Why are literature scholars fatheads?

[retardedidiot]

Sorry for my bad English.

First of all I want you to take note that I'm living in a still developing third world country and that I'm a high school student. Sometimes I read literary criticism books written by scholars of my own country then out of curiousity I go to the universities they teach, attend their class for a few times, talk to them, share opinions. Never I have experienced a negative relationship with them, I trust their knowledge in their fields, but deducting from their comments and arguments mentioned in classroom regarding literature and life, culture and people, life in general etc, they all seem to be extremely opinionated and grumpy, pompous of their knowledge, inclinated to patronize over every subject in an old fashioned way, belittle and even disgust people who aren't educated enough, enjoy insulting and humiliating.

Now I was wondering if this is peculiar to my country but I also attended another classes of scholars of different branches and situation was upside down. Say, social sciences, philosophy, psychology, political sciences, law etc, scholars of these branches are very down to earth, modest, gentle, polite, friendly...

I wonder why this is so different and if there is any similarity in another countries, especially Europe or US. I would like to hear your explanations even if situation is different in your case.

[JCamilo]

Probally, they tend to get grump when they see someone using third world country and to reffer to their own country...

[conartist]

I can honestly say that I've never had a horribly pretentious or temperamental lit proffessor. Obviously I'd never doubt that they exist, but I have been in a great many classes containing unbelievably ignorant English students, and have never seen one of them bullied or humiliated.

If you don't want to be patronized, maybe you shouldn't call yourself retardedidiot ...

[prickly_pete]

I don't know about social sciences, but the hard sciences, yes those folks seem to be a bit more tempered in their opinions and not overly certain that their beliefs are the solution for all the world's ills.

[Perandorrrr]

While in college I had taken a class on the Trancendentalist movement. Now, I did not find it that interesting since a lot of these ideas were professed in ancient times. I also wasn't totally against it, I liked Thoreau's ideas on making a living in a world that outgrows you industrially. Apparently, this teacher had written a book, which means you could never tell her otherwise; to make it short, I accidently stated I preferred English Romanticism to the Trancendentalist movement, which made her livid. I got my lowest grade in college (C +) I almost lost my mind. On top of it, she stiffed me on some homework (she gave me the wrong guide, then blamed me -- close to calling me a liar). I get what you're saying, though. I notice teachers, critics or writers that come out of the modernist era, in particular, tend to be extremely grumpy and sensitive to adverse opinions. I think once a teacher or critic spends time studying something, they refuse to hear any idea other then the one they believe. I mean if you spent your life studying Hemingway and all your students refused to like his work, it might make you feel like a failure. Most of the teacers are failed writers, so, out of necessity and protection they pick one of the few writers that can barely be badgered e.g., Shakespeare, Faulker and so on.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I've experienced some of what you describe, but, in my experience, there have been many more professors that are the opposite of what you describe. One of the my professors I respect the most is a huge Star Wars and Star Trek fan, and she loves pop-fiction, along with being extremely knowledgable in high literature and theory. She doesn't look down on anything.

To be a professor, though, I think one needs to have a bit of an ego. You have to have the mindset that you do indeed know more than others. If you don't think that, than why are you teaching?

And you're English is quite good, retardedidiot. Though, if you plan on sticking around, it may be a wise move to make a new account with a name that will garner you less grief.

[hanzklein]

Well, I know I would be mad too if I studied for years to become a professor and notice that society isn't interested in learning or academia and there's only a select few people who want to learn.

It's not at all an ego, I guess its more frustration. Normal professors aren't really respected for all the work they do, and in fact, people involved in high intellect professions in general.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, I know I would be mad too if I studied for years to become a professor and notice that society isn't interested in learning or academia and there's only a select few people who want to learn.

It's not at all an ego, I guess its more frustration. Normal professors aren't really respected for all the work they do, and in fact, people involved in high intellect professions in general.
I didn't say an ego is what makes a professor act like a jerk (though, in my opinion, a jerk is a jerk is a jerk, and those kind of people don't need much inspiration to be an a-hole), just that one needs a little bit of an ego to be a teacher. It's not a bad thing.

Still, if someone (like me) is pursuing the path to becoming a professor, that person should be doing it because they love the subject they are pursuing and for no other reason (especially when it comes to English). If one doesn't know that high education isn't valued beyond a small percentage of the population, that person is most likely too dumb to be a professor in the first place.

[prickly_pete]

I get what you're saying, though. I notice teachers, critics or writers that come out of the modernist era, in particular, tend to be extremely grumpy and sensitive to adverse opinions.

Thats because they tend to be from the political left and leftism is the new Catholicism. Everything they say is Right with a capital "R".

[Lokasenna]

In my experience, very intelligent people can be spectacularly childish and petulant at times. Seriously, I've seen scraps between eminent academics that would disgrace school children.

That said, their venom is usuall aimed at each other, rather than their students. I know one member of my department here who is utterly loathed by all the other staff, but universally beloved by his students. There was one complete git in my last institution, however, who seemed to think it necessary to reduce at least one student to tears every seminar - he was an evil, blackhearted sod if ever I saw one.

[ChicagoReader]

I actually think most English professors are the opposite. One of the reasons I became an English major was because all my favorite teachers had taught English. They seem to be more laid back and quirky than my professors in any other subject.

