HOMER - ODYSSEY
"Could a man be more self-centered? Why do we revere and praise this guy as a hero? The ONLY reason this book gets any star, is because I love Greek mythology. I thought, like with other classics I'm reading or re-reading as an adult, maybe I can interpret it differently and appreciate it better, whereas I might not have as a teen. Nope. Book sucks. I don't care if it is a classic and the oldest recorded story of man. It is a Mary-sue of wishful thinking and just as I would harshly judge a contemporary piece that replaces good story with fluff, I gladly shuffle this book back under my coffee table, hoping it does a better job of keeping my drinks from sliding to the floor, than it did at entertaining me."
MACHADO DE ASSIS - POSTHUMOUS MEMOIRS OF BRAS CUBAS
"Some say it is a novel but the author, the Brazilian Joaquim Maria Machado de Assis (1839-1908) says that is is a memoir. However, a memoir is supposed to be fiction. But how could this be fiction if it was written by the protagonist, the Brazilian rich and indolent Bras Cubas after his death? Dead people cannot write a novel"
JOYCE - ULYSSES
"The author did not seem interested in trying to communicate anything to the reader. When I checked Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Joyce ) I see that Pound promoted Joyce. I put 2 and 2 together and suspect Joyce is part of the Imagist school and that actually explains why the writing doesn't make sense."
HORACE - ARS POETICA
"Its odd that for the first time physics reflects actual life philosophy (not the college coarse you took to have it look good on your transcripts), and yet people are still hung up on these order systems like morality.
Morality is dead.
Nihilism is dead.
Ethic is dead.
And this is all so obvious with QM and string theory, yet yuppie college grads are so presistent with their dead greeks ... Horace was an idiot people, and it would be best to read him to learn to hate him better."
SALINGER - THE CATCHER IN THE RYE
"I am very open minded when it comes to literature (I even read through Mein Kampf without any objection) but I just hated this book!"
"The things Holden does aren't very realistic, which 16-year-old boy would hire a prostitute in stead of visiting his mum who lives a few blocks further? I think Holden is a sick person"
WEBER - THE PROTESTANT ETHIC AND THE SPIRIT OF CAPITALISM
"The idea that God brings you economic success (and by extension an omnipresent repression of success for others) is because you are part of his 'elite.' It's a Calvinist principle. They believe in predestination, so basically if you are doing well, it's because God wants you to and that makes it okay. Max Weber actually supported that ridiculous belief in his book."
BALDWIN - GO TELL IT ON THE MOUNTAIN
"Maybe this book just was not right for me, but I really would not recommend this to anyone who has a cheerful personality. The reader has to enjoy thinking about and pondering ideas in a book"
AUSTEN - PRIDE AND PREJUDICE
"Ohmigod, have I mentioned that I hate Jane Austen?!? I really, really hate Jane Austen. It took me a year to make it through this book. So much talking about nothing. So much of nothing happening in general. Someone enters a room, someone leaves a room.
A couple of notable scenes: Elizabeth Bennett's snappy comments when Darcy slights her and Darcy's lovelorn letter. Guess what? Both are just as good in films. Honestly, even though I teach English, I firmly believe every Jane Austen book makes for a better movie."
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Shakespeare - Henry V
"I do not recommend this book for a book club because there was not a whole lot to discuss and my group actually ran out of things to discuss. I recommend the movie by Oliver Stone because it follows the play very closely. In fact if you watch this, you should be fine with just skimming the play for review."
"This play is not numbered among Shakespeare's heavy-hitters. For one thing, King Harry is not a very interesting character."
"Stick to the comedy Willy Shakes."
"What a disgusting piece of propaganda this is! We're supposed to get all misty-eyed and patriotic over Henry's ambition to annex French lands? We're supposed to seriously believe that he cares about his troops?"
"Less a play than a propaganda piece trumpeting the virtues of benevolent royalty."
"This play is a piece of propaganda. It depicts Henry V as a hero."
"There is no cynical commentary in Henry V."
HA HA HA
"This play is not numbered among Shakespeare's heavy-hitters. For one thing, King Harry is not a very interesting character."
"Stick to the comedy Willy Shakes."
"What a disgusting piece of propaganda this is! We're supposed to get all misty-eyed and patriotic over Henry's ambition to annex French lands? We're supposed to seriously believe that he cares about his troops?"
"Less a play than a propaganda piece trumpeting the virtues of benevolent royalty."
"This play is a piece of propaganda. It depicts Henry V as a hero."
"There is no cynical commentary in Henry V."
HA HA HA
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Jane Austen - Pride and Prejudice III
"I am so into Jane Austen. I feel like she wrote all of her books just for me. I can't tell you how many times I've read her books. I wish she was alive so I could ask her to be my friend and follow her everywhere."
"Having always considered myself to be kind of an anglophile, I thought that I would like Jane Austen, that I was supposed to, but this is just too british, even for my taste."
"This book is about people who judge it each other before they knew it the other person. In this book over they over come their prejudice and find a some what happy ending. Even though they have to their"
"I tried to read this but I couldn't keep up with who was what to where. I watch a BBC movie of this and loved it."
"I hate reading old english"
"Ughhh.
This is the whole story:
None of the girls get married cuz theyre all so ugly. 345 pages of snobs without real money drinking tea and talking about their love life."
"Old English grammer fascinating to read - like stepping back in time for awhile. Thank goodness times have changed!"
"I only got halfway through it not because it was so difficult but because the characters would just not stop talking! I understand that this was written 200 years ago, but something this classic should be accessible to all classes and genders. The words were too verbose. Maybe a little more punch is what it needed, but description other than more dialogue would help carry that punch. If you are a women writer back then, it was very limited so I understand. One thing this novel has is plot, but it did not engage me one bit. I recommend the movie instead."
"Ohmigod, have I mentioned that I hate Jane Austen?!? I really, really hate Jane Austen. It took me a year to make it through this book. So much talking about nothing. So much of nothing happening in general. Someone enters a room, someone leaves a room.
A couple of notable scenes: Elizabeth Bennett's snappy comments when Darcy slights her and Darcy's lovelorn letter. Guess what? Both are just as good in films. Honestly, even though I teach English, I firmly believe every Jane Austen book makes for a better movie."
"Having always considered myself to be kind of an anglophile, I thought that I would like Jane Austen, that I was supposed to, but this is just too british, even for my taste."
"This book is about people who judge it each other before they knew it the other person. In this book over they over come their prejudice and find a some what happy ending. Even though they have to their"
"I tried to read this but I couldn't keep up with who was what to where. I watch a BBC movie of this and loved it."
"I hate reading old english"
"Ughhh.
This is the whole story:
None of the girls get married cuz theyre all so ugly. 345 pages of snobs without real money drinking tea and talking about their love life."
"Old English grammer fascinating to read - like stepping back in time for awhile. Thank goodness times have changed!"
"I only got halfway through it not because it was so difficult but because the characters would just not stop talking! I understand that this was written 200 years ago, but something this classic should be accessible to all classes and genders. The words were too verbose. Maybe a little more punch is what it needed, but description other than more dialogue would help carry that punch. If you are a women writer back then, it was very limited so I understand. One thing this novel has is plot, but it did not engage me one bit. I recommend the movie instead."
"Ohmigod, have I mentioned that I hate Jane Austen?!? I really, really hate Jane Austen. It took me a year to make it through this book. So much talking about nothing. So much of nothing happening in general. Someone enters a room, someone leaves a room.
A couple of notable scenes: Elizabeth Bennett's snappy comments when Darcy slights her and Darcy's lovelorn letter. Guess what? Both are just as good in films. Honestly, even though I teach English, I firmly believe every Jane Austen book makes for a better movie."
Thursday, August 23, 2012
James Baldwin - Go Tell It on the Mountain
"james baldwin sucks. if anyone understands his bs, lemme know."
"the black english dude?
here's what i have to say to him (even though he's dead): james, get over yourself. there is no such language as 'black' english damnit. english is a language."
"It is not a difficult book to read, because the vocabulary is not elevated. As a reader, I prefer books with a high vocabulary. When I was reading I was not challenged and that added to my discontent with this novel."
"Many adjectives send you in many directions looking for the theme. I still don't know what it is."
"Maybe this book just was not right for me, but I really would not recommend this to anyone who has a cheerful personality. The reader has to enjoy thinking about and pondering ideas in a book"
"I was shocked by the amount of sexual material in a book focused on Christianity in the African American Church. It is weird to be reading about breasts in the same book where a lot of the plot takes place in a church."
"A shame the author had such bad experiences that he felt he had to share them in this way. The ending should be glorious and hopeful, but instead I found myself wondering and doubtful for the poor young man. Too, too bad."
"the black english dude?
here's what i have to say to him (even though he's dead): james, get over yourself. there is no such language as 'black' english damnit. english is a language."
"It is not a difficult book to read, because the vocabulary is not elevated. As a reader, I prefer books with a high vocabulary. When I was reading I was not challenged and that added to my discontent with this novel."
"Many adjectives send you in many directions looking for the theme. I still don't know what it is."
"Maybe this book just was not right for me, but I really would not recommend this to anyone who has a cheerful personality. The reader has to enjoy thinking about and pondering ideas in a book"
"I was shocked by the amount of sexual material in a book focused on Christianity in the African American Church. It is weird to be reading about breasts in the same book where a lot of the plot takes place in a church."
"A shame the author had such bad experiences that he felt he had to share them in this way. The ending should be glorious and hopeful, but instead I found myself wondering and doubtful for the poor young man. Too, too bad."
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
SPECIAL: QUINTA ULTIMAQUE PHILIPPICA IN STUDENTES LITTERARUM
5. YOU'RE AN IDIOT
IT'S PROBABLY CLEAR THAT MOST OF THE PROBLEMS RAISED IN THE LAST WEEK COULD BE APPLIED TO MANY DISCIPLINES WITHIN THE HUMANITIES IN CURRENT HIGHER EDUCATION. IT MAY BE THAT THE PROBLEM IS NOT SO MUCH THE ENGLISH MAJOR AS THE ENGLISH MAJOR. SOMETHING IS SICK IN OUR UNIVERSITIES AND STUDENTS OF ENGLISH ARE LIKELY JUST VICTIMS OF THE PLAGUE.
WHEN ONE LOOKS AT THE RUNNING OF THE MODERN COLLEGE IT IS CLEAR THAT ITS AIMS ARE DIRECTLY AT ODDS WITH TEACHING STUDENTS TO ENGAGE WITH THE WORLD -- PAST, PRESENT OR FUTURE. THIS IS BUILT INTO THE SIMPLEST POLICIES AND FACILITIES. THE MASSIVELY-PROFITABLE DINING HALL MEANS MANY STUDENTS NEVER LEARN TO PREPARE FOOD FOR THEMSELVES, PROBABLY THE MOST PSYCHOLOGICALLY-IMPORTANT AND VITAL SKILL IN THE TRANSITION FROM CHILDHOOD TO ADULT INDEPENDENCE. CRIPPLING FEES KEEP STUDENTS IN FINANCIAL SERFDOM TO THEIR PARENTS AND TO BANKS, AND TUITION-AND-BOARD PACKAGES PROTECT THEM FROM EVERYDAY TRIVIALITIES LIKE BALANCING A BUDGET TO COVER GROCERIES, UTILITIES PAYMENTS, MEDICAL BILLS. HONOUR COUNCILS AND SPECIALIZED CAMPUS POLICE EXIST NOT ONLY TO PROTECT THEIR INSTITUTION'S REPUTATION, BUT TO PROTECT RICH WHITE TEENAGERS FROM THE SOCIETAL CONSEQUENCES OF IRRESPONSIBLE AND ILLEGAL ACTIONS, A SERVICE AFFORDED TO NO OTHER YOUTH DEMOGRAPHIC. OUR STUDENTS ARE DELIBERATELY TRAPPED IN ARTIFICIAL INFANCY.
THEIR TEACHERS ARE NO BETTER. THE PROFESSORS OF TODAY ARE SHEER PARODY OF THE GREAT SCHOLARS OF THE FIRST HALF OF LAST CENTURY. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO READ SCHOLARSHIP FROM THE 1860S THROUGH TO THE LATE 1950S AND NOT FEEL THE TREMENDOUS LOSS OUR DARK AGE HAS SUFFERED. THERE IS A CLEAR AND OMNIPRESENT ASSUMPTION IN THESE WORKS THAT A SCHOLAR IS A PERSON WHO KNOWS BY HEART EUROPEAN CULTURAL AND POLITICAL HISTORY IN DEPTH AND ACROSS ALL PERIODS, WHO HAS READING FLUENCY IN GREEK, LATIN, FRENCH, GERMAN AND ITALIAN, WHO IS A JUDICIOUS AND LEARNED CRITIC OF MUSIC, DRAMA, LITERATURE AND PAINTING. NOW THIS SEEMS LIKE AN IMPOSSIBLE DREAM. IT IS THE WORK OF A DOCTORATE TO GAIN BASIC EXPERTISE IN ANY ONE OF THESE TOPICS -- THERE ARE TOO MANY CONFERENCES TO ATTEND TO WASTE TIME PORING OVER HISTORY BOOKS, TOO MANY TEN-PAGE ARTICLES TO CRANK OUT TO BOTHER WITH ANOTHER LANGUAGE.
WHEN A DICTATOR COMES TO POWER IT IS TRADITIONAL FOR HIM TO KILL INTELLECTUALS. THIS TRAIL OF BLOOD RUNS FROM CICERO'S HANDS ON THE ROSTRA TO THE PURGES IN ITALY, RUSSIA AND GERMANY IN THE EARLIER PART OF LAST CENTURY, AND IN IRAN, CAMBODIA AND CHILE IN THE LATTER PART. AND YET IT IS DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE, IN OUR CENTURY, HOW ANYBODY COULD CONSIDER THE UNIVERSITY A POLITICAL THREAT. WE ARE TAUGHT BY AND TAUGHT TO BE THE MOST HARMLESS, INCOMPETENT AND INACTIVE THINKERS THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN. THE FEW SCHOLARS WHO ARE LEARNED IN WORLD HISTORY AND POLITICS ARE ENGAGED IN WRITING MINI-ESSAYS FOR AN AUDIENCE OF TEN. THE ONLY THING APPROACHING POLITICAL IDEOLOGY ON OUR COLLEGE CAMPUSES IS A SMUG, DETACHED, PARALYZED AND AHISTORICAL LIBERAL PARANOIA, FOR THAT IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE RATIONALIZATION AVAILABLE TO PEOPLE WHOSE FINANCIAL SECURITY RESTS ON THE EXPLOITATION OF THE POOR.
STUDENTS ARE SYSTEMATICALLY ISOLATED FROM THE WORLD AROUND THEM, AS THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN BEFORE, NOT ONLY IN THEIR LIFESTYLES BUT IN THEIR STUDIES. THE ANALYSIS OF NEW ARTFORMS (LIKE RAP MUSIC) AND NEW, REVOLUTIONARY DEVELOPMENTS IN OLD ONES (AS IN DANCE) SHOULD BE THE INALIENABLE PROVINCE OF THE GENERATION THAT HAS GROWN UP STEEPED IN THEM, AS ROCK'N'ROLL WAS FOR THE BOOMERS. BUT THE STUDENT-RUN PUBLICATIONS OF THE SIXTIES AND SEVENTIES, WHICH REVELED IN SUCH CRITICAL ANALYSES OF CONTEMPORARY ART AND CULTURE, HAVE DISAPPEARED; THEY HAVE BEEN COLONIZED BY CULTURAL STUDIES; THE MILQUETOAST MUMBLING OF CHILDREN OF THE 50S AND 60S USING THEORIES OF THE 70S AND 80S TO MISREAD A CULTURE THAT WAS STILL SITTING AT THE BACK OF THE BUS WHEN THEY ENTERED HIGH SCHOOL.
