Echo: Several functions of thesis science

Legend has it that Stalin once asked people that the Pope commanded the army of several divisions. This legend is still a good story, if not true. Later events proved that while in some cases the armies of several divisions were indeed quite important, not everything. There are also non-specific forces that we cannot accurately estimate, but still have weight.

We are surrounded by untouchable forces that refer not only to spiritual values explored by the world's great religions. The power of the roots is also an untouchable force: their strict rules have existed for centuries, not only after Stalin's death, but even longer than the Pope. I can also count the literary tradition as one of these forces, that is, the power of the web of texts that humanity has produced and that is being produced. The text I am talking about is not a text of a practical nature (such as legal texts, scientific formulas, meeting records or train schedules), but texts that exist for self-satisfaction and are created for human pleasure. People read these texts for the purpose of enjoyment, to enlighten spirituality, to expand knowledge, but perhaps only to kill time. In short, no one forced us to read (in school or college we were forced to read such texts, but this was the exception).

It is true that literature can only be partially counted as untouchable, for it usually reaches us in the form of a paper, although there has been a period in history in which literature has relied on the voices of certain people in the oral tradition to spread out or to engrave them in stone. To this day, when people talk about the future of books going electronic, it's clear that whether you read Dante's Divine Comedy or an anthology of jokes, your eyes will have to stare at the screen. Let me immediately point out at this moment that tonight I don't want to go into a lengthy discussion about the annoying issue of e-books. Of course, I belong to the group of people who prefer to read poetry or novels on paper, and the folded corners and wrinkled title pages of the book will be remembered by me in the future; although I have been told that a generation of digital fans has emerged, and people who have never read a book in their previous lives are now enjoying reading Don Quixote for the first time because of the advent of e-books. This is a big benefit for these people's minds, although it can greatly damage their vision. If future generations can maintain a good relationship (psychologically and physically) with e-books, then the power of Don Quixote can be unscathed.

So what is the use of the untouchable power of what we call literature? The most superficial answer I have already explained above. That is, the reason it is consumed is self-satisfied, so there is no need to serve any purpose. However, a general view of literary pleasure like this one takes a risk: it downgrades literary pleasure to the same level as jogging or crossword puzzles. Having said that, the above two activities mainly serve certain purposes: the former for physical health, and the latter for the expansion of vocabulary. I would therefore like to discuss a range of roles that literature plays in individual and social life.

Literature, in particular, keeps language alive and makes it the common heritage of our community. In the final analysis, language is only concerned with going its own way, without the edicts issued from above to guide it, and no politician, any academic institution, can stop its evolution and lure it into what they think is the most ideal direction. Italy's fascists tried everything to teach Italians to replace Bar with Mescita and Coda di gallo instead of Cocktail (cocktail). Replace Goal with Rethe or Taxi with Auto pubblica, and our language takes this admonition as a horse's throw. But on the other hand, it also encapsulates deformed and bizarre words, such as replacing the word Chauffeur with the old-fashioned and unacceptable Aucista, and our language accepts it. Perhaps it was because the move allowed the Italian language to avoid sounds it was unfamiliar with. Although it retains the word Taxi, at least in the colloquial language, the word is gradually replaced by Tassi.

Language evolves as it pleases. But it is keen on literary advice. Without Dante, Italy would not have had a unified language. He analyzed and criticized many dialects of Italy in The Sayings and decided to create a new and outstanding national language. At the time, probably no one would have bet money on such an arrogant move, but on the day the Divine Comedy was written, his bet was won. Of course, it took centuries for Dante's national language to become the spoken language of all Italians today, but it succeeded because the circle that believed in literature continued to be inspired by Dante's example. Without this example, the idea of political unity might not flourish. Perhaps that's why Bossy is not speaking a brilliant national language.

