Well, it depends on the depth to which you want to learn said subject, doesn't it? At its core, and at the top, expert levels, I would argue that all subjects are equally difficult. These lists don't matter and they cause more damage than they educate - it's trying to put subjects in hierarchies, trying to put more or less value on certain subjects. Why do we have this need and what is the point? I can't imagine living in a world without art - can you imagine, without beauty, without poetry, without comfort? But likewise, heck I would not want to live in a world without science - I am forever grateful for all those Panadols and cough syrups and the very cars and trams I ride in. I love the internet. I am grateful that because of medical science, my husband lived long enough to marry me (he should've died as a child). So given all this, why do we put arbitrary value on school subjects when the truth is, every subject has its value? It's just that since different things matter to us, we value them differently. I might appreciate maths but I really couldn't care less about it, it's not important to me. But that something is not important to me does not mean it is inherently worthless or unimportant - but such lists try to pin such a judgement on different fields and devalue that which gives abundant value, and I dislike it. All it encourages is that we demean and degrade each other and thing that other people hold in high regard. In my own experience, at least within university - humanities were easier to PASS, but also more difficult to obtain a First Class honours in. Science students regularly achieved 80-90%, whereas for humanities that is extremely difficult because it depends on how you present your argument. I will speak specifically of History and Art History because I studied the latter and my ex studied the former, so I'm more familiar with these. To get a first, you need: original research (meaning primary sources, which would normally be written in a foreign language, and usually there're no translations so tough if you don't speak the language), and original theories that would actually challenge existing scholars when you're still at undergraduate level, on top of your essay actually being well-written and well-structured, both of which can be highly subjective. Science students, as far as I was aware, didn't need to do this kinda thing and often had multiple choice tests, making factual knowledge quite sufficient to achieve 80-90%. But on the other hand, with a bit of knowledge and a lot of skilled bluffing, it is very easy to obtain anything between 50-65% in literature and Art History (I would know - I didn't study much at all and nearly all my essays were written overnight - I still ended up with a good degree). I know that I could not have done that in any science subjects. You couldn't "bluff" in science - or perhaps if you could, it wouldn't be half as easy to do so. At the end of the day, different subjects are just difficult in different ways, and since we're all gifted in different areas, we're all gonna find different things easier/harder. Just do what you love and stay in the field you care about and/or are good at. Frankly, employers couldn't care less about your degree anyway unless you actually enter the specific field you studied in, which isn't all that common in the first place.
Not necessarily. Once you write a story and put it out into the world, it is it's own thing. You may have written something you didn't intend. It reminds me of the Rodney Dangerfield movie Back to School. He plays a very rich man who goes to college. He takes an English class and they are studying Kurt Vonnegut. He pays Kurt Vonnegut to write a paper for him. Later on, he's having a fight with the professor, and she has discovered that he didn't write the paper and says something like, "Whoever wrote that paper doesn't know the first thing about Kurt Vonnegut!"
He could, but to paraphrase the critic and writer Lionel Trilling, we can't trust a creative writer to say what he has done; he can only say what he meant to do, and even then we don't have to believe him.
The question was what he was "concerned" with. Of course he knows what he was and wasn't comcerned with, regardless of how well it came out in the novel. And even if he doesn't consciously know, presumably, there is an answer.
I have read the Road, watched the film of No Country for old men (I don't know how much it veers from the book)