TODAY, IN THE IMPERIAL FORTRESSES OF OUR COLLEGE CAMPUSES, IF YOU WANT TO EXPERIENCE YOUTH CULTURE, YOU SIGN UP TO LEARN IT FROM A MINCING WHITE PhD IN A $1200 COURSE CALLED "BALLERS AND B-GIRLS: HIP-HOP, YOUTH IDENTITIES AND THE TRANSGRESSIVE POLITICS OF LANGUAGE." GONE IS THE ULTIMATE HUMANIZING EXPERIENCE: VISCERAL INVOLVEMENT WITH THE PRESENT. THE WORLD IS ONLY AVAILABLE PRECHEWED; MASHED WITH THE CAREERISM OF MIDDLE-AGED MEN AND WOMEN AND REGURGITATED INTO THE SQUEALING MOUTHS OF OLD CHILDREN WHO HAVE MISTAKEN THEMSELVES FOR YOUNG ADULTS. IN FLAPPING TO BECOME HISTORIANS OF THE PRESENT, OUR PROFESSORS HAVE FORSAKEN THEIR AUTHENTIC RESPONSIBILITIES AS GUARDIANS OF OUR RICH AND COMPLEX PAST. THEY ARE BARELY TREADING WATER IN THE GREAT RIVER OF HUMAN HISTORY, AND, IF YOU GET TOO CLOSE, THEY WILL PULL YOU DOWN WITH THEM.
EVERY YEAR AT COMMENCEMENTS AND WELCOMING CEREMONIES THE WORLD OVER, BEGINNING AND GRADUATING STUDENTS ARE TOLD THAT THEY HAVE PARTICIPATED, OR ARE ABOUT TO PARTICIPATE, IN THE STREAM OF LEARNING THAT PASSED FROM THE GREEKS AND ROMANS THROUGH THE GREAT SCHOLARS OF THE ISLAMIC GOLDEN AGE TO THE MONASTIC ORDERS OF THE MIDDLE AGES, AND FROM THERE TO THE HEIGHTS OF EUROPEAN INTELLECTUAL ACHIEVEMENT IN THE RENAISSANCE, WHOSE SURVIVAL IN THE ENLIGHTENMENT ACADEMY HAS LEAD TO THE MODERN WESTERN COLLEGE EDUCATION. IT IS AN OUTRAGEOUS AND BAREFACED LIE. THE CONTEMPORARY ACADEMIC SCENE BEARS NO RELATION TO THE HISTORY IT SO EAGERLY CLAIMS AND SO RARELY KNOWS. THE STREAM IS DRY.
THE FIRST WESTERN UNIVERSITIES, THE LYCEUM OF ARISTOTLE AND PLATO'S ACADEMY, WERE PLACES OF WORSHIP. BOTH WERE BUILT IN SACRED GROVES, ONE APOLLO'S AND THE OTHER ATHENA'S: ART AND WISDOM. THERE WERE NO FEES, NO TIMETABLES, NO ASSESSMENTS AND NO GRADES. NO TENURE, NO PUBLICATION, NO PAY. CERTAINLY NO GRADUATION: JUST PEOPLE READING AND TALKING TO EACH OTHER ABOUT THINGS THEY FOUND INTERESTING -- HOW DO YOU GRADUATE FROM THINKING?
NO SURPRISE, PERHAPS, THAT IT WAS THE BRUTE-BRAINED, OLD-MONEY CAREERIST SULLA WHO TORE THOSE OLIVE TREES UP THREE CENTURIES LATER, GRINDING ALL THE GLORY OF ATHENS' GOLDEN PAST TO DUST WITH WHICH TO GILT HIS BLOODY PRESENT. INDEED, IT WOULD TAKE A SYSTEM LIKE LATE-REPUBLICAN ROME TO PRODUCE SUCH A CRETIN: A SOCIETY WHERE STATUS WAS AWARDED BY ADVANCEMENT UP THE CURSUS HONORUM, WHERE SUCH ADVANCEMENT COULD ONLY BE ATTAINED WITH AGE, WITH BOUGHT FRIENDS, WITH PHANTOM PRESTIGE AND MEANINGLESS ACCOLADES; WHERE SUCCESS MEANT CONSEQUENCE-FREE FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION OF THE PEOPLE YOU WERE SENT TO LEAD AND GOVERN; WHERE THE GREAT MAN WAS THE SKILLFUL LIAR, THE ONE MOST WILLING TO FLATTER HIS SUPERIORS AND SLAUGHTER HIS RIVALS...
IT IS CLEAR THAT THE MODERN ACADEMY IS ALSO DESTINED FOR A FALL. WITH ITS CLUBS AND CLASSES FOR STUDENTS AND ITS CONFERENCES AND CAREERISM FOR TEACHERS, IT IS COMPLETELY INEFFECTIVE AS A METHOD OF LEARNING. YOU CANNOT LEARN SOCIALLY. LEARNING IS SOLITUDE. ONLY AFTER SILENT YEARS IN THE LIBRARY CAN YOU COME FORTH AND SPEAK OF WHAT YOU KNOW. WHAT YOU GET FROM A GREAT BOOK, A GREAT PAINTING, YOU CAN'T GET SECONDHAND. YOU CAN'T WIN IT IN AN EXAM ROOM AND YOU CERTAINLY CAN'T BUY IT BY THE CREDIT-HOUR. WHAT YOU LEARN IN A LECTURE HALL YOU WILL NEVER GENUINELY POSSESS; IT IS TOO GRUBBY WITH THE HANDS OF OTHER PEOPLE. LEARNING SOMETHING IN A CLASSROOM IS LIKE SITTING DOWN ON A PUBLIC TOILET AND FINDING THE SEAT ALREADY WARM.
THEREFORE STUDENT: I TELL THEE THAT WHEN THOU LEARNEST, THOU SHALT NOT BE AS THE HYPOCRITES ARE, FOR THEY LOVE TO LEARN BLABBERING IN THEIR CLASSROOMS AND CLUB MEETINGS. FUCK YOUR EXTRACURRICS. FUCK YOUR 4.0. LAY NOT UP FOR YOURSELVES TREASURES ON EARTH.
FOR THOSE OF YOU HIGHER UP IN ACADEMIA, TAKE YOUR CANDLE OUT FROM UNDER THAT FUCKING BUSHEL. YOU ARE BUILT FOR BETTER THINGS THAN PANDERING TO TEENAGERS AND ADDING LINES TO YOUR CV. WRITE NOT VAIN REPETITIONS, AS THE CONFERENCE-HOPPERS DO: FOR THEY THINK THAT THEY SHALL BE HEARD FOR THEIR MUCH SPEAKING. STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT HOW PEOPLE SEE THE HUMANITIES AS USELESS AND START BEING USEFUL. YOU ARE THE SALT OF THE EARTH, BUT IF THE SALT HATH LOST ITS SAVOUR, THEN IT IS GOOD FOR NOTHING, AND IT SHOULD BE TRODDEN UNDER THE FOOT OF MEN. EXCEPT YOUR RIGHTEOUSNESS SHALL EXCEED THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES, YE SHALL IN NO CASE ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.
THE BLIND CARNIVAL OF MODERN EDUCATION WILL DANCE ITSELF OFF A CLIFF. WHEN THE STUDENT LOAN SYSTEM COLLAPSES, AS IS ABSOLUTELY INEVITABLE, THE COLLEGE WILL CRUMBLE, AND EVERY PERSON IT HAS EMPLOYED OR PRETENDED TO EDUCATE WILL SUFFER FOR IT. IT HAS BUILT ITS HOUSE UPON THE SAND. THE RAIN SHALL DESCEND. THE FLOODS SHALL COME. THE WINDS SHALL BLOW AND BEAT UPON THAT HOUSE, AND IT SHALL FALL.
AND GREAT WILL BE THE FALL OF IT.
IT'S PROBABLY CLEAR THAT MOST OF THE PROBLEMS RAISED IN THE LAST WEEK COULD BE APPLIED TO MANY DISCIPLINES WITHIN THE HUMANITIES IN CURRENT HIGHER EDUCATION. IT MAY BE THAT THE PROBLEM IS NOT SO MUCH THE ENGLISH MAJOR AS THE ENGLISH MAJOR. SOMETHING IS SICK IN OUR UNIVERSITIES AND STUDENTS OF ENGLISH ARE LIKELY JUST VICTIMS OF THE PLAGUE.
WHEN ONE LOOKS AT THE RUNNING OF THE MODERN COLLEGE IT IS CLEAR THAT ITS AIMS ARE DIRECTLY AT ODDS WITH TEACHING STUDENTS TO ENGAGE WITH THE WORLD -- PAST, PRESENT OR FUTURE. THIS IS BUILT INTO THE SIMPLEST POLICIES AND FACILITIES. THE MASSIVELY-PROFITABLE DINING HALL MEANS MANY STUDENTS NEVER LEARN TO PREPARE FOOD FOR THEMSELVES, PROBABLY THE MOST PSYCHOLOGICALLY-IMPORTANT AND VITAL SKILL IN THE TRANSITION FROM CHILDHOOD TO ADULT INDEPENDENCE. CRIPPLING FEES KEEP STUDENTS IN FINANCIAL SERFDOM TO THEIR PARENTS AND TO BANKS, AND TUITION-AND-BOARD PACKAGES PROTECT THEM FROM EVERYDAY TRIVIALITIES LIKE BALANCING A BUDGET TO COVER GROCERIES, UTILITIES PAYMENTS, MEDICAL BILLS. HONOUR COUNCILS AND SPECIALIZED CAMPUS POLICE EXIST NOT ONLY TO PROTECT THEIR INSTITUTION'S REPUTATION, BUT TO PROTECT RICH WHITE TEENAGERS FROM THE SOCIETAL CONSEQUENCES OF IRRESPONSIBLE AND ILLEGAL ACTIONS, A SERVICE AFFORDED TO NO OTHER YOUTH DEMOGRAPHIC. OUR STUDENTS ARE DELIBERATELY TRAPPED IN ARTIFICIAL INFANCY.
THEIR TEACHERS ARE NO BETTER. THE PROFESSORS OF TODAY ARE SHEER PARODY OF THE GREAT SCHOLARS OF THE FIRST HALF OF LAST CENTURY. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO READ SCHOLARSHIP FROM THE 1860S THROUGH TO THE LATE 1950S AND NOT FEEL THE TREMENDOUS LOSS OUR DARK AGE HAS SUFFERED. THERE IS A CLEAR AND OMNIPRESENT ASSUMPTION IN THESE WORKS THAT A SCHOLAR IS A PERSON WHO KNOWS BY HEART EUROPEAN CULTURAL AND POLITICAL HISTORY IN DEPTH AND ACROSS ALL PERIODS, WHO HAS READING FLUENCY IN GREEK, LATIN, FRENCH, GERMAN AND ITALIAN, WHO IS A JUDICIOUS AND LEARNED CRITIC OF MUSIC, DRAMA, LITERATURE AND PAINTING. NOW THIS SEEMS LIKE AN IMPOSSIBLE DREAM. IT IS THE WORK OF A DOCTORATE TO GAIN BASIC EXPERTISE IN ANY ONE OF THESE TOPICS -- THERE ARE TOO MANY CONFERENCES TO ATTEND TO WASTE TIME PORING OVER HISTORY BOOKS, TOO MANY TEN-PAGE ARTICLES TO CRANK OUT TO BOTHER WITH ANOTHER LANGUAGE.
WHEN A DICTATOR COMES TO POWER IT IS TRADITIONAL FOR HIM TO KILL INTELLECTUALS. THIS TRAIL OF BLOOD RUNS FROM CICERO'S HANDS ON THE ROSTRA TO THE PURGES IN ITALY, RUSSIA AND GERMANY IN THE EARLIER PART OF LAST CENTURY, AND IN IRAN, CAMBODIA AND CHILE IN THE LATTER PART. AND YET IT IS DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE, IN OUR CENTURY, HOW ANYBODY COULD CONSIDER THE UNIVERSITY A POLITICAL THREAT. WE ARE TAUGHT BY AND TAUGHT TO BE THE MOST HARMLESS, INCOMPETENT AND INACTIVE THINKERS THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN. THE FEW SCHOLARS WHO ARE LEARNED IN WORLD HISTORY AND POLITICS ARE ENGAGED IN WRITING MINI-ESSAYS FOR AN AUDIENCE OF TEN. THE ONLY THING APPROACHING POLITICAL IDEOLOGY ON OUR COLLEGE CAMPUSES IS A SMUG, DETACHED, PARALYZED AND AHISTORICAL LIBERAL PARANOIA, FOR THAT IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE RATIONALIZATION AVAILABLE TO PEOPLE WHOSE FINANCIAL SECURITY RESTS ON THE EXPLOITATION OF THE POOR.
STUDENTS ARE SYSTEMATICALLY ISOLATED FROM THE WORLD AROUND THEM, AS THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN BEFORE, NOT ONLY IN THEIR LIFESTYLES BUT IN THEIR STUDIES. THE ANALYSIS OF NEW ARTFORMS (LIKE RAP MUSIC) AND NEW, REVOLUTIONARY DEVELOPMENTS IN OLD ONES (AS IN DANCE) SHOULD BE THE INALIENABLE PROVINCE OF THE GENERATION THAT HAS GROWN UP STEEPED IN THEM, AS ROCK'N'ROLL WAS FOR THE BOOMERS. BUT THE STUDENT-RUN PUBLICATIONS OF THE SIXTIES AND SEVENTIES, WHICH REVELED IN SUCH CRITICAL ANALYSES OF CONTEMPORARY ART AND CULTURE, HAVE DISAPPEARED; THEY HAVE BEEN COLONIZED BY CULTURAL STUDIES; THE MILQUETOAST MUMBLING OF CHILDREN OF THE 50S AND 60S USING THEORIES OF THE 70S AND 80S TO MISREAD A CULTURE THAT WAS STILL SITTING AT THE BACK OF THE BUS WHEN THEY ENTERED HIGH SCHOOL.
TODAY, IN THE IMPERIAL FORTRESSES OF OUR COLLEGE CAMPUSES, IF YOU WANT TO EXPERIENCE YOUTH CULTURE, YOU SIGN UP TO LEARN IT FROM A MINCING WHITE PhD IN A $1200 COURSE CALLED "BALLERS AND B-GIRLS: HIP-HOP, YOUTH IDENTITIES AND THE TRANSGRESSIVE POLITICS OF LANGUAGE." GONE IS THE ULTIMATE HUMANIZING EXPERIENCE: VISCERAL INVOLVEMENT WITH THE PRESENT. THE WORLD IS ONLY AVAILABLE PRECHEWED; MASHED WITH THE CAREERISM OF MIDDLE-AGED MEN AND WOMEN AND REGURGITATED INTO THE SQUEALING MOUTHS OF OLD CHILDREN WHO HAVE MISTAKEN THEMSELVES FOR YOUNG ADULTS. IN FLAPPING TO BECOME HISTORIANS OF THE PRESENT, OUR PROFESSORS HAVE FORSAKEN THEIR AUTHENTIC RESPONSIBILITIES AS GUARDIANS OF OUR RICH AND COMPLEX PAST. THEY ARE BARELY TREADING WATER IN THE GREAT RIVER OF HUMAN HISTORY, AND, IF YOU GET TOO CLOSE, THEY WILL PULL YOU DOWN WITH THEM.
EVERY YEAR AT COMMENCEMENTS AND WELCOMING CEREMONIES THE WORLD OVER, BEGINNING AND GRADUATING STUDENTS ARE TOLD THAT THEY HAVE PARTICIPATED, OR ARE ABOUT TO PARTICIPATE, IN THE STREAM OF LEARNING THAT PASSED FROM THE GREEKS AND ROMANS THROUGH THE GREAT SCHOLARS OF THE ISLAMIC GOLDEN AGE TO THE MONASTIC ORDERS OF THE MIDDLE AGES, AND FROM THERE TO THE HEIGHTS OF EUROPEAN INTELLECTUAL ACHIEVEMENT IN THE RENAISSANCE, WHOSE SURVIVAL IN THE ENLIGHTENMENT ACADEMY HAS LEAD TO THE MODERN WESTERN COLLEGE EDUCATION. IT IS AN OUTRAGEOUS AND BAREFACED LIE. THE CONTEMPORARY ACADEMIC SCENE BEARS NO RELATION TO THE HISTORY IT SO EAGERLY CLAIMS AND SO RARELY KNOWS. THE STREAM IS DRY.
THE FIRST WESTERN UNIVERSITIES, THE LYCEUM OF ARISTOTLE AND PLATO'S ACADEMY, WERE PLACES OF WORSHIP. BOTH WERE BUILT IN SACRED GROVES, ONE APOLLO'S AND THE OTHER ATHENA'S: ART AND WISDOM. THERE WERE NO FEES, NO TIMETABLES, NO ASSESSMENTS AND NO GRADES. NO TENURE, NO PUBLICATION, NO PAY. CERTAINLY NO GRADUATION: JUST PEOPLE READING AND TALKING TO EACH OTHER ABOUT THINGS THEY FOUND INTERESTING -- HOW DO YOU GRADUATE FROM THINKING?
