Imagine You Could Change Academia! [Archive]

LitNetIsGreat

02-24-2009, 08:38 AM

I probably wouldn’t change much. I like the breakdown of University, generally 3 years with 120 credits per year, equalling 360 credits for an honours degree. Marks within the first year don’t count towards your final degree status, they are a pass or fail only. This means that you can learn the ropes and try to improve your marks for when it does count in the second and third years.

I also like the fact that the cost of studying is the same at all universities across the country, even at Oxford and Cambridge, though you have to be super smart to get in there (and I painfully know that I am a long way off that mark) the interview alone sounds a nightmare. However at least the very best institutions are there if you are good enough and lucky enough to get in, of course the social differences between poor and rich areas and getting into university is a different challenge altogether and a different subject altogether.

So overall I would keep things pretty much as they are though as I have said I would like to see more traditional literature taught on English Literature programs, but after looking around at other universities yesterday I realised that many programs do offer the traditional canon as core of the degree, so perhaps I was just blowing wind a little for nothing, it is obviously just down to the particular courses offered at the various universities.

Hank Stamper

02-24-2009, 11:23 AM

I also like the fact that the cost of studying is the same at all universities across the country, even at Oxford and Cambridge

in principle this is a good idea, but the better the university the better the teaching obviously so i am not especially happy at paying the same as some oxbridge trust funder and getting a far inferior standard of teaching for the same colossal debt

if we pay the same, then all our degrees should be judged the same - but they are not

Lokasenna

02-24-2009, 11:26 AM

The simple answer would be to make University free for students again, like it used to be. Then it wouldn't matter if you went to Oxbridge or your local former-poly. All it'll cost you is the usual necessities of life.

That said, given that more students than ever are going to Uni, the country probably couldn't handle the cost...

JBI

02-24-2009, 11:42 AM

Here it is 20 courses for a Bachelor's program in almost all venues in Ontario (different system in Quebec and elsewhere, but the bulk of the good English universities are in Ontario, and Quebec is the real exception to the rule). I would generally keep that, as I think most people cannot handle more than that, and if they can, they will pursue it.

But as it is, you need one science course, and one social-science course, and one humanities course to graduate, plus your degrees, so that leaves about 18 for specializing.

A major is 7-8 credits, and rarely 6, a specialist is generally 11, unless it is in languages, in which case it is 15.
A minor is usually 4.

The current restrictions here, make sure everyone with a major gets a good range in English, making them take enough texts from each time period, meanwhile enabling those who want to to be able to study things like Middle English, or contemporary literature, and I like that aspect. In places like the University of Western Ontario though, things are, from what I see, less general, so they are forced to take "overview" courses, without much specialization, which I dislike.

Overall though, I'm of the mind that if someone really wants to study a great range of books, they will. They don't need to take a course on every text, and I know if I had a larger courseload for my major degree, I wouldn't be able to pursue languages like I am now - I would end up limited to only English literature.

People will always take what they want. For the people who are there to not be so serious, they don't matter, for the other ones, they will read outside of class time, and read criticism on their own. Those are the ones that are going to continue on anyway, the rest will either graduate and go get jobs, or apply for a different graduate program, like law. The serious student will read major books, even if he isn't studying them directly.

I personally though, would change the American "American literature" programs if I could. I find that so typically American - to only study your own, as if the rest don't matter.

Though, if I could change, I would probably increase the workload to an extent - not the actual assignment work load, but the reading work-load. I think the introduction of critical texts into the coursework would be a good call for the lower levels. They are generally recommended, but if they were a requirement, people would probably get further, as most people are lazy.

Oh, and axe 3 grand per year of tuition. But I think the Americans are worse off when it comes to this than us. we pay 5-6grand tuition + books - grants - scholarships, and then after that, there is a student loan service which provides an interest free loan to those whose families cannot afford to send their kids to university. I would like to see a little decrease, though I don't think Canadians are ready for a completely free system yet.

mayneverhave

02-24-2009, 01:53 PM

Yeah, I'm paying out the whazoo for my tuition.

I agree with JBI as to reading, however. It irks me to no end when people see me reading a book and ask, "Is that for class or for fun", and I have to somehow explain that it is technically for neither reason.

Drkshadow03

02-24-2009, 05:34 PM

My idea with my own undergrad experience in mind would be to reform the survey courses. This seems like the key. Two overview courses to cover English Lit from Middle Ages to Modernism is way too much! What ends up happening is that in trying to cover everything, you end up covering nothing because you go through important periods way too quickly and you forget everything. You can also get rid of the Intro to Genres class (just make sure you cover a variety of genres: drama, poetry, prose in your regular courses). The idea behind a survey course, comprehensiveness, is a worthy one, however.

- Clearly it would be better to break up British I and British II into British I: Middle Ages to Shakespeare, II: 1600s, III: Romanticism and Victorianism, IV: Modernism. American Lit can be split from two survey courses into three, plus an American Minority Literature Course as the fourth required survey.

- In these classes the focus should be key texts and introduction to the most important authors and the movements/periods themselves.

- More importantly EVERY SECTION should be taught the SAME exact texts. The advantage of this is that every student has the same background from their survey courses.

- In additional to the readings that will be assigned, there must be one OPEN text. Students will choose one book from that period not assigned in class or a book that they can relate to the period. They will write a short five page paper and present on their book in class. This allows for personal interests and individuality.

Required ENG classes in my Perfect Academic Undergraduate Program:

1) British I (American I)
2) British II (American II)
3) British III (American III)
4) British IV (African-American Lit, or Native American Lit, or Jewish American Lit).
5) A World Literature Course (Non-British or American. Rotates periodically with a new sub-topic. Could be Canadian Literature, French Drama, Ancient Greek Dramatists, Asian Literature, etc.)
6) A World Literature Course (see above)
7) Shakespeare Course (required by all students)
8) Independent Study (students will create a booklist of 8 titles on any literary subject they want to explore with a mentor and write a ten page paper at the end based off this research).
9) Elective (400-Level class)
10) Elective (400-Level class)
11) Elective (400-Level class)
12) Elective (400-Level class)

I think my ideas would be a vast improvement on the current requirements.

1) Split the Surveys up further to allow more depth, cover the most important works, and actually teach it in a way where you can cover important literary periods more slowly.

2) require two world lit classes that cover non-British and non-European so they get exposed to this material.

3) require Shakespeare of all English Lit students.

4) Allow a course for independent study where they can pretty much study anything they wish such as medieval texts more indepth or even Science Fiction texts or popular culture. One where they chose what they learn with the guidance of an English Professor.

5) Allow restricted English Electives that allows the students free reign to pick from topics of interest taught at a higher level.

Bluenote

02-24-2009, 06:11 PM

The "Defence of the Canon" thread has raised some interesting questions and perspectives not only about Canonicity, but also the state of Academia. Suppose you could reform the system, particularly of your nation at upper level (we'll leave high school, lower grades, and its equivalent out), what would you do, how would you reform the system?

You need to keep it realistic. For example since a Major in America is about 12 courses within that discipline I am going to work within those confines. I'm not going to add more courses, and say now you need to take 20 just so I can fit more Classics in. Think how you would reform it WITHIN the confines of your country.

Unfortunately I don't think you can leave the elementary , middle and secondary schools out of it , at least here in America , many a student arrives at the university level woefully unprepared for the necessary curriculum they face at the more advanced levels.

At those levels , I would in agreement with you that more courses and more *focused* courses should be required with the context of a given discipline.

B.

andave_ya

02-25-2009, 12:18 AM

JBI

02-25-2009, 12:29 AM

From my as yet limited experience with college (four semesters of junior college :sick:) the single thing I would change is to replace this idiotic progressive education with classical education. http://www.cambridgestudycenter.com/artilces/Sayers1.htm. You may be more familiar with it under the name of "Trivium," the triumvirate of grammar, logic, and rhetoric used in, I believe, shortly before or during the Middle Ages.

The college I got accepted to, Patrick Henry College (http://www.phc.edu/about.php) in Virginia, utilizes the classical method. I am very much looking forward to learning under this form when I begin attending, I hope, in the fall.

Dante didn't write the Commedia for nothing. I am afraid I must disagree. The first great move made by the academies in regards to the study of literature, was to break from the classics, and develop a tradition from the present.

I would rather see people studying French, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, or any other modern language than ancient Greek.

Besides which, logic and rhetoric are either taught to or acquired by serious students anyway. If someone is serious in studying literature which is rhetoric dense, such as Shakespeare, one will eventually acquire the terminology anyway. It's not to uncommon for people to use words like Anadeplosis, or asyndeton, or metonymy.