[Syd A]

The less "hard" (i.e. scientific and fact-based) an academic discipline is, the more political it is. Mathematics professors, from my experience, are overwhelmingly left-wing, yet seldom would you hear them insert politics into their math classes, not because they're above that, but simply because they can't, as math is not amenable to political and ideological bias.

English professors are on the other end of that continuum. They are not only overwhelmingly left-wing, but their research and teaching are often highly political.

Now, political/ideological zeal and arrogance go hand-in-hand, and the rest follows forthwith.

[Venerable Bede]

Actually, I've found English professors to be the most down to earth of all the departments. All of my science professors were very snobby and would get irked by questions.

[prickly_pete]

The less "hard" (i.e. scientific and fact-based) an academic discipline is, the more political it is.

Pretty much, which is why I consider most of the humanities to be absolutely worthless disciplines. Its unrealistic to act as though ones politics aren't going to be applied to how they think or teach about things.

[kiki1982]

Haha, those things make me think of David Attenborough... When he was a student (in the 50s-60s? Don't know how old the man is.) at Oxford (?) he asked his professor about this new daring theory that in the very early days of the earth, all the tectonic plates were sitting together in one continent and gradually moved apart, thus taking species etc with them and letting them develop in strange ways like Australia for example. The professor laughed in his face and said that surely that was not possible. That he hadn't heard anything so ridiculous in his life... You would think that professors, any academic for that matter, would give a theory the benefit of the doubt if there is clear proof of it (surely the theory had been argued in an article or something?) and that before you dismiss anything like that, you would take the trouble of examining it first... Certainly in science... That makes me think a bit about Darwin, but that was loooooong ago...

I have had, no English professors, but other literature ones that were unapproachable. There were only two of six that were approachable and one who was rather nice but just came to give his lesson. He would not have scolded you, but there was no way he was going to stay behind for half an hour. Mostly they could not care less about your opinion, if you were allowed to have one. I think that wasn't even considered. I think my world literature professor was a fan of Russian literature. I don't know whether she knew Russian. Maybe not. But she couldn't finish her programm, had the most sh*tty course book with summaries that did not even add up (had to ask my father for a summary of the Iliad as it was totally false what she had written there) and then proceded to only go for a string of Russian writers, leaving everything French Romanticism, English Romanticism etc had produced.
In Belgium professors are also not required to be able to teach in front of a classroom, so most of them just grudgingly get into that auditorium, do not like questions or challenges or students for that matter. I think they have forfeited the most important aim of universities traditionally there... They were designed in the Italian Renaissance for educating people with all the knowledge there was. Ok, we can't do that now, but still the students are not decoration. What are you doing research for otherwise?

[Heteronym]

Thats because they tend to be from the political left and leftism is the new Catholicism. Everything they say is Right with a capital "R".

The world economy is in the hands of the right: most of the richest economies in the world are in the hands of right-wing governments; most economists are right-wing; most economic measures to deal with the economic crisis is based on right-wing precepts: shrink the state, extinguish the labor rights, privatise, make people pay for every service, protect the rich.

With this in mind, I don't think we have to be afraid of a bunch of powerless left-wing academics whose sphere of power is limited to the classroom.

[Syd A]

Pretty much, which is why I consider most of the humanities to be absolutely worthless disciplines.

No, the humanities are priceless; the people who pretend to teach them are, for the most part, worthless if not harmful.

Heteronym:


With this in mind, I don't think we have to be afraid of a bunch of powerless left-wing academics whose sphere of power is limited to the classroom.

I wish. They are extremely powerful, and they have been destroying the humanities and social sciences systematically, efficiently, and successfully for several decades. The damage they have wrought may never be mended. We are living in a dark age in art, literature, poetry, philosophy, and social science, and we have, in part, people with the title Professor to thank for that.

[Arrowni]

This is slightly off topic but I actually found it interesting, that people who study and discuss the ideology or morality of other eras actually develop a belief system that matches the ancient teachings, so they become both, open to the reflexion of ancient people -contrary to people who stubbornly believe in progress- and they become more rigid in other areas. So people who study rigid topics -or in a rigid fashion- may actually become what they study.

[prickly_pete]

The world economy is in the hands of the right: most of the richest economies in the world are in the hands of right-wing governments; most economists are right-wing; most economic measures to deal with the economic crisis is based on right-wing precepts: shrink the state, extinguish the labor rights, privatise, make people pay for every service, protect the rich.

That goes hand-in-hand with leftist objectives, ironically. Our economy demands cheap labor in order to maintain growth - in unison the left cries for an open-border, naturaliztion of the immigrant poor, and restrictions on the ability of states to monitor who enters US Territory all of which, ironically, tend to promote free market capitalist goals.

Because of the demands of our society parents are forced to work longer hours and spend less time at home - in unison the left cries for sex education in schools, cultural-diversity training, and a host of other measures designed to take power away from the parents, invest it in state parenting, allowing parents to spend more time away from home which, ironically, is behavior that promotes free market capitalist goals.

Our economy demands ever greater proficiency in mathematics and science - in unison the left cries that we need to do more to educate children, find ways to coach them into studying subject they aren't interested in, medicate them if they aren't performing well in school and other policies that, ironically again, promote free market capitalist goals.

Unions tend to seek higher wages for their members - but this only drives down the wages of non-unionized workers and compels company leadership to look for cheaper labor elsewhere (usually overseas) which, ironically, promotes free market capitalist goals.