NO SURPRISE, PERHAPS, THAT IT WAS THE BRUTE-BRAINED, OLD-MONEY CAREERIST SULLA WHO TORE THOSE OLIVE TREES UP THREE CENTURIES LATER, GRINDING ALL THE GLORY OF ATHENS' GOLDEN PAST TO DUST WITH WHICH TO GILT HIS BLOODY PRESENT. INDEED, IT WOULD TAKE A SYSTEM LIKE LATE-REPUBLICAN ROME TO PRODUCE SUCH A CRETIN: A SOCIETY WHERE STATUS WAS AWARDED BY ADVANCEMENT UP THE CURSUS HONORUM, WHERE SUCH ADVANCEMENT COULD ONLY BE ATTAINED WITH AGE, WITH BOUGHT FRIENDS, WITH PHANTOM PRESTIGE AND MEANINGLESS ACCOLADES; WHERE SUCCESS MEANT CONSEQUENCE-FREE FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION OF THE PEOPLE YOU WERE SENT TO LEAD AND GOVERN; WHERE THE GREAT MAN WAS THE SKILLFUL LIAR, THE ONE MOST WILLING TO FLATTER HIS SUPERIORS AND SLAUGHTER HIS RIVALS...
IT IS CLEAR THAT THE MODERN ACADEMY IS ALSO DESTINED FOR A FALL. WITH ITS CLUBS AND CLASSES FOR STUDENTS AND ITS CONFERENCES AND CAREERISM FOR TEACHERS, IT IS COMPLETELY INEFFECTIVE AS A METHOD OF LEARNING. YOU CANNOT LEARN SOCIALLY. LEARNING IS SOLITUDE. ONLY AFTER SILENT YEARS IN THE LIBRARY CAN YOU COME FORTH AND SPEAK OF WHAT YOU KNOW. WHAT YOU GET FROM A GREAT BOOK, A GREAT PAINTING, YOU CAN'T GET SECONDHAND. YOU CAN'T WIN IT IN AN EXAM ROOM AND YOU CERTAINLY CAN'T BUY IT BY THE CREDIT-HOUR. WHAT YOU LEARN IN A LECTURE HALL YOU WILL NEVER GENUINELY POSSESS; IT IS TOO GRUBBY WITH THE HANDS OF OTHER PEOPLE. LEARNING SOMETHING IN A CLASSROOM IS LIKE SITTING DOWN ON A PUBLIC TOILET AND FINDING THE SEAT ALREADY WARM.
THEREFORE STUDENT: I TELL THEE THAT WHEN THOU LEARNEST, THOU SHALT NOT BE AS THE HYPOCRITES ARE, FOR THEY LOVE TO LEARN BLABBERING IN THEIR CLASSROOMS AND CLUB MEETINGS. FUCK YOUR EXTRACURRICS. FUCK YOUR 4.0. LAY NOT UP FOR YOURSELVES TREASURES ON EARTH.
FOR THOSE OF YOU HIGHER UP IN ACADEMIA, TAKE YOUR CANDLE OUT FROM UNDER THAT FUCKING BUSHEL. YOU ARE BUILT FOR BETTER THINGS THAN PANDERING TO TEENAGERS AND ADDING LINES TO YOUR CV. WRITE NOT VAIN REPETITIONS, AS THE CONFERENCE-HOPPERS DO: FOR THEY THINK THAT THEY SHALL BE HEARD FOR THEIR MUCH SPEAKING. STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT HOW PEOPLE SEE THE HUMANITIES AS USELESS AND START BEING USEFUL. YOU ARE THE SALT OF THE EARTH, BUT IF THE SALT HATH LOST ITS SAVOUR, THEN IT IS GOOD FOR NOTHING, AND IT SHOULD BE TRODDEN UNDER THE FOOT OF MEN. EXCEPT YOUR RIGHTEOUSNESS SHALL EXCEED THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES, YE SHALL IN NO CASE ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.
THE BLIND CARNIVAL OF MODERN EDUCATION WILL DANCE ITSELF OFF A CLIFF. WHEN THE STUDENT LOAN SYSTEM COLLAPSES, AS IS ABSOLUTELY INEVITABLE, THE COLLEGE WILL CRUMBLE, AND EVERY PERSON IT HAS EMPLOYED OR PRETENDED TO EDUCATE WILL SUFFER FOR IT. IT HAS BUILT ITS HOUSE UPON THE SAND. THE RAIN SHALL DESCEND. THE FLOODS SHALL COME. THE WINDS SHALL BLOW AND BEAT UPON THAT HOUSE, AND IT SHALL FALL.
AND GREAT WILL BE THE FALL OF IT.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Sigmund Freud - Civilization and Its Discontents II
"Interesting plot."
"I cannot believe that people in this day and age look at this man as anything more than a drugged out hippie from a day LONG gone by...sure he took himself seriously... but should we in this day and age? I will answer that question, for at least myself, with a resounding "NO!" he he. He was a drugged out NUT!"
"Freud seems to encourage the freedom of id (or libido) and ego ... Freud said that a community which tries to prolong the prohibition of sexual manifestation on children cannot be justified and that the phenomenon has become more evident anyway (and thus justifies the inverse? I don't think so!).
He believed that monogamous life is impossible and that only weak people who would submit to the circumscription of their sexual freedom. But has he any idea of the impact of this preposition on children? Could he imagine what would happen to children who's father AND mother date other people? Will it bring happinness to the children? But of course he only focused on the fulfillment of one's ego.
His view on 'love your neighbor as you love yourself' is awfully perverted. He translates 'Homo homini lupus' like, literally. Then he said, obstruction to the fulfillment of aggression in civilization will bring unhappiness. What kind of savaged civilization did he have in his mind, I wonder.
You know, almost every premise he got is real - they are increasingly happening. But these premises are actually the root of so many behavioral problems that gave birth to endless chain of unhappiness, not to mention a disfunction in communities. Just because there are so many people practicing something doesn't mean that it is the right thing. The notion of his statements is that there's no good in humanbeing because we are all basically super developed animals. I'm not trying to be a pious, but his judgements and views are totally destructive.
It's true that this world has fallen to such degree of immorality. But in the midst of all that, should we jump in and follow the wave to destruction?
I didn't really find anything that adds to my knowledge from this book. I found it to be negative and bleak. Imagine its impact towards the young and unexperienced youth's mind in the span of generations since its publicity forward. What a dreary future the world has."
"I cannot believe that people in this day and age look at this man as anything more than a drugged out hippie from a day LONG gone by...sure he took himself seriously... but should we in this day and age? I will answer that question, for at least myself, with a resounding "NO!" he he. He was a drugged out NUT!"
"Freud seems to encourage the freedom of id (or libido) and ego ... Freud said that a community which tries to prolong the prohibition of sexual manifestation on children cannot be justified and that the phenomenon has become more evident anyway (and thus justifies the inverse? I don't think so!).
He believed that monogamous life is impossible and that only weak people who would submit to the circumscription of their sexual freedom. But has he any idea of the impact of this preposition on children? Could he imagine what would happen to children who's father AND mother date other people? Will it bring happinness to the children? But of course he only focused on the fulfillment of one's ego.
His view on 'love your neighbor as you love yourself' is awfully perverted. He translates 'Homo homini lupus' like, literally. Then he said, obstruction to the fulfillment of aggression in civilization will bring unhappiness. What kind of savaged civilization did he have in his mind, I wonder.
You know, almost every premise he got is real - they are increasingly happening. But these premises are actually the root of so many behavioral problems that gave birth to endless chain of unhappiness, not to mention a disfunction in communities. Just because there are so many people practicing something doesn't mean that it is the right thing. The notion of his statements is that there's no good in humanbeing because we are all basically super developed animals. I'm not trying to be a pious, but his judgements and views are totally destructive.
It's true that this world has fallen to such degree of immorality. But in the midst of all that, should we jump in and follow the wave to destruction?
I didn't really find anything that adds to my knowledge from this book. I found it to be negative and bleak. Imagine its impact towards the young and unexperienced youth's mind in the span of generations since its publicity forward. What a dreary future the world has."
Monday, August 20, 2012
SPECIAL: QUARTA PHILIPPICA IN STUDENTES LITTERARUM
4. THEY DON'T LIKE BOOKS
BECAUSE THE MOST TAXING INTELLECTUAL EXERCISE REQUIRED OF AN ENGLISH UNDERGRADUATE IS TO READ FICTION AND POETRY (SOMETHING NORMAL PEOPLE OF REASONABLE INTELLIGENCE DO OF THEIR OWN ACCORD AND FOR PLEASURE), THEY ARE LIABLE TO DEVELOP DISPROPORTIONATE IDEAS OF HOW DIFFICULT A TASK THIS IS. ENGLISH MAJORS ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO HAVE EVER TOLD ME A FIVE-MONTH COLLEGE COURSE IS NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND, SAY, THE NOVELS OF WILLIAM FAULKNER.
WHAT THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM ADDS TO STUDYING LITERATURE I HAVE NO IDEA. YOU READ THE TEXT ON YOUR OWN. YOU GO TO A SHITTY LECTURE IN WHICH YOUR PROFESSOR SUMMARIZES (IN THE WORST CASE) THE PLOT OF THE BOOK YOU JUST READ, AND (IN THE BEST CASE) HIS OR HER OWN PUBLISHED WORK WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE LIBRARY. OCCASIONALLY THERE IS CLASS "DISCUSSION" WHICH GENERALLY BEGINS WITH THE PROFESSOR ASKING "WHAT DID YOU THINK?" AND STUDENTS ANSWERING "HURR DURR THE LANGUAGE WAS HARD" OR, AT THE VERY BEST, "I REALLY ENJOYED THE CHARACTERIZATION!" THEN THE PROFESSOR WILL PUT FORTH, IN A MANGLED, REDUCED VERSION SUITABLE FOR UNDERGRADUATES, THE WRITTEN ARGUMENT OF ANOTHER SCHOLAR, WHICH IS, AGAIN, SOMETHING YOU COULD HAVE LEARNT IN PRIVATE, BETTER, AND FOR FREE, AT THE LIBRARY. SO WHY DIDN'T YOU, MORON? WHY ARE YOU CHOOSING, AND PAYING, TO DO YOUR READING WITH A BRAYING, STINKING MOB OF TEENAGERS? WHAT DO YOU GET OUT OF THIS SYSTEM THAT IS WORTH HOBBLING YOURSELF WITH DECADES OF DEBT?
THERE IS ONLY ONE ANSWER: ENGLISH MAJORS HATE READING AND NEED TO BE FORCED TO DO IT. THERE IS A REASON ENGLISH MAJORS WILL SPEND HOURS ARGUING WITH EACH OTHER ABOUT WHETHER READING ON A KINDLE "COUNTS", OR RHAPSODIZING ON THE SMELL OF OLD BOOKS: IT'S BECAUSE THE MOMENT THEY SHUT UP, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO STOP INHALING THEIR COPY OF MOBY-DICK AND ACTUALLY GET TO READING THE FUCKING THING. PREDICTABLY, ENGLISH MAJORS ARE THE ONLY ONES CONVINCED BY THIS CHARADE -- AND THE PEOPLE TEACHING THEM ARE WELL AWARE OF HOW EXPLOITABLE IT MAKES THEM.
IN ALL DISCIPLINES, THE PRESTIGE OF HIGHER EDUCATION HAS OUTLIVED ITS RIGOUR AND EFFECTIVENESS. GOING TO COLLEGE IS STILL EQUATED WITH GETTING AN EDUCATION, BUT UNIVERSITIES HAVE LONG SINCE REALIZED THAT IT'S FAR MORE PROFITABLE TO PROVIDE A 4-YEAR BABYSITTING SERVICE FOR ADULTS THAN IT IS TO PROVIDE THAT EDUCATION. TUITION CLIMBS, FULL PROFESSORSHIPS DWINDLE; CAMPUSES SPROUT EXPENSIVE GYMS, STADIUMS, DINING HALLS, MULTIMEDIA CENTRES, SEMESTERS AT SEA. GRADES INFLATE, FOUR-YEAR DEGREES STRETCH INTO THEIR FIFTH AND SIXTH, WITH A GAP YEAR SOMEWHERE ALONG THE WAY (FOR A BREAK FROM THE MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL STRAINS OF COLLEGE LIFE, WHAT WITH ITS READING AND WRITING AND 10 HOURS OF CLASS A WEEK). THEREFORE IT MAKES SENSE THAT A DEGREE IN ENGLISH IS STRUCTURED NOT, AS ONE MIGHT EXPECT, AROUND READING LITERATURE, BUT AROUND AVOIDING LITERATURE.
TAKE A LOOK AT AN UNDERGRADUATE ENGLISH SYLLABUS: YOU'LL FIND THINGS LIKE "DIGITAL LITERATURES", "CLASSIC WORKS AS FILM ADAPTATIONS", "HISTORY OF THE GRAPHIC NOVEL". THRILLED WITH THE CHANCE TO EARN CREDIT FOR READING THE SAME CHILDREN'S BOOKS THEY HAVE BEEN READING SINCE THE AGE OF EIGHT, ENGLISH MAJORS FLOCK TO COURSES LIKE "THE WORLD OF HARRY POTTER: A CRITICAL CROSS-DISCIPLINARY EXAMINATION," WHERE, I PRESUME, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO UTILIZE ALL THAT CROSS-DISCIPLINARY KNOWLEDGE AND CRITICAL APTITUDE THEY HAVE. THE PROBLEM HERE IS NOT THE SUBJECTS, WHICH ARE PRESUMABLY WORTHY OF SERIOUS STUDY IN SOME CAPACITY -- IT IS THAT THESE COURSES ARE NOT DESIGNED TO BE SERIOUS STUDIES. THEY ARE DESIGNED TO KEEP STUDENT NUMBERS UP, TO KEEP GPAS UP, TO KEEP GRADUATION STATISTICS UP. ENGLISH DEPARTMENTS ARE HIGHLY SUSCEPTIBLE TO COLLEGE-WIDE BUDGET CUTS, AND UNLESS THEY CAN PROVE THEMSELVES TO BE "RELEVANT TO STUDENTS" TO THE MBAS ON THE COLLEGE BOARD, THE PEOPLE TEACHING THESE ENGLISH COURSES WILL LOSE THEIR JOBS.
BUT NOT ONLY ARE PROFESSORS OF ENGLISH BUSY DEVISING THESE TRENDY COURSES, THEY ARE DESPERATELY SEEKING JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THEIR OWN INCAPACITY FOR LITERATURE. WE TALKED LAST TIME ABOUT THE CONFUSION OF WORDS WITH REALITY IN ENGLISH DEPARTMENTS. ONCE AN ENGLISH MAJOR HAS BEEN LYING, FAKING, PRETENDING TO BE INTERESTED, FOR THE BETTER PART OF 25 YEARS, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ASSERTION AND EXPRESSION HAS ENTIRELY DISAPPEARED: THE HORRIFYING RESULT IS THE ENGLISH PROFESSOR. THIS FINAL FORM OF ENGLISH MAJOR IS NO LONGER BOUND BY THE LAWS OF CONTRADICTION. HE OR SHE GAINS MANY OCCULT, SEEMINGLY PARADOXICAL POWERS: FOR INSTANCE, THE PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH CAN DRAW A $150,000 SALARY FOR HIS WORK AS A LEADING THEORIST OF MARXISM.
THE GREATEST, MOST FANTASTIC ILLUSION THE PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH CHERISHES IS THAT "RADICAL ACTIVISM" IS POSSIBLE WITHIN THE CONFINES OF AN ACADEMIC CAREER. IT IS NO SURPRISE THAT THESE PEOPLE, WHO HAVE NEVER FACED DOWN A RANK OF RIOT POLICE, NEVER BEEN BEATEN OR IMPRISONED OR IN FACT RECEIVED ANYTHING BUT JOURNAL CITATIONS AND TENURE FOR THEIR BELIEFS, SERIOUSLY THINK THAT ONE CAN SHAKE THE FOUNDATIONS OF CAPITALISM, OF PATRIARCHY, OF RACISM, FROM BEHIND A MAHOGANY DESK THAT IS CLEANED NIGHTLY BY JANITORIAL STAFF. THEIR JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS OUTRAGEOUS MISCONCEPTION IS A WONDER TO BEHOLD.
