What struck me as odd was that these footnotes were there (even in small numbers) when really the narrative works, I assume, fine without them. If the scientific, or pseudo-scientific footnotes are ancillary to the narrative, then you have to ask what is their purpose.
Then, I began thinking, conversely, about how narrative has, in what we have read, helped the presentation of scientific information reach a wider audience, but also add depth to the whole account. Could then, ancillary science in a narrative add intellectual credibility to the text? In other words, could the footnotes in your narrative be there to help validate the narrative? I don't know, but it was really interesting to think about.
Jerry: Out of all of us in class, it seems most appropriate for you to pick up an almost random book, think it was boring and then somehow discover the possibility of a massive scandal and conspiracy. I think your presentation will now make all of our presentations pale in "coolness."
However, aside from being really fascinating, I thought your presentation highlighted something that we should have maybe thought about more throughout the whole semester. And that is the idea that the narratives we read, even if presenting scientific information, should still be looked at with some degree of speculation. I know we have hammered home the idea that the narrative is not objective, but your presentation took it further: not only was the travel text not objective, but the whole expedition may have been shrouded with political and ideological motivation. If the claim is true, which you present a good case for it, then what does that say about science narratives or more broadly, scientific exploration? If a regime knew that under the name of scientific exploration they could hide their true motivations, then does that mean that, to some degree, scientific travel was seen as a pure and noble activity? And if so, what is lost when something is viewed that way? I know I am reading into it a bit, but something to maybe consider.
More to follow...
1 comment:
Tim,
As I read your comments on Jerry's presentation where you suggested that it highlighted something that we should have thought more about this semester . . . I was anticipating after your introductory comments on the random selection of the book that you would say that we should have thought more about randomness in travel narratives. You didn't . . . so let me raise randomness as one of the influences of travel narratives. They seem to me stories shaped especially by the unexpected--the somewhat random--and yet authors take much of the randomness out of our travel notes as they shape narratives. Interestingly, part of Jerry's criticism of the book he discussed was that it was largely unshaped and simply told of one random event after another.
Post a Comment