Leftists tend to promote cultural relativism or ideas to effect that religion, art, country, ethnicity, etc. aren't really important - but this, ironically, is exactly what a free market economy wants. It doesn't want people devoting time to their religion because that might detract from work time. It doesn't want people to cherish art because that might force them to think. It doesn't want them to care about country or ethnic heritage because if people did then it would force them to side with their country or ethnic group on economic issues (an aggregious sin in free market capitalist societies).

In sum, leftists are as thoroughly free market as one can get.

[Drkshadow03]

I'm not sure this is a phenomenon restricted solely to English and Humanities departments from my experience. I've had/seen some pretty irritable math professors at the undergrad campus I attended.

If you go to a theory-oriented lit program it's going to be extremely political, if you go to a one where theory isn't a major part of the program, they tend to be far less political and teach the subject in a more rigorous way. I went to a theory-oriented program for Grad School and a program without much theory as an undergrad. The professors and the way they interacted with the students were extremely different at both schools.

As far as avoiding jerk professors or overly political and belittling ones, usually there is a strong word of mouth on campus about which professors to avoid and which ones are great, especially within a program.

[Heteronym]

You say the left in unison cries for this and that, but like I said, the left doesn't have political power. There are no left-wing governments in Europe or North America. All the policies you speak of, have been implemented by right-wing governments.

[prickly_pete]

You say the left in unison cries for this and that, but like I said, the left doesn't have political power.

You're saying leftism as it was defined 75 years ago (Socialism) doesn't have any political power - which is true. But the "New Left" I think you would agree does have alot of political power even though it has bascially abandoned socialism, no? Thats the left I'm refering to.

[Heteronym]

Tell me, where is the New Left? What official positions do these New Leftists hold in the modern world that can change anything? How many presidents or prime-ministers belong to it? How many CEOs, bankers, stockholders of major corporations? Have they infiltrated the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO?

Or are they just a boogeyman?

You have the burden of proof: convince me, show me all the evidence that proves that these New Leftists are occupying positions that have any influence on the affairs of the world.

[prickly_pete]

You have the burden of proof: convince me, show me all the evidence that proves that these New Leftists are occupying positions that have any influence on the affairs of the world.

How about the President of the United States! How about a majority of the US Senate! How about the Secretary of the Treasury!

You're confused. You see the New Left as something fundamentally different than Neo-Liberalism. It isn't. All it wants is to reform some aspects of neoliberalism. It doesn't dispute that a free market and rapid economic and technological expansions are basically good things.

[The Atheist]

Sorry for my bad English.

Looks pretty good to me - I see lots of people who were educated in English-speaking countries far worse than you!


... they all seem to be extremely opinionated and grumpy, pompous of their knowledge, inclinated to patronize over every subject in an old fashioned way, belittle and even disgust people who aren't educated enough, enjoy insulting and humiliating.

An attitude that pervades teaching from the first day at school.

Those who can, do; those who cannot, teach.

Not true in all cases, but too frequently for comfort.

[Drkshadow03]

Originally Posted by retardedidiot
... they all seem to be extremely opinionated and grumpy, pompous of their knowledge, inclinated to patronize over every subject in an old fashioned way, belittle and even disgust people who aren't educated enough, enjoy insulting and humiliating.

An attitude that pervades teaching from the first day at school.



I'm sure on the first day of Kindergarten, most Kindergarten teachers begin their classes by making clear to their unwitting pupils: "You know NOTHING about the right way to play with blocks! Didn't they teach you anything in pre-school?"




Those who can, do; those who cannot, teach.


And those who can do neither spout cliches and champion their own insightfulness when nobody else will.

[Rores28]

Leftists tend to promote cultural relativism or ideas to effect that religion, art, country, ethnicity, etc. aren't really important - but this, ironically, is exactly what a free market economy wants. It doesn't want people devoting time to their religion because that might detract from work time. It doesn't want people to cherish art because that might force them to think. It doesn't want them to care about country or ethnic heritage because if people did then it would force them to side with their country or ethnic group on economic issues (an aggregious sin in free market capitalist societies).

In sum, leftists are as thoroughly free market as one can get.

egregious

[Heteronym]

How about the President of the United States! How about a majority of the US Senate! How about the Secretary of the Treasury!

You're confused.

I think you're the one who's confused if you genuinely think Barack Obama is a New Leftist. He's as leftist as the Chinese government. There are no communists in the American government. Democrats and Republicans are just different wings of the same party.

[prickly_pete]

Democrats and Republicans are just different wings of the same party.

Thats basically the point I'm trying to make - that the Old Left abandoned socialism - even socialism through reforms - in favor of special interest groups. Its just a conglomeration the same as the Republican Party is though it with the added stipulation that it claims to be 'protecting minority rights' and bull**** of that nature which, most of the time, plays right into the hands of what a free market systems wants anyways.

[prickly_pete]

egregious

Valuable contribution to the discussion, this.

[Arrowni]

US has no left or whatsoever.

[The Atheist]

I'm sure on the first day of Kindergarten, most Kindergarten teachers begin their classes by making clear to their unwitting pupils: "You know NOTHING about the right way to play with blocks! Didn't they teach you anything in pre-school?"

No, I'm sure they don't, but I have certainly heard first-year teachers screaming at kids often enough to accept that even at that stage, most teachers are quite inadequate for the task.