I'm afraid I can't accept a system based on classic "grand narratives" anymore. There is a lot more out there, and a lot more quality stuff to be found outside the classics than within them. Besides which, the trivium was essentially a high school prep for the Quadrivium, which cannot possibly exist in today's society. Latin grammar, logic, and rhetoric aren't as important as contemporary issues.

Besides which, as soon as cultures turn more traditional, I feel they start to turn more ethnocentric and anti-semtic, which cannot possibly last. Though I respect your school I guess, I don't think I can agree with its purpose:

he Mission of Patrick Henry College is to prepare Christian men and women who will lead our nation and shape our culture with timeless biblical values and fidelity to the spirit of the American founding. Educating students according to a classical liberal arts curriculum, and training them with apprenticeship methodology, the College provides academically excellent baccalaureate level higher education with a biblical world view.

The Vision of Patrick Henry College is to aid in the transformation of American society by training Christian students to serve God and mankind with a passion for righteousness, justice and mercy, through careers of public service and cultural influence.

That to me sounds a lot like "to teach people not to be accepting", which is counter productive.

LitNetIsGreat

02-25-2009, 10:07 AM

Regarding Oxford and Cambridge:

in principle this is a good idea, but the better the university the better the teaching obviously so i am not especially happy at paying the same as some oxbridge trust funder and getting a far inferior standard of teaching for the same colossal debt

if we pay the same, then all our degrees should be judged the same - but they are not

No I don't agree, if we make those pay more for attending Oxford and Cambridge then we are excluding those from poorer backgrounds, even more so then happens at present with social circumstance. I think that it is much better to have fees the same across the board. I don't think that there is a "far inferior" standard of education at the red brick universities too, the standard to get into the likes of Manchester or Sheffield is 3 grade As at A-level and they present very good tuition and degrees. Yes the standard is still better at Oxford and Cambridge but it is perhaps the name and reputation of these universities which open doors, as well as the degrees themselves.

Hank Stamper

02-25-2009, 10:34 AM

Regarding Oxford and Cambridge:

No I don't agree, if we make those pay more for attending Oxford and Cambridge then we are excluding those from poorer backgrounds, even more so then happens at present with social circumstance. I think that it is much better to have fees the same across the board. I don't think that there is a "far inferior" standard of education at the red brick universities too, the standard to get into the likes of Manchester or Sheffield is 3 grade As at A-level and they present very good tuition and degrees. Yes the standard is still better at Oxford and Cambridge but it is perhaps the name and reputation of these universities which open doors, as well as the degrees themselves.

well that is the bit i agree with - depriving people from poor backgrounds on grounds of cost is unfair (although that is where scholarships should come in).. that is why in principle it is a good idea, but for me personally, i dislike the fact that i can pay the same for my tuition, get the same degree as somebody who went to oxford (or manchester), but still have a degree that is essentially worth less in the eyes of academia and more importantly, employers

if education costs the same across the board, it should be the same standard across the board - and it obviously isnt

LitNetIsGreat

02-25-2009, 10:46 AM

Yes I know what you are saying but there is always going to be that sort of reception, you could even go back further to the college or schools you attended before. You know that something like 7% of people who attended public schools (they are private schools if you are outside of the UK) end up going on to take around 60% of the best jobs in society. They are the layers, the politicians, those in the media - it is not just about the degree but the connotations of your upbringing. I really could go on about this at length, this is the unfairness of society and the challenge you face if you are brought up on a council estate or in less popular areas, all of this shouldn't matter but facts like I have just given speak for themselves. However charging more to attend Oxbridge would just further the gap that already painfully exists and if it means that we all pay the same for a degree then I think that is the lesser of the two evils.

Or you could always spend six/seven years studying a part-time degree like me and pay next to nothing for tuition?

miyagisan

02-25-2009, 10:52 AM

mortalterror

02-25-2009, 12:48 PM

The English department at my school is structured more like the way you wish yours would be. British literature from medieval to modern is broken into 6 different courses, and we are required to take at least 4 of them. Also, we have to take one of two Shakespeare courses (to 1600 or after 1600).

Ditto for my school. I was shocked when a friend of mine who went to a different university informed me that he didn't read anything published before 1940 and they gave him the same degree as mine. No drama. No poetry. He's always surprising me when he doesn't know things like who Tennessee Williams is. I've known him eleven years now, and I've rarely seen him read anything besides a comic book. He's one of JBI's modern educated men who have no reverence for the past. They know all about gays, feminists, African Americans, Latin Americans, post-structuralists, post-modernists, and Shakespeare is a closed book to them.

kelby_lake

02-25-2009, 01:48 PM

I'd make them study all the seminal works, and then make a big list of optional modules to choose from, like Hell in Literature (Therefore you could have Huis Clos, Divine Comedy, probably one modern book to compare them), European Literature, Political Literature...

Basically they can choose a specialism.

JBI

02-25-2009, 01:52 PM

Ditto for my school. I was shocked when a friend of mine who went to a different university informed me that he didn't read anything published before 1940 and they gave him the same degree as mine. No drama. No poetry. He's always surprising me when he doesn't know things like who Tennessee Williams is. I've known him eleven years now, and I've rarely seen him read anything besides a comic book. He's one of JBI's modern educated men who have no reverence for the past. They know all about gays, feminists, African Americans, Latin Americans, post-structuralists, post-modernists, and Shakespeare is a closed book to them.

There is the difference. I don't think of universities as educating people how to love literature. I think of them as educating them how to criticize literature. Those who are worth anything to the academy read outside of their specialty, so that someone like Bakhtin, who was writing about Francois Rabelais, becomes one of the most prominent theorists on contemporary literature.

Either way, like I said, here, in all the major institutions, classical literature is a requirement. First year courses for English are required, and they all teach Shakespeare, and canonical works. in addition, one needs to take 2 courses on literature before 1800 (3 if you are a specialist), and generally one on Victorian to modernist literature, one in Canadian literature, and one in contemporary literature, with a half credit of theory thrown in as a requirement.

I think that's pretty reasonable. You must keep in mind, this is an English program, and English is a wide language. You cannot possibly cover everything, and likewise people are engaged in other disciplines, such as psychology, or history, and bring some of that into their future work.

All real English academics today, I am sure, have read Shakespeare's plays. All of them know Dante. I don't particularly care what some person who decided to only read literature past 1940 thought.

Classic texts are for classical studies. They don't work much outside of their original language anyway, from what I am told. If someone wants to major, or even minor in classics, they can feel free to. If they want to be classic scholars, good luck to them.

But English is too wide to cover entirely in 4 years. And is too wide to cover in one lifetime. Harold Bloom tried to, and the result was mediocre scholarship, on all, and no texts, in contrast to his great work dealing with the Romantic poets, his specialty, at the beginning of his career.

I don't think you could consider anyone a public intellectual if they only deal in past texts. Northrop Frye himself was a devout critic of contemporary Canadian texts (and even artworks). Reading classics is important, but reading contemporary works is also important. I know plenty of people, even on these boards who regard contemporary literature as rubbish, and only read what Penguin, and Harold Bloom tell them to. Is that your idea of an intellectual? one who only reads Victorian novels, and Ancient Greek Classics?

Either way, you address a problem with American academia, or some of you, to British academia. I'm in Canada - the politics of your country, believe it or not, haven't completely infiltrated the curriculum. All these problems, seem very much a part of your culture, and less so a part of mine. You guys are all divided into schools of thought, we aren't really, to such an extent. You guys are all preoccupied with racial politics because of your racist history - we are past that.

Canadian authors use classical texts even more than Americans, in many instances. Canadian students are educated in Shakespeare, virtually in every English classroom (outside of Quebec, and New Brunswick which may instruct in French authors in French classes) from grade 9, and in some cases grade 8. It's not my problem - it's yours. It's not my skewed perception of the American intellectual, it is America's. Leave me out of it - I know my classics better than most, and I know my contemporary books better than most. The reason, because I want to - for both knowledge, and entertainment. If some mediocre undergraduate doesn't want to, his loss - he wasted his 4 years, not me.

Behemoth

02-25-2009, 02:01 PM

I don't think of universities as educating people how to love literature. I think of them as educating them how to criticize literature.

That's so true. Our head of department announced on the first day of the first term, "this is not a course for people who enjoy literature", and all of my friends just looked at each other as if to say, erm, oops ...
It's what upsets me in particular about my university, because I think it is possible to enjoy literature whilst being able to criticise it at the same time. The theory-only practices of literary criticism destroy, in my sense, the soul of what I am reading (though i'm aware that it's probably an over-romanticised way of looking at it), and I don't think that it's necessary. If I thought I had to power to change anything or, indeed, that anyone would listen, i'd put a stop to that sort of attitude, and leave literature courses open to appreciation as much as criticism.

