Okay, fair warning, this is a rambling nerd speak entry. Yes, it’s late or early depending on your location and sense of time. My insomnia is allowing me about two or three hours of sleep before anxiety jolts me out of bed. So, here I am…yea (whimper).
I figure I’d be productive and jot down what little clarity of logic I have in this state of delirium: and the fact is that my thesis is bogged down with too many theories. I’ve thrown out about 3 of the 6 that I was toying with (told you it was a lot). I may still need to pare it down to just two for parsimony which means that I have to revise my theory linkage and usage of concepts. Since I’m examining media coverage of an issue, framing was one of my main theories but I can use “framing” as a verb or as a narrative technique instead of a driving theory. That might work, but it probably won’t change my methods. I’m still proposing a triangulation using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods which I know that at least one of my committee members may not like especially when I’m thinking about it being a three part process instead of the two I had originally stated.
Oh, they’ll just love that change! Sarcasms aside, it seems that new theories and research are relying more and more on combining qualitative and quantitative methods. This is good as I’ve always thought that this “purism in methods feud” in academia is a bit silly at times.
However, I’m a bit conflicted about some of the new literary theories (Next Big Thing in English) that are being developed and the meddling of science and literature. First, I think that these are interesting and novel approaches to examining the importance of literature in our lives. It makes sense that we would process text differently is an MRI map proving anything concrete or meaningful about imagination – or maybe that’s the academic point, using objective data to support the obvious? D’oh. I blame my lack of sleep.
Anyway, the obvious aside, this quote is interesting: “Getting to the root of people’s fascination with fiction and fantasy, Mr. Gottschall said, is like ‘mapping wonderland.’” I’m not so sure if I want a map.
But Zunshine’s research on a reader’s different mental states is intriguing: “If I have some ideological agenda,” she said, “I would try to construct a narrative that involved a triangularization of minds, because that is something we find particularly satisfying.”
My convoluted writing is usually by accident and as a result of my lack of communication skills (or sleep in this case). So, I may need a map of to be purposely convoluted to hide my ideological agenda.
These theories are just building on existing literary theories they say, but how is research on these levels of mental states different from semiotic research and theory? Is it that pure semiotic research is looking at the text as data and the author’s intent (message and sender) while this one is focused on (how the receiver processes the text)? The researchers are using Jane Austin’s work as an example, and it’s throwing me off since I’ve only read one of her novels. However, I think I get the fundamental difference.
It’s all very interesting, but they’re all about the development of meaning through communication which is always dependent on the individual. Each one of us, as authors and readers, project something of ourselves into what we read and create, and that personal history, knowledge and experience will influence how we interpret the work and how it impacts us. I think that is what makes writing magical, and I’m not so keen to the idea of my imagination and private world being broken into parts to be explained and mapped out.
Then again, that’s what I do with my story lines and character developments. Sigh, okay this conflicted hypocrite is going to bed now. I’ll be up in about another three hours if I’m lucky.