Do you think there is still snobbery in academia?

[JCamilo]

No, you people still confuse an atittude (being snob) with having or not knowledge. It is irrelevant, Hercule Poirot. Snob. Borges. Snob. Voltaire. Snob. John Clease. Snob. The members of Lit-Net club of snobs? Snobs. Some accusing the members of snobbery? Snobs.

[Delta40]

Forgive me. I merely seek to understand. There goes my eight of clubs...

[Scheherazade]

~

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing inflammatory and/or off-topic remarks will be removed without further notice.

~

[SkyCetacean]

Put simply, yes.

Let's look at the definitions.
1. British : cobbler

Okay, maybe not that one.

2. one who blatantly imitates, fawningly admires, or vulgarly seeks association with those regarded as social superiors

Definitely. I know plenty of "Intellectual" people who think that reading or like certain artists or authors or what-have-you automatically makes them interesting. That is, they think for some reason that because they read the works of interesting people that it just sort of rubs off and automatically makes them interesting.

3. one who tends to rebuff, avoid, or ignore those regarded as inferior

Again, certainly. I've heard people say like "anyone who doesn't like x classic book just doesn't understand it," and stuff like that and it always really bothers me, there's just this obnoxious air of superiority that makes me want to punch them in the face. I'm not saying anyone on here but as I associate with more writerly types I'm having this reaction a lot.

[kelby_lake]

So despite how knowledgable we are, should our beliefs always remain like a fragile house of cards, ready to collapse at the smallest breeze?

People should be willing to question their beliefs if the time arises for them to do that.

[mal4mac]

Oh please. You're advocating a completely PC world here because telling someone they're wrong would be snobbish?


I'm suggesting you shouldn't just tell people they are wrong you should produce an argument showing what is, most likely, right in a calm and supportive manner. I suggesting a world in which compassion and lovingkindness are the order of the day, as suggested by the Buddha and Jesus Christ; not a PC world (whatever that is...)



I hate to break it to you but people are dumb, ignorant, prejudiced, and any number of pejorative adjectives one can think of.

Why would you want to be pejorative? "Pejorative" comes from the Latin "to make worse" and the OED defines it as "deprecatory", which, in turn, means "diminish in value, disparage, belittle". Why would you want to make the situation worse,and make people feel smaller, that is, make people unhappy? When people act in a prejudiced way then they depreciate people, make the situation worse, make people feel smaller, that is, make people unhappy. Why would you want to be like them?



Are you seriously telling me that when someone says something stupid/racist/all-around-appalling, they shouldn't be called on it because they think it's true, and it might hurt their feelings? Man, I hope you're just being sarcastic.


An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. I think it was Gandhi who said that? He certainly "called" on the British oppressors, but without being pejorative, without directly hurting their feelings; although many racist-but-fundamentally-decent chaps felt pretty bad about themselves after facing Gandhi's example, so their feelings were hurt, but Gandhi showed them a path out of hurt without causing further hurt.



And, no, I'm not advocating calling young children ignorant (kind of a loaded example don't you think). Sometimes there's just no other way to put it to someone other than "you're wrong."

What difference is there between a young child of 12 with an excellent education and a person who rejects doctor's advice who, say, isn't very good at book learning, and has had a deprived upbringing? We are all children of God, or, if you prefer another path, the Buddha recommends viewing your enemy, with the compassion of a doting mother, as a small child. If we all did this, surely, it would be a much better world.

The doctor can indeed start by saying, very gently, with full compassion, "You're wrong". But then he has to add phrases, gently, like "in my opinion", and then take time to show, and explain X-rays, get the patient a cup of tea, chat about their favourite aunt, maybe persuade them that although she's a loving person perhaps her medical advice isn't of the best, etc, etc...



2. one who blatantly imitates, fawningly admires, or vulgarly seeks association with those regarded as social superiors

Definitely. I know plenty of "Intellectual" people who think that reading or like certain artists or authors or what-have-you automatically makes them interesting. That is, they think for some reason that because they read the works of interesting people that it just sort of rubs off and automatically makes them interesting.


Good point, but it can get even worse than that! Bryan Magee has given accounts of "elite" Oxford philosopher in the 1970s who spent much time in the senior common room fawning after him, to get on his TV show, vulgarly seeking association with the BBC. So not only were they snobs, they were fame-seeking vulgarians.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm not going to get in a back and forth over this, because it would be fruitless.