During the twenty years of the fascists' reign, they hung on their lips such as "the doomed hills of Rome", "the fate that cannot be hidden", "the unavoidable things" or "the ploughing of the deep furrows in the land". But in the end, none of these clichés have survived in the Italian language of today, while on the other hand, some of the superb experimental prose of Futurism, though accepted by no one at the time, has survived. I've heard people complain that the Italian spoken by middle society has triumphed thanks to television. Let us not forget that the Italian spoken by middle society, in its noblest form, derives from the simple and completely acceptable prose of some writers. For example, Manzoni in the early years, and later Svevo or Moravia.

Literature helps construct language, and it itself creates a sense of identity and community. I'll take Dante as an example, but you can also think about it: what would hell hell would have been Greek civilization without Homer? If Luther had not translated the Bible, how could he have expressed a sense of German identity? No Pushkin. What will the Russian Society look like? Without the epic of genesis, what civilization would India have?

Literature can also keep an individual's language alive. Recently, many people have lamented the birth of the so-called "electronic style", which has entered everyone's life through channels such as e-mail and mobile phone text messages, and we can even use symbols to express "I love you"; but let's not forget: at least some of the young people who send this shorthand form of text messages are also customers of large bookstores that are as large as cathedrals and several floors high, and even if they don't buy books, they can just flip through them casually, and they can also get access to the painstakingly managed, elegant literary style. And this style was something their parents, especially their grandparents, had never seen.

Although they are numerous compared to previous generations, they are a tiny minority of the world's six billion people. I am not overly idealistic, thinking that literature can alleviate the suffering of all sentient beings who lack basic food and medical resources. But I want to emphasize one point: poor people who wander aimlessly in groups, some throwing stones down from highway overpasses to kill people, some lighting fires and burning a child alive, no matter who they are, will fall into this field, not because they are affected by the "new language" of computers (they do not even have access to computers), but because they are excluded from the world of literature. There is no chance of being exposed to the light of certain values of the world through education and discussion, which both come from books and at the same time send us back to books.

Reading literature is an exercise in cultivating loyalty and respect, although we enjoy a degree of freedom in interpretation. Our time is confronted with a dangerous critique heresy peculiar to this age, according to which we can toy with a work of literature between our hands, at the instigation of our most unbridled impulses, at the mercy of our most unbridled impulses. This attitude is not right. Literary works encourage freedom of interpretation because they provide the reader with a multi-layered discourse and place before us a variety of warm meanings in language and in real life. But in order to be able to play this game well, a game that allows each generation to read literature from a different point of view, we must be touched by a certain deep reverence in our hearts, moved by the respect evoked by the "textual intent" that I have previously said.

In a way, the world seems to be a "closed" book that allows only a fixed way of reading. For example, if planetary gravity is governed by a law, then that law is either right or anchor. In contrast, the book world seems to us to be an "open" universe. But let's try to examine a narrative work with common sense and compare the hypotheses we make with the hypotheses we make about the world. Speaking of the world, we know that the law of universal gravitation was discovered by Newton, and that Napoleon died on the island of St. Helena on May 5, 1821. But if we are willing to open our hearts, we will be ready to revise our convictions as long as the scientific community interprets the important laws of the universe in a different way, and whenever a historian discovers unpublished material. Proof that Napoleon died on a Bonapartist ship while trying to escape. On the other hand, when it comes to the world of books, descriptions such as "Holmes is a bachelor", "Little Red Riding Hood was first eaten by wolves and then rescued by lumberjacks", or "Anna Karenina committed suicide" are eternal facts that no one can refute. Some people do not want to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, some people doubt whether there is indeed a man in history, some people claim that it is the way, it is the truth, it is life, and some people believe that the Messiah has not yet come to earth, and no matter how we think about these issues, we will look at these opinions with respect. But for those who claim that Hamlet and Ophelia are lovers and eventually become dependents, who claim that Superman is not Clark Kent. We don't have any respect.

The literary texts clearly and unreservedly offer many things which we would never doubt, but for these texts. We "cannot" interpret it as a starting point in the form of a whimsical, uninhibited attitude, as we do with the real world.