THE LINE IS THAT THE STRUCTURE OF ACADEMIA, ESPECIALLY IN ENGLISH, WHICH FOCUSES ON A CANON OF CLASSIC WORKS, IS INHERENTLY RACIST, SEXIST AND CLASSIST, AND THEREFORE MUST BE RESISTED. IT IS A SPLENDID RECONCILIATION OF JAW-DROPPING IGNORANCE WITH ABSOLUTELY RISIBLE CLAIMS TO POLITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS -- THE ONE JUSTIFIES THE OTHER. THE THREE-THOUSAND YEAR HISTORY OF WESTERN THOUGHT BECOMES A PARADE OF "DEAD WHITE MEN" WHICH WOULD BE OPPRESSIVE EVEN TO TEACH. THERE IS GREAT JUSTICE TO THE CLAIM THAT WESTERN ACADEMIA IS PROVINCIAL AND MYOPIC, BUT THIS LOSS OF CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL TRAINING IS NOT REPLACED BY STUDIES IN THE GREAT CIVILIZATIONS OF AFRICA, EAST ASIA, INDIA AND THE MIDDLE EAST. IT IS REPLACED BY THE FLUFF COURSES DISCUSSED ABOVE.
THUS, THE ENGLISH MAJOR IS NOT ONLY GROOMED TO BE HOPELESSLY BARREN OF ALL KNOWLEDGE OF ANY CULTURE, INCLUDING THAT OF THE WEST, HE OR SHE IS OFTEN TRAINED TO BE ACTIVELY CONTEMPTUOUS OF SUCH KNOWLEDGE. UPPER-MIDDLE-CLASS PEOPLE WITH SECURE, SEDENTARY JOBS DESIGNED SO THAT THE ADULT CHILDREN OF OTHER UPPER-MIDDLE-CLASS PEOPLE CAN PARTY FOR FOUR CONSECUTIVE YEARS, MINIMUM, WHILE THEIR MEALS ARE PREPARED AND THEIR TOILETS ARE SCRUBBED BY AN UNDERPAID SERVANT-CLASS OF THE WORKING POOR -- THESE PEOPLE HAVE THE INCOMPREHENSIBLE GALL TO SAY PLATO AND DANTE ARE THE ILLNESS IN OUR CULTURE, THAT THE REASON MINORITY GROUPS FEEL VOICELESS AND UNDERREPRESENTED IN ACADEMIA IS THAT WE MAKE THEM READ SHAKESPEARE.
IF YOU ENJOY TELLING PEOPLE YOU LOVE TO READ, BUT YOU DON'T WANT TO READ ANY BORING PHILOSOPHY OR HISTORY, AND REALLY WHAT YOU MOSTLY MEAN IS "I LOVE READING AMATEUR EROTIC FICTION ABOUT DOCTOR WHO," AND YOU'VE NEVER READ ANY OF THE MAJOR AUTHORS IN YOUR OWN LANGUAGE, AND YOU DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO READ THEM WITHOUT SOMEBODY STANDING OVER YOU WITH A GRADEBOOK SAYING "DO IT", BUT YOU ALSO NEED AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE YOU CAN SKIP ABOUT HALF THE READING AND STILL GET A DECENT GRADE BECAUSE YOU'RE A BIT LAZY, AND YOU WANT TO WRITE YOUR THESIS ON SOMETHING LIKE "PERFORMANCES OF GENDER IN A SHITTY COMIC BOOK I READ BEFORE I ARRIVED AT COLLEGE", AND, FINALLY, YOU'D LIKE TO BE CONGRATULATED AND RESPECTED BY YOUR PEERS WHEN YOU TELL THEM ABOUT YOUR ARTFUL DODGES OF THE SYSTEM YOU ARE PAYING TO EDUCATE YOU, I'M VERY SORRY TO INFORM YOU THAT ENGLISH IS THE APPROPRIATE COURSE FOR YOU.
BECAUSE THE MOST TAXING INTELLECTUAL EXERCISE REQUIRED OF AN ENGLISH UNDERGRADUATE IS TO READ FICTION AND POETRY (SOMETHING NORMAL PEOPLE OF REASONABLE INTELLIGENCE DO OF THEIR OWN ACCORD AND FOR PLEASURE), THEY ARE LIABLE TO DEVELOP DISPROPORTIONATE IDEAS OF HOW DIFFICULT A TASK THIS IS. ENGLISH MAJORS ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO HAVE EVER TOLD ME A FIVE-MONTH COLLEGE COURSE IS NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND, SAY, THE NOVELS OF WILLIAM FAULKNER.
WHAT THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM ADDS TO STUDYING LITERATURE I HAVE NO IDEA. YOU READ THE TEXT ON YOUR OWN. YOU GO TO A SHITTY LECTURE IN WHICH YOUR PROFESSOR SUMMARIZES (IN THE WORST CASE) THE PLOT OF THE BOOK YOU JUST READ, AND (IN THE BEST CASE) HIS OR HER OWN PUBLISHED WORK WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE LIBRARY. OCCASIONALLY THERE IS CLASS "DISCUSSION" WHICH GENERALLY BEGINS WITH THE PROFESSOR ASKING "WHAT DID YOU THINK?" AND STUDENTS ANSWERING "HURR DURR THE LANGUAGE WAS HARD" OR, AT THE VERY BEST, "I REALLY ENJOYED THE CHARACTERIZATION!" THEN THE PROFESSOR WILL PUT FORTH, IN A MANGLED, REDUCED VERSION SUITABLE FOR UNDERGRADUATES, THE WRITTEN ARGUMENT OF ANOTHER SCHOLAR, WHICH IS, AGAIN, SOMETHING YOU COULD HAVE LEARNT IN PRIVATE, BETTER, AND FOR FREE, AT THE LIBRARY. SO WHY DIDN'T YOU, MORON? WHY ARE YOU CHOOSING, AND PAYING, TO DO YOUR READING WITH A BRAYING, STINKING MOB OF TEENAGERS? WHAT DO YOU GET OUT OF THIS SYSTEM THAT IS WORTH HOBBLING YOURSELF WITH DECADES OF DEBT?
THERE IS ONLY ONE ANSWER: ENGLISH MAJORS HATE READING AND NEED TO BE FORCED TO DO IT. THERE IS A REASON ENGLISH MAJORS WILL SPEND HOURS ARGUING WITH EACH OTHER ABOUT WHETHER READING ON A KINDLE "COUNTS", OR RHAPSODIZING ON THE SMELL OF OLD BOOKS: IT'S BECAUSE THE MOMENT THEY SHUT UP, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO STOP INHALING THEIR COPY OF MOBY-DICK AND ACTUALLY GET TO READING THE FUCKING THING. PREDICTABLY, ENGLISH MAJORS ARE THE ONLY ONES CONVINCED BY THIS CHARADE -- AND THE PEOPLE TEACHING THEM ARE WELL AWARE OF HOW EXPLOITABLE IT MAKES THEM.
IN ALL DISCIPLINES, THE PRESTIGE OF HIGHER EDUCATION HAS OUTLIVED ITS RIGOUR AND EFFECTIVENESS. GOING TO COLLEGE IS STILL EQUATED WITH GETTING AN EDUCATION, BUT UNIVERSITIES HAVE LONG SINCE REALIZED THAT IT'S FAR MORE PROFITABLE TO PROVIDE A 4-YEAR BABYSITTING SERVICE FOR ADULTS THAN IT IS TO PROVIDE THAT EDUCATION. TUITION CLIMBS, FULL PROFESSORSHIPS DWINDLE; CAMPUSES SPROUT EXPENSIVE GYMS, STADIUMS, DINING HALLS, MULTIMEDIA CENTRES, SEMESTERS AT SEA. GRADES INFLATE, FOUR-YEAR DEGREES STRETCH INTO THEIR FIFTH AND SIXTH, WITH A GAP YEAR SOMEWHERE ALONG THE WAY (FOR A BREAK FROM THE MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL STRAINS OF COLLEGE LIFE, WHAT WITH ITS READING AND WRITING AND 10 HOURS OF CLASS A WEEK). THEREFORE IT MAKES SENSE THAT A DEGREE IN ENGLISH IS STRUCTURED NOT, AS ONE MIGHT EXPECT, AROUND READING LITERATURE, BUT AROUND AVOIDING LITERATURE.
TAKE A LOOK AT AN UNDERGRADUATE ENGLISH SYLLABUS: YOU'LL FIND THINGS LIKE "DIGITAL LITERATURES", "CLASSIC WORKS AS FILM ADAPTATIONS", "HISTORY OF THE GRAPHIC NOVEL". THRILLED WITH THE CHANCE TO EARN CREDIT FOR READING THE SAME CHILDREN'S BOOKS THEY HAVE BEEN READING SINCE THE AGE OF EIGHT, ENGLISH MAJORS FLOCK TO COURSES LIKE "THE WORLD OF HARRY POTTER: A CRITICAL CROSS-DISCIPLINARY EXAMINATION," WHERE, I PRESUME, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO UTILIZE ALL THAT CROSS-DISCIPLINARY KNOWLEDGE AND CRITICAL APTITUDE THEY HAVE. THE PROBLEM HERE IS NOT THE SUBJECTS, WHICH ARE PRESUMABLY WORTHY OF SERIOUS STUDY IN SOME CAPACITY -- IT IS THAT THESE COURSES ARE NOT DESIGNED TO BE SERIOUS STUDIES. THEY ARE DESIGNED TO KEEP STUDENT NUMBERS UP, TO KEEP GPAS UP, TO KEEP GRADUATION STATISTICS UP. ENGLISH DEPARTMENTS ARE HIGHLY SUSCEPTIBLE TO COLLEGE-WIDE BUDGET CUTS, AND UNLESS THEY CAN PROVE THEMSELVES TO BE "RELEVANT TO STUDENTS" TO THE MBAS ON THE COLLEGE BOARD, THE PEOPLE TEACHING THESE ENGLISH COURSES WILL LOSE THEIR JOBS.
BUT NOT ONLY ARE PROFESSORS OF ENGLISH BUSY DEVISING THESE TRENDY COURSES, THEY ARE DESPERATELY SEEKING JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THEIR OWN INCAPACITY FOR LITERATURE. WE TALKED LAST TIME ABOUT THE CONFUSION OF WORDS WITH REALITY IN ENGLISH DEPARTMENTS. ONCE AN ENGLISH MAJOR HAS BEEN LYING, FAKING, PRETENDING TO BE INTERESTED, FOR THE BETTER PART OF 25 YEARS, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ASSERTION AND EXPRESSION HAS ENTIRELY DISAPPEARED: THE HORRIFYING RESULT IS THE ENGLISH PROFESSOR. THIS FINAL FORM OF ENGLISH MAJOR IS NO LONGER BOUND BY THE LAWS OF CONTRADICTION. HE OR SHE GAINS MANY OCCULT, SEEMINGLY PARADOXICAL POWERS: FOR INSTANCE, THE PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH CAN DRAW A $150,000 SALARY FOR HIS WORK AS A LEADING THEORIST OF MARXISM.
THE GREATEST, MOST FANTASTIC ILLUSION THE PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH CHERISHES IS THAT "RADICAL ACTIVISM" IS POSSIBLE WITHIN THE CONFINES OF AN ACADEMIC CAREER. IT IS NO SURPRISE THAT THESE PEOPLE, WHO HAVE NEVER FACED DOWN A RANK OF RIOT POLICE, NEVER BEEN BEATEN OR IMPRISONED OR IN FACT RECEIVED ANYTHING BUT JOURNAL CITATIONS AND TENURE FOR THEIR BELIEFS, SERIOUSLY THINK THAT ONE CAN SHAKE THE FOUNDATIONS OF CAPITALISM, OF PATRIARCHY, OF RACISM, FROM BEHIND A MAHOGANY DESK THAT IS CLEANED NIGHTLY BY JANITORIAL STAFF. THEIR JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS OUTRAGEOUS MISCONCEPTION IS A WONDER TO BEHOLD.
THE LINE IS THAT THE STRUCTURE OF ACADEMIA, ESPECIALLY IN ENGLISH, WHICH FOCUSES ON A CANON OF CLASSIC WORKS, IS INHERENTLY RACIST, SEXIST AND CLASSIST, AND THEREFORE MUST BE RESISTED. IT IS A SPLENDID RECONCILIATION OF JAW-DROPPING IGNORANCE WITH ABSOLUTELY RISIBLE CLAIMS TO POLITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS -- THE ONE JUSTIFIES THE OTHER. THE THREE-THOUSAND YEAR HISTORY OF WESTERN THOUGHT BECOMES A PARADE OF "DEAD WHITE MEN" WHICH WOULD BE OPPRESSIVE EVEN TO TEACH. THERE IS GREAT JUSTICE TO THE CLAIM THAT WESTERN ACADEMIA IS PROVINCIAL AND MYOPIC, BUT THIS LOSS OF CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL TRAINING IS NOT REPLACED BY STUDIES IN THE GREAT CIVILIZATIONS OF AFRICA, EAST ASIA, INDIA AND THE MIDDLE EAST. IT IS REPLACED BY THE FLUFF COURSES DISCUSSED ABOVE.
THUS, THE ENGLISH MAJOR IS NOT ONLY GROOMED TO BE HOPELESSLY BARREN OF ALL KNOWLEDGE OF ANY CULTURE, INCLUDING THAT OF THE WEST, HE OR SHE IS OFTEN TRAINED TO BE ACTIVELY CONTEMPTUOUS OF SUCH KNOWLEDGE. UPPER-MIDDLE-CLASS PEOPLE WITH SECURE, SEDENTARY JOBS DESIGNED SO THAT THE ADULT CHILDREN OF OTHER UPPER-MIDDLE-CLASS PEOPLE CAN PARTY FOR FOUR CONSECUTIVE YEARS, MINIMUM, WHILE THEIR MEALS ARE PREPARED AND THEIR TOILETS ARE SCRUBBED BY AN UNDERPAID SERVANT-CLASS OF THE WORKING POOR -- THESE PEOPLE HAVE THE INCOMPREHENSIBLE GALL TO SAY PLATO AND DANTE ARE THE ILLNESS IN OUR CULTURE, THAT THE REASON MINORITY GROUPS FEEL VOICELESS AND UNDERREPRESENTED IN ACADEMIA IS THAT WE MAKE THEM READ SHAKESPEARE.
IF YOU ENJOY TELLING PEOPLE YOU LOVE TO READ, BUT YOU DON'T WANT TO READ ANY BORING PHILOSOPHY OR HISTORY, AND REALLY WHAT YOU MOSTLY MEAN IS "I LOVE READING AMATEUR EROTIC FICTION ABOUT DOCTOR WHO," AND YOU'VE NEVER READ ANY OF THE MAJOR AUTHORS IN YOUR OWN LANGUAGE, AND YOU DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO READ THEM WITHOUT SOMEBODY STANDING OVER YOU WITH A GRADEBOOK SAYING "DO IT", BUT YOU ALSO NEED AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE YOU CAN SKIP ABOUT HALF THE READING AND STILL GET A DECENT GRADE BECAUSE YOU'RE A BIT LAZY, AND YOU WANT TO WRITE YOUR THESIS ON SOMETHING LIKE "PERFORMANCES OF GENDER IN A SHITTY COMIC BOOK I READ BEFORE I ARRIVED AT COLLEGE", AND, FINALLY, YOU'D LIKE TO BE CONGRATULATED AND RESPECTED BY YOUR PEERS WHEN YOU TELL THEM ABOUT YOUR ARTFUL DODGES OF THE SYSTEM YOU ARE PAYING TO EDUCATE YOU, I'M VERY SORRY TO INFORM YOU THAT ENGLISH IS THE APPROPRIATE COURSE FOR YOU.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Max Weber - The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
"an insult to anyone who takes books seriously."
"damn i hate Max Weber and his Proestant Ethic bullshit."
"just a series of pseudo-mystical platitudes"
"I'm a christian.
Now I have an Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, Nintendo DSi, PC, PS2, Gamecube, Gba, Gbc, and a bunch of other fun stuff!
Thank you jesus!"
"The idea that God brings you economic success (and by extension an omnipresent repression of success for others) is because you are part of his 'elite.' It's a Calvinist principle. They believe in predestination, so basically if you are doing well, it's because God wants you to and that makes it okay. Max Weber actually supported that ridiculous belief in his book."
"damn i hate Max Weber and his Proestant Ethic bullshit."
"just a series of pseudo-mystical platitudes"
"I'm a christian.