[mal4mac]

I'm not going to get in a back and forth over this, because it would be fruitless.

That's a snobbish dismissal! It would be fruitful for me, but you don't care :(

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I just don't see where this debate could go. You think people should be nice and be constantly walking on eggshells so we don't hurt each other's feelings (no matter what, it seems) and I disagree. I think people have become much too sensitive, and am quite tired of worrying about "offending" someone for telling the truth. Some people ARE ignorant; it's not a matter of being mean, it's a matter of truth, one you think should be sugar coated lest we make someone feel bad.

And it's kind of ironic, as I'm quite a nice person irl, whether you believe that or not, and actually do everything I can to not put someone down. I am an instructor, after all. But sometimes a person just needs to be told they're wrong. I once had a sophomore student use a racial term that is outdated and quite offensive now. I knew she didn't know it was a bad term (the term being "colored," referring to black people) and didn't mean anything by it, but that didn't stop me from telling her to not use it again because its racist. I didn't bother explaining to her all the facets of why it's racist and all that stuff, I didn't need to.

[mal4mac]

I just don't see where this debate could go. You think people should be nice and be constantly walking on eggshells so we don't hurt each other's feelings (no matter what, it seems) and I disagree. I think people have become much too sensitive, and am quite tired of worrying about "offending" someone for telling the truth. Some people ARE ignorant; it's not a matter of being mean, it's a matter of truth, one you think should be sugar coated lest we make someone feel bad.


I don't get the impression that Jesus and the Buddha were walking on egg shells or sugar coating things, but they were acting with compassion always in mind. Maybe people have become too sensitive, but surely that's an argument for being *even more* careful about not upsetting people. Instead people seem to care less about upsetting people... hence the increased violence and mental health problems these days.




And it's kind of ironic, as I'm quite a nice person irl, whether you believe that or not, and actually do everything I can to not put someone down. I am an instructor, after all. But sometimes a person just needs to be told they're wrong. I once had a sophomore student use a racial term that is outdated and quite offensive now. I knew she didn't know it was a bad term (the term being "colored," referring to black people) and didn't mean anything by it, but that didn't stop me from telling her to not use it again because its racist. I didn't bother explaining to her all the facets of why it's racist and all that stuff, I didn't need to.

I can certainly believe you are a nice person, I just thought you were getting close to being snobbish, in one posting. Also you *did* imply it was OK to be pejorative. Do you belittle your students?

This might be a USA/UK English thing... do you take pejorative to mean "disapproving but not belittling"? Mirriam Webster defines it as "Expressing contempt or disapproval." OED just has it as just "Expressing contempt"(!) An English snob would never forget to add a large dose of contempt to the slightest thing that meets with his or her disapproval :)

[Ohmyscience]

This discussion has turned into what constitutes as a snob. The question was does it exists in academia? How can it not exists? How is it possible to teach the best material without dismissing what is arguably worse. Maybe I'm just cynical but when I see the syllabus for a contemporary English lit course and I wonder why my favorite vampire love story 12 isn't on the list, I don't assume the professor hasn't found out about it yet. I'm sure the professor isn't going to call me a moron if I ask but something more like "its not the focus of the course", which means to me the same thing. The same goes for classics. Does anyone read plays from the 16th century other than Shakespeare? Academia makes it look like he was the only playwright writing for centuries.

[YesNo]

It sounds more like you don't claim any authority so you can constantly have an excuse when you say something completely inaccurate, not to mention being able to avoid any accountability.

As soon as I write something I am accountable for it. Some will like it. Some will not and even give me flak for it. If I wanted to avoid accountability, I would not post at all.

Saying that I have no authority is simply acknowledging the truth. Saying that I want no authority is saying that I am open to listening to what someone else has to say. They might change my mind or challenge me to think differently which is generally to my advantage.

[OrphanPip]

The same goes for classics. Does anyone read plays from the 16th century other than Shakespeare? Academia makes it look like he was the only playwright writing for centuries.

Quite a lot of people do, I know two graduate students who work on non-Shakespearean Renaissance drama. Our department is producing the Revenger's Tragedy this year, and we did Jonson's The Alchemist last year.