At the end of chapter thirty-five of The Red and the Black, Julien Solair goes to the church and shoots Madame de Reynal. Stendhal saw Jullien's hand shaking, so he told the reader that the protagonist fired the first shot, but did not hit the target. Then the protagonist fired a second shot, and the lady fell to the ground in response. We may infer that Yu Lian's hand with the gun would tremble and the first shot he fired did not hit, which shows that when he went to church, he did not have a strong determination to put the other party to death. What prompted him to move to the church was actually a fanatical impulse, and even if there was any calculation in his mind, it was vague and unformed. Beyond this interpretation, we can make another statement, that is, That Jullien was resolute at first, but he was a coward. Stendhal's text allows us to make both of these speculations.

Some people will ask curiously, so where did the first bullet go? This is a very intriguing question for Stendhal fans. Just as a Joyce-worshipping reader would make a special trip to Dublin, only to find the pharmacy where Bloom bought the lemon-shaped soap (in order to satisfy these literary pilgrims, the pharmacy that did exist began to produce this soap again). Imagine the Stendhal fans desperately trying to find the real-world Veliyer and the church, and then examine each pillar with their eyes wide open to see if they can find the bullet marks of the false bullet. This is an interesting example of a literary good man and woman who devotes all their attention to it.

Let's suppose there was a literary critic who wanted to build his entire interpretation of The Red and the Black on that missing bullet. In this day and age, such a move is possible. Some people read Poe's The Stolen Letter and base their interpretation entirely on the position of the letter relative to the mantelpiece. Although it was clear that Poe wanted to make the location of the letter closely related to the plot development, Stendhal did not make a further description of the unfired first bullet, and thus excluded it from the realm of fiction. If we want to be faithful to Stendhal's text, the bullet is lost forever, and its whereabouts have nothing to do with the content of the narrative. On the other hand, the unspoken but possible sexual incompetence of the protagonist in Almonda's other novel, Stendhal, drives the reader to make paranoid speculations in order to fill in the parts of the story that are not explicitly told to us. A similar situation occurred in Manzoni's famous book", "The Contracted Couple". There is a saying in it, "The unfortunate woman reacted," and this sentence reveals no longer how long Gorchud and Argidio's sinful relationship lasted. However, the underworld impulse of conjecture always drives the reader to speculate about this extremely subtle and omitted paragraph.

At the beginning of The Three Musketeers, the story tells that the protagonist, d'Artagnan, arrived in Moen on the first Monday of April 1625, riding a fourteen-year-old horse. If your computer has the best software, you can immediately figure out that Monday is April 7. This pair of Dumas fans is just a trivial matter, but it is a tidbit that makes them enjoy it. Can we expand from this detail to an over-interpretation of the entire novel? I said no, because the text didn't treat this detail as a matter of urgency. As the plot progresses, it is clear that d'Artagnan's arrival in Meuren on Monday is not particularly important, but it is quite significant that it happened in April (we remember). Bordeaux, in order to hide the fact that his ornate shoulder straps were embroidered only on the front, deliberately wore a scarlet velvet coat all the time, which was so inappropriate in April that the swordsman had to lie that he had a cold).

All this seems quite obvious to many, reminding us that the literary world makes us believe in a definite thing—that some hypotheses cannot be questioned, and that literature thus provides us with a model of truth, even if it is fictional. This literary shock of truth is often referred to as "hermeneutic truth": because whenever someone tries to convince you. To say that d'Artagnan developed a homosexual affection for Bordeaux, that Manzoni's Inominado was led astray by the Oedipus complex, that the nuns of Monza were badly influenced by communism (as some politicians today refer to), and that Banuzh's actions were based on hatred of nascent capitalism, we can always respond: in those articles it is impossible to find any narrative, any innuendo that allows us to make such a drifting, erratic interpretation. In the field of literature, we can distinguish clearly whether the reader has a concept of reality or is simply a victim of his own fantasies.

Characters migrate like migratory birds. We can make real accounts of the characters in the literary work, because their experiences are all recorded in the text, and the text is like a musical score. The suicide of Anna Karenina is as real as Beethoven's Fifth Symphony in C minor (unlike Symphony No. 6, which is in F major) and begins with G, G, G, E semitones. But some of the characters in literature (and certainly not all of them) move beyond the texts that gave birth to them and migrate into the worlds that are difficult to define and draw. Characters in narrative texts migrate from one text to another, if they are lucky, but those who do not migrate, from an ontological point of view, are no different from their more fortunate brethren; it is simply because they are not lucky enough to get there, and we have not been able to meet them anywhere else.