Now I have an Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, Nintendo DSi, PC, PS2, Gamecube, Gba, Gbc, and a bunch of other fun stuff!
Thank you jesus!"
"The idea that God brings you economic success (and by extension an omnipresent repression of success for others) is because you are part of his 'elite.' It's a Calvinist principle. They believe in predestination, so basically if you are doing well, it's because God wants you to and that makes it okay. Max Weber actually supported that ridiculous belief in his book."
Saturday, August 18, 2012
SPECIAL: TERTIA PHILIPPICA IN STUDENTES LITTERARUM
3. THEY LIVE IN AND PERPETUATE A CULTURE OF FRAUD
ALL STUDENTS OF ENGLISH WILL TELL YOU THAT THEY'RE INTERESTED IN LITERATURE, OR, IF THEY'RE A REAL PRICK, THAT THEY'RE "PASSIONATE" ABOUT IT. BUT PROFESSING INTEREST IS NOT THE SAME AS DEMONSTRATING INTEREST. PROFESSING INTEREST IS A WAY OF ASSOCIATING YOUR PERSONAL BRAND WITH A CERTAIN ACTIVITY WITHOUT ACTUALLY HAVING TO PARTAKE IN THAT ACTIVITY. DEMONSTRATING INTEREST IS NOT AN ASSERTION BUT AN ACTION: IT MEANS DOING THE SHIT YOU'RE SO PASSIONATE ABOUT. THE MOST OBVIOUS AND MOST MEASURABLE BEHAVIOUR ASSOCIATED WITH AN INTEREST IN LITERATURE IS READING LITERATURE -- FOR THIS REASON IT IS SURPRISING TO DISCOVER HOW LITTLE ANY GIVEN ENGLISH MAJOR HAS READ.
THIS CONFUSION BETWEEN PROFESSED AND DEMONSTRATED INTEREST IS THE CHARACTERISTIC TRAIT OF ENGLISH MAJORS THE WORLD OVER. THEY WILL TELL YOU THEY'RE PASSIONATE ABOUT LANGUAGE -- WHEN THEY KNOW NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT ANY LANGUAGE. THEY WILL HAPPILY BLEAT THEIR OPINION ON DOZENS OF BOOKS THEY HAVE NEVER EVEN OPENED, AND REACT WITH BAFFLEMENT IF YOU CALL THEM ON IT. IT IS NOT THAT THEY ARE LYING DELIBERATELY. THEY DON'T SEEM TO REALIZE THAT THEY ARE LYING AT ALL: IT IS AS THOUGH THEY ARE MISSING THE MECHANISM FOR DISTINGUISHING A LIE FROM THE TRUTH.
WELL, MY FRIENDS, THAT'S BECAUSE THEY ARE. SOMETHING HAS BEEN PICKLED IN THEIR BRAINS, AND THEY HAVE FORGOTTEN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WORDS AND THINGS, BETWEEN SAYING AND DOING. THIS DISEASED SORT OF THINKING IS INEVITABLE, BECAUSE AN EDUCATION IN ENGLISH IS A LONG AND UNINTERRUPTED TRAINING IN EFFECTIVE FRAUD.
THE STANDARD OF ASSESSMENT IN ENGLISH STUDIES IS THE PERSUASIVE ESSAY. FROM HIGH SCHOOL ON, USEFUL LEARNING TECHNIQUES LIKE ROTE MEMORIZATION AND MASTERY OF SYMBOLIC SYSTEMS ARE CONFINED TO MATHEMATICS, HISTORY, AND THE SCIENCES. THE ONLY SKILL ROUTINELY TESTED IN ENGLISH IS THE ABILITY TO WRITE A FORMALLY-STRUCTURED ESSAY ATTEMPTING TO PROVE OR DISPROVE A THESIS THE STUDENT IS UTTERLY UNQUALIFIED TO JUDGE. SKILLFUL MANIPULATION OF LANGUAGE AND SKILLFUL DISGUISAL OF IGNORANCE ARE WHAT OTHER DISCIPLINES WOULD CALL SOPHISTRY -- BUT SOPHISTRY IS THE PRIZED SKILL IN ENGLISH. CHILDREN WHO CAN WRITE WELL ARE ALLOWED TO COAST WITHOUT COMPLETING THEIR WORK: WE ALL HAD FRIENDS IN HIGH SCHOOL WHO GOT PERFECT MARKS IN ENGLISH CLASS WITHOUT HAVING READ THE SET BOOKS, AND WHEN BEHAVIOUR LIKE THAT IS REWARDED, IT BECOMES HABITUAL. WE TEACH THE BRIGHT STUDENTS THAT TO LIE IS NOT ONLY A PERMISSIBLE WAY OF GETTING OUT OF WORK, BUT ACTUALLY A LAUDABLE WAY OF EXCELLING IN THE STUDY OF ENGLISH. TO SUCCEED WHERE YOU HAVE NOT MADE AN EFFORT BECOMES A BADGE OF PRIDE, A MARK OF NATURAL INTELLIGENCE RATHER THAN LABOURED KNOWLEDGE. THIS MODE OF ASSESSMENT CONTINUES RIGHT THROUGH COLLEGE.
AN ENGLISH MAJOR WHO MAKES IT THROUGH THE FIRST ROUND OF HIS OR HER EDUCATION -- THAT IS, ONE WHO SUCCESSFULLY CONVINCES A BUNCH OF FRAUDULENT ASSHOLES THAT HE/SHE KNOWS OR CARES ABOUT LITERATURE -- IS CORDIALLY INVITED TO THE SECOND ROUND, GRADUATE SCHOOL, IN WHICH OUR YOUNG SCHOLAR CAN FINALLY GIVE UP THOSE LONG, BORING NOVELS, POEMS AND PLAYS AND START ON THE LOFTIER TASK OF CONVINCING THE SAME BUNCH OF ASSHOLES THAT HE/SHE KNOWS OR CARES ABOUT PHILOSOPHY.
SINCE PHILOSOPHY IS REALLY HARD, ENGLISH DEPARTMENTS HAVE SUBSTITUTED THEIR OWN VERSION OF IT, CALLED "CRITICAL THEORY." I DON'T INTEND TO MAKE ANY CRITIQUE HERE OF THE CENTRAL THINKERS OF THIS MOVEMENT. MY ISSUE IS THAT ENGLISH GRADUATE PROGRAMS DO NOT HAVE ANY RESPECT FOR OR DESIRE TO UNDERSTAND THE THINKERS THEY PROFESS TO STUDY. WHATEVER THE MERITS OF THE FRENCH AND GERMAN POSTWAR SET, ALL OF THEM ARE WRITING IN CONVERSATION WITH LONG AND COMPLEX INTELLECTUAL TRADITIONS. FOUCAULT'S HABIT OF SPINNING AN ESSAY OFF A MINOR WORK OF KANT, DERRIDA'S DETAILED EXAMINATION OF LITTLE-KNOWN BITS AND PIECES OF ROUSSEAU, MEAN THAT THEY CANNOT BE FULLY GRASPED OR JUDGED WITHOUT A VERY SOLID BACKGROUND IN PHILOSOPHY. THEIR CONSTANT MANIPULATION OF HISTORY REQUIRES ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF HISTORY IF WE WISH TO DO ANY SORT OF CRITICAL READING. THE FOUNDATION OF VIRTUALLY ALL CRITICAL THEORY IN SAUSSUREAN THEORIES OF LANGUAGE OUGHT, SURELY, TO NECESSITATE SOME FAMILIARITY WITH LINGUISTICS. ENGLISH UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS NEITHER PROVIDE NOR REQUIRE THIS KNOWLEDGE, RESULTING IN A KNOWLEDGE GAP UPON ENTRY TO A GRADUATE PROGRAM: GRADUATE PROGRAMS DEAL WITH THIS PROBLEM BY IGNORING IT.
GRAD STUDENTS IN LITERATURE ARE CONSTANTLY ASSIGNED THEORISTS WHOM THEY ARE NOT REMOTELY EQUIPPED TO UNDERSTAND OR EVALUATE. NOR ARE THEY ASKED TO MAKE ANY EFFORT TOWARDS DEVELOPING THE SKILLS NECESSARY FOR SUCH UNDERSTANDING. FOR INSTANCE, LACAN, WHOSE ENTIRE OEUVRE IS A COMMENTARY ON FREUD, WHOSE FIRST AND EXPLICIT DEMAND UPON HIS READERS IS FAMILIARITY WITH ALL OF FREUD IN THE GERMAN, IS TAUGHT TO STUDENTS WHO HAVE NEVER OPENED A SINGLE VOLUME OF FREUD AND WHO ARE NO MORE CAPABLE OF GRAPPLING WITH HIS GERMAN THAN THEY ARE OF READING LACAN IN HIS NATIVE FRENCH.
THE ENGLISH GRADUATE IS TOLD: DON'T LEARN HISTORY, DON'T LEARN PHILOSOPHY, DON'T EVEN LISTEN TO THE THINKERS YOU DO READ, EXCEPT WHEN IT'S CONVENIENT AND DOESN'T REQUIRE YOU TO DO ANY WORK. IT IS ONE OF THE MOST ANTI-INTELLECTUAL ATTITUDES AVAILABLE TO HUMAN BEINGS, FIT ONLY FOR SLIMY, CAREERIST LITTLE FUCKS WHO HATE LEARNING BUT LOVE LOOKING LEARNED -- PERFECT FOR THE ENGLISH MAJOR, IN WHOSE MIND THERE IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN RESPECTABILITY AND INTEGRITY, BETWEEN SELF AND PERFORMANCE.
THIS, OF COURSE, EXPLAINS THE BIZARRE SATISFACTION THE STUDENT OF ENGLISH TAKES IN LECTURES AND DISCUSSIONS WITH PEERS (WHICH HAVE ALWAYS SEEMED TO ME THE WORST POSSIBLE WAY OF STUDYING BOOKS AND POEMS). THE ENGLISH DEPARTMENT, WITH ITS UNNECESSARY APPARATUS OF FELLOW STUDENTS, OF DISCUSSIONS AND CONFERENCES AND GUEST SPEAKERS AND "TALKS", IS AN AUDIENCE, A PROTECTIVE WOMB, WHERE THE INFANTILE STUDENTS CAN SWIM FOREVER IN AMNIOTIC BLISS, SEALED FROM KNOWLEDGE, FROM CRITICISM; WHERE EVEN IF YOU KNOW NOTHING WHATSOEVER, YOU ARE PERMITTED TO PRETEND YOU ARE SPEAKING SENSE INSTEAD OF BABBLING LIES. A DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH PROVIDES YOU WITH THE HERD, WHO WILL GLADLY INDULGE YOUR INTELLECTUAL DELUSIONS, FOR ONLY THE LOW, LOW COST OF YOUR INDULGING THEIRS.
ALL STUDENTS OF ENGLISH WILL TELL YOU THAT THEY'RE INTERESTED IN LITERATURE, OR, IF THEY'RE A REAL PRICK, THAT THEY'RE "PASSIONATE" ABOUT IT. BUT PROFESSING INTEREST IS NOT THE SAME AS DEMONSTRATING INTEREST. PROFESSING INTEREST IS A WAY OF ASSOCIATING YOUR PERSONAL BRAND WITH A CERTAIN ACTIVITY WITHOUT ACTUALLY HAVING TO PARTAKE IN THAT ACTIVITY. DEMONSTRATING INTEREST IS NOT AN ASSERTION BUT AN ACTION: IT MEANS DOING THE SHIT YOU'RE SO PASSIONATE ABOUT. THE MOST OBVIOUS AND MOST MEASURABLE BEHAVIOUR ASSOCIATED WITH AN INTEREST IN LITERATURE IS READING LITERATURE -- FOR THIS REASON IT IS SURPRISING TO DISCOVER HOW LITTLE ANY GIVEN ENGLISH MAJOR HAS READ.
THIS CONFUSION BETWEEN PROFESSED AND DEMONSTRATED INTEREST IS THE CHARACTERISTIC TRAIT OF ENGLISH MAJORS THE WORLD OVER. THEY WILL TELL YOU THEY'RE PASSIONATE ABOUT LANGUAGE -- WHEN THEY KNOW NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT ANY LANGUAGE. THEY WILL HAPPILY BLEAT THEIR OPINION ON DOZENS OF BOOKS THEY HAVE NEVER EVEN OPENED, AND REACT WITH BAFFLEMENT IF YOU CALL THEM ON IT. IT IS NOT THAT THEY ARE LYING DELIBERATELY. THEY DON'T SEEM TO REALIZE THAT THEY ARE LYING AT ALL: IT IS AS THOUGH THEY ARE MISSING THE MECHANISM FOR DISTINGUISHING A LIE FROM THE TRUTH.
WELL, MY FRIENDS, THAT'S BECAUSE THEY ARE. SOMETHING HAS BEEN PICKLED IN THEIR BRAINS, AND THEY HAVE FORGOTTEN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WORDS AND THINGS, BETWEEN SAYING AND DOING. THIS DISEASED SORT OF THINKING IS INEVITABLE, BECAUSE AN EDUCATION IN ENGLISH IS A LONG AND UNINTERRUPTED TRAINING IN EFFECTIVE FRAUD.
THE STANDARD OF ASSESSMENT IN ENGLISH STUDIES IS THE PERSUASIVE ESSAY. FROM HIGH SCHOOL ON, USEFUL LEARNING TECHNIQUES LIKE ROTE MEMORIZATION AND MASTERY OF SYMBOLIC SYSTEMS ARE CONFINED TO MATHEMATICS, HISTORY, AND THE SCIENCES. THE ONLY SKILL ROUTINELY TESTED IN ENGLISH IS THE ABILITY TO WRITE A FORMALLY-STRUCTURED ESSAY ATTEMPTING TO PROVE OR DISPROVE A THESIS THE STUDENT IS UTTERLY UNQUALIFIED TO JUDGE. SKILLFUL MANIPULATION OF LANGUAGE AND SKILLFUL DISGUISAL OF IGNORANCE ARE WHAT OTHER DISCIPLINES WOULD CALL SOPHISTRY -- BUT SOPHISTRY IS THE PRIZED SKILL IN ENGLISH. CHILDREN WHO CAN WRITE WELL ARE ALLOWED TO COAST WITHOUT COMPLETING THEIR WORK: WE ALL HAD FRIENDS IN HIGH SCHOOL WHO GOT PERFECT MARKS IN ENGLISH CLASS WITHOUT HAVING READ THE SET BOOKS, AND WHEN BEHAVIOUR LIKE THAT IS REWARDED, IT BECOMES HABITUAL. WE TEACH THE BRIGHT STUDENTS THAT TO LIE IS NOT ONLY A PERMISSIBLE WAY OF GETTING OUT OF WORK, BUT ACTUALLY A LAUDABLE WAY OF EXCELLING IN THE STUDY OF ENGLISH. TO SUCCEED WHERE YOU HAVE NOT MADE AN EFFORT BECOMES A BADGE OF PRIDE, A MARK OF NATURAL INTELLIGENCE RATHER THAN LABOURED KNOWLEDGE. THIS MODE OF ASSESSMENT CONTINUES RIGHT THROUGH COLLEGE.
AN ENGLISH MAJOR WHO MAKES IT THROUGH THE FIRST ROUND OF HIS OR HER EDUCATION -- THAT IS, ONE WHO SUCCESSFULLY CONVINCES A BUNCH OF FRAUDULENT ASSHOLES THAT HE/SHE KNOWS OR CARES ABOUT LITERATURE -- IS CORDIALLY INVITED TO THE SECOND ROUND, GRADUATE SCHOOL, IN WHICH OUR YOUNG SCHOLAR CAN FINALLY GIVE UP THOSE LONG, BORING NOVELS, POEMS AND PLAYS AND START ON THE LOFTIER TASK OF CONVINCING THE SAME BUNCH OF ASSHOLES THAT HE/SHE KNOWS OR CARES ABOUT PHILOSOPHY.