[mona amon]

The same goes for classics. Does anyone read plays from the 16th century other than Shakespeare? Academia makes it look like he was the only playwright writing for centuries.

I recently read The Jew of Malta, and it was a cracker! :)

[ralfyman]

It's good to have such snobbery, as it allows us to see alternative view points to given topics.

[Ohmyscience]

Quite a lot of people do, I know two graduate students who work on non-Shakespearean Renaissance drama. Our department is producing the Revenger's Tragedy this year, and we did Jonson's The Alchemist last year.

Sometimes I forget who I am addressing. I don't think I need to qualify all my statements with '99% of the population'. I assume you and quite a few here read widely and substantially so I'm just going to assume you're nit picking or facetious. I don't know whats more snobby; my claim that Shakespeare is read overwhelming more so than his contemporaries or being told there are other dramas that parallel Shakespeare and deserve attention. I'm outmatched obviously so I'm going to assume my point came across well enough. I don't know enough about Renaissance drama and I take no offence for you correcting me.

[Paulclem]

I just don't see where this debate could go. You think people should be nice and be constantly walking on eggshells so we don't hurt each other's feelings (no matter what, it seems) and I disagree. I think people have become much too sensitive, and am quite tired of worrying about "offending" someone for telling the truth. Some people ARE ignorant; it's not a matter of being mean, it's a matter of truth, one you think should be sugar coated lest we make someone feel bad.

And it's kind of ironic, as I'm quite a nice person irl, whether you believe that or not, and actually do everything I can to not put someone down. I am an instructor, after all. But sometimes a person just needs to be told they're wrong. I once had a sophomore student use a racial term that is outdated and quite offensive now. I knew she didn't know it was a bad term (the term being "colored," referring to black people) and didn't mean anything by it, but that didn't stop me from telling her to not use it again because its racist. I didn't bother explaining to her all the facets of why it's racist and all that stuff, I didn't need to.

I don't see your examples as being snobbish. They are just good sense. It is very important to skillfully tell people when they are wrong. Some people just need to be told, and some people need a bit more skill in the telling. I think this forum encourages, due to the distance between us, people to say it as it is more. That's not snobbish either, though a little more sensitivity might help.
Snobbery, as I see it is a combination of self aggrandisement and a dismissive and offensive attitudes.

[OrphanPip]

Sometimes I forget who I am addressing. I don't think I need to qualify all my statements with '99% of the population'. I assume you and quite a few here read widely and substantially so I'm just going to assume you're nit picking or facetious. I don't know whats more snobby; my claim that Shakespeare is read overwhelming more so than his contemporaries or being told there are other dramas that parallel Shakespeare and deserve attention. I'm outmatched obviously so I'm going to assume my point came across well enough. I don't know enough about Renaissance drama and I take no offence for you correcting me.

Well Shakespeare is read overwhelmingly more, but it would be a very poor survey of Elizabethan/Jacobean drama that only covered Shakespeare. Ben Jonson and Christopher Marlowe are at least as important, and I would expect an advanced study to include Kyd, Middleton and Dekker. As well as some less conventional works like Arden of Faversham or Elizabeth Cary's Tragedy of Mariam. I just wanted to make clear that academia doesn't just look at Shakespeare.

[stlukesguild]

"Some here" are quite right. Less-than-credible claims are credible to those who make them. To just dismiss them is an act of an arrogant snob. If a specialist says you have lung cancer, and you say, "My Aunt Madge had similar pains and it was just a cold, I'll just take an aspirin and not bother with the chemo...", then the doctor should carefully argue your good self into a higher level of understanding, with full compassion, surely; not just dismiss you with an arrogant comment: "I'm the doctor, you're an idiot, take the chemo, or leave it".

Mac, I'll risk the charge of arrogant snobbishness and suggest that this is one of the dumbest things you've ever posted.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I can certainly believe you are a nice person, I just thought you were getting close to being snobbish, in one posting. Also you *did* imply it was OK to be pejorative. Do you belittle your students?

Of course I don't. And I've been snobbish before. I don't really care.

As to pejoratives, I assumed them to mean disproving and belittling, yes. I've never said they should be used a lot, just that they are sometimes necessary.


