[QUOTE=Laputa;41577445]Except Darwin had nothing to do with medicine[/QUOTE]
No, but that wasn't the question posed to me. He asked why I felt science was more important than fictional literature. Darwin's impact was huge in biology, that's why I regard him as more important than someone who had a huge impact in a less important field
[QUOTE=FPChris;41577558]Because most schools in the world teach English in their English-classes instead of History.[/QUOTE]
um in british schools a significant part of your compulsory english study is studying literature
[QUOTE=Trumple;41577590]No, but that wasn't the question posed to me. He asked why I felt science was more important than fictional literature. Darwin's impact was huge in biology, that's why I regard him as more important than someone who had a huge impact in a less important field[/QUOTE]
define "less important"
seriously, even in American schools, unless you're in the bottom dregs of regular classes that teach to standardized tests, you know who jane austen is and you know of her importance in literary history and at least 1 or 2 of the books she wrote.
[QUOTE=Trumple;41577590]No, but that wasn't the question posed to me. He asked why I felt science was more important than fictional literature. Darwin's impact was huge in biology, that's why I regard him as more important than someone who had a huge impact in [B]a less important field[/B][/QUOTE]
Do you mean 'a field I prefer'?
[QUOTE=zeldar;41577584]I just checked Wiki and what Isak said is literally on the third paragraph of the page....[/QUOTE]
What, this?
[quote=Wiki]Her plots, though fundamentally comic,[5] highlight the dependence of women on marriage to secure social standing and economic security.[/quote]
That's nice, but I'm not sure that it constitutes her being considered a particularly influential novelist. It seems kind of run-of-the-mill for authors to point at a problem.
Though I'm sure my perception is skewed by the fact that shit authors aren't remembered.
It doesn't tell me if she was unique in her sentiment, if it was taken aboard or anything for that matter. It merely says: "She wrote about this" and expects me to magic up some knowledge of her importance.
thing is I didn't study jane austen at school, each school studies different authors and since I went to an all boys school for my secondary education I don't think that austen would have been very palatable for the majority of people but for fuck's sake - they make tv adaptations and films of her books all the time, I'm just amazed that people who've lived here have managed to be completely oblivious to a fairly major figure in our culture
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;41577625]What, this?
That's nice, but I'm not sure that it constitutes her being considered a particularly influential novelist. It seems kind of run-of-the-mill for authors to point at a problem.
Though I'm sure my perception is skewed by the fact that shit authors aren't remembered.
It doesn't tell me if she was unique in her sentiment, if it was taken aboard or anything for that matter. It merely says: "She wrote about this" and expects me to magic up some knowledge of her importance.[/QUOTE]
oh my fucking god are you literally blind
"Austen's works critique the novels of sensibility of the second half of the 18th century and are part of the transition to 19th-century realism."
genuinely the first sentence of the third paragraph. none of the books you read would be remotely possible to sympathize with if the realist movement had not happened. you would be reading books about really rich people having parties and talking about gossip and drama. teenage novels would not exist. realism is one of the single largest literary movements in history and it brought a fall to romanticism which was (in my opinion) horribly stale bullshit about rich people being rich and doing rich stuff that common folk cannot possibly relate to
[img]http://www.redcarpetcrash.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Alan.jpg[/img]
I want this man on a note - can someone photoshop me my dreams?
[QUOTE=Trumple;41577590]No, but that wasn't the question posed to me. He asked why I felt science was more important than fictional literature. Darwin's impact was huge in biology, that's why I regard him as more important than someone who had a huge impact in a less important field[/QUOTE]
nice job responding to someone challenging your assumption by making a counterargument that relies on the same assumption; pr0 mlg skillz right here
[QUOTE=Trumple;41577590]No, but that wasn't the question posed to me. He asked why I felt science was more important than fictional literature. Darwin's impact was huge in biology, that's why I regard him as more important than someone who had a huge impact in a less important field[/QUOTE]
You can't compare them, they're totally different things, with different impact
He's going to be replaced regardless sooner or later anyway, all of them are, and then in years time Austin and Churchill will be replaced by someone else
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;41577625]What, this?
That's nice, but I'm not sure that it constitutes her being considered a particularly influential novelist. It seems kind of run-of-the-mill for authors to point at a problem.
Though I'm sure my perception is skewed by the fact that shit authors aren't remembered.
