Reply to comment

In this past week’s discussion Professor Grobstein mentioned how Darwin’s story of Evolution was questioned at the time of publication because it conflicted with another accepted story of the time.  This got me thinking of the nature of stories in general and how one is most remembered or kept alive throughout the years.  Are not the most successful stories the most controversial? Furthermore, this controversy plays into how much a story is idealized.  It seems that the ideas that are in opposition to others and those that consistently initiate a new critique are the ones that are considered the most “special”. The other point that I thought was interesting was the idea on how a certain discipline tends to idealize specific stories.  Science, for certain, idealizes Darwin and his theology. Can the English discipline do just the same? I guess here in exists one of the distinctions and troubles I am beginning to see between these two subjects.  What Science idealizes and is most selective about is not the same as that which a literature critique is concerned with.  Both disciplines share the notion that the importance of a story is measured in its ability to be useful in describing other portions of that subject. However, what is considered useful within these stories is different between science and literature; science tends to promote the analytical while literature seems to promote the theoretical.  Does a notion of tangible proof come into play here with what is idealized and what is not?...I’m not really sure. I’m wondering if there is a systematic narrative to those stories we idealize.  Being a Type A personality, during class I imagine making a list of distinctions between Science and Literature.  I’m slowly trying to figure out if the distinction is as divided and “list-like” as I originally thought.