Sometimes I forget who I am addressing. I don't think I need to qualify all my statements with '99% of the population'. I assume you and quite a few here read widely and substantially so I'm just going to assume you're nit picking or facetious. I don't know whats more snobby; my claim that Shakespeare is read overwhelming more so than his contemporaries or being told there are other dramas that parallel Shakespeare and deserve attention. I'm outmatched obviously so I'm going to assume my point came across well enough. I don't know enough about Renaissance drama and I take no offence for you correcting me.

Yes, because everyone reads Shakespeare.

Pip wasn't being facetious, either; he was being truthful. How you took offense to what he said is quite odd.

Seriously, can no one acknowledge when they're wrong anymore? Why does everyone have to be so defensive over every little thing?

[Delta40]

As to pejoratives, I assumed them to mean disproving and belittling, yes. I've never said they should be used a lot, just that they are sometimes necessary.

Like when a coloured guy keeps hitting on you at a bar and he won't take no for an answer so eventually you say, 'f uck off you black *******'?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Like when a coloured guy keeps hitting on you at a bar and he won't take no for an answer so eventually you say, 'f uck off you black *******'?

Yes, Delta. That exactly what I mean. :lol:

[Drkshadow03]

Seriously, can no one acknowledge when they're wrong anymore? Why does everyone have to be so defensive over every little thing?

But I edit wikipedia! I literally can CHANGE the facts to fit my superior vision!

[Ohmyscience]

Of course I don't. And I've been snobbish before. I don't really care.

As to pejoratives, I assumed them to mean disproving and belittling, yes. I've never said they should be used a lot, just that they are sometimes necessary.



Yes, because everyone reads Shakespeare.

Pip wasn't being facetious, either; he was being truthful. How you took offense to what he said is quite odd.

Seriously, can no one acknowledge when they're wrong anymore? Why does everyone have to be so defensive over every little thing?

Did you read my reply? I said I didn't know enough and that Pip was correct. Pip was nit picking because he/she understood my position well enough and was just wanted to show off his/her knowledge. I was saying Shakespeare enjoys his position because academia and other enthusiasts have extolled his work. I'm sure those other authors listed are also high quality works but the lower quality works have been dismissed.

[Volya]

I apologize, stlukesguild, that I don't give you the respect you think you so richly deserve, but I'm simply not impressed by your pretense.

Here is, for the last time, the difference between us: you are far more knowledgeable than I am on matters of art. There's no doubt about that. But, give me a week in the local public library and I can learn enough to have an eye-to-eye conversation about art with you or with anyone else.

How long will it take you to figure out what an abelian group is? How long before you can have an eye-to-eye conversation with me about abstract algebra?

Now you'll write one of your one-liners with multiple ellipses and call me snobby, but therein lies the point: what I know is far more difficult than what you know, so my snobbery is, to some degree, justified. I have far less room for sciolism and pretense, and I am held to higher, more objective, more rigorous standards.

And that's a point you just can't seem to get.

I haven't read much of the rest of the discussion, but reading this one post tells me enough to know where I stand on the matter...

[JBI]

As soon as I write something I am accountable for it. Some will like it. Some will not and even give me flak for it. If I wanted to avoid accountability, I would not post at all.

Saying that I have no authority is simply acknowledging the truth. Saying that I want no authority is saying that I am open to listening to what someone else has to say. They might change my mind or challenge me to think differently which is generally to my advantage.
you have a knack for asking for evidence but rarely presenting your own. Simply stating you have no authority but yelling that other people are wrong while not presenting evidence is a bit hypocritical no?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Pip was nit picking because he/she understood my position well enough and was just wanted to show off his/her knowledge.

Bull****. You said something that was wrong (later giving a lame excuse, "oh, well, I really meant 99% of people," as if there's some way for us to magically know that's what you meant) and Pip politely pointed it out. That's not showing off, unless merely correcting someone is showing off now. :rolleyes5:

[Ohmyscience]

Bull****. You said something that was wrong (later giving a lame excuse, "oh, well, I really meant 99% of people," as if there's some way for us to magically know that's what you meant) and Pip politely pointed it out. That's not showing off, unless merely correcting someone is showing off now. :rolleyes5:

What was there to correct? I was highlighting how academia treats Shakespeare as so much above everyone else. Outside of a relatively small number of readers most of his contemporaries do not have an audience. I can't believe I have to be this explicit.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

No. You asked "Does anyone read plays from the 16th century other than Shakespeare?" (So, Yes, i was wrong to say you made an incorrect statement when you just asked a question.) Pip said, yes quite a lot do, and then you accused him of being nit-picky and/or facetious. You weren't highlighting anything. You asked a question, got an answer, and then complained about it. I can't believe I have to be this explicit.