It doesn't tell me if she was unique in her sentiment, if it was taken aboard or anything for that matter. It merely says: "She wrote about this" and expects me to magic up some knowledge of her importance.[/QUOTE]
uhhhh why are you only grabbing that part of the paragraph
[quote]Austen's works critique the novels of sensibility of the second half of the 18th century and are part of the transition to 19th-century realism.[4][C] Her plots, though fundamentally comic,[5] highlight the dependence of women on marriage to secure social standing and economic security.[6] Her work brought her little personal fame and only a few positive reviews during her lifetime, but the publication in 1869 of her nephew's A Memoir of Jane Austen introduced her to a wider public, and by the 1940s she had become widely accepted in academia as a great English writer.[/quote]
[QUOTE=.Isak.;41577666]oh my fucking god are you literally blind
"Austen's works critique the novels of sensibility of the second half of the 18th century and are part of the transition to 19th-century realism."
genuinely the first sentence of the third paragraph[/QUOTE]
But that doesn't tell me anything about her importance, it merely tells me what happened and expects me to think "wow, I bet that had some wide reaching implications!"
I need to see how people influenced the world in order to call them influential.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;41577696]But that doesn't tell me anything about her importance, it merely tells me what happened and expects me to think "wow, I bet that had some wide reaching implications!"
I need to see how people influenced the world in order to call them influential.[/QUOTE]
i literally just explained it to you
she was a major influence in the literary realism movement in britain
literary realism is what makes books have characters that you can actually sympathize with and relate to
without the realism movement, storytelling would be almost unrelatable unless you were insanely wealthy
like literally any story you've read since the 1900s is realism, austen aided the ending of the romanticist trend
[QUOTE=.Isak.;41577539]not even excerpts?
i may be placing my standards too high, the average kid at my school probably wouldn't know who shakespeare was beyond "romeo and juliet is a love story," but in upper-level AP/IB/Honors classes, people generally would know who jane austen is and what she wrote.[/QUOTE]
I went through the whole of high school and didn't read anything by her.
I read Shakespeare, Dickens, Phillip Larkin, watched a few terrible French movies, Ernest Hemingway, a book about an autistic kid, Arthur Miller, etc.
Stop setting your bar too high, at least 60 people at my school didn't read or analyse Jane Austens work through their entire school years.
[QUOTE]The pressure was increased on the new governor through protests, an online petition - signed by 35,000 people, and a threat of legal action.[/QUOTE]
They were actually going to take legal action over something as trivial as getting a woman on a bank note? Wow.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;41577728]i literally just explained it to you
she was a major influence in the literary realism movement in britain
literary realism is what makes books have characters that you can actually sympathize with and relate to
without the realism movement, storytelling would be almost unrelatable unless you were insanely wealthy
like literally any story you've read since the 1900s is realism, austen aided the ending of the romanticist trend[/QUOTE]
I'm going to bow to your evidently superior knowledge on this, but I will point out that I have a very hard time believing that relatable characters came about through a movement, rather than good writing.
I would argue that before the 20th century, books were written for the upper classes and therefore were relatable to those upper classes. With the turn of the century, literature became a more common hobby and therefore storytelling adjusted for the audience.
But you know, I don't study this stuff.
[editline]24th July 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41577738]I went through the whole of high school and didn't read anything by her.
I read Shakespeare, Dickens, Phillip Larkin, watched a few terrible French movies, Ernest Hemingway, [B]a book about an autistic kid[/B], Arthur Miller, etc.
Stop setting your bar too high, at least 60 people at my school didn't read or analyse Jane Austens work through their entire school years.[/QUOTE]
The curious incident of the dog in the night time. You shame yourself by not recalling its name.
[QUOTE=kimchimafia;41577624]Do you mean 'a field I prefer'?[/QUOTE]
I find it ironic we wouldn't be having this discussion if it wasn't for science
I also prefer being alive thanks to science. Do you?
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41577738]I went through the whole of high school and didn't read anything by her.
I read Shakespeare, Dickens, Phillip Larkin, watched a few terrible French movies, Ernest Hemingway, a book about an autistic kid, Arthur Miller, etc.
Stop setting your bar too high, at least 60 people at my school didn't read or analyse Jane Austens work through their entire school years.[/QUOTE]
I think it's just a simple mistake rather than having a bar set too high because different schools teach different things. My school for example, did Shakespeare, Jane Austen, P.D. James, Tom Stoppard, Michael Crichton, Bran Stoker and Mary Shelley but no Hemingway, Dickens, Larkin, Arthur Miller or a book about an autistic kid.
