As I'm sure all of you did, I ran into several problems while conducting research for my paper. Out of all of the problems, books being checked out of the library, JSTOR not having what I wanted, or simply not being able to find relevant information, the most interesting problem I had was that I kept finding inconsistencies in my sources. One source would say one thing, and another source would put forward something completely contrary. It was frustrating!
While that problem isn't unexpected it is still a difficult problem to solve. Who do you believe? Sure you could simply discard the source that doesn't support your argument, but that doesn't really solve the problem. After thinking about it for awhile I reached a dead end with this question:
All other things being equal should a source that is authored shortly after an event be considered more credible than one that is authored after a much longer period?
In the case of The Blithedale Romance can a critique of Hawthorne's intentions written a hundred years later be considered as credible as one written during Hawthorne's lifetime? If the two directly contradict each other which one should take precedence? It's a tough question to rectify.
Did anyone run into this problem? If you did how did you solve it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
You bring up some interesting questions that I hadn't considered before. Although I had conflicting information, most of it was opinionated and recent, so I made up my own mind on which I agreed with. I would say a source closer to the event in time would be more credible, because it had access to more information (since the event had just occurred) and was not clouded by modern biases.
haha YES! I will be the first one to raise my hand -- I did run into the same problem when I was doing my research.
As you may know, I am doing this research involving Hawthorne and Margaret Fuller's relationship. In Hawthorne's biography, written by a Yale guy and published in 1948, it says that Fuller respects Hawthorne much, but Hawthorne does not treat Fuller the same -- he thinks that Fuller has "stuck herself full with borrowed qualities," and she is "not the greatest woman of ancient and modern times." Also, in Hawthorne's another biography, published in 1888 by his son Julian Hawthorne, always says that Hawthorne does not like Fuller.
However, in Hawthorne's Fuller Mystery, it says that Hawthorne and Fuller are indeed intimate friends and they mutually respect each other. This book was published in 1999.
So, which one should I rely on? The one published by Julian Hawthorne looks credible, because he is Nathaniel Hawthorne's son, and the book was published in 1888 (pretty close to 1852 huh). Also, the one published by the Yale guy in 1948 looks good too, but there are other counter opinions out there, and most of those opposing opinions are published by more recent critics. So I went to Natalia's office hour to tell her about my concern, and she reminded me that Yale was not a co-ed school until 1960's... So Nathaniel Hawthorne's biography, which is published in 1948, may be biased towards women because women were still struggling for equality with men back then. Though the one published in 1999 looks new, it takes women more seriously, so the perspectives may not be as biased, and may be replied on.
If you see two contradictory "facts"/opinions in your sources, try to find out possible bias that may be taken into account, so that you can tell which one is more objective and credible.
Hope what I said makes sense and can help you solve your problems!
Yah I definitely have run in to similar problems. I think that cultural type information that you get from older sources is probably more credible. But in my opinion, criticism seems to be more on an even footing.
Post a Comment