So, actually, this makes your accusations towards Pip even more incomprehensible since you're the one who asked the question in the first place.

[Ohmyscience]

Did you read the second part of the post? About how academia would make you think he was the only one writing? I guess I could have phrased it better since I wanted to be clear it was hyperbole.

[JBI]

What was there to correct? I was highlighting how academia treats Shakespeare as so much above everyone else. Outside of a relatively small number of readers most of his contemporaries do not have an audience. I can't believe I have to be this explicit.
You are just wrong. Full out wrong, flat wrong, stupidly wrong.

I will be explicit: the only ones working to lift the status of Shakespeares contemporaries, that is, the only significant group of serious non/Shakespearean Elizabethan/Jacobian drama readers is academics. It is the general populace that only reads or watches the Bard. The academics are pretty much the only group who is more rounded.

So in answer, it is the general populace who has raisedShakespeare up, particularly the 19th century audiences. Academics if anything have been doing the opposite. They have put research and effort into other playwrights when the public only watches Shakespeare.

The same can be said in the field of music where for many there is only Mozart and Beethoven, but not Schubert or Opera where there is only Puccini and Verdi and no Musorgsky. It's academics who worked against this in the first place.

[Ohmyscience]

You are just wrong. Full out wrong, flat wrong, stupidly wrong.

I will be explicit: the only ones working to lift the status of Shakespeares contemporaries, that is, the only significant group of serious non/Shakespearean Elizabethan/Jacobian drama readers is academics. It is the general populace that only reads or watches the Bard. The academics are pretty much the only group who is more rounded.

So in answer, it is the general populace who has raisedShakespeare up, particularly the 19th century audiences. Academics if anything have been doing the opposite. They have put research and effort into other playwrights when the public only watches Shakespeare.

The same can be said in the field of music where for many there is only Mozart and Beethoven, but not Schubert or Opera where there is only Puccini and Verdi and no Musorgsky. It's academics who worked against this in the first place.

So Shakespeare is not regarded as the best among his contemporaries? Again I already said I do not know those dramas I only said that based on published papers and his public image. I never suggested that academics were not wide read. Who do you think I was alluding to when I meant 'small circle'. I was suggesting the opposite that academics are the only ones doing historical filtering and common readers such as myself have to take their word for it.

[JBI]

So Shakespeare is not regarded as the best among his contemporaries? Again I already said I do not know those dramas I only said that based on published papers and his public image. I never suggested that academics were not wide read. Who do you think I was alluding to when I meant 'small circle'. I was suggesting the opposite that academics are the only ones doing historical filtering and common readers such as myself have to take their word for it.
So you are saying you have not read them, academics have, yet they are the ones filtering? You make no sense. You are the one choosing not to read them. A Marlowe specialist would be glad to hear i
You approach other works. Basically, you blame a disconnected unnasociated body of scholars for the taste of the public.

My answer to your logical nonsense is to tell you to read more. Clearly you have chose to listen to them (who?). As I mentioned before, academics are the only ones keeping many of these books alive.

You could read them you know.

[Ohmyscience]

How does it not make sense? I take a course on that literature and I am presented with a list of works that I'm not familiar with that have been already prejudged by them. That doesn't disagree with the idea that they may also think Shakespeare is the best(if that is the case). Again this is a guess based on number of papers and courses offered. I do think academia does have influence on public opinion. Maybe not Shakespeare but I can't think why academia would not guide public opinion and awareness. Einstein is brilliant but his work certainly wasn't discovered by those outside physics.

I did not suggest academia was against wide reading. I was saying they were playing favorites which is not interesting or controversial. Also contemporary does not mean his equals. There were probably thousands of non contributors that everyone would have dismissed.

[MorpheusSandman]

I feel like an idiot for jumping into this snake pit, but it's late, I have insomnia, and I'm bored with reading for the night.