JBI

02-25-2009, 02:12 PM

That's so true. Our head of department announced on the first day of the first term, "this is not a course for people who enjoy literature", and all of my friends just looked at each other as if to say, erm, oops ...
It's what upsets me in particular about my university, because I think it is possible to enjoy literature whilst being able to criticise it at the same time. The theory-only practices of literary criticism destroy, in my sense, the soul of what I am reading (though i'm aware that it's probably an over-romanticised way of looking at it), and I don't think that it's necessary. If I thought I had to power to change anything or, indeed, that anyone would listen, i'd put a stop to that sort of attitude, and leave literature courses open to appreciation as much as criticism.

I think you misunderstood me - I meant that there job isn't to inspire people to love Shakespeare, it is to teach people how to read Shakespeare, and how Shakespeare has been read, and can be read.

Generally, I'm of the mind that if you don't love literature, you don't belong in an English class anyway. There is some sort of misconception, that Shakespeare for instance shouldn't be criticized, and each sonnet, play, and poem is perfect. That's rubbish.

Also, I don't think people really need to love literature to find patterns within it. It helps, but it isn't necessary.

Really, what is the point of teaching someone to love literature? IT doesn't help anyone. They can reveal things, that make people appreciate texts more, but for the most part, I would estimate, at the earlier years, 70% of people are detached, and couldn't give a ****. Some people don't even show up to lectures. I don't particularly care - it means there is more room in the front.

The Comedian

02-25-2009, 03:56 PM

Really, what is the point of teaching someone to love literature?

The same point that could be had by getting people to love the environment, little babies, their neighbor next door, themselves. . . .so that they will be better stewards of the subject, so that they will be better spokesmen and spokeswomen of the topic when it comes under fire.

Heck, what happens when something when no one loves it anymore? It dies (like the plant you neglect to water). Or maybe disappears (like the childhood toy that you lost forever). Or maybe it just becomes irrelevant because no one cares anymore (like the countless books that we no longer read or discuss).

I'd argue that teaching people love literature is more important than teaching them the ways in which one can read The Bard. It's also much harder to teach someone to love literature than it is to teach different ways of reading.

Finally, scholars and lovers of literature should not want "more room up front" at readings and lectures; they should want packed houses and long lines (and free beer). They should want literature to be the talk of the town. Why? Because the buzz will inspire and direct talented, thoughtful people to create of more and more literature. It will help direct funds to literature departments at colleges and universities so that more people can study literature.

JBI

02-25-2009, 05:24 PM

Honestly, that is ridiculous. If I already love literature, why the hell should I go to class then? What's the point of studying literature then?

Seriously, why even bother teaching literature if the only objective is to make people love it. I personally find the whole notion of teaching someone to love ridiculous. People either will or won't. What you love is not what I love. Whose opinion is greater?

I don't want to waste my 6,000 a year on learning to love something I already love. Where's my incentive?

Besides which, environmental studies don't teach people to love the environment, it is expected of people when they entire environmental studies.

The Comedian

02-25-2009, 09:22 PM

Honestly, that is ridiculous. If I already love literature, why the hell should I go to class then? What's the point of studying literature then?

Interesting point. As you noted already, one can study literature for a bunch of reasons, at least I think they can. If you already love it, then I'm sure there are a couple more reasons for studying it that you could adopt.

Seriously, why even bother teaching literature if the only objective is to make people love it.

I don't think that I made any assertion that the "only objective" in teaching literature is to encourage people to love it. I said it was the most important, yes, but not "only." As you and I both observed, there are a lot reasons for studying literature.

Bear in mind that I speak from an unfortunately limited American perspective here, but some people take a literature class because to fulfill a requirement. Maybe they know what the want to study, maybe not. Maybe they learn to love literature in that class. If they do, I don't see how the world is made worse because of it.

I personally find the whole notion of teaching someone to love ridiculous. People either will or won't.

True enough. But the same could be said for teaching anyone anything -- ultimately a teacher can't learn for the student. Ultimately, she learns deconstructionism, or she doesn't. She loves literature, or she doesn't.

At most teachers can nudge students along. But a good teacher can teach a love of subject right along side a rigorous and scholarly focus and not miss a beat. It's not like you're either teaching a love of subject or you're not. Good teachers can double up.

I don't want to waste my 6,000 a year on learning to love something I already love. Where's my incentive?

I don't know you well enough to say.

andave_ya

02-25-2009, 09:55 PM

Dante didn't write the Commedia for nothing. I am afraid I must disagree. The first great move made by the academies in regards to the study of literature, was to break from the classics, and develop a tradition from the present.

I would rather see people studying French, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, or any other modern language than ancient Greek.

Besides which, logic and rhetoric are either taught to or acquired by serious students anyway. If someone is serious in studying literature which is rhetoric dense, such as Shakespeare, one will eventually acquire the terminology anyway. It's not to uncommon for people to use words like Anadeplosis, or asyndeton, or metonymy.

I'm afraid I can't accept a system based on classic "grand narratives" anymore. There is a lot more out there, and a lot more quality stuff to be found outside the classics than within them. Besides which, the trivium was essentially a high school prep for the Quadrivium, which cannot possibly exist in today's society. Latin grammar, logic, and rhetoric aren't as important as contemporary issues.

Besides which, as soon as cultures turn more traditional, I feel they start to turn more ethnocentric and anti-semtic, which cannot possibly last. Though I respect your school I guess, I don't think I can agree with its purpose:

Although I see your point, it would be kind of odd for a college that calls itself Christian to become anti-semitic :D.

Otherwise, I see your point - but really I know so little of both classical and contemporary literature that at this point my opinion in general is pretty much irrelevant.
From a personal point of view, I'd disagree. I've come up with a list of classical authors that I want to read not necessarily to be "well-read" or solely because I can but because the more I read the more I'm seeing that literature is inter-connected. So the more I read the more I understand the allusions and therefore, the piece.

I think you misunderstood me - I meant that there job isn't to inspire people to love Shakespeare, it is to teach people how to read Shakespeare, and how Shakespeare has been read, and can be read.

Generally, I'm of the mind that if you don't love literature, you don't belong in an English class anyway. There is some sort of misconception, that Shakespeare for instance shouldn't be criticized, and each sonnet, play, and poem is perfect. That's rubbish.

Also, I don't think people really need to love literature to find patterns within it. It helps, but it isn't necessary.

Really, what is the point of teaching someone to love literature? IT doesn't help anyone. They can reveal things, that make people appreciate texts more, but for the most part, I would estimate, at the earlier years, 70% of people are detached, and couldn't give a ****. Some people don't even show up to lectures. I don't particularly care - it means there is more room in the front.

This was an interesting point of view I hadn't considered before. I intend to teach at a higher level of education - and one of my primary goals is to teach my future students how to love literature. I see the trivium as not necessarily important as current events but as a springboard for interpreting them; hence why I want to teach people to love literature.

By the way, I agree entirely that all authors, regardless of their popularity, should be criticized. It's only that at this point I don't feel confident enough in the extent of my knowledge to definitively criticize Shakespeare or someone else. (I don't like Shakespeare. Seriously. I've read five plays and attempted his sonnets. But I expect that's because I don't really know how to read him.)

JBI

02-25-2009, 10:53 PM

Yes, but the Trivium, in the classical sense, was a grade school thing. Classics were required knowledge for entrance to university, in many ways, and Greek and Latin were taught at a younger age.

It's assumed that people already know the basics - formal rhetoric helps a lot, I personally use it when I can, as I do poetry terms - terms are important, and they are taught, or should be taught anyway, but that isn't the point - you cannot only teach the trivium, and it really won't do much good anyway at the age of 18 to drop someone with English grammar. They should know it before, or make an effort on their own to know it, the same way you really shouldn't teach someone how to write an essay in university, you should just make help available if they need it, which many universities do.

mono

02-25-2009, 11:22 PM

This sums up my beliefs in education, and I could not agree more, JBI:

I don't think of universities as educating people how to love literature. I think of them as educating them how to criticize literature.

You must keep in mind, this is an English program, and English is a wide language. You cannot possibly cover everything, and likewise people are engaged in other disciplines, such as psychology, or history, and bring some of that into their future work.

All real English academics today, I am sure, have read Shakespeare's plays. All of them know Dante. I don't particularly care what some person who decided to only read literature past 1940 thought.

Classic texts are for classical studies. They don't work much outside of their original language anyway, from what I am told. If someone wants to major, or even minor in classics, they can feel free to. If they want to be classic scholars, good luck to them.

