This book takes the position that setting in literature is more than just backdrop, that important insight into literary texts can be made by paying close attention to how authors craft place, as well as to how place functions in a narrative. The authors included in this reference work engage deeply with either real or imagined geographies. They care about how human decisions have shaped landscapes and how landscapes have shaped human practices and values. Some of the best writing is highly vivid, employing the language of the senses because this is the primary means through which humans know physical space. Literature can offer valuable perspectives on physical and cultural geography. Unlike scientific reports, a literary narrative can provide the emotional component missing from the scientific record. In human experience, geographical places have a spiritual or emotional component in addition to and as part of a physical layout and topography. This emotional component, although subjective, is no less “real” than a surveyor’s map. Human consciousness of place is experienced in a multi-modal manner. Histories of places live on in many forms, one of which is the human memory or imagination.
Both real and imaginary landscapes provide insight into the human experience of place. The pursuit of such a topic speaks to the valuable knowledge produced from bridging disciplines and combining material from both the arts and the sciences to better understand the human condition. The perspectives that most concern cultural geographers are often those regarding movement and migration, cultivation of natural resources, and organization of space. The latter two reflect concerns of the built environment, a topic shared with the field of architectural study. Many of these concerns are also reflected in work sociologists do. Scholars from literary studies can contribute an aesthetic dimension to what might otherwise be a purely ideological approach.
Literature can bring together material that spans different branches of science. For example, a literary description of place may involve not only the environment and geography but the noises and quality of light, or how people from different races or classes can experience the same place in different ways linked to those racial or class disparities. Literary texts can also account for the way in which absence—of other people, animals, and so on—affects a human observer or inhabitant. Both literary and scientific approaches to place are necessary, working in unison, to achieve a complete record of an environment. It is important to note that the interdisciplinary nature of this work teaches us that landscapes are not static, that they are not unchanged by human culture. At least part of their identity derives from the people who inhabit them and from the way space can alter and inspire human perspective. The intersection of scientific and literary expression that happens in the study of literary geography is of prime importance due to the complexity of the personal and political ways that humans experience place.
Step 1: Understanding the Author's Statement:
The passage emphasizes the importance of combining material from both the arts and sciences to fully understand the human condition. This reflects an interdisciplinary approach.
Step 2: Analyzing the Options:
- (1) While this option is related to the emotional aspect of the human condition, it doesn’t address the interdisciplinary approach the author stresses.
- (2) This option aligns with the author’s statement, which suggests that a comprehensive understanding is achieved by combining knowledge from both disciplines.
- (3) This option focuses on human understanding but does not emphasize the need for bridging the arts and sciences.
- (4) This option suggests that understanding the human condition through the arts and sciences is the goal, but it doesn't capture the idea of combining disciplines as stated by the author.
Step 3: Conclusion:
Option (2) best captures the idea of combining knowledge from both the arts and sciences for a more comprehensive understanding of the human condition.
Step 1: Understanding the Passage:
The passage emphasizes that human experience of place is not just physical but includes emotional and subjective elements. It discusses how literature captures these aspects of place.
Step 2: Analyzing the Options:
- (1) This option supports the passage’s argument that vivid writing can capture the multi-modal experience of places.
- (2) This option aligns with the passage, as it talks about how literature provides insights into movement and migration affecting geography.
- (3) This option contradicts the passage, which argues that humans do indeed interact with places in emotional and subjective ways, not just physically.
- (4) This option supports the argument that literary descriptions of places do not require visual aids to convey a sense of place.
Step 3: Conclusion:
Option (3) contradicts the passage, as it disregards the emotional and subjective aspects of human experience with places.
Step 1: Understanding the Author’s Example:
The author uses the example of a literary description of place to show that people experience the same physical environment differently based on subjective factors like personal history, emotions, and perspective.
Step 2: Analyzing the Options:
- (1) This option aligns with the passage, highlighting how literature can capture the varied human experiences of a place.
- (2) This option focuses on architectural methods, which are not the focus of the passage’s argument about literary descriptions of place.
- (3) This option suggests that scientific approaches are more accurate, which contradicts the passage’s emphasis on the value of literary descriptions.
- (4) This option discusses the absence of people in a place, but it is not directly connected to the main point of the passage about literary descriptions of place.
Step 3: Conclusion:
Option (1) correctly captures the author’s argument that literature illustrates the diverse ways people experience the same place.
Step 1: Understanding the Second Paragraph:
The second paragraph discusses the emotional and spiritual experiences people have with places and how literary descriptions capture these subjective aspects.