And those who can do neither spout cliches and champion their own insightfulness when nobody else will.

Is that what you're doing?

;)

[Jack of Hearts]

Well, retardedidiot, they're just people. You're asking if it's unique to your country for professors (or people, perhaps) to be like that. Maybe isn't unique anywhere- academia, any country, etc.

Now finding a sound, complete person anywhere, doing anything at all- isn't that the 'unique' thing?

This myth/expectation that teachers are somehow perfect or moral paragons needs to die. Some of them are the right people in the right job and these people are flourishing- but, from personal experience, most of them aren't.






J

[OrphanPip]

Haha, those things make me think of David Attenborough... When he was a student (in the 50s-60s? Don't know how old the man is.) at Oxford (?) he asked his professor about this new daring theory that in the very early days of the earth, all the tectonic plates were sitting together in one continent and gradually moved apart, thus taking species etc with them and letting them develop in strange ways like Australia for example. The professor laughed in his face and said that surely that was not possible. That he hadn't heard anything so ridiculous in his life... You would think that professors, any academic for that matter, would give a theory the benefit of the doubt if there is clear proof of it (surely the theory had been argued in an article or something?) and that before you dismiss anything like that, you would take the trouble of examining it first... Certainly in science... That makes me think a bit about Darwin, but that was loooooong ago...


This reminds me of a behavioral ecology prof I had who used to complain of David Attenborough as if he was the Antichrist. A very strange fellow, we were in an elevator together once and had the most awkward discussion in the world about Neil Young. He broke down and cried in class once for no apparent reason too. Was a pretty decent lecturer though.

As to scientist keeping politics out of the classroom. I've experienced both left wing and right wing tirades in university science classrooms.

[Drkshadow03]

No, I'm sure they don't, but I have certainly heard first-year teachers screaming at kids often enough to accept that even at that stage, most teachers are quite inadequate for the task.



Is that what you're doing?

;)

Did you seriously just use an "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument.

Anyway, from my experiences in the schools in which I've taught, I can only think of one teacher (a veteran) who actually screamed at the students. Made me cringe every time they did it. Otherwise, I've seen some raise their voices slightly, but never actually scream.

[cyberbob]

I think lit professors are more pompous sometimes is because they think they've absorbed some of the insight and wisdom of the authors they read.

Some also have a tendency to be hero-worshippers. In a field like the hard sciences it hardly does any good to revere guys like Darwin, Newton, and Einstein to the point of dogma because while they were luminaries in their fields, a lot of their ideas are outdated and clearly wrong.

The same can't really apply to literature. Literature can't be "wrong" regardless of how much time passes. Factual data in the work can be incorrect, but you can't say "Hemingway was wrong in his iceberg approach." It's all subjective and that leaves a lot of room for insecurity and hostility.

[The Atheist]

Did you seriously just use an "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument.

I figured it was better than asking if you were a teacher.


Anyway, from my experiences in the schools in which I've taught....

Aaaah!

(You must've taught at different schools to the ones I've had the misfortune to be involved with. We even had to legislate here to stop teachers physically abusing children with straps and canes.)

[LitNetIsGreat]

(You must've taught at different schools to the ones I've had the misfortune to be involved with. We even had to legislate here to stop teachers physically abusing children with straps and canes.)

Yes but I think we have moved on from the good old days. Now we have legislation to stop children physically abusing teachers.

[ralfyman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

No, the humanities are priceless; the people who pretend to teach them are, for the most part, worthless if not harmful.

Heteronym:


I wish. They are extremely powerful, and they have been destroying the humanities and social sciences systematically, efficiently, and successfully for several decades. The damage they have wrought may never be mended. We are living in a dark age in art, literature, poetry, philosophy, and social science, and we have, in part, people with the title Professor to thank for that.
Please explain, because this just seems absurd.

[goatlips]

For the tests just parrot the opinions of the prof and you'll go far. Face it, literary academia is just about the last refuge for Marxists and I guess this makes them grumpy.

[prickly_pete]

I mean, its commonly acknowledged that liberal arts departments are dominated by leftists quacks and at the very least almost everyone would acknowledge that these same departments are AT LEAST left leaning. Denying this seems to virtually guarantee ones status as a bed-wetting, flag-burning, Communist hack.

[Drkshadow03]

For the tests just parrot the opinions of the prof and you'll go far. Face it, literary academia is just about the last refuge for Marxists and I guess this makes them grumpy.

Depends. I know quite a few English professors (definitely left-leaning) who have knocked off points for just regurgitating back what they thought the professor wanted to hear. It really depends on the professor. There are professors who generally want to encourage the kids to think for themselves and learn how to develop an argument.

On the other hand, I also had some English professors who would go psycho if you dared to disagree with them or any bit of their Leftist dogma. Much like described in the original OP. It really depends on the university, the individual professors, etc.

Basically word-of-mouth spreads pretty quickly and it isn't hard to learn which professors you should avoid in an English department or any academic department for that matter.

[Syd A]

Please explain, because this just seems absurd.

I just saw that post. What, precisely, would you like me to explain? It's not absurd, even if you disagree with it. It's only absurd if you accept, a priori, that the people charged with advancing the liberal arts, humanities and social sciences care anything at all about that charge. Otherwise, agree with it or not, it's a straightforward proposition.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Nice dodge. Don't worry about explaining such claims, as you probably have no real way to (such baseless pejoratives can rarely be proven). I should have just ignored the comment like everyone else did.