But English is too wide to cover entirely in 4 years. And is too wide to cover in one lifetime. Harold Bloom tried to, and the result was mediocre scholarship, on all, and no texts, in contrast to his great work dealing with the Romantic poets, his specialty, at the beginning of his career.
Most subjects, even outside literature, seem to broad to cover in a set number of years, even more than 4 years as a full-time student; more and more in contemporary education, it has seemed more self-paced and a determine-your-own-progress status. Indeed, if a student refuses to show up to lectures, s/he has as much of a right to do that as the student who over-studies.
In terms of subjects, a student who has more interest in post-modernism, I believe, should still take at least a course or two on Greek and Latin classics, more to build a foundation on other genres; in my university, though I had no interest in science fiction or fantasy, I had to take courses in both of them, as well as in religious literature, despite my having no religion. Specialities can come a bit later, but building a basis of knowledge in other genres and generations of literature seems important from the beginning; whether or not the student with an interest in Russian literature wants to attend the lectures on British and American Romanticism seems up to him/her, but it will look not-so-good to have a failing grade.
Pre-enrollment interviews I find very important. I attended a very elite nursing school, and a good interview meant almost as much as how a student did in his/her prerequisites. The formal interview only lasted a grueling 20 minutes with the director and a few professors, and primarily consisted of relatively vague questions. Ironically, the cost differed very little to other nursing schools, but restrictions to what students got accepted got strict, as well as who stayed in the program. Though I attended that school, and passed the state licensure exam with flying colors, my name ends with the title 'RN' just like someone who attended a second-rate school and scraped by the licensure exam, yet our knowledge base may differ greatly, just like someone who studied Dark Ages and medieval literature over Roman classics.

ihavebrownhaira

02-26-2009, 12:48 AM

Drkshadow03

02-26-2009, 09:28 AM

I would allow students to realize how much bs is thrown into the school system. And then I would tell them 99% of you are worth nothing so you might as well leave this class or suffer. And then I would write a great novel and show it to all of them and say, "See. This is literature. This is art. You do not possess this skill. It has nothing to do with intelligence. It has to do some with soul and charisma and heart and every single one of you are slowly fading and dieing. You do not know what it means to suffer."

Then I would dismiss the class and that would be that.

You know if you did that you'd probably be fired really quickly. Not to mention I see no reason why one should do that in the first place. Students won't take kindly to being told they are worth nothing. And it wouldn't teach them anything worthwhile. What value does that approach have?

-----------------------------------------------

The point of undergraduate education in the Humanities is to teach you general critical thinking skills that you can apply to any discipline or area. That's the main goal of a literary education in the U.S. Nothing less, nothing more.

That's the real issue behind all of this. Does studying literature have an intrinsic worth? Does it suddenly get more worth if you focus on the critical aspects of it and how to write about it? But to consider such writing and critical thinking of literature important is to assume literature itself has some importance. The point is that one of the reasons people often deride a humanities education whether it is in philosophy or literature (though, for some reason history has a little more value to us) it is because unlike sciences like chemistry, engineering, etc. the humanities does not lead to specific jobs of any value to the masses other than being able to write about literature or philosophy. It's all a self-reflective exercise.

JBI criticizes the idea that the point of literary education is to learn an appreciation and a love of literature; he claims the real point is to learn how to write and think about literature. Of course, that itself is a rather pointless act. You're producing scholarship that will only be of interest to other scholars in that narrow field that will not progress humanity in the way a new discovery for the cure cancer would in medicine or chemistry, but is simply one person's educated opinion about a work of "literary merit." The only it can move is the field itself.

Literary education's primary goal to the larger picture is to teach critical thinking skills that might be useful in non-literary jobs, inculcate a love of literature and demonstrate how all these words might have some relevancy to the lives of your students, and to teach the basics of writing whether that is a paper on a text or a resume.

kelby_lake

02-26-2009, 01:41 PM

JBI

02-26-2009, 02:04 PM

Easy for you to say - look at these boards - what are people discussing? novels, chiefly Russian.

mayneverhave

02-26-2009, 02:52 PM

A professor at my university warned me: If I actually liked literature, don't go to graduate school.

This seems both correct and incorrect. There is no direct correlation between a "love" (whatever that means exactly) of literature and quality literary criticism. If anything, my love for, say Dostoevsky, may hold me back from being as critical as I need to be.

It's assumed, however, that one just doesn't enter a literary field on a whim, but that there is a general motivating interest there.

As to the monopoly that novels have on the discussion here, the majority of people on these boards don't have degrees in literary study. Novels are generally easier to get into to and to comprehend. Poetry, often, takes concentration and, I would argue, a greater love of pure language than novels require.

Quark

02-26-2009, 02:54 PM

I'm fed up of all those people who go 'Ooh, dunno what to do at uni. Hmm, I like reading...I'll do English Lit!'. And stupidly they only want to study novels.
Literature is novels, short stories, plays, and poetry and none of these are higher or more important than each other (though for plays, we'd learn a little of a drama, but so what?).

Novels certainly are taking up too much attention at the moment, and I, too, wish that we could introduce poems, plays, essays, biography, and history to beginning students without losing their interest. I think you may be setting up a straw man, though, by saying that the low estate of these other forms is due to indecisive morons who can't pick a focus. There are actually many trends which are fueling the rise of the novel, and intro students don't really factor much into this. First, the novels ascent is partly just a reflection of the popularity of prose. Many believe now that prose is the natural way to converse, and that poetry is just unnecessary mystification. Novels, then, are the natural, unaffected literary form. Everything else can fall away without much loss. Most likely, none of this is true, but it's widely believed.

The rise of the novel may also be linked to the rising importance that we give to narrative. It seems like people are increasingly interpreting thought in terms of stories that we tell ourselves. Novels, which focus around a single or multiple narratives, are seen to represent the way people talk about themselves or understand the world.

Both the novel's connection with narrative and its presumed naturalness contribute far more to its veneration than a few confused intro students. And, while I don't necessarily agree with the arguments above, I do think that the novel deserves a place within the study of literature. I just wish we could do away with the myths about novel's excellence, and get back to talking about literature and what we hope to gain from it. This would mean that we would need to approach literature from a wider perspective which would include any form which we think we could learn something from. And, we might even talk about less literary forms of writing and talk about the difference between their approach and the more suggestive or expressive language that is literary.

kelby_lake

02-27-2009, 02:34 PM

Novels certainly are taking up too much attention at the moment, and I, too, wish that we could introduce poems, plays, essays, biography, and history to beginning students without losing their interest. I think you may be setting up a straw man, though, by saying that the low estate of these other forms is due to indecisive morons who can't pick a focus.

The rise of the novel may also be linked to the rising importance that we give to narrative. It seems like people are increasingly interpreting thought in terms of stories that we tell ourselves. Novels, which focus around a single or multiple narratives, are seen to represent the way people talk about themselves or understand the world.

Both the novel's connection with narrative and its presumed naturalness contribute far more to its veneration than a few confused intro students. And, while I don't necessarily agree with the arguments above, I do think that the novel deserves a place within the study of literature. I just wish we could do away with the myths about novel's excellence, and get back to talking about literature and what we hope to gain from it. This would mean that we would need to approach literature from a wider perspective which would include any form which we think we could learn something from. And, we might even talk about less literary forms of writing and talk about the difference between their approach and the more suggestive or expressive language that is literary.

Of course novels should have a place, but people should be able to distinguish different writing styles. Just studying novels is very simplistic- hell, we could even study seminal articles/criticisms- because people don't really appreciate the craft of the different styles, and the art.

I love plays because it forces the writer to think of people- the actors, audience...and how best to communicate something important. When reading a good play, I think: 'Right, what would I do with this?', and there is more room for interpretation and which themes you'd focus on.

Poetry interests me when it shows a love for language, when someone knows the exact way to communicate a sentiment or uses a landscape to show some emotion. Though I can't stand poems about nature.

ihavebrownhaira

02-27-2009, 11:53 PM

LitNetIsGreat

02-28-2009, 08:18 AM

College is a waste of time. I am pursuing an associates in humanities. I wish to study literature, but I do not know. I work a poor job and I am sore and tired and I feel as if this were a game. I would rather be great and suffer alone than to be successful and a fake. I normally don't make sense and I feel as if I am a copy and I suppose I am. I was not born into money. My father was not a doctor so there is nowhere to go. I can strive to stay where I am at or I can sink.

I prescribe Tom Hogkingson's How to be Free as an anti-dote to your woes. Take this book at regular intervals during the day along with a glass of foamy ale and stick two fingers up to the world. You should be back to your old self in no time, in fact you may even be better than your old self. If symptoms persist consult your local bookstore, ring up a friend or buy me a beer via paypal. :lol:

We allow ourselves to become slaves to time. Even the world of jobs is defined by its mere duration: the nine-to-fiver, a drudge, an automaton. Always, time is bearing down upon us, urging us to hurry up, do more, get organised. The clock is a giant admonisher, constantly ticking us off.