Mythological characters and "secular" narrative texts migrate from one text to another (and adapted from one medium to another, from books to film or ballet, or from oral to written traditions), such as Odysseus, Iasson, King Arthur, or Parsifal, Alice, Pinocchio, and d'Artagnan. Today, when we talk about such roles, are we referring to some special examples? Let's take the story of Little Red Riding Hood as an example. The two most famous versions, Perot's and Green's, are very different. In the former version, the story ends after the little girl is eaten by a wolf, which leads to serious moral thinking: carelessness entails risk. But in the latter version, the hunter appears, who kills the wolf and allows the little girl and her grandmother to escape. Typical happy ending.

Let's think about it: A mother told her children a story about a wolf that swallowed Little Red Riding Hood and then stopped talking about it. Children may protest and demand that their mother tell the "truth" of the story, the period when Little Red Riding Hood comes back to life, at which point it may be pointless for the mother to claim to be a strict lover of philology. Kids know the "real" story, the plot of Little Red Riding Hood coming back to life, which is more like Green's version than Perot's. But then again, it's not 100 percent Green's story, because it omits a whole bunch of minor plots (green and Peroco are very different in these details, say, what Little Red Riding Hood's gift to her grandmother is), and the children are obviously less concerned about this, because they care about a more general character, a character who has traditionally been more erratic, and she appears in multiple versions, many of which are oral.

Thus Little Red Riding Hood, d'Artagnan, Odysseus, or Madame Bovary, in addition to their original identities, became individuals with their own lives, and even those who had never read the archetypes could make truthful accounts of them. Before reading Oedipus the King, I knew that Oedipus and Aeocaste were married. Despite the ups and downs, these things are not unproven. But if anyone claims that Madame Bovary reconciled with Charles and lived happily with him ever since, it is bound to be refuted by people of normal opinion (i.e., those who have a little knowledge of Emma's personality).

So, where are those fickle individuals? This depends on the way in which our ontology is constituted, depending on whether it has room to be reserved for the root, the Etruscan language, and two different views of the most holy Trinity (the first is the Roman school, which holds that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and the Son; the second is the Byzantines, which advocate that the Holy Spirit originates only from the Father). But the field has very imprecise boundaries and contains a variety of projects of variability, because even the elders of Constantinople (who are determined to fight the Pope for the question of "and the Son") will agree with the Pope, believing that Holmes lives on Baker Street, or that Clark Kent and Superman are the same person.

However, in countless poems and novels it is recorded (and I'll make up some examples at random) that Hasdrubal killed Corinna, or that Theophrastus fell madly in love with Deodorinda, but no one wants to believe that any true statement can be made about such stories, simply because these unfortunate characters have never been able to leave the original text, or have come up with ways to become part of our group's memory. Why does it seem that Hamlet's failure to marry Ophelia is more real than the marriage of Theophrastus and Deodorinda? Why is there Hamlet and Ophelia in one corner of our world, not poor old Theophrastus?

Certain characters become real in the memory of the group, because over the centuries we have invested emotions in them. In any form of fantasy, we are accustomed to emotional projection. Either with your eyes open or half-dreaming. The thought of a loved one dying makes us feel it in our hearts, or we naturally have a physiological reaction when we think of having sex with that person. In the same way, through a series of identities and projections, we are moved by Emma's fate, or, as we have experienced for generations, we are also influenced by the influence of the young Werther or Jacopo Ortiz to commit suicide. However, if someone asks us whether the person who is dead in our fantasy is really dead, we must answer that it is not, it is just a personal fantasy, but if someone asks us whether the young Werther is really on the road to suicide, we will answer yes, in this case. The fantasy we are talking about is no longer personal privacy, but a fact that the entire readership agrees with. So, if someone kills someone just because he fantasizes (and understands very well that it's just a product of his imagination) that the person he loves is dead, we must think he's crazy. However, we will more or less defend someone who has followed in Werther's footsteps because of his suicide, even if we know that Werther is only a fictional character in the novel.