[Syd A]

Nice dodge. Don't worry about explaining such claims, as you probably have no real way to (such baseless pejoratives can rarely be proven)

Actually, they can never be proven. This is a literature forum, not a math class. You want proof, try Abstract Algebra by Dummit and Foote. I highly recommend it. Otherwise, I'm tired of trying to teach you logic.

If it's reasoning you want, let's do that. I'll explain any statement you want, just pick one because there was a lot there. You seem unwilling or incapable to do that. Throwing the word absurd at anything that disagrees with you is much easier.


I should have just ignored the comment like everyone else did.

If I were petty, I would mention that you seem very keen on using arguments along the lines of this is what everybody thinks and this is what everybody did, implying that you have no ability to think for yourself.

If I were to use your illogical thought process, I would point out that no one commented on my comment because it made sense to everybody else but you, and the majority must be right.

If you were at all inquisitive, you would ask yourself why is it that we need to go back centuries and millennia to find great philosophers, novelists, poets, artists, etc, and whether the modern education system has anything to do with that.

But I'm not, and you're not, so let's not.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I asked you to explain your statements, and you didn't. I said your comments seemed absurd, and thought maybe you would like to elaborate on them a bit. You decided to, first, not explain them at all, and then insult me instead.

[Drkshadow03]

If you were at all inquisitive, you would ask yourself why is it that we need to go back centuries and millennia to find great philosophers, novelists, poets, artists, etc, and whether the modern education system has anything to do with that.



Eh, I don't agree with that at all. There are plenty of great philosophers, novelists, poets, and artists around today. And you certainly don't need to go back centuries.

[prickly_pete]

lol @ Syd A. This cat's looking in an introductory logic textbook and cutting and pasting it to these boards.

[Syd A]

[edit:Prickly Pete cut between us with his meaningless BS, so I have to add a quote:]


Eh, I don't agree with that at all. There are plenty of great philosophers, novelists, poets, and artists around today. And you certainly don't need to go back centuries.

I'd be very interested in some names in the philosopher and novelist category.

Now, keep in mind that the world is far more populated today than it was in the past; that we're far richer and live far longer and healthier lives than, say, the Greeks; that the overwhelming majority of humanity is capable of reading and writing (I refrain from using the word literate on purpose); that communication today is far easier, faster and cheaper than it used to be, and that this facilitates research and scholarship; and that generally it seems* easier to be educated today than it was in the past.

Considering these facts, should we not be expected to produce far more Men of Letters than Victorian England, for example?
------------------------------
*Seems, but is it? That's a good question. If yes, then we suck. If no, then what else has changed?

[prickly_pete]

we're far richer and live far longer and healthier

Are we really healthier though? Obeisity, depression, social phobias, anxiety, drug use...all these exist on a massive scale whereas they never did before. Something like 40% of Americans are on some kind of medication. Something like 50% are overweight. Cancer of all sorts is common now but doesn't seem to have been anywhere near as extensive in earlier ages.

I'm sorry, but just because we're living longer doesn't mean we're living healthier. That, frankly, is the only BS I see in this thread.

[Drkshadow03]

[edit:Prickly Pete cut between us with his meaningless BS, so I have to add a quote:]


I'd be very interested in some names in the philosopher and novelist category.

Now, keep in mind that the world is far more populated today than it was in the past; that we're far richer and live far longer and healthier lives than, say, the Greeks; that the overwhelming majority of humanity is capable of reading and writing (I refrain from using the word literate on purpose); that communication today is far easier, faster and cheaper than it used to be, and that this facilitates research and scholarship; and that generally it seems* easier to be educated today than it was in the past.

Considering these facts, should we not be expected to produce far more Men of Letters than Victorian England, for example?
------------------------------
*Seems, but is it? That's a good question. If yes, then we suck. If no, then what else has changed?

Novelists: Hemingway, Faulkner, Roth, Pynchon, Fitzgerald, Heller, Steinbeck, Joyce, Roth, McCarthy, Nabokov, etc.

[Syd A]

Hush, Pete. Grown-ups are talking.

[prickly_pete]

Hush, Pete. Grown-ups are talking.

lol, no question - the master hath spoken!

[Ole Miss Rebel]

Syd D, It is my understanding that your proposition is only supported by referencing the great thinkers of the past. You neglect to account for the development of canon; the foundation is already established, today's scholars build on it. It is easy to compare even today's pièce de résistance to some work in the past, but there are scholars today that are adroit at developing these ideas-- with neoteric lenses.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, I guess Syd has just decided to not bother explaining what he meant by:

No, the humanities are priceless; the people who pretend to teach them are, for the most part, worthless if not harmful.

I wish. They are extremely powerful, and they have been destroying the humanities and social sciences systematically, efficiently, and successfully for several decades. The damage they have wrought may never be mended. We are living in a dark age in art, literature, poetry, philosophy, and social science, and we have, in part, people with the title Professor to thank for that.

Just more insults, eh Syd? Isn't that something that goes against the whole logic thing you extol?

And what's with those said insults to Pete? The "adults are talking" added NOTHING to anything. He needs to "hush"? :lol: You're such a joke, Syd.