The idea of a career is that it follows an upward path to some ever-vanishing circle. [...] Career is just posh slavery. And career is an institutionalized putting-off, a paradise deferred. We hold the abstract notion of a career in our heads as a kind of yardstick. Sometimes we are doing well against our self-imposed imagined career path; sometimes doing badly and other people's careers seem to be going better. We use career as a stick to beat ourselves with. And always we have our eyes on the next rung up the ladder.

Is this anyway to live life?

sixsmith

02-28-2009, 06:05 PM

Drkshadow03

03-01-2009, 09:46 AM

Rather envious of some of the programs of study listed here. My undergrad English degree was a nightmare. It began with two courses - the names of which i cant recall. We "studied" constructs of the "city" using folks such as Derrida, Lacan, Foucault. I hated it. I resented the **** out what i considered to be a lazy and completely misguided approach to English lit and i regret having majored in English at all. It wasn't until the last couple of units, where we actually looked at individual texts that i began to enjoy it but by that stage it was too late. I'd like to do some further study in English but i'm reticent after my undergrad experience.

Grad schools in America tend to be very Theory heavy. I've had professors say to me that it was unnecessary for us to read important Canonical works for a class because we could do that during our own time, and we should be spending the bulk of our time studying theory. Those of us who disliked Theory, considering it a kind of third-rate philosophy, would jokingly call these professors "Theory Monsters." However, I found during grad school that there were a small cadre of professors who would focus on literary texts over theroy, including only a bare minimum of theory.

The key to a successful Grad experience, if you happen to have crazy ideas like I do and believe that English majors should actually be studying literature, is to find those professors and avoid the others.

With that said, I do think some knowledge in theory can be useful, even if to only stay current with what everybody else is doing and to be able to teach a theory class when you have your Ph. D.

The Comedian

03-01-2009, 10:39 AM

Grad schools in America tend to be very Theory heavy. I've had professors say to me that it was unnecessary for us to read important Canonical works for a class because we could do that during our own time, and we should be spending the bulk of our time studying theory. Those of us who disliked Theory, considering it a kind of third-rate philosophy, would jokingly call these professors "Theory Monsters." However, I found during grad school that there were a small cadre of professors who would focus on literary texts over theroy, including only a bare minimum of theory.

The key to a successful Grad experience, if you happen to have crazy ideas like I do and believe that English majors should actually be studying literature, is to find those professors and avoid the others.

With that said, I do think some knowledge in theory can be useful, even if to only stay current with what everybody else is doing and to be able to teach a theory class when you have your Ph. D.

Right on! I had a rather similar experience in graduate school in English as well. I used to joke that literary theory is "the practice of sounding smart while saying little".

Quark

03-01-2009, 12:13 PM

I used to joke that literary theory is "the practice of sounding smart while saying little".

Funny, but I assume that there's probably a certain amount of posturing involved in every job. I think we're just more stunned by it in academia because there's an expectation that scholars would should be above it. Also, it may have something to do with the fact that it's often hard to distinguish between posturing and actual work since no one seems to be able to say exactly what scholars of literature are really doing. This is what I would like to change about academia--at least in English departments. We study texts, or we study theory which is supposed to help us study texts, but no one can say what purpose this supposed to serve. Not all disciplines have this problem. In fact, very few do I would assume. Physics, for example, studies energy and motion. Biology studies living organisms, philosophy studies truth, history studies the past. These are all subjects which seem immediately important. I see motion continually, and I ask my self about the past and truth as well. The study of truth is so important that even though you're almost guaranteed to make no progress in a philosophy class it's still worth considering because the subject is so important. The texts that English considers, though, don't have the same applicability. I don't see Wuthering Heights when I walk out the door the same way I see motion.

Obviously, there is something to reading Wuthering Heights--some quality that has a wider applicability than the story itself. Literary scholars, however, have no idea what this quality is. And, in its absence, the text itself becomes the object of interest--even though the text is little more than a useless artifact. I'd like to see more thought given to the purpose of our work. Just because an article says something about Wuthering Heights doesn't necessarily mean it's literary scholarship--nor does it guarantee that it's important. There has to be something more than just saying something clever about a text. Every clever observation about birds is not biology. Why should everything said about texts be English?

Drkshadow03

03-01-2009, 01:44 PM

Funny, but I assume that there's probably a certain amount of posturing involved in every job. I think we're just more stunned by it in academia because there's an expectation that scholars would should be above it. Also, it may have something to do with the fact that it's often hard to distinguish between posturing and actual work since no one seems to be able to say exactly what scholars of literature are really doing. This is what I would like to change about academia--at least in English departments. We study texts, or we study theory which is supposed to help us study texts, but no one can say what purpose this supposed to serve. Not all disciplines have this problem. In fact, very few do I would assume. Physics, for example, studies energy and motion. Biology studies living organisms, philosophy studies truth, history studies the past. These are all subjects which seem immediately important. I see motion continually, and I ask my self about the past and truth as well. The study of truth is so important that even though you're almost guaranteed to make no progress in a philosophy class it's still worth considering because the subject is so important. The texts that English considers, though, don't have the same applicability. I don't see Wuthering Heights when I walk out the door the same way I see motion.

Obviously, there is something to reading Wuthering Heights--some quality that has a wider applicability than the story itself. Literary scholars, however, have no idea what this quality is. And, in its absence, the text itself becomes the object of interest--even though the text is little more than a useless artifact. I'd like to see more thought given to the purpose of our work. Just because an article says something about Wuthering Heights doesn't necessarily mean it's literary scholarship--nor does it guarantee that it's important. There has to be something more than just saying something clever about a text. Every clever observation about birds is not biology. Why should everything said about texts be English?

The purposes of studying literature can be broken down into the following categories:

1) Literature as cultural-historical artificacts (anthropological/sociology):

We study literature to find out what a culture believes, how a specific historical period thinks, how human ideas about the world have changed over time. The purpose of literary texts is to elucidate the ideas of cultures from the past to help beam a light on the present.

Its equivalent in academia would be History, Anthropology, and Sociology.

2) Literature as aesthetic objects

This would be the equivalent of Art History. Literature is studied for its formal features and literary techniques. How someone says something is more interesting than what they have to say.

We spend time judging who is worthy of literary merit and who is not. This area may also consider how certain aesthetic features reflect intended meaning, but aren't necessarily interested in meanings of a text outside of treating the work as an aesthetic object.

3) Literature as philosophical texts.

Literature has truths to offer its reader. They may be universal truths about how the world works, about human experience, or human nature, etc. Its equivalent is philosophy, psychology, and theology.

--------------------------------------------------------------

The real problem becomes apparent quickly; the study of literature is really a specialization of other disciplines in academia: history, anthropology, philosophy, theology, Art History, etc. This is why people are always bumbling around to explain what it is literary majors study and do.

The study of literature is quite simply the study of all aspects of a literary text (those texts we deem important or worthy of study). A literary text has value because it can tell us what a culture or group within a specific culture believe about the world (anthropology), it can offer us bits of wisdom for us to consider and apply to our own lives (philosophy), it can give us insight into the experiences of other people different from us (anthropology), it can give us insights into the way humans act and why they do what they do (psychology), it is aesthetically pleasing and we value what is beautiful (art history), it can open a window into the past telling us both what it was like to live an historical event or in a particular historical period (history), through its themes and ideas it can reveal to us what people in the past thought about the world and different aspects of it (history), it can elucidate on religious and spiritual experiences (theology), and it can reveal contemporary social problems (sociology). Then it also studies the innovations within itself, whether how themes have changed over time or stylistic changes.

Basically literature is the study of all those things, but ultimately it is draws from other disciplines.

Quark

03-01-2009, 02:16 PM

The real problem becomes apparent quickly; the study of literature is really a specialization of other disciplines in academia: history, anthropology, philosophy, theology, Art History, etc.

Basically literature is the study of all those things, but ultimately it is draws from other disciplines.

That would be a problem. Studying literature would just be an indirect way of getting to other sciences. There would be no subject of study called "literature" then, and those who went into English would be merely amateur philosopher, art historians, and anthropologist. No doubt a novel like Moby Dick makes philosophical statements, but was Melville really a philosopher? If he isn't then we can't study his works for philosophical reasons. If he is a philosopher, though, then shouldn't he be studied in a philosophy class? You might say that Moby Dick is more than just a philosophical work--that it includes all the subjects that you mentioned above and that this is what makes it worth study. I can sort of agree with this. Part of the difference between a non-literary work (like a manual for your garbage disposal, let's say) and literary one (I'm stuck on Moby Dick) is that the latter suggests more than the former. We wonder about the narrator of Moby Dick and his perspective in a way that we don't wonder about the writer of the garbage disposal manual. Melville's novel doesn't just tell us about a ship and whale, it suggests far more. A garbage disposal manual doesn't try suggest anything but how a mechanism works. There's a tight focus in non-literary works that there isn't in literary ones. So we can say that Moby Dick isn't just a philosophical statement, and that a non-literary work by a philosopher is just a philosophical statement.

