Re: Advice To College Students: Don't Major In English
| Posted On: 10/19/07 12:52:36 AM |
Age 64, FM |
Really, what did you think a "traditional" English major was about? Reading books like in grade school? Just harder books? Why would that deserve a degree, when other people have to study real content?
Come on, a DEGREE in English has to have some theoretical content beyond spelling and grammar. Explain PRECISELY what you think constitutes an acceptable English degree, and why.
Click here to reply to this post
|
Re: Advice To College Students: Don't Major In English
| Posted On: 10/09/07 07:44:36 PM |
Age 21, MN |
i am an english major, and thankfully my college has not cut out shakespeare from the department. that'd be incredibly irresponsible as far as i'm concerned. however, i dont regret that i've taken class in other forms of literature besides those written by DWEM's. without these 'new' types of courses, i never would have fallen in love with the writings of African American thinkers and poets from the 1920's and 30's. i refuse to believe that the perspective i developed on the historical plight of central america in my 'World Literature' course was a waste of my time. neither is the fact that i'm currently in a 'Contemporary Literature' course where we've read Milan Kundera, Toni Morrison, and currently Salman Rushdie, and we are gaining an understanding into the post-modern mindset. i know that probably doest ring so true on this site, but i believe we are engaging the culture, rather than sittiong back and simply huffing at the uncomfortable concept of change in the way people think. and as far as children's literature goes, i'm pretty positive that any class that would assign those books would be a course designed for English EDUCATION majors. that's why i had to take one. i believe that all truth is God's truth, not just western truth. walbre@bethel.edu
Click here to reply to this post
|
Re: Advice To College Students: Don't Major In English
| Posted On: 10/07/07 10:18:49 PM |
Age 42, OR |
This article truly saddens me.
I sincerely doubt that Ms. Schlafly has taken a college course in 40 to 50 years, and basing her argument on the titles of short descriptions of a course does not show that she has any real understanding of what is happening in academia today. And perhaps even less so for the English department.
The schools that have *eliminated* the study of Shakespeare are few and far between, and suggesting that this is a widespread practice is misleading at best. Relying on the teaching of Shakespeare as the standard of determination in discerning the 'leftist' views of a university is just silly.
"Beast Culture: Animals, Identity, and Western Literature" sounds like a fascinating class to me. Exploring what divides Man from the animals in literature and myth is a worthwhile line of inquiry. "Food and Literature" and "Bodies of the Middle Ages: Embodiment, Incarnation, Practice" likely have some readings and material in common. Having done some study on Affective Piety (a late-medieval, mostly female phenomenon), body issues, and the doctrine of Transubstantiation, I think that a deeper understanding of the subject would be quite useful for anyone with interest in theology or psychology, or even someone who simply wants to get beyond a surface understanding of Roman Catholic theological systems.
Yes, I am a medievalist, so I tend to see great value in scholarship in that area. But I also understand the extent in which work in one are can inform understanding of another. I believe that the desire to narrow program offerings to conform to an outdated ideal will consequently narrow our learning and our perspective. And that is never a good thing.
Click here to reply to this post
|
Re: Advice To College Students: Don't Major In English
| Posted On: 10/06/07 03:21:54 PM |
Age 44, MN |
Forget for a second that Schlafly is flat-out wrong that classical offerings in English departments have been "replaced" with multicultural works; the curriculum has been broadened and deepened by the addition of other classes alongside those in Shakespeare and Milton. I'm much more interested in her own perspective: If one reads Schlafly's words closely, one must conclude that she not only refers admiringly to Bloom's 1960s book, but that she fully aligns herself with his theory. She agrees that women and minorities are "untalented" and "unimportant." Hard to tell if she's quoting Bloom or simply supplying her own words. Such sweeping sentiments leave no room for debating the talent of "classical" white European male authors that has gone hand in hand with Liberal Arts education(for example, the literary controversy over Wordsworth and Shelly and their relative talents compared to other British Romantics). No wonder, then, she bemoans the radical goals of opposing racism, sexism, and elitism. She would rather have them than allow any attempt to offer students a variety of cultural and literary perspectives so that they can develop their own critical apparati. Thus I conclude she is not against English majors per se, but only the values such as critical thinking and close reading that are a hallmark of an educated mind. And thus I conclude that she misses the irony of her own position: Shakespeare was a radical in his day, creating strong women characters; so was Jesus. Besides the sheer irrationality of her position, it's a frightening one; she does not answer the obvious question Who Decides the Classical Texts, nor does she seem to see that such a question needs to be asked. She will do more harm to herself by exposing such an uncritical, prejudiced view than she will ever do to people who study literature for a glimpse into humanity, or for programs that give students a chance to know, through texts, those different than themselves.