The only types of snobs I find offensive are those that could be termed pretentious, ie, genuinely lacking an in-depth knowledge they claim to have, and the snobs who are genuine experts, but look down on other fields they know nothing about. An example of the first kind might be the type that will boast that they read Dostoevsky but hate Harry Potter, yet, when pressed, they couldn't even begin to tell you why Dostoevsky is better. Examples of the second might be many of the literary types out there that dismiss film as being an equal art-form while knowing absolutely nothing of the theories that have developed in academia over years surrounding it. A recent debate I was in had someone claiming Stanley Kubrick's 2001 was not worthy of being considered equal with Ulysses or The Wasteland because it was just an exercise in aesthetics--he had clearly never read any of the copious critical studies done on the film.

Other than that, I don't consider it "snobby" when people who are genuinely knowledgeable on a subject seek to challenge the opinions of those that aren't. All of our opinions and reactions to art are founded on our experience, knowledge, and/or lack thereof, and it's not being a snob to acknowledge that some have a much greater store of experience and knowledge than others. Now, one might say that there should be, ideally, a certain level of civility, that the knowledgeable shouldn't use their knowledge as a club to beat people over the head with, but rather as a tool for enlightening them. However, I find a much greater resistance amongst the ignorant to be taught and corrected than I find amongst the knowledgeable to be challenged. Much too often, the term "snob" (and pretentious) are used by the ignorant as a way to dismiss their own ignorance and demonize those that obviously know more than they do. So whenever anyone uses either term, I really have consider the source and the context.

To me, the relevant question isn't really if someone is a snob or not, but whether or not they have something valuable to teach me. If so, then I really don't care; if not, then they aren't worth worrying about.

[JBI]

How does it not make sense? I take a course on that literature and I am presented with a list of works that I'm not familiar with that have been already prejudged by them. That doesn't disagree with the idea that they may also think Shakespeare is the best(if that is the case). Again this is a guess based on number of papers and courses offered. I do think academia does have influence on public opinion. Maybe not Shakespeare but I can't think why academia would not guide public opinion and awareness. Einstein is brilliant but his work certainly wasn't discovered by those outside physics.

I did not suggest academia was against wide reading. I was saying they were playing favorites which is not interesting or controversial. Also contemporary does not mean his equals. There were probably thousands of non contributors that everyone would have dismissed.

Yes and people don't read books outside of academia. Or wait, people don't read books not assigned by their professor. I forgot that tidbit. People only go to see academic sponsored plays right? Only go to movies academics watch? Is everything filtered by an English faculty which is, as a discipline, only a hundred odd years old?

[Ohmyscience]

Of course they do, but the point of contention was whether academia was snobby. I thought I was agreeing with you. Here were my points and if you disagree with any, offer counter. Academia is snobby, they play favorites, and influence public opinion (not on everything obviously).

[JBI]

Of course they do, but the point of contention was whether academia was snobby. I thought I was agreeing with you. Here were my points and if you disagree with any, offer counter. Academia is snobby, they play favorites, and influence public opinion (not on everything obviously).

I disagree. The Academy is many things - it is not one single body. Secondly, they do not play any more favorites than anything else. The pre 19th century "Canon" was pretty much carved out in the 18th century - Classical works go by whatever is left over from the tradition. As for the modern Era and after, well, poets themselves, artists, authors, they seem to be great sellers of other texts. The best example is Oprah, who is hardly an academic figure.

Everyone influences what people read, and academics pull in multiple directions - some do not even specify. It's too weird a generalization.

I also do not think the academia is as influential as you make it out to be. As it is, numerous works in Italian, French, and Chinese - not to mention more remote, or exotic languages - are studied and not read by a general public. These books are read in their respective countries, and have been ingrained into culture - yet the mass in the English speaking world will never hear of them.

In contrast, someone like Dostoevsky has had lukewarm reception (hit and miss) by critics of Russian literature, yet has solidified his place amongst a specific readership, even gaining wide exposure on these boards. Something like Dumas is another classic example.

If anything the academy is relatively weak. A few select figures can make political comments, but most books will go unread except within small circles of people who write similar books. The influence on public opinion from an English department is rather minimal, otherwise they would be promoting Tom Clancy or whoever. They don't, yet those, based on public reception, are the big guns in the literary world. Not some dense texts.