SINCE PHILOSOPHY IS REALLY HARD, ENGLISH DEPARTMENTS HAVE SUBSTITUTED THEIR OWN VERSION OF IT, CALLED "CRITICAL THEORY." I DON'T INTEND TO MAKE ANY CRITIQUE HERE OF THE CENTRAL THINKERS OF THIS MOVEMENT. MY ISSUE IS THAT ENGLISH GRADUATE PROGRAMS DO NOT HAVE ANY RESPECT FOR OR DESIRE TO UNDERSTAND THE THINKERS THEY PROFESS TO STUDY. WHATEVER THE MERITS OF THE FRENCH AND GERMAN POSTWAR SET, ALL OF THEM ARE WRITING IN CONVERSATION WITH LONG AND COMPLEX INTELLECTUAL TRADITIONS. FOUCAULT'S HABIT OF SPINNING AN ESSAY OFF A MINOR WORK OF KANT, DERRIDA'S DETAILED EXAMINATION OF LITTLE-KNOWN BITS AND PIECES OF ROUSSEAU, MEAN THAT THEY CANNOT BE FULLY GRASPED OR JUDGED WITHOUT A VERY SOLID BACKGROUND IN PHILOSOPHY. THEIR CONSTANT MANIPULATION OF HISTORY REQUIRES ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF HISTORY IF WE WISH TO DO ANY SORT OF CRITICAL READING. THE FOUNDATION OF VIRTUALLY ALL CRITICAL THEORY IN SAUSSUREAN THEORIES OF LANGUAGE OUGHT, SURELY, TO NECESSITATE SOME FAMILIARITY WITH LINGUISTICS. ENGLISH UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS NEITHER PROVIDE NOR REQUIRE THIS KNOWLEDGE, RESULTING IN A KNOWLEDGE GAP UPON ENTRY TO A GRADUATE PROGRAM: GRADUATE PROGRAMS DEAL WITH THIS PROBLEM BY IGNORING IT.
GRAD STUDENTS IN LITERATURE ARE CONSTANTLY ASSIGNED THEORISTS WHOM THEY ARE NOT REMOTELY EQUIPPED TO UNDERSTAND OR EVALUATE. NOR ARE THEY ASKED TO MAKE ANY EFFORT TOWARDS DEVELOPING THE SKILLS NECESSARY FOR SUCH UNDERSTANDING. FOR INSTANCE, LACAN, WHOSE ENTIRE OEUVRE IS A COMMENTARY ON FREUD, WHOSE FIRST AND EXPLICIT DEMAND UPON HIS READERS IS FAMILIARITY WITH ALL OF FREUD IN THE GERMAN, IS TAUGHT TO STUDENTS WHO HAVE NEVER OPENED A SINGLE VOLUME OF FREUD AND WHO ARE NO MORE CAPABLE OF GRAPPLING WITH HIS GERMAN THAN THEY ARE OF READING LACAN IN HIS NATIVE FRENCH.
THE ENGLISH GRADUATE IS TOLD: DON'T LEARN HISTORY, DON'T LEARN PHILOSOPHY, DON'T EVEN LISTEN TO THE THINKERS YOU DO READ, EXCEPT WHEN IT'S CONVENIENT AND DOESN'T REQUIRE YOU TO DO ANY WORK. IT IS ONE OF THE MOST ANTI-INTELLECTUAL ATTITUDES AVAILABLE TO HUMAN BEINGS, FIT ONLY FOR SLIMY, CAREERIST LITTLE FUCKS WHO HATE LEARNING BUT LOVE LOOKING LEARNED -- PERFECT FOR THE ENGLISH MAJOR, IN WHOSE MIND THERE IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN RESPECTABILITY AND INTEGRITY, BETWEEN SELF AND PERFORMANCE.
THIS, OF COURSE, EXPLAINS THE BIZARRE SATISFACTION THE STUDENT OF ENGLISH TAKES IN LECTURES AND DISCUSSIONS WITH PEERS (WHICH HAVE ALWAYS SEEMED TO ME THE WORST POSSIBLE WAY OF STUDYING BOOKS AND POEMS). THE ENGLISH DEPARTMENT, WITH ITS UNNECESSARY APPARATUS OF FELLOW STUDENTS, OF DISCUSSIONS AND CONFERENCES AND GUEST SPEAKERS AND "TALKS", IS AN AUDIENCE, A PROTECTIVE WOMB, WHERE THE INFANTILE STUDENTS CAN SWIM FOREVER IN AMNIOTIC BLISS, SEALED FROM KNOWLEDGE, FROM CRITICISM; WHERE EVEN IF YOU KNOW NOTHING WHATSOEVER, YOU ARE PERMITTED TO PRETEND YOU ARE SPEAKING SENSE INSTEAD OF BABBLING LIES. A DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH PROVIDES YOU WITH THE HERD, WHO WILL GLADLY INDULGE YOUR INTELLECTUAL DELUSIONS, FOR ONLY THE LOW, LOW COST OF YOUR INDULGING THEIRS.
Friday, August 17, 2012
J. D. Salinger - The Catcher in the Rye IV
"I am about 1/3 through this dreadful book, and I have stopped reading it and have decided to write my own ending."
"I'm sure people will comment about what a great piece of work this is. To them, I say 'meh'"
"The author clearly doesn't understand that a normal person just doesn't need to read about some childish little boy that can't get a grip on his own problems or have the resolve to get help. Really, can't the writing minds in this nation do better than this?"
"If you prefer something atleast mildly entertaining that isnt page upon page of literary B*TCHING then go read a real book."
This book is not worth the paper on which it is printed ... The reader is given a negative look at humanity, not for the purpose of correcting the worst in people, but for reveling in it. For an uplifting view of man, I suggest the masterpiece novel by Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged."
"If you are fine with passively accepting published manure, that is your right. Perhaps it is because I am a writer that I take writing seriously"
"I would bet that if this were floated to publishers today it would never see the light of day."
"I'm a book critic, and this was the worst book I've ever read, and I'm a book junkie. What's with the double negatives? The plot lacked an awful lot. The whole book was a waste of my time and money. I wish someone had warned me about it before I purchased it. My old journals make better reading than this novel, and that's not saying much. If you hear me, skip this one! SNOOZE !..."
"To teh people who love this book I would say
Grow up and find out what real life is like and maybe read some real books"
"A filthy and horrible peice of literature, if you can call it literature. The only thing that makes this a classic is that it was once banned, and maybe it still should be."
"The writer should be executed for wasting our time like that. Should make a good horror story too, his dead."
"NEVER EVER READ THIS BOOK !!!! IN REMEMBERANCE OF JOHN LENNON GIVE PEACE A CHANCE RIP JOHN"
"Back in 1968, my older sister refused to read this book on moral grounds. OK, we are a bunch of vocal activists. It went to the school board. I was 12 & heard of all this as my parents tried to persuade my big sis to just let it go. She would not relent ... I knew, even at age 12, that this book was a colossal piece of crap ... Now, I am 53. Big sis is an educator. I served four terms on a local school board."
"WELL, I STARTED READING TYHIS BOOK CAUSE OF ALL THE HYPE OVER IT... AND PLUS I WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS ABOUT SOME DISENCHANTED TEEN, AND SO THE BOOK SOUNDED PERFECT FOR ME. I STARTED READING IT ... TALK ABOUT A WASTE OF TREES! THE MAIN CHARACTER, HOLDEN, KEPT REPEATING HIMSELF, AND REPEATING HIMSELF...LOL. THIS SI-IiT BELONGS ON READING RAINBOW FOR GOD SAKES. THE SWEARING DIDNT BOTHER ME AT ALL...CAUSE A LOT OF TEENS SWEAR MORE THAN HOLDEN...INCLUDING ME. BUT IM REALLY ANGRY AT HOW THIS IS HOW ADULTS THINK WE TEENS ARE LIKE NOWADAYS...IT WAS PROBABLY GOOD IN THE 1940'S .... WELL WELCOME TO THE MILLENIUM LADIES AND GENTLEMEN..."
"I'm sure people will comment about what a great piece of work this is. To them, I say 'meh'"
"The author clearly doesn't understand that a normal person just doesn't need to read about some childish little boy that can't get a grip on his own problems or have the resolve to get help. Really, can't the writing minds in this nation do better than this?"
"If you prefer something atleast mildly entertaining that isnt page upon page of literary B*TCHING then go read a real book."
This book is not worth the paper on which it is printed ... The reader is given a negative look at humanity, not for the purpose of correcting the worst in people, but for reveling in it. For an uplifting view of man, I suggest the masterpiece novel by Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged."
"If you are fine with passively accepting published manure, that is your right. Perhaps it is because I am a writer that I take writing seriously"
"I would bet that if this were floated to publishers today it would never see the light of day."
"I'm a book critic, and this was the worst book I've ever read, and I'm a book junkie. What's with the double negatives? The plot lacked an awful lot. The whole book was a waste of my time and money. I wish someone had warned me about it before I purchased it. My old journals make better reading than this novel, and that's not saying much. If you hear me, skip this one! SNOOZE !..."
"To teh people who love this book I would say
Grow up and find out what real life is like and maybe read some real books"
"A filthy and horrible peice of literature, if you can call it literature. The only thing that makes this a classic is that it was once banned, and maybe it still should be."
"The writer should be executed for wasting our time like that. Should make a good horror story too, his dead."
"NEVER EVER READ THIS BOOK !!!! IN REMEMBERANCE OF JOHN LENNON GIVE PEACE A CHANCE RIP JOHN"
"Back in 1968, my older sister refused to read this book on moral grounds. OK, we are a bunch of vocal activists. It went to the school board. I was 12 & heard of all this as my parents tried to persuade my big sis to just let it go. She would not relent ... I knew, even at age 12, that this book was a colossal piece of crap ... Now, I am 53. Big sis is an educator. I served four terms on a local school board."
"WELL, I STARTED READING TYHIS BOOK CAUSE OF ALL THE HYPE OVER IT... AND PLUS I WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS ABOUT SOME DISENCHANTED TEEN, AND SO THE BOOK SOUNDED PERFECT FOR ME. I STARTED READING IT ... TALK ABOUT A WASTE OF TREES! THE MAIN CHARACTER, HOLDEN, KEPT REPEATING HIMSELF, AND REPEATING HIMSELF...LOL. THIS SI-IiT BELONGS ON READING RAINBOW FOR GOD SAKES. THE SWEARING DIDNT BOTHER ME AT ALL...CAUSE A LOT OF TEENS SWEAR MORE THAN HOLDEN...INCLUDING ME. BUT IM REALLY ANGRY AT HOW THIS IS HOW ADULTS THINK WE TEENS ARE LIKE NOWADAYS...IT WAS PROBABLY GOOD IN THE 1940'S .... WELL WELCOME TO THE MILLENIUM LADIES AND GENTLEMEN..."
Thursday, August 16, 2012
SPECIAL: SECUNDA PHILIPPICA IN STUDENTES LITTERARUM
2. EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T SPEAK ENGLISH, THEY ONLY SPEAK ENGLISH
IMAGINE, IF YOU WILL, A PERSON WHO HAS BUILT HIS IDENTITY AND CAREER ON HIS LOVE AND KNOWLEDGE OF MUSIC; WHO HAS SPENT YEARS AND CONSIDERABLE MONEY STUDYING MUSIC; WHO HAS GRADUATED WITH A DEGREE IN MUSIC; WHO PERHAPS TEACHES MUSIC TO CHILDREN OR EVEN LECTURES ON IT AT A UNIVERSITY. NOW IMAGINE DISCOVERING THAT THIS PERSON HAS ONLY EVER HEARD ONE INSTRUMENT IN THEIR ENTIRE LIFE: IT IS THE SAXOPHONE.
IMAGINE AN ARCHITECT WHO HAD NEVER BOTHERED TO ENTER A BUILDING MADE OF ANY MATERIAL BUT BRICK, OR AN ART CRITIC WHO HAD ONLY EVER SEEN THE COLOUR BROWN; A GOURMAND WHO EATS ONLY POTATOES. IMAGINE, O REM RIDICULAM, A STUDENT OF LITERATURE WHO ONLY READS BOOKS IN ENGLISH -- AND THEN UNDERSTAND THAT WE GRADUATE THOUSANDS OF THESE EVERY YEAR.
THERE ARE MANY OBJECTIONS TO THIS BRAZEN FARCE: THE FIRST IS THAT VIRTUALLY EVERY FIGURE THAT AN ENGLISH MAJOR WILL STUDY OVER THE COURSE OF THEIR DEGREE WAS, AT MINIMUM, BILINGUAL. FROM ROME ONWARD, THERE IS NO MAJOR POET IN WESTERN LITERATURE WHO DID NOT SPEAK A FOREIGN LANGUAGE. (IN FACT, YOU CAN GET MORE SPECIFIC: THE ONLY ONE I KNOW OF WHO DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE KNOWN ANY LATIN WAS THE GREAT WALT WHITMAN, WHO LEARNT GOOD FRENCH, SPANISH, GERMAN AND ITALIAN ON THE DOCKS.) WRITERS HAVE ALWAYS KNOWN THE INTELLECTUAL VALUE OF MULTILINGUALISM: NOT ONLY DOES IT EXPOSE YOU TO ALIEN PROSODIES, SYNTAXES, WAYS OF MEANING; IT ALSO TRAINS YOU TO SPOT THE HIDDEN TRAPS AND SNARES OF YOUR OWN LANGUAGE. IT IS THE ONE EFFECTIVE WAY TO LEARN ENGLISH GRAMMAR (SEE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION). AND YET ENGLISH MAJORS BY AND LARGE REFUSE TO BOTHER WITH FOREIGN LANGUAGES. CONSIDER THIS PEARL OF WISDOM: "I don't think there's any substance to the 'you must read an author in their original language' argument; translation is creative, and good translations are as much works of art as originals, they're just as likely to be superior as inferior."
IT WOULD TAKE A TRUE MONOLINGUAL TO BELIEVE THIS, AND A TRUE ENGLISH MAJOR TO EXPRESS IT, DESPITE HAVING ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANT EXPERIENCE OF WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT. LET'S GO BACK TO OUR MUSIC ANALOGY. IF YOU'RE WRITING A PIECE FOR PIANO YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT THE PIANO IS CAPABLE OF AS AN INSTRUMENT: ITS ABILITY TO PRODUCE MANY NOTES AT ONCE WILL LIKELY HAVE A BIG EFFECT ON YOUR COMPOSITION. AND YOU WILL DO THE SAME FOR THE DRUMS; YOU WILL THINK OF WHAT THE INSTRUMENT CAN DO AND THEN UTILIZE THAT AS BEST YOU CAN.
THE TROUBLE BEGINS WHEN YOU START TRYING TO PLAY THE PATHETIQUE SONATA ON THE DRUMS. SOME THINGS CAN BE IMITATED: YOU CAN TAP OUT THE RHYTHM, FOR INSTANCE, AND YOU COULD STILL PLAY SOME SECTIONS LOUDER THAN OTHERS. BUT THE DRUMS CAN'T DO EVERYTHING THE PIANO CAN, NOR CAN YOU SIMPLY TRANSLATE A DRUM SOLO INTO PIANO MUSIC. LANGUAGES, LIKEWISE, ARE NOT TRULY TRANSLATABLE ONE INTO ANOTHER: TAKE SOMETHING LIKE CLASSICAL CHINESE, WHICH HAS NO SYSTEM OF TENSE, PERSON, NUMBER OR GENDER -- HOW DO YOU TRANSLATE IT INTO A ROMANCE LANGUAGE, WHICH DEMANDS THE IMPOSITION OF CONCEPTS THAT WOULD NEVER HAVE OCCURRED TO MENGZI OR TU FU OR WHOMEVER YOU WILL?
GREAT THINGS ARE AVAILABLE TO THE WRITER IN ENGLISH, BUT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME GREAT THINGS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO THE WRITER IN CHINESE; THERE COULD NEVER BE A CHINESE MILTON FOR THE SAME REASONS THERE COULD NEVER BE AN ENGLISH LI BAI. ANY CONTRARY BELIEF IS AN ILLUSION PRODUCED BY THE EMBARRASSING FACT OF NEVER HAVING LEARNED TO THINK EXCEPT IN ONE'S NATIVE LANGUAGE: THE LIMITS OF THAT LANGUAGE THEREFORE FOSSILIZE INTO THE LIMITS OF ONE'S MIND.
IMAGINE, IF YOU WILL, A PERSON WHO HAS BUILT HIS IDENTITY AND CAREER ON HIS LOVE AND KNOWLEDGE OF MUSIC; WHO HAS SPENT YEARS AND CONSIDERABLE MONEY STUDYING MUSIC; WHO HAS GRADUATED WITH A DEGREE IN MUSIC; WHO PERHAPS TEACHES MUSIC TO CHILDREN OR EVEN LECTURES ON IT AT A UNIVERSITY. NOW IMAGINE DISCOVERING THAT THIS PERSON HAS ONLY EVER HEARD ONE INSTRUMENT IN THEIR ENTIRE LIFE: IT IS THE SAXOPHONE.