But, just because Moby Dick says multiple things doesn't make it interesting alone. Even if it says something about art history, philosophy, theology all together, what does that matter? Taken alone, these ideas would still be weak when put in the context of the disciplines they represent. And, they still don't say anything that can't be said in another discipline. I think we're better off if we abandon the idea of literature being a hodgepodge of other sciences, and look at what literature does by itself. That is, it suggests things. That's the difference between it and non-literary works. Literature suggests more, and that's what makes it valuable. It isn't something we should put along side philosophy, art history, and theology. It's the language which suggests these other subjects.

This is getting a little off track, though. I was just saying that I wish people thought a little more about this sort of thing.

Taliesin

03-01-2009, 03:56 PM

Hmm, actually I must admit I like the university system here well enough.
It's free for quite a lot of people - if your final exams were good enough, you can get a free entry.
People lately have complained about taking the bachelor down from four years to three - it made bachelor quite a pointless degree. They claim that it fits better with the system they use in some foreign countries - well, perhaps. I guess I would have liked a somewhat stronger bachelor, but since I probably will continue studying after getting the bachelor degree, it's not much of a problem for me.
Concerning the substance, I think I am quite happy with that too -the first year was quite boring but by what I have heard, the first year is boring everywhere -but the subjects have become more and more interesting.
Some things can be complained over in my university - for example, why do they teach us Mathcad - we can't work home with it because it a)is bloody expensive and b)works only on Windows. Also, c) it is known to have bugs especially put in so that you have to pay some extra money to get it removed. And d) it isn't very good for doing large calculations. It seems a bit corrupted, IMO.
Leaving petty things like this aside, I think I am quite content with the system.

The Comedian

03-01-2009, 04:23 PM

This is getting a little off track, though. I was just saying that I wish people thought a little more about this sort of thing.

Quark, Drkshadow03 --

Your posts are excellent reading and I agree with much of what they state. The focus of a study of literature (and thus far, that's what we've meant when we say "English") is tough to pin down, let alone evaluate.

I'll just add that in addition to drkshadow03's categories, there's one missing that I think is greatly under severed in US graduate schools, at any rate: performance. I'd like to see a creative writing element infused to a much greater extent than it currently is, into traditional literary study. I mean -- we want to learn literature, right? So why not do a little literature instead of "just" writing about it.

At times, I felt that studying literature was like studying cooking exclusively studying those writers who have closely read The of Joy of Cooking. But any attempt to get into the kitchen and fry some fish would seen a foolish.

Drkshadow03

03-01-2009, 07:38 PM

That would be a problem. Studying literature would just be an indirect way of getting to other sciences. There would be no subject of study called "literature" then, and those who went into English would be merely amateur philosopher, art historians, and anthropologist. No doubt a novel like Moby Dick makes philosophical statements, but was Melville really a philosopher? If he isn't then we can't study his works for philosophical reasons. If he is a philosopher, though, then shouldn't he be studied in a philosophy class? You might say that Moby Dick is more than just a philosophical work--that it includes all the subjects that you mentioned above and that this is what makes it worth study. I can sort of agree with this. Part of the difference between a non-literary work (like a manual for your garbage disposal, let's say) and literary one (I'm stuck on Moby Dick) is that the latter suggests more than the former. We wonder about the narrator of Moby Dick and his perspective in a way that we don't wonder about the writer of the garbage disposal manual. Melville's novel doesn't just tell us about a ship and whale, it suggests far more. A garbage disposal manual doesn't try suggest anything but how a mechanism works. There's a tight focus in non-literary works that there isn't in literary ones. So we can say that Moby Dick isn't just a philosophical statement, and that a non-literary work by a philosopher is just a philosophical statement.

But, just because Moby Dick says multiple things doesn't make it interesting alone. Even if it says something about art history, philosophy, theology all together, what does that matter? Taken alone, these ideas would still be weak when put in the context of the disciplines they represent. And, they still don't say anything that can't be said in another discipline. I think we're better off if we abandon the idea of literature being a hodgepodge of other sciences, and look at what literature does by itself. That is, it suggests things. That's the difference between it and non-literary works. Literature suggests more, and that's what makes it valuable. It isn't something we should put along side philosophy, art history, and theology. It's the language which suggests these other subjects.

This is getting a little off track, though. I was just saying that I wish people thought a little more about this sort of thing.

I think to say literary studies is the study of the various aspects of literary texts that have communal and historical importance is good enough. It's just as good as saying history is the study of the past. You can always respond with: why is that important? Why study the past? You could ask the same question of biology. Why study life with the scientific method? The answer to all these questions will probabyl be the same. It will be some form of: because it tells you something about the world you live in today.

For whatever reason human beings like to create art whether to get across an important message about how the world works or how you think the world ought to work, to explore the people around us, or simply as an exercise in aesthetics or craft.

I think the study of literature still centers around those three areas I mentioned earlier. I think the reason they are related to those other disciplines is that they try to address many of the same questions or have many of the same concerns, but attempt to address those concerns from a different angle and focus.

Melville isn't philosophy because Moby Dick's method isn't that of philosophy. Philosophical discourse always centers around skeptical inquiry rather than didactic presentations of truth and lived experience. It deals with the same questions philosophy attempts to deal with, but it addresses them in a different ways. How should we feel about death? What is the nature of courage? How ought we feel about war?

I would argue this is essentially the reason Plato is suspicious of literature, claiming philosophy and literature have been at war with each other since time immemorial. They try to address the same questions. They do so through different methods. It is the methods that Plato is frightened about; he trusts how philosophy can address those questions, but distrusts how literature may do so.

Quark, Drkshadow03 --

Your posts are excellent reading and I agree with much of what they state. The focus of a study of literature (and thus far, that's what we've meant when we say "English") is tough to pin down, let alone evaluate.

I'll just add that in addition to drkshadow03's categories, there's one missing that I think is greatly under severed in US graduate schools, at any rate: performance. I'd like to see a creative writing element infused to a much greater extent than it currently is, into traditional literary study. I mean -- we want to learn literature, right? So why not do a little literature instead of "just" writing about it.

At times, I felt that studying literature was like studying cooking exclusively studying those writers who have closely read The of Joy of Cooking. But any attempt to get into the kitchen and fry some fish would seen a foolish.

I actually took two Creative Writing classes in undergrad. They did offer Creative Writing classes at my grad school: Creative non-fiction and poetry. No fiction unfortunately. However, they weren't required, but could be used as electives.

I agree that actually writing something and engaging in the creative process offers a whole new perspective.

I think, of course, the problem is that grad schools do offer Creative Writing. There many that have an MFA. So its seen as a separate focus for English Majors, even its own department in certain cases, though not always.

My friend did an MFA and Ph. D. with a Creative Writing focus. They required him to take literary courses and read theory, but just not to the extent as those with a literary focus. So it does often work in reverse. MFAs must take traditional literary courses in some programs.

The Comedian

03-01-2009, 08:41 PM

I think to say literary studies is the study of the various aspects of literary texts that have communal and historical importance is good enough. It's just as good as saying history is the study of the past. You can always respond with: why is that important? Why study the past? You could ask the same question of biology. Why study life with the scientific method? The answer to all these questions will probably be the same. It will be some form of: because it tells you something about the world you live in today.

I completely agree.

My friend did an MFA and Ph. D. with a Creative Writing focus. They required him to take literary courses and read theory, but just not to the extent as those with a literary focus. So it does often work in reverse. MFAs must take traditional literary courses in some programs.

Yeah -- I know about creative writing courses, MFAs, etc. . . I should have put that into my original response. I mean something more infused -- that in studying Shakespeare, for example, we should not only study his historical time period, dramatic interpretations, and any associated or "hot" literary theory (and if I know anything about literary theory, I know that it's trendy as hell), we should also try our hand at some imitation: we should write some iambic pentameter blank verse. I mean, if we're going to study the work, we should at least familiarize ourselves with the craft too. In this regard, my idea would differ from an MFA focus -- I'd want us to write creatively to study the author, in part, at least. . . .

Then again, maybe this is just too much to ask of one course.

Drkshadow03

03-01-2009, 09:32 PM

I completely agree.

