3 ms·

Can you try to summarize how you see the thesis, then? It may actually be helpful to others if you do; if you believe that the article states a different thesis

by akavel 8y ago

Can you try to summarize how you see the thesis, then? It may actually be helpful to others if you do; if you believe that the article states a different thesis than the title, then it may be too subtle a difference for some readers to find; specifically, I personally am one such case — I'd be very interested in learning if there's something I missed!

goto11 8y ago
I'm not the one you are replying to, but my 50 cent: It seems many replies think the article is claiming that ancient literature does contain emotions. This is not what the article is saying. It is saying that medieval authors represented characters’ mental states mainly through their direct speech and gestures, which were used to convey intense emotions in a stereotypical way—lots of hand-wringing and tearing of hair, but few subtle gestures such as raised eyebrows or faint smiles flickering over lips. So examples from poetry, classical drama, Ecclesiastes etc. does not disprove this. Those are all examples of direct speech. And the gestures of Achilles are not exactly subtle. (And in any case Greek antiquity is not medieval.) The article is concerned about how mental states are described in fiction. The sagas does not say "Eric felt conflicting emotions about this but kept silent". They describe what he said and did, and you have to figure out the mental state yourself unless he outright says (or sings) what he is feeling. In contrast modern literature may have an all-knowing narrator which tells you the emotions and thoughts of the characters, or you may have internal monologue or stream-of-consciousnesses which give you a direct view into the mind of the characters. A question then is why pre-modern literature use direct speech to convey emotion while modern use mentalizing? A possible explanation is that pre-modern literature was read or acted out in public, while modern literature is read silently in private. The article further propose that reading literary fiction may in itself improve your mentalizing skills, i.e. your ability to imagine what other people are thinking and feeling.

by akavel 8y ago

goto11 8y ago

I'm not the one you are replying to, but my 50 cent: It seems many replies think the article is claiming that ancient literature does contain emotions. This is not what the article is saying. It is saying that medieval authors represented characters’ mental states mainly through their direct speech and gestures, which were used to convey intense emotions in a stereotypical way—lots of hand-wringing and tearing of hair, but few subtle gestures such as raised eyebrows or faint smiles flickering over lips. So examples from poetry, classical drama, Ecclesiastes etc. does not disprove this. Those are all examples of direct speech. And the gestures of Achilles are not exactly subtle. (And in any case Greek antiquity is not medieval.) The article is concerned about how mental states are described in fiction. The sagas does not say "Eric felt conflicting emotions about this but kept silent". They describe what he said and did, and you have to figure out the mental state yourself unless he outright says (or sings) what he is feeling. In contrast modern literature may have an all-knowing narrator which tells you the emotions and thoughts of the characters, or you may have internal monologue or stream-of-consciousnesses which give you a direct view into the mind of the characters. A question then is why pre-modern literature use direct speech to convey emotion while modern use mentalizing? A possible explanation is that pre-modern literature was read or acted out in public, while modern literature is read silently in private. The article further propose that reading literary fiction may in itself improve your mentalizing skills, i.e. your ability to imagine what other people are thinking and feeling.