IMAGINE AN ARCHITECT WHO HAD NEVER BOTHERED TO ENTER A BUILDING MADE OF ANY MATERIAL BUT BRICK, OR AN ART CRITIC WHO HAD ONLY EVER SEEN THE COLOUR BROWN; A GOURMAND WHO EATS ONLY POTATOES. IMAGINE, O REM RIDICULAM, A STUDENT OF LITERATURE WHO ONLY READS BOOKS IN ENGLISH -- AND THEN UNDERSTAND THAT WE GRADUATE THOUSANDS OF THESE EVERY YEAR.
THERE ARE MANY OBJECTIONS TO THIS BRAZEN FARCE: THE FIRST IS THAT VIRTUALLY EVERY FIGURE THAT AN ENGLISH MAJOR WILL STUDY OVER THE COURSE OF THEIR DEGREE WAS, AT MINIMUM, BILINGUAL. FROM ROME ONWARD, THERE IS NO MAJOR POET IN WESTERN LITERATURE WHO DID NOT SPEAK A FOREIGN LANGUAGE. (IN FACT, YOU CAN GET MORE SPECIFIC: THE ONLY ONE I KNOW OF WHO DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE KNOWN ANY LATIN WAS THE GREAT WALT WHITMAN, WHO LEARNT GOOD FRENCH, SPANISH, GERMAN AND ITALIAN ON THE DOCKS.) WRITERS HAVE ALWAYS KNOWN THE INTELLECTUAL VALUE OF MULTILINGUALISM: NOT ONLY DOES IT EXPOSE YOU TO ALIEN PROSODIES, SYNTAXES, WAYS OF MEANING; IT ALSO TRAINS YOU TO SPOT THE HIDDEN TRAPS AND SNARES OF YOUR OWN LANGUAGE. IT IS THE ONE EFFECTIVE WAY TO LEARN ENGLISH GRAMMAR (SEE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION). AND YET ENGLISH MAJORS BY AND LARGE REFUSE TO BOTHER WITH FOREIGN LANGUAGES. CONSIDER THIS PEARL OF WISDOM: "I don't think there's any substance to the 'you must read an author in their original language' argument; translation is creative, and good translations are as much works of art as originals, they're just as likely to be superior as inferior."
IT WOULD TAKE A TRUE MONOLINGUAL TO BELIEVE THIS, AND A TRUE ENGLISH MAJOR TO EXPRESS IT, DESPITE HAVING ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANT EXPERIENCE OF WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT. LET'S GO BACK TO OUR MUSIC ANALOGY. IF YOU'RE WRITING A PIECE FOR PIANO YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT THE PIANO IS CAPABLE OF AS AN INSTRUMENT: ITS ABILITY TO PRODUCE MANY NOTES AT ONCE WILL LIKELY HAVE A BIG EFFECT ON YOUR COMPOSITION. AND YOU WILL DO THE SAME FOR THE DRUMS; YOU WILL THINK OF WHAT THE INSTRUMENT CAN DO AND THEN UTILIZE THAT AS BEST YOU CAN.
THE TROUBLE BEGINS WHEN YOU START TRYING TO PLAY THE PATHETIQUE SONATA ON THE DRUMS. SOME THINGS CAN BE IMITATED: YOU CAN TAP OUT THE RHYTHM, FOR INSTANCE, AND YOU COULD STILL PLAY SOME SECTIONS LOUDER THAN OTHERS. BUT THE DRUMS CAN'T DO EVERYTHING THE PIANO CAN, NOR CAN YOU SIMPLY TRANSLATE A DRUM SOLO INTO PIANO MUSIC. LANGUAGES, LIKEWISE, ARE NOT TRULY TRANSLATABLE ONE INTO ANOTHER: TAKE SOMETHING LIKE CLASSICAL CHINESE, WHICH HAS NO SYSTEM OF TENSE, PERSON, NUMBER OR GENDER -- HOW DO YOU TRANSLATE IT INTO A ROMANCE LANGUAGE, WHICH DEMANDS THE IMPOSITION OF CONCEPTS THAT WOULD NEVER HAVE OCCURRED TO MENGZI OR TU FU OR WHOMEVER YOU WILL?
GREAT THINGS ARE AVAILABLE TO THE WRITER IN ENGLISH, BUT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME GREAT THINGS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO THE WRITER IN CHINESE; THERE COULD NEVER BE A CHINESE MILTON FOR THE SAME REASONS THERE COULD NEVER BE AN ENGLISH LI BAI. ANY CONTRARY BELIEF IS AN ILLUSION PRODUCED BY THE EMBARRASSING FACT OF NEVER HAVING LEARNED TO THINK EXCEPT IN ONE'S NATIVE LANGUAGE: THE LIMITS OF THAT LANGUAGE THEREFORE FOSSILIZE INTO THE LIMITS OF ONE'S MIND.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
J. D. Salinger - The Catcher in the Rye III
"I don't know why everyone tells you to read this book, IT SUCKED HUGE."
"I think that he is a spoiled child, because he called a prostitute and then he only talk with her. In a few words, this is a book without sense for me or for everyone that is a normal person."
"I am very open minded when it comes to literature (I even read through Mein Kampf without any objection) but I just hated this book!"
"It is, perhaps, a 'classic' in the sense that Britney Spears is a 'star.' ... I also suspect it is autobiographical, and so do not blame Mr. Salinger for the book's lamentable lack of any literary merit. I fear, rather, that in the writing of it he simply could not help himself."
"I hate this book. There is absolutely no point. It is so monotonous and tedious I'm about to pull my hair out. Luckily, I only have about 40 more pages to go. If I wasn't so OCD about finishing books, I would've chucked this one a looooong time ago. I seriously don't get what all the hype is about with this book. Just because it was controversial (ie. language, loose sexual references) in 1945?!?! ... Booooooo to this book!!!!"
"who cares about this guy who hates society or whatever. boring. like i need a book to tell me what's wrong with society. maybe this book is good for disillusioned teens who can't think for themselves ... RAGE AGAINST THE LITERARY MACHINE!!!"
"for something that has been touted as one of the greatest novels ever written it sure is a tough read!"
"For years I had heard it was a CLASSIC. What a joke. The only thing that kept me reading was the HOPE that it somehow would get better, sadly it NEVER did. This book can best be described as an exercise in INANE DRIVEL."
"The language Holden uses is recognizabel from TV and rap music because he swears a lot."
"He reminds me of my little bratty sister, that just deserves a big slap in the face"
"The things Holden does aren't very realistic, which 16-year-old boy would hire a prostitute in stead of visiting his mum who lives a few blocks further? I think Holden is a sick person"
"The intire book is one big lie, none of it is thrue and therefor reading this book is a useless thing to do."
"Catcher In the Rye should not be a classic novel. I strongly suggest looking for a different book that doesn't constantly refer to Prostitution and loneliness."
"ALMOST RUINED MY REPUTATION.
THIS BOOK WAS HORRIBLE. I AM IN HIGH SCHOOL AND WE HAD TO READ IT IN ONE OF MY ENGLISH CLASSES. WE WERE TOLD THAT PEOPLE WANTED TO BAN IT AND I TOTALLY AGREE. HOLDEN WAS JUST THIS LOW DOWN DEPRESSED PERSON THAT ALWAYS FELT SORRY FOR HIMSELF. PLUS THIS BOOK HAD TOO MUCH BAD LANGUAGE AND SEXUAL CONTENT IN IT. I'M NOT THE TYPE OF TEENAGER EVERYONE THINKS ABOUT. I DON'T SWEAR,DO DRUGS OR SLEEP AROUND. BUT WHEN I READ THIS BOOK, I FELT LIKE SWEARING BECAUSE THE WORDS WERE CARVED INTO MY MEMORY."
"I think that he is a spoiled child, because he called a prostitute and then he only talk with her. In a few words, this is a book without sense for me or for everyone that is a normal person."
"I am very open minded when it comes to literature (I even read through Mein Kampf without any objection) but I just hated this book!"
"It is, perhaps, a 'classic' in the sense that Britney Spears is a 'star.' ... I also suspect it is autobiographical, and so do not blame Mr. Salinger for the book's lamentable lack of any literary merit. I fear, rather, that in the writing of it he simply could not help himself."
"I hate this book. There is absolutely no point. It is so monotonous and tedious I'm about to pull my hair out. Luckily, I only have about 40 more pages to go. If I wasn't so OCD about finishing books, I would've chucked this one a looooong time ago. I seriously don't get what all the hype is about with this book. Just because it was controversial (ie. language, loose sexual references) in 1945?!?! ... Booooooo to this book!!!!"
"who cares about this guy who hates society or whatever. boring. like i need a book to tell me what's wrong with society. maybe this book is good for disillusioned teens who can't think for themselves ... RAGE AGAINST THE LITERARY MACHINE!!!"
"for something that has been touted as one of the greatest novels ever written it sure is a tough read!"
"For years I had heard it was a CLASSIC. What a joke. The only thing that kept me reading was the HOPE that it somehow would get better, sadly it NEVER did. This book can best be described as an exercise in INANE DRIVEL."
"The language Holden uses is recognizabel from TV and rap music because he swears a lot."
"He reminds me of my little bratty sister, that just deserves a big slap in the face"
"The things Holden does aren't very realistic, which 16-year-old boy would hire a prostitute in stead of visiting his mum who lives a few blocks further? I think Holden is a sick person"
"The intire book is one big lie, none of it is thrue and therefor reading this book is a useless thing to do."
"Catcher In the Rye should not be a classic novel. I strongly suggest looking for a different book that doesn't constantly refer to Prostitution and loneliness."
"ALMOST RUINED MY REPUTATION.
THIS BOOK WAS HORRIBLE. I AM IN HIGH SCHOOL AND WE HAD TO READ IT IN ONE OF MY ENGLISH CLASSES. WE WERE TOLD THAT PEOPLE WANTED TO BAN IT AND I TOTALLY AGREE. HOLDEN WAS JUST THIS LOW DOWN DEPRESSED PERSON THAT ALWAYS FELT SORRY FOR HIMSELF. PLUS THIS BOOK HAD TOO MUCH BAD LANGUAGE AND SEXUAL CONTENT IN IT. I'M NOT THE TYPE OF TEENAGER EVERYONE THINKS ABOUT. I DON'T SWEAR,DO DRUGS OR SLEEP AROUND. BUT WHEN I READ THIS BOOK, I FELT LIKE SWEARING BECAUSE THE WORDS WERE CARVED INTO MY MEMORY."
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
SPECIAL: PRIMA PHILIPPICA IN STUDENTES LITTERARUM
OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS I'VE HAD SEVERAL QUERIES FROM SEVERAL PARTIES ABOUT MY DEEP AND ABIDING DISGUST FOR ENGLISH MAJORS. WHY ARE YOU ALWAYS PICKING ON THEM? WHAT HAVE THEY DONE TO DESERVE YOUR MIGHTY SCORN, O GENIUS PHILOSOPHER-KING?
AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THE ANSWERS TO THESE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ARE VERY LONG AND INVOLVED. THIS WEEK I WILL BE LAYING THEM OUT IN A SERIAL JEREMIAD AGAINST THE ENTIRE DISCIPLINE OF STUDYING ENGLISH LITERATURE. HOWEVER, A WORD BEFORE I BEGIN IS PROBABLY NECESSARY: I DON'T HATE EVERY SINGLE ENGLISH MAJOR. MANY OF MY OWN FRIENDS HAVE TAKEN DEGREES IN ENGLISH, AND THEY ARE IN FACT REASONABLY INTELLIGENT HUMANS WITH GOOD CULTURAL RANGE AND SENSITIVITY. I KNOW THAT GOOD ENGLISH MAJORS EXIST (I JUST DON'T KNOW WHY THEY'RE STUDYING ENGLISH). THE ENGLISH MAJOR I MAKE FUN OF ON THIS BLOG IS A SORT OF WEBERIAN IDEALTYPUS; A HEAP OF UNIVERSAL IGNORANCE COLLATED FROM MANY SCRAPS OF INDIVIDUAL IGNORANCE. FEW REAL-LIFE ENGLISH MAJORS DEMONSTRATE EVERY FLAW I ASCRIBE TO THE TYPE, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, EVEN FEWER DON'T DEMONSTRATE SOME OR MOST OF THESE FLAWS.
BUT ENOUGH EXCUSES. LET US PROCEED TO THE FIRST REASON WHY ENGLISH MAJORS ARE SO, SO UNFATHOMABLY TERRIBLE:
1. THEY DON'T KNOW ENGLISH
IF THERE'S ONE THING ENGLISH MAJORS NEVER TIRE OF TELLING EVERYBODY AROUND THEM, IT'S HOW MUCH THEY LOVE GRAMMAR (AND HOW GOOD THEY ARE AT IT). REASONABLE GRASP OF STANDARD INSTITUTIONAL ENGLISH IS NOT KNOWLEDGE OR UNDERSTANDING OF GRAMMAR, ANY MORE THAN KNOWING HOW TO READ A CLOCK IS KNOWLEDGE OR UNDERSTANDING OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF TIME. ENGLISH MAJORS DO NOT HAVE THE FAINTEST IDEA WHAT GRAMMAR IS. THEY THINK IT'S STUFF LIKE KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "YOUR" AND "YOU'RE," OR KNOWING WHERE TO PUT A SEMICOLON. THEY THINK IT'S "TAKING A STAND" ON THE OXFORD COMMA.
THEY ALSO THINK IT'S THE GOD-APPOINTED DUTY OF ANYBODY "GIFTED" ENOUGH TO HAVE GROWN UP SPEAKING THE DIALECT OF THE RULING CLASS TO SEEK OUT AND WHINE ABOUT DEVIATIONS FROM THAT DIALECT AT EVERY SINGLE MOMENT OF THEIR MEANINGLESS LIVES. "HEH, LOOK AT THAT SIGN ADVERTISING 'ORANGE'S,'" THEY PULE. "HAVEN'T THOSE FUCKING IDIOT FARMERS EVER OPENED AN MLA MANUAL?" FORTUNATELY, I HAVE PREPARED A HANDY QUIZ YOU ARE WELCOME TO PRESENT TO THE NEXT ASSHOLE WHO TELLS YOU "SORRY, BUT GRAMMAR IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO ME":
1. WHAT'S THE SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD
2. WHAT'S A PERIPHRASTIC TENSE
3. WHAT'S AN ERGATIVE VERB
4. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SEQUENCE IN A CONDITIONAL STATEMENT
5. YOU'RE AN IDIOT
NOW, OBVIOUSLY I DON'T MEAN TO SUGGEST THAT IGNORANCE OF THESE PARTICULAR TERMS IS AN INTELLECTUAL FAILING. UNLESS, OF COURSE, YOU'RE CLAIMING TO BE INTERESTED IN AND KNOWLEDGEABLE OF THE DESCRIPTIVE MODEL OF WHICH THEY ARE A PART, AND YOU'RE USING YOUR FRAUDULENT POSE OF KNOWLEDGE TO TELL SOMEBODY THEY'RE WRONG AND STUPID AND UNEDUCATED FOR SPLITTING AN INFINITIVE. BECAUSE IF THAT'S THE CASE, IT IS AN ENORMOUS INTELLECTUAL FAILING AND YOU'RE ALSO A PROVINCIAL FUCKING CUNT. WHEN SOMEONE TELLS YOU "I'M KIND OF A GRAMMAR NERD", THEY'RE NOT USUALLY LOOKING FOR A CONVERSATION ON THE ROLE OF THE DATIVE IN PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN. THEY GENERALLY MEAN "I AM FAIRLY GOOD AT INTUITIVELY (BUT NOT ANALYTICALLY) UNDERSTANDING THE CURRENT VERSION OF ENGLISH APPROVED BY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, AND BOY DOES THAT EVER MAKE ME FEEL SUPERIOR TO PEOPLE WHO AREN'T."
