I've noticed that, too. There does seem to be a conviction that art serves no purpose except entertainment, and entertainment serves no purpose except making money.
The problem, I guess, is that art's other purpose -- acting as a mirror to see ourselves -- has been snatched away by the social sciences. I suppose that wouldn't be a problem if the the social sciences were remotely competent at this, but of course they aren't.
The social sciences are too narrow. Any decent novelist has to take in the world -- if they can't enter the personal universes of the richest and the poorest, of men and women, of members of any race, or of societies of long ago -- and do that convincingly -- their work will usually fail unless it's got some other function or asset to help it along.
A social scientist is under no such burden. An economist can reduce human beings to buying machines who sell labour, and never have to consider the larger implications of money and power relationships, the way one's profession and financial independence ties into their sense of self-worth, or any of the the other human factors of money. A sociologist can reduce human beings to a handful of measurable traits, because it's easier that way.
And while the novelist has to prove they understand human beings, the social scientist's degree stands in place of that proof. This is why no matter how many mistakes they make, they never seem to apologize.
I understand life better, I think, because I apply more scepticism to social scientists than to novelists. No novelist is perfect, of course, but if you read widely, they tend to fill up the defeciencies in one another.
This seems absurd, because writing is fiction and there are no qualifications for the job. But much of human existence is absurd, and the vast legions of political scientists and other experts surrounding people like Bush did nothing to avert a stupid and hopeless war -- indeed they promoted and encouraged it, and I bet they won't apologize now that it's failed.
I have yet to meet a member of the "reality-based community" who wasn't an avid reader of either novels or histories. It seems to go with the territory.
Sorry for the long rant. I'm just frustrated that I live in a world of narrow visions.
no subject
The problem, I guess, is that art's other purpose -- acting as a mirror to see ourselves -- has been snatched away by the social sciences. I suppose that wouldn't be a problem if the the social sciences were remotely competent at this, but of course they aren't.
The social sciences are too narrow. Any decent novelist has to take in the world -- if they can't enter the personal universes of the richest and the poorest, of men and women, of members of any race, or of societies of long ago -- and do that convincingly -- their work will usually fail unless it's got some other function or asset to help it along.
A social scientist is under no such burden. An economist can reduce human beings to buying machines who sell labour, and never have to consider the larger implications of money and power relationships, the way one's profession and financial independence ties into their sense of self-worth, or any of the the other human factors of money. A sociologist can reduce human beings to a handful of measurable traits, because it's easier that way.
And while the novelist has to prove they understand human beings, the social scientist's degree stands in place of that proof. This is why no matter how many mistakes they make, they never seem to apologize.
I understand life better, I think, because I apply more scepticism to social scientists than to novelists. No novelist is perfect, of course, but if you read widely, they tend to fill up the defeciencies in one another.
This seems absurd, because writing is fiction and there are no qualifications for the job. But much of human existence is absurd, and the vast legions of political scientists and other experts surrounding people like Bush did nothing to avert a stupid and hopeless war -- indeed they promoted and encouraged it, and I bet they won't apologize now that it's failed.
I have yet to meet a member of the "reality-based community" who wasn't an avid reader of either novels or histories. It seems to go with the territory.
Sorry for the long rant. I'm just frustrated that I live in a world of narrow visions.