[QUOTE=Trumple;41577800]I find it ironic we wouldn't be having this discussion if it wasn't for science
I also prefer being alive thanks to science. Do you?[/QUOTE]
Science is important yes and so far, being alive is good but culture and literature have their place too. Just because literature can't do what science does not mean the importance of literature and culture must be ignored and/or irrelevant.
[QUOTE=Trumple;41577800]I find it ironic we wouldn't be having this discussion if it wasn't for science
I also prefer being alive thanks to science. Do you?[/QUOTE]
yes science is literally the only thing that matters
we should put richard dawkins on all the notes
[QUOTE=Stockers678;41577667][img]http://www.redcarpetcrash.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Alan.jpg[/img]
I want this man on a note - can someone photoshop me my dreams?[/QUOTE]
I tried.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/xw96QzU.png[/IMG]
Why not just have both designs.
[QUOTE=Scot;41577747]They were actually going to take legal action over something as trivial as getting a woman on a bank note? Wow.[/QUOTE]
Its funny because it kinda proves a point why she needs to be on there lmao
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;41577790]I'm going to bow to your evidently superior knowledge on this, but I will point out that I have a very hard time believing that relatable characters came about through a movement, rather than good writing.
I would argue that before the 20th century, books were written for the upper classes and therefore were relatable to those upper classes. With the turn of the century, literature became a more common hobby and therefore storytelling adjusted for the audience.
But you know, I don't study this stuff.
[editline]24th July 2013[/editline]
The curious incident of the dog in the night time. You shame yourself by not recalling its name.[/QUOTE]
I'd reckon that the fact people still know her name almost 250 years after her birth is more than enough of a testament to her greatness.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/ohz3bbx.png[/img]
Darwin has been on the notes for 15 years and they change them from time to time, wtf is going on here
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;41577790]I'm going to bow to your evidently superior knowledge on this, but I will point out that I have a very hard time believing that relatable characters came about through a movement, rather than good writing.
I would argue that before the 20th century, books were written for the upper classes and therefore were relatable to those upper classes. With the turn of the century, literature became a more common hobby and therefore storytelling adjusted for the audience.
But you know, I don't study this stuff.
[editline]24th July 2013[/editline]
The curious incident of the dog in the night time. You shame yourself by not recalling its name.[/QUOTE]
well, yes, it didn't come through a moment, I'm not saying Austen was the -only- author to suddenly incite a whole artistic movement. Saying "oh it was just the turn of the century" demonstrates a really shitty understanding of how artistic renaissances work. yes, reading became a more common hobby. some common folk became authors. they started writing more realistic stuff. it goes from crappy stuff to good stuff to a full-on renaissance. the authors who influenced the renaissance are influential.
relatable characters were not a staple of good writing prior to the literary realism movement. in fact, it was pretty much the opposite. french romanticism exaggerated fucking -everything- to the point of near absurdity. in theatre, vocal tonality and physical movements were super exaggerated, with women wearing corsets and having to wave their arms dramatically in the air at every movement, the characters were all based on like 3 different archetypes and had little to no actual development, instead acting as a vessel for a humorous little rich person story to be told through.
your idea of "relatable characters" being "good writing" is because of the efforts of authors like jane austen. it's now so ingrained into our society that nobody thinks twice that in the 1840s that was not a commonly-held view on literature whatsoever.
basically you oversimplified something, chopped out the people who made it happened, and made huge over-reaching judgments on influential artists because they've already influenced you and you don't even recognize how their influence changed the world.
yes, they influenced the world and over a century of art and changed literary norms to the point of you thinking "oh, that thing these authors changed? well, that's normal, they didn't change anything, it was just supply and demand haha!"
now i have stuff to do so bye
[QUOTE=smurfy;41577912]Darwin has been on the notes for 15 years and they change them from time to time, wtf is going on here[/QUOTE]
[I]why give equal representation to other important english figures when we can just keep the same handful of people forever??[/I]
[QUOTE=smurfy;41577912]Darwin has been on the notes for 15 years and they change them from time to time, wtf is going on here[/QUOTE]
a debate that by facepunch standards is actually fairly reasoned
i give it until about page 7 before people are literally shitting in their hands and throwing it at people though
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;41577927]why give equal representation to other important english figures when we can just keep the same handful of people forever??[/QUOTE]
I think he was talking about the responses in this thread and not the notes being changed
[QUOTE=smurfy;41577912]Darwin has been on the notes for 15 years and they change them from time to time, wtf is going on here[/QUOTE]
women
literally the only reason
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
