In the Humanities, what is it about secondary sources that can make them so undesirable? Perhaps it is partly due to "straw-man" characterizations, and partly because they tend to be written in such a way where the author does the thinking and the reader does the memorizing.
Any serious researcher in the Humanities and in all other disciplines consider secondary sources indispensable, not "undesirable" at all. Secondary sources inform the scholar what ground has already been covered and point to what still needs to be covered in the future. The reason that UNDERGRADUATE teachers discourage use of secondary sources is to avoid plagiarism. If I thought that the research I do is "undesirable," I would renounce the use of my electronic pen forever.
Nelson: you are right that secondary sources are indispensable; yet it is also true that often a secondary source is much worse than the original. What are the features that can make a secondary source worse?
James, literature and literary criticism belong to two different genres. Sophocles wrote his "Oedipus, Rex" and Aristotle wrote the "Poetics," where he analyzes and praises it. Yet every work of literary criticism, knowingly or not, relies for its being on its prototype, the "Poetics," whereas not every work of literature depends on "Oedipus, Rex," nonetheless an exceptional artwork. Should we say that the "Poetics" is better than "Oedipus, Rex"? No. That is like comparing apples and oranges. Should we say that the "Poetics" is worse than "Oedipus, Rex"? That would be unfair. We can say that the "Poetics" to some degree derives from "Oedipus, Rex." But that does not make the "Poetics" inferior. Both are outstanding works, each in its own way. To answer your question, I can honestly see no features in the "Poetics" that make it "worse" than "Oedipus, Rex." I am sure that you disagree, and I will respect your opinion.
Nelson: We don't disagree about that.
But I think my question has been mis-understood. I should have been more clear. What I really have in mind are cases where a secondary source tries to act as a substitute for reading the primary source. Some (not all) of those cases are cases where the secondary source is worse than what it's trying to substitute. Why?
Ah, in that case, you are correct. There is no substitute for a primary source. I misunderstood your use of the term "secondary source." I meant a scholarly critique and you meant something different: a trot, a kind of paraphrasing, watering down, or résumé of the primary source. You mean reading a classic comic-book instead of the classic itself.
The reason that a classic is superior is that it expresses multiple nuances that a trot cannot. As a result, the watered-down version lacks the depth and breadth of the original. I do not know of any simplified version that could even pretend to equal the primary source, unless the source itself is so lackluster than any newer version of it is an improvement. In that case, it would hardly be worthwhile to make a newer version. Better to consign the primary source to a trash-bin. What say you?
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Philosophy