Reply to comment

well, you know, the idea that the humanities are so "open" is relatively new. my parents went to school in the 60s and 70s and it didn't really exist. i don't think there was ever the idea of "fact" but that was never considered important. the idea was that there are substantial important themes in this book and while we can argue we have to understand what those things are and there are certain unarguable points about the books. you could say "the book is about this" and that would not count as anyone's opinion. that was taught to students. i am pretty sure this is how it was, not only because my parents are rather old (probably older than yours, they married late) and have explained this tradition to me and my mother taught me literature from this perspective when i was very young to get me involved in it (her plan worked!) but because this method is still more popular in france and i take french lit courses taught my french people (and taught by americans). of course, as the marquise de merteuil, i am french.

this method may sound uncompromising to you, but i actually think it's great and usually superior. i find that sometimes english classes (which should be called 'british and american literature classes') today, especially in the high school setting, are so fascinated by the subjective quality of the field that no substantial arguments are learned, created, and fought over. you talk about which characters you like and which you don't, not about the more sophisticated things the book is doing. the class is governed by students without the teacher providing the insight they've studied to get. it perpetuates the myth that literature is "fluffy" while science is "fact," creating this unnecessary gulf between the two disciplines while making each appear more narrow than it should. when i would express strong arguments against another person's opinion in high school english classes, the person would say to me, "merteuil, you can't say i'm wrong, it's my opinion." but i think it is appropriate to believe in your opinions so strongly that you think you're right (meaning, you like your idea the best) and everyone else is wrong, and so much great scholarship and progress in the humanities come from heated arguments. if you have to defend yourself, you have to think harder, care more, cover any counter-arguments that could be put forth.

in summary, literature is more than opinion. (it also does not relate to fact -- that could constrain it.) literature, at least the stuff i like to read, contains conceptually difficult themes and loaded arguments that need to be understood. there's a tendancy in our class to overlook the humanities that are not literature. in, oh i don't know, art history for example, art historians make really complicated arguments, and you have to *know* what they are, and that isn't easy. you have to be able to express on exams, in papers (especially if you're arguing against that point of view in a paper) precisely what that argument is, and if you're seen as simplifying or misunderstanding it, your work is significantly marked down. so i wouldn't even call that "fact" because that word is constraining, but you could call it that -- it's definitely not an opinion. don't forget that some opinions can show so little understanding of the text that they can just be wrong. you can definitely be incorrect in the humanities and the intensity of the teaching of these fields declines when people forget that.

that's my little rant,

la marquise de merteuil.