[OrphanPip]

The only way to definitely answer the question in the OP is to undertake a phrenological analysis of tenured professors in the USA. Then we could truly answer whether or not lit profs have fatter heads than their counterparts in other departments.

I'll draft the grant application tomorrow.

[JuniperWoolf]

:yesnod: He's right, it's the only way.

[Syd A]

Novelists: Hemingway, Faulkner, Roth, Pynchon, Fitzgerald, Heller, Steinbeck, Joyce, Roth, McCarthy, Nabokov, etc.

How many of these are alive? Where are today's great novelists? Does this list really stack up against Victorian England (in quality and quantity), especially considering the changes listed in my previous post? Where's a list of today's great philosophers?

Seriously, doesn't that bother you that these guys are the best we have (or had)?

Oh, and thank you for not writing Salinger and Vonnegut.


The only way to definitely answer the question in the OP is to undertake a phrenological analysis of tenured professors in the USA. Then we could truly answer whether or not lit profs have fatter heads than their counterparts in other departments.

I'll draft the grant application tomorrow.

Word it properly and it might just get funded!



the foundation is already established, today's scholars build on it.

Whether or not they're really building on it is something I'm leaving to a new, long post (in a new thread) that will be up in a day or two. It's an important topic, and it might just shut mutatis long enough to take a vote and declare I'm wrong. (You see, muti, I am actually going to explain myself, but some of us just don't think in two-line bytes. So, be patient).

But the issue now (not the OP's) is where are our novelists, not where are our scholars. Why do our scholars have to look so far back to do their research? Is it not because today's authors don't provide enough quality material to work on? That's my question.

[prickly_pete]

Does the fact that earlier philosophers wrote huge amounts of material on areas that we consder to be totally irrelevant now make them better than what we have currently? Philosophy has a more limited role now. Society is more complex now. There's a division of labor. You're not going to have polymaths like Aristotle or Descartes anymore because to master even a small part of even ONE discipline takes an entire lifetime - whereas before you could write tons on a subject like biology because it was still largely a speculative field.

Today You'd have to study and do research for DECADES to have a chance at being an authoritative figure in Entomology which is just a small subset of the field of anthropodology which itself is only a small subset of the field of Biology.

It simply isn't possible to do philosophy the way folks use to.

[Drkshadow03]

How many of these are alive? Where are today's great novelists? Does this list really stack up against Victorian England (in quality and quantity), especially considering the changes listed in my previous post? Where's a list of today's great philosophers?

Seriously, doesn't that bother you that these guys are the best we have (or had)?

Oh, and thank you for not writing Salinger and Vonnegut.


But the issue now (not the OP's) is where are our novelists, not where are our scholars. Why do our scholars have to look so far back to do their research? Is it not because today's authors don't provide enough quality material to work on? That's my question.

Well, you did say, "centuries." My main point here was to note you don't have to go back "centuries" or even a century to find great writers. All of the authors I listed have written a major novel within 100 years from our current date in time. I certainly think many of those authors can hold up to the Greats of Victorian literature in both quality and quantity. My list also isn't exhaustive, hence the "etc."

I chose to not tackle philosophy because I'm uncomfortable including philosophers/writers I haven't read in depth, but obviously if I pulled the same tactic I did with the novelists, we would include: Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Sartre, Beauvoir, to name a couple. There clearly has been major philosophers in the last 100 years.

As far as writers producing works today, right this second, that can compete with the Victorian Era Novelists, I guess I wonder if you really think that is a fair comparison? It seems to me it's a bit of a loaded question. Can we really compare New Novelist A with two critically acclaimed novels published in the last six years to Charles Dickens who has had more time to produce more works and more time after his for novels to establish his reputation.

I would suggest there are definitely writers working today who are just as talented as their predecessors, but since they're so close to us in time we don't have enough objectivity to judge their works and we haven't seen who these writers will eventually influence.

Contemporary authors are generally the territory of reviewers rather than literary critics working in academia proper. However, there are, in fact, critical works written of contemporary authors such as John Irving, Philip Roth, Don DeLillo, Pynchon, Leslie Mormon Silko, Nathan Englander etc. I've taken classes where these authors have been taught. So I guess I don't understand why you think scholars have to look to the past to do their research and that contemporary authors don't provide enough material when in fact there are plenty of scholars working on contemporary authors right now.

In fact, connecting this to the original OP and your comments, many more "traditional"/"conservative" scholars complaints tend to be that too much time is spent studying contemporary literary theories rather than traditional interpretive methods and too much time is spend studying contemporary authors rather than Shakespeare and Chaucer.

[OrphanPip]

There have been a lot of philosophers in the last 50 years that whose legacy is likely to survive. The French continentals are, in my opinion, vastly overrated right now, but they are sure to survive in some form for generations: Saussure, Baudrillard, Irigaray (she's still alive I think, where would we be without the term phallogocentrism, eh?), Foucault, Lacan, and Lyotard.

From living philosophers in the English speaking world, I think Martha Nussbaum (capabilities approach is a very important idea in political ethics), Peter Singer (preferential utilitarianism has completely reshaped that school of ethics in the last 50 years), and Judith Butler (who is bit of a nut, but she is right that a good part of gendered behavior is learned).

The difference between the past and now is that a lot of philosophers work within schools, so their innovations tend to be small ideas that quickly spread around their peers. If you read recent philosophical writing you can find some very compelling and interesting ideas about all sorts of debates.