Click here to reply to this post
|
Re: Advice To College Students: Don't Major In English
| Posted On: 10/03/07 02:37:52 PM |
Age 25, NC |
As an English major I sympathize with anyone's frustration over a curriculum that focuses on sub-par literary selections and morally skewed perspectives of the classics (my Shakespeare professor was a liberal feminist). Don't get me wrong, I love Shakespeare, but I also believe that special-interest literary genres do have a legitimate place among English course offerings (especially as electives). While as Christians, it's important to avoid stories and poems of an obscene or otherwise unacceptable nature, there are genres such as underground literature (e.g. literature banned in totalitarian societies), comics/graphic novels, fan fiction, journals/blogs, tv/movie scriptwriting, fairy tales, song lyrics, etc., which take up a hefty percentage of what readers actually consume. To avoid all of these would be similar to a music appreciation course which focused only on Beethoven and Mozart and ignored such hugely influential movements as punk, bluegrass, or hip-hop. Schlafly also seems to denigrate the writing of children's authors: "Dr. Seuss, J.K. Rowling, The Wizard of Oz, and Snow White." Children's literature is an important and legitimate genre which no English curriculum should be without. Besides, English scholars such as John Granger (www.hogwartsprofessor.com) give compelling evidence that J.K. Rowling's writing is classic English literature, and let's face it, Dr. Seuss is a bright spot in the inaccessible malarky that makes up most poetry classes. In conclusion, Schlafly's point that majoring in English might be a waste of one's time is well taken, but that's true of almost any liberal arts major. I learned more about literature from reading books I loved in my spare time than anything I picked up in a college classroom. We need to be careful that in our efforts to pursue literary excellence we don't overlook some of the gems that lie off the beaten path.
Click here to reply to this post
|
Re: Advice To College Students: Don't Major In English
| Posted On: 10/02/07 10:21:33 PM |
Age 43, MN |
"Of Nags, Bitches and Shrews: Women and Animals in Western Literature." Whaddya think the chances are that this class has Shakespeare in it? (Hint: It's not called "The Taming of the Weasel.") Phyllis is completely misrepresenting English Departments: Let's look at some of those schools: Princeton offers its undergrads: Reading Literature: Fiction/Drama,
Introduction to the American Literary Tradition, Introduction to Language and Linguistics, The Old English Period, The Medieval Period, Milton, Topics in the Renaissance: Renaissance Poetry and the Classical Tradition (Shakespeare's in there!); Austen, Bronte, Eliot: Abandoning the Marriage Plot, Topics in 18th-Century Literature: Plays and Players, 1660-1728;
The Later Romantics; 19th-Century Poetry;
Literature of the American Renaissance, 1820-1860; American Literature: 1930-Present;
Topics in American Literature: American Jewish Writers; History of Criticism;
Topics in Black Literature: Black Women Artist-Intellectuals; Topics in African American Literature: Gender, Sexuality, and the African American Novel; Introduction to Queer Theory; Forms of Literature: Medieval Irish and Welsh Lit.; Forms of Literature: Shakespeare & Film.
Now, that queer theory class, you have to understand that people represent gender in different ways...sometimes its pinned to sexual practices, sometimes to dress, or types of thought, or historical practices
(why are women depicted as weak, or not contributing to history at all). The problem is, I think, that while representations of gender are a valid topic to explore, "theory" tries to take as its purview "all representation", which is goofy. It's interesting to consider that originally Shakespeare's heroines were played by young boys. When a female character dresses as a man (it happens all the time in Shakespeare), you are having a boy playing a woman dressed as a man...and Shakespeare was aware of this! We need to sort these things out! English Departments are no more radical than...any other department.
Click here to reply to this post
|
|
|
|
