Got Science?
After discussing Mitchell’s rest cure briefly in class on Wednesday, I became really interested and did some research on this process. After reading some of the text in which he describes the rest cure, it seems like much of what occurs is very random and unscientific. Statements like, “Usually, after a fortnight I permit the patient to be read to,-one to three hours a day” (Mitchell, Fat and Blood), seem entirely arbitrary and lack any scientific backing. This ‘”experimental” technique, in fact, has very little, if any, connection to any actual science. This got me thinking about the role of science in the experiments we’ve read about in literature thus far.
From Frankenstein to “Was He Dead?” to “The Birthmark,” a great deal of literature, as we are focusing on it in class, deals with the scientific experiment. But are these experiments exactly scientific? Our first reading, “The Birthmark” discusses Aylmer’s mystical potions and his long periods of study, but in fact, no science is ever discussed. In the end, the surgery is vaguely described, and only so to explain the outcome. In Frankenstein, much of the creation of the monster is left unexplained, including how the corpses are put together, what makes the creature so hideous, and mainly, what the “spark of life” is that he discovers. Most recently in “Was He Dead?” there is no science discussed when bringing a dead (or was he dead?) body back to life. Not even the scientific theory hinted at in the title is clearly explained. Yes, there are instances were some science is discussed, but never to the extent of theories that these devoted science researched.
A likely reason for this lack of science is this stories based on “scientific” experiments may be that the writers are “writers.” They spent their lives writing stories, not researching scientific theories. But then, why would such authors, who would have little knowledge of science, write these intricate stories about a subject they know so little about?
In class and in this blog, we’ve noted a common theme of literature from this period as expressing a fear of new science and resentment for its new methods. Thus, could the lack of actual science in these stories represent the authors’ views? Is it possible that these authors thought that contemporary science lacked backing as was just as mystical to them as these stories seem to us In stories were scientists bring butterflies to life or give girls plantlike poison authors may be trying to convey the foreign-ness of science as something almost magical and unhumanlike. Any thoughts or examples?
From Frankenstein to “Was He Dead?” to “The Birthmark,” a great deal of literature, as we are focusing on it in class, deals with the scientific experiment. But are these experiments exactly scientific? Our first reading, “The Birthmark” discusses Aylmer’s mystical potions and his long periods of study, but in fact, no science is ever discussed. In the end, the surgery is vaguely described, and only so to explain the outcome. In Frankenstein, much of the creation of the monster is left unexplained, including how the corpses are put together, what makes the creature so hideous, and mainly, what the “spark of life” is that he discovers. Most recently in “Was He Dead?” there is no science discussed when bringing a dead (or was he dead?) body back to life. Not even the scientific theory hinted at in the title is clearly explained. Yes, there are instances were some science is discussed, but never to the extent of theories that these devoted science researched.
A likely reason for this lack of science is this stories based on “scientific” experiments may be that the writers are “writers.” They spent their lives writing stories, not researching scientific theories. But then, why would such authors, who would have little knowledge of science, write these intricate stories about a subject they know so little about?
In class and in this blog, we’ve noted a common theme of literature from this period as expressing a fear of new science and resentment for its new methods. Thus, could the lack of actual science in these stories represent the authors’ views? Is it possible that these authors thought that contemporary science lacked backing as was just as mystical to them as these stories seem to us In stories were scientists bring butterflies to life or give girls plantlike poison authors may be trying to convey the foreign-ness of science as something almost magical and unhumanlike. Any thoughts or examples?
posted by Anonymous at 4:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home