As to living authors, plenty of them will survive. Also, I far prefer 20th century authors to most Victorian ones. I don't know why the Victorians get so much credit.

[Syd A]

As far as writers producing works today, right this second, that can compete with the Victorian Era Novelists, I guess I wonder if you really think that is a fair comparison? It seems to me it's a bit of a loaded question. Can we really compare New Novelist A with two critically acclaimed novels published in the last six years to Charles Dickens who has had more time to produce more works and more time after his for novels to establish his reputation.

I would suggest there are definitely writers working today who are just as talented as their predecessors, but since they're so close to us in time we don't have enough objectivity to judge their works and we haven't seen who these writers will eventually influence.



Valid point. Only time will tell. Still, notwithstanding your good arguments my conjecture is that, 200 years from now, every educated person will know Poe and Dickens but very few will have heard of Pynchon and Roth. This is purely conjectural, something to put in a time capsule.



From living philosophers in the English speaking world, I think Martha Nussbaum (capabilities approach is a very important idea in political ethics), Peter Singer (preferential utilitarianism has completely reshaped that school of ethics in the last 50 years), and Judith Butler (who is bit of a nut, but she is right that a good part of gendered behavior is learned).

See, that's just what I mean: Singer is not a philosopher at all. He is a hardline leftist activist who found himself a pulpit from which to spread his propaganda. As for Butler, I've never heard of her before, but since you reserved the nut title for her and not for Singer, I can only imagine where she stands. Nussbaum seems the sanest of the three. Still, 200 years from now, who will remember her name? My guess - almost no one.

[prickly_pete]

Most educated people now don't know Poe and Dickens. Most educated people now know how to do things besides quote poetry.

[OrphanPip]

Most educated people now don't know Poe and Dickens. Most educated people now know how to do things besides quote poetry.

I sincerely doubt anyone educated in the English speaking world does not know Poe or Dickens. I'd think you'd struggle to find someone with any level of education who was not familiar with any Poe or Dickens.

Moreover, I don't think there has ever been a point where educated people did not know how to do things besides quote poetry.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think most people have heard of Poe and Dickens, but I'm betting if the average "highly-educated" person were hard-pressed, they couldn't name one work by either author, say when either author wrote, or where the authors lived. I'm cynical about such things, though.

And, still waiting for some elaboration on this:


No, the humanities are priceless; the people who pretend to teach them are, for the most part, worthless if not harmful.

I wish. They are extremely powerful, and they have been destroying the humanities and social sciences systematically, efficiently, and successfully for several decades. The damage they have wrought may never be mended. We are living in a dark age in art, literature, poetry, philosophy, and social science, and we have, in part, people with the title Professor to thank for that.

[OrphanPip]

I think most people have heard of Poe and Dickens, but I'm betting if the average "highly-educated" person were hard-pressed, they couldn't name one work by either author, say when either author wrote, or where the authors lived. I'm cynical about such things, though.

And, still waiting for some elaboration on this:

Really, you think most highly educated people can't name "The Raven" or A Christmas Carol? These authors are so culturally pervasive that I can probably come up with 5 references to them from Simpsons episodes.

Higher education would be in a sad state if that's true.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Really, you think most highly educated people can't name "The Raven" or A Christmas Carol? These authors are so culturally pervasive that I can probably come up with 5 references to them from Simpsons episodes.

Higher education would be in a sad state if that's true.
I think people know both of those stories, but if asked who wrote them (or vice-versa), no, I don't (maybe A Christmas Carol would fare better). Now, if we're talking people within the English field, of course, and probably many high schoolers, too. But people outside of the English area? No.

Still, it comes down to what one means by "highly educated." Does it just mean college education? People who receive a bachelor's degree? I've met many of those who're dumber than rocks. In my opinion, if a person can't name at least one work by Poe or Dickens, then that person isn't highly educated. By that's just my definition. The larger population seems to have a much more lax criteria for what "highly educated" means.

[Alexander III]

I think people know both of those stories, but if asked who wrote them (or vice-versa), no, I don't (maybe A Christmas Carol would fare better). Now, if we're talking people within the English field, of course, and probably many high schoolers, too. But people outside of the English area? No.

Still, it comes down to what one means by "highly educated." Does it just mean college education? People who receive a bachelor's degree? I've met many of those who're dumber than rocks. In my opinion, if a person can't name at least one work by Poe or Dickens, then that person isn't highly educated. By that's just my definition. The larger population seems to have a much more lax criteria for what "highly educated" means.

A B.A isn't highly educated in my opinion, everyone has one, it is more or less the equivalent of a high school diploma 60 years ago.

As for not knowing Dickens or Poe, I cannot speak for the U.S.A; but I can speak for Italy, England and France and in these countries your average man (by average I don't mean council house, truck driver, but average bourgeoisie)
Will know who Dickens was and will be able to mention at least one novel by him.

With Poe, not so much I suppose, as he is an American writer and not a major one, but a name like Pirandello or D'Annunzio in Italy everyone would know, or in France Gide and Molliere and Victor Hugo. In Paris every single bookstore I have seen has a freaking Victor Hugo or Balzac novel in their front window. In England the people are less cultured in the arts compared to Italy or France, but still everyone knows who Dickens is and some of his novels.

