h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Hero on the Beach - A938469
Author: anhaga - U215480

Any thoughts? Anyone? Anyone at all?

no, really. Any thoughts from anyone at all?

I thought it was a very good entry!

The main suggestion I have is quite minor -- to split up the main body of text in the middle of the article into separate paragraphs to make it an easier read.

RhoMuNuQ

there you go

anhaga

It's a great entry! On rereading it, I still don't have any other suggestions ... well done!

RhoMuNuQ

The article closes with the line -
"After the publication of "The Critic on the Beach", published discussions of the "theme" seem to have virtually ended."

I can see why. I feel this article to be circular - first building a proposition, then knocking it down.

However, I can't see anything wrong with the article, and its clearly and legibly written. Its not up to me to judge upon its suitability for the guide.

actually, the entry is meant to describe a process which occurred within critical discussions of oral-formulaic theory applied to Anglo-Saxon poetry. The process is actually an example of the scientific method at work: an hypotheses was advanced, it was tested repeatedly, and finally it was found wanting and seems to have been discarded. Perhaps I should make this clearer in the entry.

anhaga

and perhaps I have made it more clear

Like I said I don't see anything wrong with the article per se, I suppose I resent the application of the scientific method to literature. Too often this seems to develop a theme that the author never intended - especially if applied to inferior or derivative authors.

Don't mind me.

McKay the Disorganised:

Well, it is to the application of the scientific method to literature that generations of literary critics have spent their time applying themselves. The application of the scientific method to literature is what allows us to read and understand Anglo-Saxon poetry today. While some bits of Anglo-Saxon poetry may be "inferior or derivative", there are certainly pieces -- The Wanderer comes immediately to mind -- which can stand happily beside any work of literature, and also stand up to the application of the scientific method without diminishment.

But maybe that's not what you intended.

Yet still, to "resent the application of the scientific method to literature" seems rather strange to me. Isn't that what we do every time we read? We take in the author's words (the evidence), we construct our own understanding of what the author is getting at (the hypotheses), combining our experience of the unfolding work with our own experience, discarding our early impressions and expectations if they are inconsistent with what comes next, and finally judging our enjoyment of the work by what coherence we find at the end of the day in what we bring to the work and what the work brings to us (experiment and analyses). That's a very long sentence. I read too much of Rome. But when I'm reading too much of Rome, I am using the scientific method or I'm not understanding.

Anyway, that's what I do.

anhaga

Yes, that is the way I read a scientific paper, or legal arguement, but not the way I read literature. You really don't want to know my opinion on literary critics.

I would suggest that when reading fiction - as against discussion or theoretical works - we develop hypotheses of our own upon the direction the plot is going to develop, how successful we are in this affects our judgement of the quality of the work. For example I don't like Agatha Christie novels because I find her mis-direction obvious which means I have established the murderer too early in the novel to gain any pleasure from the book. (Exception 10 little Indians - I got it right but she fooled me at the red herring bit.) This could be taken as rewording of what you have written, but I think the difference lies in the development of expectations. In literature it is possible to exceed the expectations of the audience, I am an admirer of the form and beauty of the English Language, and the way that words can stir passions within us. Shakespeare plays our emotions through the way he develops our expectations of characters and our hopes and desires for them, but the beauty of (say) HenryV's soliloquy before Agincore is the way it manipulates our hidden emotions rather than our higher level thought processes.

The Saga is obviously limited to the heroic formula and thus when comparing like to like one can develop a seeming pattern within the works. Once we move beyond Beowulf I do not have much experience of Anglo Saxon writing, though the plays I have experienced seem to indicate a very basic sense of humour, focussing mainly on bodily functions.

Rome ?

The Anglo-Saxons (Old English) didn't write any plays. Or sagas. I think we may be in different ball parks here.
I, as I think you might, have a great deal of difficulty with "literary theory", which is the idea that all literature should be understood through a single particular "theory", whether it be Marxism, Feminism, Freudianism, Solipsism, etc. I, however, do not have an issue with "literary criticism" which is the attempt to come to some sort of communicable understanding of a work of literature through whatever means are available and appropriate: in the case of Anglo-Saxon works, "Oral-Formulaic Theory", is, my entry notwithstanding, an appropriate means; in the case of certain 20th century works of fiction, any or all of Marxism, Feminism, and Freudianism may be appropriate. Where Literary Theorists might argue that a particular "-ism" is applicable to all literature everywhere, I would respond "poppycock." Just as I would if someone proposed that Oral-Formulaic Theory is applicable to the novels of Danielle Steele. The difference between a "Literary Theorist" and a "Literary Critic", to my mind, is that a "Literary Theorist" says something to the effect of "my theory explains everything now shut up," and a "Literary Critic" says "my theory might explain this bit here, why don't you have a look?" Maybe Literary Critics should be called "Purveyors of Constructive Literary Criticism."
I still stand by my argument that Literary Criticism is scientific and that we all are literary critics any time we read. We may not like the idea because we feel that "scientists are sometimes incomprehensible" (A944444) and we don't want to be incomprehensible, but, come on, we all use the scientific method every day: "trial and error", "try, try again", "ours is but to do or die," "once more into the breach," "Damn the torpedoes" -- oh, I've gotten carried away and I "sound like I'm talking gibberish".

anhaga

and I here as well, lonely, waiting for comment.

anhaga

Hi Anhaga,

What do you think about golf? ;à

but seriously,

I just had a quick look at your entry here, and it looks very good, but i have one immediate comment:

I got as far as the 3rd or 4th paragraph, and was still unsure as to what the entry was all about!

I'd suggest you make clear in that intro para what this 'Hero on the beach' business is all about. That would help readers, i think. Of course, it's possible i'm the only one thinking that the 'Hero on the beach' theme needs introduction...

spiff

Hi Anhaga! This is an interesting entry, but you lost me at the word oral-formulaic. I suggest you rewrite the start of this so that it uses more normal English rather than the technical jargon which is used by students of ancient poetry. That way, everybody will be able to understand it.

I think what you are talking about here is the sort of theme that you get in fairy tales: "The third billy-goat went trip-trap over the bridge", "The king had three sons", "there once were three pigs". We're all familiar with that sort of thing. You are saying that someone thought that the hero on the beach was another such convention of European story telling, but was later proved wrong. Am I right?

Gnomon:

Technical, yes; jargon, no. At least, that's my opinion. Jargon, to my mind, is intended to obfuscate. Technical terminology is intended to provide precision of communication. But I have tried, in the new bit at the beginning, to make things clearer to non-technicians. As well, I've added a few new links and one more major reference in the Bibliography.
I agree that the subject is somewhat technical, but a large number of undergraduate students take Old English literature and all of those will hear mention of Oral-Formulaic theory and a good many will hear about the Hero on the Beach, which is, I believe, the most written about theme there is. Where will they turn for dependable information if not the Edited Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

Thanks for your input.

anhaga

I don't agree with your interpretation of the word jargon. To me jargon is just technical language intended to communication between two people who are both "in the know". There's nothing derogatory about the term. But that's nothing to do with this entry.

okay, we're communicating!

anhaga

Did I mention that a put an explanation of "oral-formulaic poetry" at the beginning of this entry? I hope it makes things more clear.

Hi anhaga, nice entry. We haven't spoken in quite a while, I've been busy avoiding you