Page Forum

 What's working? Well, we all seem to be able to work cooperatively, especially online. I like how our class is able to feed off of each other's ideas on the course forum. Actually, I'd say that what works most in this course is its heavy use of an online community. By posting online, whether it be the webpapers or a weekly posting, I have found that my attitude toward writing has shifted. No longer do I write for a professor - I'm writing for something more global. My writing is about conversation, about involving as many people as I can in a dialogue. And even more exciting, that dialogue has a chance to cross from the virtual world into reality as my classmates respond to what I've posted.

Biology in Society Senior Seminar

Bryn Mawr College, Fall 2010

Session 6

Use of Human Subjects

Our coursework so far has given us a smattering of samples across the nonfiction genre. We've dissected graphic memoirs, criticized criticisms of copyright law, tried to define the nature of reality in a genre that is (let's face it) not exactly real. In light of this, I think it would be interesting to look at reality from a scientific and psychological perspective. If something is a work of creative nonfiction but focuses on scientific "facts," what does that work become (faction? fiction?)? Or if a work focuses on a specific case or example - an isolated incidence - , can it be a "factual" representation of an illness or phenomena as a whole?

 The title of Rebecca Sonlit's book, A Field Guide to Getting Lost,  indicates that in some way, Sonlit is going to try to map the unknown. In a sense, this is what she does - she presents unorganized, conversational prose intended to inform the reader of what, exactly, is the most effective and fulfilling way to get lost, and what one can expect to find if he does take her advice. But I'm wondering if her literary undertaking is effective - can one really map the unknown? or is she simply suggesting ways in which venturing into the unknown might be useful? It seems like the latter of these two is more likely, and that in respect to suggesting why getting lost is useful, Sonlit comes up short.

Normal 0 0 1 16 96 1 1 117 11.1282

 On Tuesday, we discussed that Alison Bechdel's Fun Home is brimming with literary reference. Bechdel incorporates everything from Joyce to Salinger to Greek mythology in an effort to tell her "own" true story. And many of her allusions are not cited, as she has determined that they are part of culture's collective, general knowledge. I find this an ironic juxtaposition to Reality Hunger, which argues that everything is collective knowledge, yet still cites (albeit begrudgingly) all of its references (we think). In light of this, perhaps Bechdel's work is making a larger point about collective knowledge than Shields' work is, despite that the core intention of Shields' work is to destroy the ownership of ideas. But maybe I'm wrong.

 Course record: 9/7/10

  Shields' 'work' is clearly designed to make its point not only through what it says, but how it says it. However, I do question if whether Shields went overboard in his experiment, going so far as to make his book unpalatable. His conceit lies in his rejection of traditional form with the 'cut and paste' method he used to assembling his work. He even goes so far as to suggest that we, his readers, remove those citations at the end of the novel that his lawyers insisted he include. But isn't this overkill? I would have preferred him to preserve his form and not hit us over the head with what he was trying to say. If his argument is valid, won't his form speak for itself?