Yeah -- I know about creative writing courses, MFAs, etc. . . I should have put that into my original response. I mean something more infused -- that in studying Shakespeare, for example, we should not only study his historical time period, dramatic interpretations, and any associated or "hot" literary theory (and if I know anything about literary theory, I know that it's trendy as hell), we should also try our hand at some imitation: we should write some iambic pentameter blank verse. I mean, if we're going to study the work, we should at least familiarize ourselves with the craft too. In this regard, my idea would differ from an MFA focus -- I'd want us to write creatively to study the author, in part, at least. . . .

Then again, maybe this is just too much to ask of one course.

That's a good idea actually. Not only would it teach them more about the form, I suspect it would also help them better appreciate when they find they cannot write like Shakespeare just why we spend so much time studying him.

Quark

03-01-2009, 10:36 PM

I'd like to see a creative writing element infused to a much greater extent than it currently is, into traditional literary study.

That's an interesting point. I think the split between composition and literature classes might be so prevalent because it would be hard to teach both simultaneously. You bring up cooking, but that may not be a good analogy because a recipe or a book about cooking in general has a very direct one-to-one relationship with the act of cooking itself. When you study literature, it isn't quite so direct a path from learning something to putting it into practice. Just because I read a few Shakespeare sonnets doesn't necessarily mean I know everything about the sonnet. I could probably write a sonnet after having read Shakespeare, but it would probably just be a crude imitation and that's not what you're going for in a composition class. In cooking, crude imitations are great. I even made a crude imitation of a lasagna tonight. For literature, though, we're going for something more, and it would be hard to analyze something while working on your own creation.

I think to say literary studies is the study of the various aspects of literary texts that have communal and historical importance is good enough. It's just as good as saying history is the study of the past. You can always respond with: why is that important? Why study the past? You could ask the same question of biology.

You could put the same question to a biologist, but I think they would have a pretty simple answer. Biology studies living organism; there are living organisms all around; you, yourself, are an organism. If you want to know why your cells age or you body contracts illnesses, you should study biology. This is pretty good answer, and I think people are aware that this is what biologists do. Literary studies doesn't have it quite so easy, though. Like I said before, we don't experience literature in the same way. I can avoid the plays of Christopher Marlowe entirely if I want. In fact, a lot of people do. I can't avoid living organisms, however. That being said, I do think there is value to reading a Christopher Marlowe play. We do read them for something. I simply wish there was more attention paid to this "something". I think too much of scholarship is just a commentary on the text, and no one can really say what that "something" that we should be studying is. You say that

Melville isn't philosophy because Moby Dick's method isn't that of philosophy. Philosophical discourse always centers around skeptical inquiry rather than didactic presentations of truth and lived experience. It deals with the same questions philosophy attempts to deal with, but it addresses them in a different ways. How should we feel about death? What is the nature of courage? How ought we feel about war?

This would be one definition of that "something" I referred to above. I don't entirely agree with it, but it does say something about what it is literature is supposed to do. The problem I'm pointing out is that scholarship seems to ignore the "different ways" you bring up, and instead just proliferates articles about whether Rasselas is a feminist work or not or what kind of person the author was. This isn't a discussion of "lived experience"--it's something else which is completely besides the point. This isn't to say that there's anything wrong with biography or feminism--it's just that these seem beside the point. I think scholars continue to write this stuff, though, because we don't have any idea what that "something" I referred to earlier is. And, without it, literary studies becomes a matter of merely saying something clever about the text in front of you.

Drkshadow03

03-02-2009, 10:38 AM

You could put the same question to a biologist, but I think they would have a pretty simple answer. Biology studies living organism; there are living organisms all around; you, yourself, are an organism. If you want to know why your cells age or you body contracts illnesses, you should study biology. This is pretty good answer, and I think people are aware that this is what biologists do.

But claiming that "there are living organism all around you" as the reason to study biology seems to me to be a version of: "because it tells you something about the world you live in today."

Literary studies doesn't have it quite so easy, though. Like I said before, we don't experience literature in the same way. I can avoid the plays of Christopher Marlowe entirely if I want. In fact, a lot of people do. I can't avoid living organisms, however. That being said, I do think there is value to reading a Christopher Marlowe play. We do read them for something. I simply wish there was more attention paid to this "something". I think too much of scholarship is just a commentary on the text, and no one can really say what that "something" that we should be studying is.

I think the analogy of avoiding Christopher Marlowe and avoiding living organisms doesn't work because you're comparing a part of study to a whole area of study. I could take biology 101 and have only an overview of human body systems, never getting into the nitty gritty of someone who focuses on the human body, and instead place my focus of study on jellyfish. Likewise in literatutre, I could take an overview literary classes, one of those surveys I mentioned, learn about Shakespeare rather than Marlowe, and spend my time focusing on 19th Century American Literture. I think you're mixing parts of an area of the study with the big picture, and then trying to compare.

You can avoid Christopher Marlowe, but if I am correct about what literature teaches you cannot avoid the implications of his work in your everyday life. When I step outside I might not literally see Dr. Faustus or black magic or the world he inhabits, but I do see people like Dr. Faustus, making equivalent decisions as him. Likewise as a Jew, I might not believe in the Christian themes of that play myself, but I can read those themes as historically relevant to the time period, and as expressing an historically relevant attitude of his time, as well as the individual concerns of an individual, Marlowe, within those times. Those themes are also relevant to an extremely large sub-population of contemporary Christians. The aesthetics of the play still please and impress us. We still think the language as beautiful. So we admire it simply as a work of art without any regard to what knowledge about the world it can impart. In other words, I just made it fit all three of my categories. So what Marlowe is trying to express in the play does have relevance to us today.

To sum up: cells exist whether I've taken a biology class or not. The biology class only helps me understand them and gives me a new insight into them. Likewise, the problems literature deals with and the characters who are reflections of real life individuals exist whether I've read Marlowe or not. Reading a particular author helps me gain insight into them and what motivates people like that.

Commentary on the text presumably should elucidate one of the three areas I defined earlier. It should tell me something about the historical/cultural moment, it should tell me something about the text's construction and worth, and/or it should tell me what the text was trying to say about an issue that is significant in my life.

This would be one definition of that "something" I referred to above. I don't entirely agree with it, but it does say something about what it is literature is supposed to do. The problem I'm pointing out is that scholarship seems to ignore the "different ways" you bring up, and instead just proliferates articles about whether Rasselas is a feminist work or not or what kind of person the author was. This isn't a discussion of "lived experience"--it's something else which is completely besides the point. This isn't to say that there's anything wrong with biography or feminism--it's just that these seem beside the point. I think scholars continue to write this stuff, though, because we don't have any idea what that "something" I referred to earlier is. And, without it, literary studies becomes a matter of merely saying something clever about the text in front of you.

I would point ou that both biography and feminist criticism would fall under cultural-historical analysis. A pure biography is there to give me context on a peson's life, how he lived during his historical period, and how his life experiences eventually translated into fiction, not to mention give me insight into how he transformed them into art. Biography criticism that begins from a literary work to reproduce the author gives me insights into the writer's concerns and tells me something about why these issues that the text raises concerned him.

The same goes for feminist criticism. Pointing out the sexists attitudes of the past or early works that had concern for women's issues have historical implications for the period. Likewise, discovering feminist themes in a work from the past would and particularly what an author has to same about the plight of women has something to say about the here and now as well. So it would have philosophical implications.

So I would argue that both of these types for the most part, with a few exceptions, do fall into my three categories. I do agree, however, that political scholarship does have its weaknesses and problems.

Quark

03-02-2009, 11:42 PM

But claiming that "there are living organism all around you" as the reason to study biology seems to me to be a version of: "because it tells you something about the world you live in today."

The difference is that a biologist (we're really beating this example into the ground, aren't we?) can point directly to his object of study. Mr. or Mrs. Biologist can say they are studying cells, and, if someone questions them about why they're doing that, they can point to some cells and say "look! there's cells around!" They can study cells to learn more about cells. A scholar of Renaissance literature can't say he or she is studying Renaissance literature to learn more about Renaissance literature. That wouldn't make sense. There isn't Renaissance literature floating around like there are cells everywhere. The Renaissance lit scholar, instead, has to say, well, he or she is studying Renaissance literature because it tells us about something else which is everywhere. The scholar has to make a leap from what he's studying to its wider application that a biologist doesn't. I think, then, that the Renaissance scholar has to tell us what that "something" is. He or she can't simply say that they're studying Renaissance literature and leave it at that.

I think the analogy of avoiding Christopher Marlowe and avoiding living organisms doesn't work because you're comparing a part of study to a whole area of study.

I think that's fair, but you could replace Christopher Marlowe with a wider field of study and my point would still be the same, though. Say we replace the study of him with the study of my example above--Renaissance literature. The analogy would be move equivalent, and I think my point would stay the same.

