Male tutors always think that anything a female student says is from a "feminist perspective". It's just casual sexism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
Printable View
Male tutors always think that anything a female student says is from a "feminist perspective". It's just casual sexism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
Really? Omg I thought it was something serious but if it's just casual sexism, I guess I was overreacting. Do you think it's too late for me to apologize?Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
I'm not saying that it's acceptable, but it's common.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
Yes that tutor does sound a bit of a twock.
I was thinking today about just how much theory my degree actually contained and it was an awful lot when I jotted it up. I think about six whole modules of theory spanning all three levels and all of them were core.
To put that into context. Take for example one module of Shakespeare and one module of Victorian literature (both optional), one and one of those, but six theory, at least!?! Theory was regarded as six times more important than the optional Shakespeare or Victorian literature, what? Couple that by the fact that the only non English text studied apart from Atwood (as she ticks so many boxes), The Odyssey, was done so as to provide context for Atwood's Penelopiad so that feminism could be discussed though it!?! If it weren't for that reason The Odyssey wouldn't have been touched. The Odyssey was not good enough (or English enough) on it's own, but it is fine as context for feminism. No American literature either. No French literature, no classical foundation; Greek/Roman or Bible study at all, etc, etc, but six core theory modules. And this is your typical literature degree.
This is not meant for one moment to take away from the brilliant experience of my studies or the top class tutors, but simply an obbservation of just how much theory you are likely to find on a typical literature degree in the UK. Far too much, far too much emphasis on 'isms' and not enough on practical grounding.
Look, people don't have a problem per se with racists being portrayed in literature. They have a problem with a racist being portrayed positively or sympathetically in literature. They don't want to see a person who is viewed as horrible by the society in which they live come out unscathed. A character can be flawed, but people want that flaw to have a meaningful, detrimental effect on his life or experiences.
The point here is: Your argument could applied to any kind of "issue" a character may have. For example, if the character in question was a terrorist, people would want to see him punished for the same reason: They believe that there is a fundamental problem with there being a character who is so villainous or immoral and yet is not criticized. These critics argue that such portrayal makes the book inhumane or amoral. Moreover, they believe that the work is devalued by this, since the work appears to be affected by the writer's 'ignorant prejudice.' It's very interesting to work thru this line of reasoning; the book ignores immorality, which must mean that the writer disregards immorality, which means that the book is meaningless, since it was written by a bad guy.
The problem is that a critic inevitably begins to criticize not only the work he is examining but also its author. This means that a reviewer who finds a work to be written with an "immoral plot" - in which a villain is rewarded - immediately sees the author as immoral, and therefore undeserving of approval. The critic knows that the author is the creator of the work, and he therefore expects the author to be a just creator. It simply doesn't occur to him that the author can let a bag guy enjoy himself. He doesn't view the work as truly realistic. He sees it as a projection of the author's views. And if the bad guy doesn't get his just deserts, the author must approve of bad people. Therefore, the critic rejects the work as being written from an inhuman, skewed perspective.
It is not just it Jair. Take Twain. You go to a class. They (in theory) are learning about it. So it is throw. School Class is not Twain context, so the main context is the social context of the reader. Therefore even if the book is critical it may disliked.
The same idea. If an author is perceived to not be mindful and critical enough, for whatever reason, the reader will be affected in the same way he would be if the author wasn't critical at all. If Twainis perceived to "carelessly" use the word 'nigger,' the reader will, out of a sense of moral superiority, reject the work as meaningless and narrow-minded.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
I don't know - the University of Toronto where I studied has its English degree set with categories, so a 7 course major would beQuote:
Originally Posted by Neely
1Intro
.5theory
1Canadian
1American/Transnational
2British before 1832
1Victorian-later
.5 optional.
Theory for us was in the shaft, and that included other courses like Rhetoric, Logic, Reading Poetry, and many others. We certainly were much less theory based.
In contrast Area Studies for me really made us read Foucault, Said, and all sorts of Post-Structuralist stuff. I do not mind it, particularly, so it was fine for me, but most people regarded it as the most challenging part of the degree. I am used to reading complex things like that, so I found it easy. We didn't get fed any Feminist literature though, but I had already covered a great deal of theory on my own.