/Rant Over

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Poe is a pretty major American author. One of the biggest, really, up there with Hawthorne, Melville, and Twain.

And, maybe I'm wrong about the ability of people to name works by Poe or Dickens, or other big names. I just don't have much faith in my fellow Americans.

[Syd A]

In my opinion, if a person can't name at least one work by Poe or Dickens, then that person isn't highly educated. By that's just my definition.

That's not a definition; that's an exclusion criterion. You really need to give some logic textbook a shot!

Oh, Mut, I'm just having fun with you. Relax. I'm flattered that you quote me twice a day, but have you missed my reference to you a few comments ago? Have you not been following this thread? Good things come to those who wait.

Your impetuous pleading for explanation has moved me so much that I'm working on a new thread dedicated to these topics alone. I'm putting an effort into this, Mut. So hang in there and be patient. Please.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Oh, Joy! :)

And, I'm sorry, I'll make a note of the difference between "definition" and "exclusion criterion"! Leave it to you to be so pedantic!

And, yes I did miss that comment. My apologies.

[Drkshadow03]

I think people know both of those stories, but if asked who wrote them (or vice-versa), no, I don't (maybe A Christmas Carol would fare better). Now, if we're talking people within the English field, of course, and probably many high schoolers, too. But people outside of the English area? No.

Still, it comes down to what one means by "highly educated." Does it just mean college education? People who receive a bachelor's degree? I've met many of those who're dumber than rocks. In my opinion, if a person can't name at least one work by Poe or Dickens, then that person isn't highly educated. By that's just my definition. The larger population seems to have a much more lax criteria for what "highly educated" means.

I have to agree with Orphanpip that most people would know who wrote "The Raven" and A Christmas Carol without necessarily having to be an English major.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You may be right, but I wouldn't bet money on it.

[V.Jayalakshmi]

I have read patiently all the opinions.Nice arguements.I am also from a country where English is a foreign language.Of all the opinions expressed I beg to differ with regard to "Social Sciences".Wnen we were in school we used to have classes for "Moral Science", Civics, Crafts.The Invereted commas specifying Moral Science is just to illustrate.Now in which classes are they teaching them? Also society as such has moved from an individual citizen to a global citizen ship, is it not? So social sciences cannot remain the same like most other sciences. Change my dear Syed A in specific and Mutatis-Mutandi is the rule of life. So you will have English proffessors who will be very opinionated as well as students who will perhaps like Attenbourough argue them out.With reagrd to great writers I feel Todays great writers are tomorrows illuminaries and yesterdays writers can be their basic strengths.Peace Brethrens in all, let it prevail.

[cyberbob]

In America I think most educated people could name one work by Poe or identify him as the author of The Raven. Charles Dickens I'm not so sure. They may recognize the name but not necessarily be able to name one of his works or identify him as the author of Christmas Carol.

Again, it depends on your definition of highly educated. Most academics would probably be able to do it. An MBA or a lawyer or doctor may or may not.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think most people know the names. They know they're authors; I don't doubt that at all. And, if it was multiple choice, I'm sure they could pick the right one.

But not everybody. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGHmpuCDLsQ) :lol:

[Syd A]

I don't know which is worse - confusing War and Peace with A Tale of Two Cities or admitting, of your own volition, that The Reagan Diaries or Bush's new book is your favorite book. At least Steele tried to pretend to be well-read; the other two idiots basically admitted that they don't read, or can't appreciate, anything other than party-prescribed propaganda.

[prickly_pete]

I liked it last election when McCain said his favorite book was "The Wealth of Nations." I'm like, psh, dude you know you aint read that.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't know which is worse - confusing War and Peace with A Tale of Two Cities or admitting, of your own volition, that The Reagan Diaries or Bush's new book is your favorite book. At least Steele tried to pretend to be well-read; the other two idiots basically admitted that they don't read, or can't appreciate, anything other than party-prescribed propaganda.
Hey! Something we completely agree on! :grouphug:

[mortalterror]

I don't know which is worse - confusing War and Peace with A Tale of Two Cities or admitting, of your own volition, that The Reagan Diaries or Bush's new book is your favorite book. At least Steele tried to pretend to be well-read; the other two idiots basically admitted that they don't read, or can't appreciate, anything other than party-prescribed propaganda.

I didn't think he was trying to look well-read. I felt he was reminding people in a round about way of the Republican reputation for being strong in war time. Though it was pretty funny when his gaff revealed that he hadn't read either book.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The best part, by far, is when the moderator on the left, Tucker Carlson, barely keeps from busting out laughing. Haha.

[cyberbob]

The funniest part was when the woman misheard the question and said that her kitchen table was her favorite bar.

[dwdean]

I liked it last election when McCain said his favorite book was "The Wealth of Nations." I'm like, psh, dude you know you aint read that.


hahahahaha
well said pete, well said

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Is anyone else eagerly awaiting Syd's forthcoming treatise? I'm virtually sick with anticipation.

[Syd A]

Is anyone else eagerly awaiting Syd's forthcoming treatise? I'm virtually sick with anticipation.

Just for that, I'm sitting on it for another three days.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Nooooo!

In all seriousness, though, I am looking forward to it. I made my post sound a bit flippant, but I am actually consistently checking for it.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, coming up on 10 days, and still no rebuttal from Syd. I'm becoming skeptical.