As for my class on 16th century English literature, we barely even touched Shakespeare as the professor was certain we already would know his works quite well. We focused on mostly obscure earlier authors such as Gascoigne, who nobody likes or reads anymore. We also read much in religious debates, which only period specialists care about.

But then again, aren't all English classes about Shakespeare? Of course not, it's only English propaganda, and the theatre that turned him into the big man, he is probably the best English man of letters, yet his monopoly on classical theatre is far more the product of 19th century fascination with the bard, and not academics promoting him.

[Paulclem]

As for my class on 16th century English literature, we barely even touched Shakespeare as the professor was certain we already would know his works quite well. We focused on mostly obscure earlier authors such as Gascoigne, who nobody likes or reads anymore. We also read much in religious debates, which only period specialists care about.

But then again, aren't all English classes about Shakespeare? Of course not, it's only English propaganda, and the theatre that turned him into the big man, he is probably the best English man of letters, yet his monopoly on classical theatre is far more the product of 19th century fascination with the bard, and not academics promoting him.

This isn't true of the British approach to English literature in school or in University. When I was at Uni we had a whole module on Shakespeare, and he formed a substantial part of the study. Schoolchildren were also required to study him up to 16, and it formed part of the A'level, (pre-university tier), coursework. Not only academics, but right wing politicians promoting a traditional curriculum promoted him and maintained him in the curriculum.

Recently there have been changes.

[mal4mac]

To me, the relevant question isn't really if someone is a snob or not, but whether or not they have something valuable to teach me. If so, then I really don't care; if not, then they aren't worth worrying about.

But isn't "being human" one of the most important things to be taught? Literature is one of the humanities, isn't it? Snobs aren't humane, so their teaching is bound to be compromised. OK they might be very good at teaching, say, grammar, but wouldn't it be better not to be snobbish while teaching it? Isn't teaching better coming from a rounded, humane person, all else being equal?

[stlukesguild]

JCamilo- No, you people still confuse an atittude (being snob) with having or not knowledge. It is irrelevant, Hercule Poirot. Snob. Borges. Snob. Voltaire. Snob. John Clease. Snob. The members of Lit-Net club of snobs? Snobs. Some accusing the members of snobbery? Snobs.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. I became defensive with regard to the portrayal of artists and the "art world" as a bunch of snobs... not because I don't believe there is snobbishness to be found there... but because of the suggestion that artists/the art world are more inherently snobbish than any other area of expertise.

Ultimately JCamilo is right... it has little or nothing to do with knowledge. The ignorant bubba who's never read a book voluntarily can be just as snobbish... making fun of those snobbish know-it-alls... as any snobbish know-it-all can be.

[JCamilo]

Geez, I have to teach proper english to you people :skep:

[stlukesguild]

MorpheusSandman- The only types of snobs I find offensive are those that could be termed pretentious, ie, genuinely lacking an in-depth knowledge they claim to have, and the snobs who are genuine experts, but look down on other fields they know nothing about.

Bingo!

Other than that, I don't consider it "snobby" when people who are genuinely knowledgeable on a subject seek to challenge the opinions of those that aren't. All of our opinions and reactions to art are founded on our experience, knowledge, and/or lack thereof, and it's not being a snob to acknowledge that some have a much greater store of experience and knowledge than others. Now, one might say that there should be, ideally, a certain level of civility, that the knowledgeable shouldn't use their knowledge as a club to beat people over the head with, but rather as a tool for enlightening them. However, I find a much greater resistance amongst the ignorant to be taught and corrected than I find amongst the knowledgeable to be challenged. Much too often, the term "snob" (and pretentious) are used by the ignorant as a way to dismiss their own ignorance and demonize those that obviously know more than they do.

Bingo! Again.

So whenever anyone uses either term, I really have consider the source and the context.

And some would call that "snobbery" because you are accepting the notion that some opinions are better than others.

[Scheherazade]

~

I was trying to clear up this thread but it seemed like too much effort
for no apparent reason.

Some infraction points have been issued and I will not hesitate to issue more

unless everyone starts to respect each other AND the Forum rules.

Don't know about academia but surely there seems to be snobbery in this Forum.

~ This thread is now closed. ~

~