Step 2: Analyzing the Options:
- (1) This option aligns with the second paragraph, stating that spiritual experiences can be just as real as physical ones.
- (2) This option is consistent with the passage’s point that literary descriptions of places are often infused with histories and emotions.
- (3) This option reflects the argument that analyzing literary descriptions can give a sense of how people emotionally relate to places.
- (4) This option is not true according to the second paragraph, which suggests that emotional and spiritual experiences are important but do not replace the objective nature of a surveyor’s map.
Step 3: Conclusion:
Option (4) is not true of the argument in the second paragraph, as it contradicts the idea that both emotional and physical representations of place serve different purposes.


When people who are talking don’t share the same culture, knowledge, values, and assumptions, mutual understanding can be especially difficult. Such understanding is possible through the negotiation of meaning. To negotiate meaning with someone, you have to become aware of and respect both the differences in your backgrounds and when these differences are important. You need enough diversity of cultural and personal experience to be aware that divergent world views exist and what they might be like. You also need the flexibility in world view, and a generous tolerance for mistakes, as well as a talent for finding the right metaphor to communicate the relevant parts of unshared experiences or to highlight the shared experiences while demphasizing the others. Metaphorical imagination is a crucial skill in creating rapport and in communicating the nature of unshared experience. This skill consists, in large measure, of the ability to bend your world view and adjust the way you categorize your experiences. Problems of mutual understanding are not exotic; they arise in all extended conversations where understanding is important.
When it really counts, meaning is almost never communicated according to the CONDUIT metaphor, that is, where one person transmits a fixed, clear proposition to another by means of expressions in a common language, where both parties have all the relevant common knowledge, assumptions, values, etc. When the chips are down, meaning is negotiated: you slowly figure out what you have in common, what it is safe to talk about, how you can communicate unshared experience or create a shared vision. With enough flexibility in bending your world view and with luck and charity, you may achieve some mutual understanding.
Communication theories based on the CONDUIT metaphor turn from the pathetic to the evil when they are applied indiscriminately on a large scale, say, in government surveillance or computerized files. There, what is most crucial for real understanding is almost never included, and it is assumed that the words in the file have meaning in themselves—disembodied, objective, understandable meaning. When a society lives by the CONDUITmetaphor on a large scale, misunderstanding, persecution, and much worse are the likely products.
Later, I realized that reviewing the history of nuclear physics served another purpose as well: It gave the lie to the naive belief that the physicists could have come together when nuclear fission was discovered (in Nazi Germany!) and agreed to keep the discovery a secret, thereby sparing humanity such a burden. No. Given the development of nuclear physics up to 1938, development that physicists throughout the world pursued in all innocence of any intention of finding the engine of a new weapon of mass destruction—only one of them, the remarkable Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard, took that possibility seriously—the discovery of nuclear fission was inevitable. To stop it, you would have had to stop physics. If German scientists hadn’t made the discovery when they did, French, American, Russian, Italian, or Danish scientists would have done so, almost certainly within days or weeks. They were all working at the same cutting edge, trying to understand the strange results of a simple experiment bombarding uranium with neutrons. Here was no Faustian bargain, as movie directors and other naifs still find it intellectually challenging to imagine. Here was no evil machinery that the noble scientists might hide from the problems and the generals. To the contrary, there was a high insight into how the world works, an energetic reaction, older than the earth, that science had finally devised the instruments and arrangements to coart forth. “Make it seem inevitable,” Louis Pasteur used to advise his students when they prepared to write up their discoveries. But it was. To wish that it might have been ignored or suppressed is barbarous. “Knowledge,” Niels Bohr once noted, “is itself the basis for civilization.” You cannot have the one without the other; the one depends upon the other. Nor can you have only benevolent knowledge; the scientific method doesn’t filter for benevolence. Knowledge has consequences, not always intended, not always comfortable, but always welcome. The earth revolves around the sun, not the sun around the earth. “It is a profound and necessary truth,” Robert Oppenheimer would say, “that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them.”
...Bohr proposed once that the goal of science is not universal truth. Rather, he argued, the modest but relentless goal of science is “the gradual removal of prejudices.” The discovery that the earth revolves around the sun has gradually removed the prejudice that the earth is the center of the universe. The discovery of microbes is gradually removing the prejudice that disease is a punishment from God. The discovery of evolution is gradually removing the prejudice that Homo sapiens is a separate and special creation.
For any natural number $k$, let $a_k = 3^k$. The smallest natural number $m$ for which \[ (a_1)^1 \times (a_2)^2 \times \dots \times (a_{20})^{20} \;<\; a_{21} \times a_{22} \times \dots \times a_{20+m} \] is: