a teacher who went to school before the Internet was widely used (which is quite likely). Old school research was easy to manage - you get your information from a book - done. With the plethora of ideas floating around the Internet - from insightful views to Kafka's octofetish - there has to a be way for teachers to guide students towards "good" information.

So while you will find some poor published articles on the Internet - and while you will find some non-published opinions that are quite insightful, the odds are still in favour of published articles.

Anything goes in the Internet, and I think your teacher is trying to create some distance from that reality and your paper references. I think it's a reasonable request. It'll mean is more work for you, but if you care about your grades...

It's a matter of how one defines "published". There is a great deal of material on the internet that published authors have written that doesn't appear to be by published authors.

Metamorphosis is garbage. Cockroaches are gross, the ending sucks, and the story is pointless.

There, you can quote my opinion in your project if you think all sources are equal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imnotanerd

I am about to start a term paper on the novella The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka, and my teacher told the class to use only sources from published writers. That day for homework, she told us to find some resources on the 'net that we could use. One of my classmates brought in something, but my teacher said that the information the classmate brought in could not be used because they are not a published author, just some guy on the 'net giving his own word on the topic. Well, why not? Why should people who gives their own word on something be completely disregarded, and settle for someone else who is published?

Why does being a "published writer" matter?

---

I think it should be up to you to choose your sources. But of course, the risk is thus greater. It's okay.