Similarities and Differences Between the Scientific Method and the Literary Method

In science you work for months on a very narrow project. You gather your results then send them to a journal which will probably reject them. Even if the work does get published only a handful of people, if that, will read and understand your work. You will not get paid.

In writing you work for months on a very narrow project. You finish your piece then send it to a journal which will probably reject it. Even if the work does get published only a handful of people, if that, will read and understand you work. You will not get paid.

#

In science you struggle to achieve a small glimpse of the truths which apply to the entire universe, or in the case of biological sciences, at least the system of life which has developed on this planet.

In writing you struggle to achieve a small glimpse of the truths which apply to the entire universe, or in the case of fiction writing, at least the intelligent life which has developed in Brooklyn and Iowa City.

#

Making genuine achievements in science requires a concerted effort on the part of many. Those who preform the majority of the work and those who receive the recognition are often very separate.

Making genuine achievements in literature requires a concerted effort on the part of many. Those who did the majority of the work and those who receive the recognition are often very separate.

#

Only a handful of people really make any money in science, and these are often the people who sell out to large corporations. There are a some jobs for those in the lower ranks which are mildly lucrative but fairly soulsucking and intellectually void.

Only a handful of people really make money is literature, and these are often the people who sell out to large corporations. There are no jobs for those in the lower ranks which are mildly lucrative. These are fairly soulsucking and intellectually void.

#

In science nepotism rules supreme. If you don't know the right people you won't make it anywhere. Luckily talent often shows itself and gets recognized.

In literature nepotism rules supreme. If you don't know the right people you won't make it anywhere. Luckily talent often shows itself.

#

Some people like to say they care about science, but most people are totally ignorant about what actually goes on in a lab, or the core tenets of the scientific method.

No one cares about literature.

#

Scientists have a popular reputation for being socially awkward, single minded and pretentious. In fact some of them are very kind, caring and can drink your ass under the table.

Writers have a popular reputation for being socially awkward, single minded and pretentious. In fact some of them are very kind, caring and can drink your ass under the table. Even the scientists.

#

Science is build so that, if experiments are run correctly, less than five percent of results should be caused by chance. In simpler terms: five percent of studies are bullshit.

Literature is build so that, if publishing houses are run correctly, less than one percent of books could be written by chance. In simpler terms: ninety five percent of books are bullshit.

#

There are very charismatic and charmingly eccentric scientists like Robert Sapolsky, Stephen Hawking, and Neal Degrasse Tyson who appear on popular television programs and enthrall the masses with their luminous and grand depiction of the many levels of the universe.

There were very charismatic and charmingly eccentric writers. They all died of cirrhosis of the liver. Now we have Jonathan Franzen.

Two very short minimalist stories (in progress)

Two exercises in minimalism using the technique of consecution.