We will have to find a space between heaven and earth for these characters to live and choose them as models for our lives to shape our behavior. Even serve as an example for other people's lives. So when we say that so-and-so has an Oedipus complex, or that someone eats like a cow like Kaguntuya, that so-and-so behaves like Don Quixote, that so-and-so is as jealous as Othello, that so-and-so is as suspicious as Hamlet, that so-and-so is hopeless like Don Juan, or who is Shi Gu himself, we mean it all too clearly. In literature, this doesn't just happen to characters. Situations and objects are no exception. Why do women come and go, talking about Michelangelo, Montale's sharp bottle fragments in the wall that glow dazzlingly in the sun, the good things that Gozano has no taste, Eliot's fear of being exposed in a handful of dust, Leopardi's bush hedges, Petrac's cool and sweet water, Dante's savage meal, all of which become metaphors that linger in our minds, ready to tell us over and over again who we really are and what we need. Where are we going, or are we not something, and what do we not want?

These literary projects are co-living with us. They did not exist since the beginning of the world, perhaps not like the principles of open squares and Pythagoras, but since they were created by literature and nourished by our emotional projection, they do exist, and we must get used to them. Let me further illustrate that, in order to avoid ontological and metaphysical discussions, they exist like cultural habits or tendencies like social mentalities. Even the phenomenon of incest with universal nature has a cultural habit, an idea, a social tendency of mentality, and once had the power to shape the fate of human society.

Yet, as some today claim, even the most enduring literary characters are in danger of disappearing, transforming, losing the stability that previously compelled us to acknowledge their fate. Now that we have entered the electronic age of hypertext, which allows us to come and go freely in the maze of texts (the whole encyclopedia or the full set of Shakespeare), it is not necessary to clarify the information it contains, sometimes just like a needle inserted into a ball of velvet. Thanks to the birth of hypertext, free creative writing can be realized. On the Web, you can find many writing plans that allow you to join the ranks of group creation, wander through the world of narrative, and you can even rewrite the ending of the story without restriction. If you can play with and plan a text with a group of virtual friends on your website, why not treat existing literary texts in the same way? Why not join some plan to rewrite the great masterpiece, to rewrite the texts that have dominated the human mind for thousands of years?

Imagine that you are eagerly reading War and Peace, wondering if Natasha will finally be able to withstand the attack of Anatole's aunt, and whether the admirable Prince André will really die, whether Pierre can really summon up the courage to shoot Napoleon, and now you can finally rewrite the personal version of Tolstoy, give Prince André a long life, and turn Pierre into a savior of all Europe. You can even reconcile Emma and poor Charlie and make her a good mother of happiness and dutiful duties, or decide to let Little Red Riding Hood go into the forest to meet the puppet Pinocchio, or be abducted by her stepmother and later call her Cinderella and work for Hoscart; or meet Vladimir Propp in the forest who knows magic and is willing to help her, and the latter gives her a magic ring that allows her to find points at the foot of the sacred banyan tree in Sog that allows her to see the whole universe- Aleph. Anna Karenina did not die under the train wheels of Russia's narrow gauge system, and under President Putin's rule, it was less efficient than their submarine, and in the distance, on the other side of Alice's mirror, we saw Borges reminding Funes not to forget to return Anna Karenina to the Babel Library.

Is that bad? No, in fact, literature has already done so, from the ideas in Maramé's Book to the idea of transcending perfectionists' "exquisite corpses", to Raymond Gnoult's "billion poems" and the second-generation avant-garde idea of "moving books". Then there's the jazz-filled concert. But even if jazz pops up and performs a variation every night according to a certain musical subject, it doesn't stop us from going to a traditional concert hall. There, every night someone played Chopin's Piano Sonata No. 2 in B minor, Op.35, and ended the concert in the same way.