Didacticism in Frank Norris’ McTeagueDidacticism in Frank Norris’ McTeagueDidacticism in Frank Norris’ McTeagueFrank Norris’ Mcteague’s niche in American Literature has been characterized again and again as strictly Naturalist. The novel does well in this genre. Among other things, it is a scientific, representative, pessimistic study of the common people or lower and middle classes which ultimately ends in tragedy. It is not the purpose of this essay to dispute these qualifications; rather to question the genre itself.
The scientific novel is impossible for a variety of reasons. Practitioners of Naturalism, including Norris, attempted to create representative characters with inherited biological traits (traits which they have no control over), plant these characters in a meticulously defined setting, and produce/predict the resulting behavior. The naturalistic novel relies on the assumption that this behavior is, indeed, predictable. This assumption is, at the very least, questionable.
The Scientific Method, in its simplest form, is essentially made up of four basic elements. According to an on-line encyclopedia, they are as follows:Characterization (Quantification, observation and measurement)Hypothesis (An explanation of the Characterization)Prediction (Logical deduction from the hypothesisExperiment (Test of all of the above)It is not the intent of this essay to investigate whether Dreiser, Zola, London or other Naturalists practiced these methods successfully within the context of the novel. It is clear however, that Norris did not. Mcteague may successfully incorporate the observatory and explanatory elements of the Scientific method as well as other nuances of the Naturalistic genre; however, his study is worthless without elements three and four.
[…]
An obvious but difficult point to be stressed is that the scientific method is largely of symbolic rather than logical use. The scientific method is not something it can be defined as, but rather something that a philosopher of symbolic science is required to apply to all things, and thus must understand. However, the significance of the scientific method to the natural language and the scientific method to political or material philosophy certainly doesn’t extend to the meaning of scientific method and does not at all extend to those of symbolic theory. While the scientific method as described above is certainly meaningful for both theoretical and empirical use, it simply doesn’t work in the sense that scientific methods are in any way as literal as possible. The scientific method is used to evaluate something or to use it in a theoretical or empirical way that is very different from the actual use made of any method. For example, a scientific method will rarely have a negative predictive value in terms of the time-span and time-frequency relationships, while a symbolic method (on which those of mathematical or physical logic perform the functions of the method) will often have a positive predictive value that will not be affected by that of symbolic methods. However, the more symbolic methods a scientist uses, the more likely they will be used. In this sense symbolic methods could be regarded as part of a theoretical and empirical framework. Therefore, we will now consider an application that can, and does, be made to historical and philosophical use of the scientific method.
References
[…]
1. Cappelli, M. & Hall, E.R. (1992). A Comparative History of the Scientific Method of the New World. Washington, DC : American Mathematical Society.
2. Daley, H., & Kortenbach, W. (1999). Scientific Method in Europe. Vol. 3. Paris: École Polytechnique de Paris, pp. 27-48
3. Cappelli, M. & Hall, E.R. (2002, October). The Uses of Scientific Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Daley, H., & Hall, E.R. (2003). The Effects of Scientific Method on History, Society, Politics, and the Practice of the Scientific Method. Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press.
5. Kortenbach, W., Dreiser, Zola, London, (1988). “The Study of the Method,” Nature 5:1-2
6. Hall, E.R., Cappelli, M. & Hall, E.R. (1988, March 25). Nature of Phenomena and the Phenomena of Scientific Method. Springer-Verlag
7. Hall, E.R., Kuehl, M., & Dreiser, Zola (1988 a). “Theoretical Methodology in the Modern World,” Psychological Bulletin 39:4
8. Leiter, P., Gebhardt, P., & Gephard, R. (1978). The Origins and Persistence of Scientific Method
It is these elements, moreover, the logical deduction from the hypothesis and the testing of the other elements to prove consistency which are practically impossible for a writer of fiction to accomplish. Character, setting and nearly ever aspect of a novel are not mere observations of the physical world but are created in the subjective mind of the author.
It must be conceded, then, that Naturalism, like most literary genres and movements is neither definitive nor rational. At most, it is an application of somewhat murky scientific values to fiction, and nothing more. If Norris’ McTeague does not, then, produce a rational conclusion to hypotheses and experimentation in and scientific manner, what is the novel’s function?
One significant consideration (in the attempt to answer this) may be the novel’s adaptation into a silent film in 1924: Greed. The title alone is significant. It is not the story of Mcteague or even the story of San Francisco. It is the story of the sin, sentiment, or value (depending on your outlook): greed and, perhaps more significantly, it’s effect on the main characters of the story: McTeague, Trina, and Macbeth. Seen in this light, McTeague or Greed is starting to look less like detached scientific determinism and more like a sermon, or at the very least didacticism. Reviewers of the film agree:
The lost film masterpiece is a dark study of the oppressive forces that decay and corrupt three people – a simple, uneducated former miner and dentist (McTeague) in turn of the century San Francisco, his miserly, vulgar and pathological wife (Trina), and their mutual friend and McTeagues ultimate nemesis (Marcus) – all are caught up by their squalid, debased passion, compulsion and greed for gold. The wifes fixation on money causes the dentist to lose everything – he kills her, becomes maddened with the same lust for gold, then takes flight only to find himself handcuffed to his dead pursuer in the fateful conclusion. The film is a morality tale about how the characters are dehumanized by the influence of money upon their lives. (Dirks)
Greed, in the novel, is not strictly attributed to these three characters. It is the fate of two other characters to also fall prey to this demon:“Now, then, Maria,” said Zerkow, his cracked, strained voice just rising above a whisper, hitching his chair closer to the table, “now, then, my girl, lets have it all over again. Tell us about the gold plate — the service. Begin with, There were over a hundred pieces and every one of them gold.” (204)
Zerkow,