Hypothesis, Observations, Confusion: The Science of Reading Literature

My I-search was not unlike some English papers I've written for other classes–although maybe a little less coherent and a fair bit more me-focused. My writing process has developed into something quite routine, though still painful, over my university career. First, I look through books, jotting down observations on a scrap piece of paper until parallels and contrasts begin to surface. After this, I wrack my brain until a conclusion is produced to explain those observations. Sometimes I'm amazed at my ability to make bricks without straw, so long as the whip is at my back. More usually, I have to confess that my summative theses are at least a little bit contrived, somewhat like the confessions of a tortured criminal.

I was surprised by you, my classmates, to find that many of your presentations focused much more on observations than conclusions. After some thought, I supposed that this was not so bad. After all, meta-narratives and explanations are rarely (if ever) so true as what is observed itself. At the same time, explanations, though they are generally misleading, are always more illuminating.

Since I'm currently feeling disillusioned with conclusions, I won't make one here. However, I will say that it is a useful exercise to learn to catalogue our observations in their own right–to wait and not feel the need to understand right away. I think this goes back to "learning to embrace confusion" and approaching the truth with humility, allowing texts and ideas to be present on their own terms and to assert their own value. Of course, we will always be drawing conclusions and assigning value according to some form of authority, but at least we can be patient with that process and take some time to smell the roses (or the dung, as it may be).

Jackson Pollock - Convergence

"No one looks at a flower garden and tears their hair out trying to figure out what it means."

-Jackson Pollock