Still, I confess myself clearly with the school of close-reading, with history rather than theory as my approach. To me theoretical readings do more to highlight the author than they do the work itself, which is good as an exercise, but ultimately makes the criticism into a personal essay.
Ya, I did my BA part time in literature and political science, and there was only two required course in theory, one advanced in a specific area and one introduction to theory class. Although, the advanced seminars were theory heavy. I'd say 75% of the program was focused on historical and national literature exposure.
From memory the rest involved:
1 Canadian
1 American
1 20th century
1 Commonwealth literature other than British or Canadian (Australia/African/Indian in other words)
1 honours seminar
and then something like 6 courses selected from Medieval, Renaissance, 18th century, and Victorian with at least one in each category.
With the condition that 2 of the above had to be advanced undergrad seminars. The seminars I ended up taking involved evolutionary theory and 20th century literature, and another was on literary depictions of slums in the 19th century, which was heavily Marxist and feminist in focus.
Yes I'm sure that all UK degrees in literature aren't as heavily theory led as mine were, but still probably too of it anyway, I think my course director just liked theory very much! Even if a degree is 'English Literature' instead of 'Literature' how can you possibly read many texts in complete isolation from other influences? I understand that there are obvious time limitations but even so, there's surely some space for it?
Mine was crammed full of it, more feminist based theory by a large step than anything else. Then a mixture of Marxist/Psychoanalytic/post modernism and then just about every other theory in smaller degrees, but still very present with a long list of theorists, most of which I have forgotten! Biographical analysis was strongly discouraged in favour of theory. (I also did a lot of politics and a bit of history as I went off track to do those towards the end.)Quote:
We didn't get fed any Feminist literature though, but I had already covered a great deal of theory on my own.
So yes, a little too much theory in balance but even more annoying I find is the fact of the selection of weaker texts so that certain theories could be applied through it, some of which were read more than once in different modules, like for example Angela bloody Carter via feminism and then post modernism later on. Atwood and Carter in plenty, but no opportunities to read anything prior to 1600 or anything non British. Of course you do that yourself to fill in the gaps (as you did with theory!) but still, that's something I would have changed if I could. It seems that there is an avoidance of classical texts though unless you are on a classics, or part classics programme, this is a blow as I would have very much enjoyed that.
This feels more natural to me as well as biographical/social details (now that I'm 'allowed' to do so).Quote:
Still, I confess myself clearly with the school of close-reading, with history rather than theory as my approach.
Atwood should not be read primarily through a feminist lens anyway. Her early work is dependent on the theories of Northrope Frye (and in particular her own distillation of those ideas in Survival) and her later stuff is more interested in historiography and metafiction. Sure there are feminist details to her stories, but it's hardly the focus of any of her writing.
Yes that might well be, but that's the thing; the over emphasis on theory means that we weren't interested in understanding Atwood at all. It's a case of putting theory before the text. That's part of my issue. It's putting moral issues before the text, or an over abundance of doing so, like with selecting Conrad just to discuss racism or reading The Merchant of Venice to endlessly debate about anti-Semitism or reading too many modern texts to open up post modernism etc, etc; and neglecting other things. (I believe we looked at Atwood in terms of feminism and dystopia and maybe even post modernism metafiction we read as an element of post modernism, though not exclusively.)Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
Things like feminism and Marxism in literature are fairly solid things though and you would have thought are not going away any time soon. It is the 'faddish' elements, as Comedian I think suggested, or the more obscurer theorists, that to me could have been dropped in favour of other things. For example, do we need to do 10 post modern theorists and not a jot about Greek mythology or the Bible? I still can't believe the lack of classical grounding on literature degrees, it underpins so much. This is a big area of neglect in my experience. Whether it is just out of fashion or not I do not know.
Unfortunately English Lit degrees tend to focus solely on English literature (American as well if you're lucky) with the literature of some ex-British colonies to represent minorities.
Her later stuff replaces Frye's theories of Canadian literature for Linda Hutcheon'sQuote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
Good point on the literature of ex-British colonies almost by default representing foreign literature, I never thought of it until now. It is almost one of many 'reparations'.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
Tony