You can avoid Christopher Marlowe, but if I am correct about what literature teaches you cannot avoid the implications of his work in your everyday life. When I step outside I might not literally see Dr. Faustus or black magic or the world he inhabits, but I do see people like Dr. Faustus, making equivalent decisions as him.

The aesthetics of the play still please and impress us. We still think the language as beautiful. So we admire it simply as a work of art without any regard to what knowledge about the world it can impart.

Okay, let's assume that's what someone would get from Dr. Faustus: realistic characters, aesthetics, etc. You would then say that you're reading Dr. Faustus for those things and not to simply just for an understanding of that particular play. Those things come from the play, no doubt. The play, though, isn't something we really experience that often. People and beauty are things we experience frequently. Therefore, someone who reads Dr. Faustus and learns everything about that particular text probably isn't as valuable as someone who has also read the play, but, instead of having gained an understanding of the all minutiae of Dr. Faustus, has rather picked up something about people and beauty. That's what has real applicability. The play in and of itself does not. I think scholarship has become overly obsessed with the text itself, but neglects those "three categories" that you describe above. It's encouraging to see that you have an idea of what you're trying to do with literature, but I don't think that literary studies as a whole does.

kelby_lake

10-25-2012, 09:13 AM

RicMisc

10-25-2012, 09:28 AM

I would make it more interdisciplinary- not in the style of postcolonialism as English lecturers are not in the best position to teach history and politics but in incorporating theatre and film so it becomes more of a cultural awareness. In the nineteenth century (and maybe the eighteenth?), novels were the popular form of entertainment. In the twentieth century, literature was no longer the popular form of entertainment.

I am not sure what it is you're trying to say here. What would you like to change in academia. I get that you'd like it to be more interdisciplinary but in what way does your example of novels, theatre and film relate to this?

OrphanPip

10-25-2012, 04:25 PM

My lit BA was reasonably simple, the courses relating to my minor are omitted:

Critical Reading: This was an introductory course to the various methodologies of reading prose, poetry and drama.
Tragedy: An overview of theories of tragedy and major text, involved Homer, Book of Job, Sophocles, Ibsen, Miller, Shakespeare and Marlowe.
British Lit Survey until 1660.
Brit Lit Survey until 1900.
Intro to Literary Theory.
Edmund Spenser: The course involved the short poetry of ES plus special attention to a few books of the FQ
Art of Film Animation: This was a broad survey course.
17th Century Prose and Poetry: Pretty self-explanatory.
African Literature in English: Involved a good selection of drama and prose, but poetry was neglected.
Gender and Sexuality in Lit: This was my necessary advanced theory course.
English Renaissance drama: This also involved producing (on a very low budget) a scene from a play with a group.
Restoration and Eighteenth Century Comedies: This is now the focus of my MA research.
American Poetry
18th Century Rakes, Whores and Coquettes: This was a course that focused on literature dealing with libertine/outsider figures in the 18th century
Evolution and 20th Century Literature
Studies in the 18th Century novel
Slumming in the 19th Century: This was a seminar on Victorian representations of the slum, not a favourite of mine.
Honours Seminar/Paper: The topic for the group was the idea of canon formation, my paper was on Platonic influences in the formation of a "literary" novel genre during the 18th century.
Sexuality in the Performing Arts.
And finally a year long survey of Canadian lit.

I'm reasonably happy with the education I received and don't feel that there was too much attention paid to theory, nor were classics ignored.

kelby_lake

10-25-2012, 06:24 PM

I am not sure what it is you're trying to say here. What would you like to change in academia. I get that you'd like it to be more interdisciplinary but in what way does your example of novels, theatre and film relate to this?

Interdisciplinary as in the disciplines of theatre, film...maybe even art. Literature sort of contains a bit of theatre but aside from Shakespeare no clear place has been decided. Therefore I would be studying literature as part of a wider culture.

RicMisc

10-26-2012, 02:24 AM

Interdisciplinary as in the disciplines of theatre, film...maybe even art. Literature sort of contains a bit of theatre but aside from Shakespeare no clear place has been decided. Therefore I would be studying literature as part of a wider culture.

Ah I get it, thank you for the clarification. I agree, literature nowadays is undervalued by most whereas theatre and film are still popular. It would be good to incorporate the influence of literature on these disciplines in the study of literature. I would even go as far as to say that more studies should have multi- or interdisciplinary sides to them, nowadays a lot of disciplines are connected in one way or another. My study of economics for example has a very multidisciplinary side to it. We discuss economics of course but not just the plain macro-economics and business economics as is the case in so many universities these days. Our subjects incorporate all sorts of other disciplines from psychology to history to sociology to law, even to some biology. We even get to choose a minor one of the universities other faculties that allows us to look at economics from an entirely different discipline like psychology, law, history, governance etc.

kelby_lake

10-26-2012, 06:28 AM

Ah I get it, thank you for the clarification. I agree, literature nowadays is undervalued by most whereas theatre and film are still popular. It would be good to incorporate the influence of literature on these disciplines in the study of literature. I would even go as far as to say that more studies should have multi- or interdisciplinary sides to them, nowadays a lot of disciplines are connected in one way or another.

Agreed, though I think we'd have to be careful not to be simplistic about the other discipline, for example, postcolonialist literature is an example of an interdisciplinary study but I can't help but feel that it takes a simplistic approach to a subject with a lot of history and a lot of contentious areas.

Theatre is certainly not popular. It's probably in the same position as literature: there'll always be some popular mainstream stuff but the rest will be ignored apart from those who are regular readers/theatre-goers. Even then, a lot of these people (mostly true of serious readers) will be reading/watching classics rather than new stuff.

It's a tough time for the arts and they really need to bond together. By discussing all three, you will get a much more varied and relevant discussion of literature.

RicMisc

10-26-2012, 07:52 AM

Agreed, though I think we'd have to be careful not to be simplistic about the other discipline, for example, postcolonialist literature is an example of an interdisciplinary study but I can't help but feel that it takes a simplistic approach to a subject with a lot of history and a lot of contentious areas.

Theatre is certainly not popular. It's probably in the same position as literature: there'll always be some popular mainstream stuff but the rest will be ignored apart from those who are regular readers/theatre-goers. Even then, a lot of these people (mostly true of serious readers) will be reading/watching classics rather than new stuff.

It's a tough time for the arts and they really need to bond together. By discussing all three, you will get a much more varied and relevant discussion of literature.

I completely agree, if you decide to do something interdisciplinary it should be interdisciplinary. I do think this is quite difficult to achieve though since you don't want to get into that other subject too deep, like history with your example.

Theatre as in the classic form of entertainment as we used to know it is not that popular anymore. But going to theaters is still quite popular (at least over here), though people nowadays go to the big musicals, comedians etc instead of to 'Waiting for Godot'.

It is definitely a tough time for the arts, in The Netherlands the arts were (and still are) heavily subsidized but they have seen major cuts in these subsidies and a lot of smaller, newer groups and artists have had to call it quits. To make things worse the VAT on cultural activities like going to the theatre has been raised significantly. I'm not for these changes but on the other hand, all sectors have seen budget cuts like these (mostly more extreme) so it's only logical that arts has to suffer as well.

OrphanPip

10-26-2012, 06:25 PM

Agreed, though I think we'd have to be careful not to be simplistic about the other discipline, for example, postcolonialist literature is an example of an interdisciplinary study but I can't help but feel that it takes a simplistic approach to a subject with a lot of history and a lot of contentious areas.

Theatre is certainly not popular. It's probably in the same position as literature: there'll always be some popular mainstream stuff but the rest will be ignored apart from those who are regular readers/theatre-goers. Even then, a lot of these people (mostly true of serious readers) will be reading/watching classics rather than new stuff.

It's a tough time for the arts and they really need to bond together. By discussing all three, you will get a much more varied and relevant discussion of literature.

We put a lot of effort into this at McGill, one of the reasons I chose it for my MA was the interdisciplinary department. We integrate cultural studies, literature, and theater in one department, and while we mostly keep to our own disciplines we have access to the others and can freely take courses in any discipline. I think it's a great opportunity to have access to literary scholars and also to a fully functioning costume shop and a working theater on campus.

Like I mentioned in the snob thread, Peter Roach was here on Tuesday and one of his projects he undertook at Yale recently was an attempt to reform the academic approach to performance. I wasn't totally convinced of the value of the Yale Performance Project, but the basic idea of it was that they would bring together a number of performers and productions and give them a space on campus with the intent to work together and produce academic writing on the subject of the productions. One idea I support is bringing together the study of performance and literature with at least a personal experience of performance.

http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2006/oct/20/world-project-a-runaway-hit/