Reply to comment

The "loopy" definition of science that began our first class was one that I had never heard before coming to Bryn Mawr, but that my Intro Bio lab teacher introduced to us last term and that I thought was fascinating then. It was a revelation to a "purely" science class then, but I think it is even more interesting when evaluating the scientific process and literary process side by side. I definitely think that there are important distinctions between a scientist and literary critic, and between what a critic does and what an author does, but I have no idea how to clearly express what they are. I hope we can return to the topic in person.

When I was trying, in class, to define the difference between a creative author and a critic, what I realized instead was that they have more similarities that I'd thought. A critic bases his or her words on another work-- but aren't most authors as well hugely influenced by what they've read, and their reactions to it? The link between a new creative work and old writings  isn't quite as obvious, but I think  it's just as important. In this way, both the author and the critic are similar to scientists. They all base new writing/ experimentation upon an older tradition, whether the end result is confirming it or rebelling against it.

Professor Grobstein said that the most important observations are the ones which disprove old theories. Often the most important/ famous new books are ones which break with old styles, or transform them. But also, it takes some time for a new scientific theory to become accepted, and for any book to be considered a "classic," part of the essential knowledge. So the more I look at the two processes, the more related they seem.