BECAUSE AS ANYONE WHO HAS ACTUALLY STUDIED THIS SHIT KNOWS, GRAMMAR IS NOT A LIST OF WHAT IS CORRECT AND INCORRECT; IT'S THE UNDERLYING STRUCTURE OF A SPECIFIC ORGANIC LANGUAGE, AND IT CHANGES WILDLY FROM CONTEXT TO CONTEXT, REGISTER TO REGISTER. WHINING ABOUT MISPLACED APOSTROPHES ISN'T EVIDENCE OF CULTURE OR SOPHISTICATION; IT'S FUCKING JUVENILE. BUT TRY TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRESCRIPTIVE AND DESCRIPTIVE GRAMMAR TO THE ENGLISH MAJOR WHO HAS BEEN PRAISED SINCE EARLY CHILDHOOD FOR HIS MOSTLY-CONSISTENT ADHERENCE TO A SET OF ARBITRARY RULES, AND BEHOLD; THE TORRENT OF RACIST, CLASSIST BULLSHIT SHALL POUR FORTH FROM HIS SLOBBERING MOUTH JUST LIKE THE QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS HIS PARENTS ARE PAYING FOR HIS EDUCATION POURS INTO THE COFFERS OF THE INSTITUTION THAT IS FORCING YOU TO TALK TO HIM.
AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THE ANSWERS TO THESE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ARE VERY LONG AND INVOLVED. THIS WEEK I WILL BE LAYING THEM OUT IN A SERIAL JEREMIAD AGAINST THE ENTIRE DISCIPLINE OF STUDYING ENGLISH LITERATURE. HOWEVER, A WORD BEFORE I BEGIN IS PROBABLY NECESSARY: I DON'T HATE EVERY SINGLE ENGLISH MAJOR. MANY OF MY OWN FRIENDS HAVE TAKEN DEGREES IN ENGLISH, AND THEY ARE IN FACT REASONABLY INTELLIGENT HUMANS WITH GOOD CULTURAL RANGE AND SENSITIVITY. I KNOW THAT GOOD ENGLISH MAJORS EXIST (I JUST DON'T KNOW WHY THEY'RE STUDYING ENGLISH). THE ENGLISH MAJOR I MAKE FUN OF ON THIS BLOG IS A SORT OF WEBERIAN IDEALTYPUS; A HEAP OF UNIVERSAL IGNORANCE COLLATED FROM MANY SCRAPS OF INDIVIDUAL IGNORANCE. FEW REAL-LIFE ENGLISH MAJORS DEMONSTRATE EVERY FLAW I ASCRIBE TO THE TYPE, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, EVEN FEWER DON'T DEMONSTRATE SOME OR MOST OF THESE FLAWS.
BUT ENOUGH EXCUSES. LET US PROCEED TO THE FIRST REASON WHY ENGLISH MAJORS ARE SO, SO UNFATHOMABLY TERRIBLE:
1. THEY DON'T KNOW ENGLISH
IF THERE'S ONE THING ENGLISH MAJORS NEVER TIRE OF TELLING EVERYBODY AROUND THEM, IT'S HOW MUCH THEY LOVE GRAMMAR (AND HOW GOOD THEY ARE AT IT). REASONABLE GRASP OF STANDARD INSTITUTIONAL ENGLISH IS NOT KNOWLEDGE OR UNDERSTANDING OF GRAMMAR, ANY MORE THAN KNOWING HOW TO READ A CLOCK IS KNOWLEDGE OR UNDERSTANDING OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF TIME. ENGLISH MAJORS DO NOT HAVE THE FAINTEST IDEA WHAT GRAMMAR IS. THEY THINK IT'S STUFF LIKE KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "YOUR" AND "YOU'RE," OR KNOWING WHERE TO PUT A SEMICOLON. THEY THINK IT'S "TAKING A STAND" ON THE OXFORD COMMA.
THEY ALSO THINK IT'S THE GOD-APPOINTED DUTY OF ANYBODY "GIFTED" ENOUGH TO HAVE GROWN UP SPEAKING THE DIALECT OF THE RULING CLASS TO SEEK OUT AND WHINE ABOUT DEVIATIONS FROM THAT DIALECT AT EVERY SINGLE MOMENT OF THEIR MEANINGLESS LIVES. "HEH, LOOK AT THAT SIGN ADVERTISING 'ORANGE'S,'" THEY PULE. "HAVEN'T THOSE FUCKING IDIOT FARMERS EVER OPENED AN MLA MANUAL?" FORTUNATELY, I HAVE PREPARED A HANDY QUIZ YOU ARE WELCOME TO PRESENT TO THE NEXT ASSHOLE WHO TELLS YOU "SORRY, BUT GRAMMAR IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO ME":
1. WHAT'S THE SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD
2. WHAT'S A PERIPHRASTIC TENSE
3. WHAT'S AN ERGATIVE VERB
4. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SEQUENCE IN A CONDITIONAL STATEMENT
5. YOU'RE AN IDIOT
NOW, OBVIOUSLY I DON'T MEAN TO SUGGEST THAT IGNORANCE OF THESE PARTICULAR TERMS IS AN INTELLECTUAL FAILING. UNLESS, OF COURSE, YOU'RE CLAIMING TO BE INTERESTED IN AND KNOWLEDGEABLE OF THE DESCRIPTIVE MODEL OF WHICH THEY ARE A PART, AND YOU'RE USING YOUR FRAUDULENT POSE OF KNOWLEDGE TO TELL SOMEBODY THEY'RE WRONG AND STUPID AND UNEDUCATED FOR SPLITTING AN INFINITIVE. BECAUSE IF THAT'S THE CASE, IT IS AN ENORMOUS INTELLECTUAL FAILING AND YOU'RE ALSO A PROVINCIAL FUCKING CUNT. WHEN SOMEONE TELLS YOU "I'M KIND OF A GRAMMAR NERD", THEY'RE NOT USUALLY LOOKING FOR A CONVERSATION ON THE ROLE OF THE DATIVE IN PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN. THEY GENERALLY MEAN "I AM FAIRLY GOOD AT INTUITIVELY (BUT NOT ANALYTICALLY) UNDERSTANDING THE CURRENT VERSION OF ENGLISH APPROVED BY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, AND BOY DOES THAT EVER MAKE ME FEEL SUPERIOR TO PEOPLE WHO AREN'T."
BECAUSE AS ANYONE WHO HAS ACTUALLY STUDIED THIS SHIT KNOWS, GRAMMAR IS NOT A LIST OF WHAT IS CORRECT AND INCORRECT; IT'S THE UNDERLYING STRUCTURE OF A SPECIFIC ORGANIC LANGUAGE, AND IT CHANGES WILDLY FROM CONTEXT TO CONTEXT, REGISTER TO REGISTER. WHINING ABOUT MISPLACED APOSTROPHES ISN'T EVIDENCE OF CULTURE OR SOPHISTICATION; IT'S FUCKING JUVENILE. BUT TRY TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRESCRIPTIVE AND DESCRIPTIVE GRAMMAR TO THE ENGLISH MAJOR WHO HAS BEEN PRAISED SINCE EARLY CHILDHOOD FOR HIS MOSTLY-CONSISTENT ADHERENCE TO A SET OF ARBITRARY RULES, AND BEHOLD; THE TORRENT OF RACIST, CLASSIST BULLSHIT SHALL POUR FORTH FROM HIS SLOBBERING MOUTH JUST LIKE THE QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS HIS PARENTS ARE PAYING FOR HIS EDUCATION POURS INTO THE COFFERS OF THE INSTITUTION THAT IS FORCING YOU TO TALK TO HIM.
Monday, August 13, 2012
J. D. Salinger - The Catcher in the Rye II
"Perhaps you shall be scandalized that an English major/English teacher does not like this book, but 'tis true."
"Real Teen Rating~ D-"
"I'm not the kind of person who reads a lot of books and this book is a reason why. First the story is not interesting and also the way it's told is very stupid. It takes you hourst to read it and then find out you just read about some stupid 'adventure' of a young lad which i don't even believe, even if it's fiction."
"Holden Caulfield is totally unrealistic. I am 15, turning 16 soon and have NONE of the feelings that Holden does, except a profound love for golf. I have never desired to drink, get a whore or anything."
"What really bakes my noodle is that this book has killed people, distorting what is real and what is fake."
"as a teenager, i was totally insulted. i worried that that was what adults thought we sounded like, and that i had ever said anything that remotely annoying as half the things holden cauldfield said. i think salinger's kind of like the ramones, or punk. you either get it, or you don't. if only salinger was more like the literary ramones, cos i like the ramones."
"I honestly think that he could have written it in a way that doesn't try as hard to provoke the reader, or to be 'outspoken' or whatever."
"honestly have NO memory of it beyond crossing out all the swear words!"
"his constant use of stupid phrases and interjections made me want to crack his head open like a ripe melon."
"This book belongs on the ash-heap of literary history. Completely worthless."
"The man who wrote this should be in an asylum."
"This Holden seem to be on 'the road to nowhere'. He wants to tell us something and then doesn't. This person is lost! The book is extemely subjective and broken like glass."
"This book should not be sold anywhere because it has no meaning. The story is too long and it has too many different stories it never goes with one thing he always goes off on something else. I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone under the age of 40 because its too boring for younger people."
"Aren't authors suppose to stay on the subject? I found my self skipping over pages at a time, while holden tried to explain something in the past.. Very boring. I wouldn't recomend reading this garbage. Yea its a classic but who the hell cares it SUCKED!"
"Catcher in the Rye is also extremely dated. If it were a decade that inspired nostalgia for dumb pop-culture, like the 70s or 80s, this wouldn't be as much of a problem."
"I know it's supposed to be hip and cool. I also know it's supposed to be based on a classic piece of literature. But it is one of the most overrated books of all time in my opinion."
"I was waiting for this book to contrast Holden's senselessness with a clear-thinking and stable character, but such a contrast never came. The possibility remains that the author was offering a VERY subtle criticism of Holden, but this book just doesn't seem to carry enough intellectual weight to pull off such subtle irony."
"Real Teen Rating~ D-"
"I'm not the kind of person who reads a lot of books and this book is a reason why. First the story is not interesting and also the way it's told is very stupid. It takes you hourst to read it and then find out you just read about some stupid 'adventure' of a young lad which i don't even believe, even if it's fiction."
"Holden Caulfield is totally unrealistic. I am 15, turning 16 soon and have NONE of the feelings that Holden does, except a profound love for golf. I have never desired to drink, get a whore or anything."
"What really bakes my noodle is that this book has killed people, distorting what is real and what is fake."
"as a teenager, i was totally insulted. i worried that that was what adults thought we sounded like, and that i had ever said anything that remotely annoying as half the things holden cauldfield said. i think salinger's kind of like the ramones, or punk. you either get it, or you don't. if only salinger was more like the literary ramones, cos i like the ramones."
"I honestly think that he could have written it in a way that doesn't try as hard to provoke the reader, or to be 'outspoken' or whatever."
"honestly have NO memory of it beyond crossing out all the swear words!"
"his constant use of stupid phrases and interjections made me want to crack his head open like a ripe melon."
"This book belongs on the ash-heap of literary history. Completely worthless."
"The man who wrote this should be in an asylum."
"This Holden seem to be on 'the road to nowhere'. He wants to tell us something and then doesn't. This person is lost! The book is extemely subjective and broken like glass."
"This book should not be sold anywhere because it has no meaning. The story is too long and it has too many different stories it never goes with one thing he always goes off on something else. I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone under the age of 40 because its too boring for younger people."
"Aren't authors suppose to stay on the subject? I found my self skipping over pages at a time, while holden tried to explain something in the past.. Very boring. I wouldn't recomend reading this garbage. Yea its a classic but who the hell cares it SUCKED!"
"Catcher in the Rye is also extremely dated. If it were a decade that inspired nostalgia for dumb pop-culture, like the 70s or 80s, this wouldn't be as much of a problem."
"I know it's supposed to be hip and cool. I also know it's supposed to be based on a classic piece of literature. But it is one of the most overrated books of all time in my opinion."
"I was waiting for this book to contrast Holden's senselessness with a clear-thinking and stable character, but such a contrast never came. The possibility remains that the author was offering a VERY subtle criticism of Holden, but this book just doesn't seem to carry enough intellectual weight to pull off such subtle irony."
Saturday, August 11, 2012
J. D. Salinger - The Catcher in the Rye
"It had no lesson to learn. It has no meaning. There is absolutely nothing remarkable about it. This novel was just such a pain to get through. Now that I'm finally done, I felt like I had just ridden a horrible, bumpy roller coaster ride. Get me off! Get me off!"
"the catcher and the rye was a good book lots of twists a good read but they quit printing it i think"
"I am just do not like those kind of books. If I did like those kinds of books than I would love that book, but I like the fantasy books where the brave knight has to rescue the princess in the tower."
"I hated Holden C. then, and I hate him more now.
As a mom, he's the boy I'd forbid my daughter ever to see and call the police if he showed up on my door step."
"Cursing was used the way I may use the words 'the', 'and', 'a' and 'of'. There was no motivation for me to keep reading."
"Only the devil knows what this book would have made out of me if I had read it in my teens."
"I could not get past how it was completely against everything I was raised to be. I know not everyone is fortunate enough to grow up in a 'traditional' family but I don't believe that kids should have to read about these kinds of extreme experiences in order to appreciate what they have. I think teenagers are so self absorbed still in the process of discovering themsevles that when reading material such as this is placed in front of them at that point in their life they get the wrong idea like it is acceptable to use foul language or act inappropriately. Or, oh well if this is happening, it happens to lots of people. Some of my friends thought our teacher must be cool to let us read a book with language like that."
"It was the constant use of 'goddamn' that got on my nerves. I'm not particular about language in the books that I read as long as it doesn't become excessive. Holden uses goddamn as his adjective of choice, and I became annoyed with him. If he was standing in front of me, I would smack him and say, 'Stop it! At least use it as an adverb or conjunction once in a while, will ya?'"
"I actually wrote a paper about why I didn't finish the book. My English teacher was shocked that I did because he had never gotten anything like that before. However, it was pretty much about how after the first chapter I couldn't read any further."
"This is one of the most popular horrible books I have ever read. Upon hearing of someone's love for it, I immediately become suspicious of their character and demand explanation for their enjoyment. It is one of very few books to have achieved this status with me, along with Mein Kampf and The Bible."
"I could NOT stand Holden's CONSTANT whining! I mean, I even wrote in to my battered copy of the book, 'SHUT YOUR DAMN WHINING, HOLDEN! I MEAN, SERIOUSLY! GET A GRIP!!' I don't know why, but I can't handle people who whine and moan and complain..."
"i do not really km\now the book. I didn't read the book. but from what i heard it was okay."
"Boy, you are not CATCHING kids from going over the cliff, you are pulling them over it. I mean how can you catch someone if you are the one to be stopped, because you yourself don't know what you are doing?
This book may be so misleading... In the wrong hands it is a weapon of self-destruction. The point is it shakes the precarious principles on which teens' understanding of the world is based upon. Is it a good thing to do? I don't know, try to shake the foundations on which your new house is standing. Yeah, it's fun, but don't be surprised if one day roof collapses on your head."
"the catcher and the rye was a good book lots of twists a good read but they quit printing it i think"
"I am just do not like those kind of books. If I did like those kinds of books than I would love that book, but I like the fantasy books where the brave knight has to rescue the princess in the tower."
"I hated Holden C. then, and I hate him more now.
As a mom, he's the boy I'd forbid my daughter ever to see and call the police if he showed up on my door step."
"Cursing was used the way I may use the words 'the', 'and', 'a' and 'of'. There was no motivation for me to keep reading."
"Only the devil knows what this book would have made out of me if I had read it in my teens."
"I could not get past how it was completely against everything I was raised to be. I know not everyone is fortunate enough to grow up in a 'traditional' family but I don't believe that kids should have to read about these kinds of extreme experiences in order to appreciate what they have. I think teenagers are so self absorbed still in the process of discovering themsevles that when reading material such as this is placed in front of them at that point in their life they get the wrong idea like it is acceptable to use foul language or act inappropriately. Or, oh well if this is happening, it happens to lots of people. Some of my friends thought our teacher must be cool to let us read a book with language like that."
"It was the constant use of 'goddamn' that got on my nerves. I'm not particular about language in the books that I read as long as it doesn't become excessive. Holden uses goddamn as his adjective of choice, and I became annoyed with him. If he was standing in front of me, I would smack him and say, 'Stop it! At least use it as an adverb or conjunction once in a while, will ya?'"
"I actually wrote a paper about why I didn't finish the book. My English teacher was shocked that I did because he had never gotten anything like that before. However, it was pretty much about how after the first chapter I couldn't read any further."
"This is one of the most popular horrible books I have ever read. Upon hearing of someone's love for it, I immediately become suspicious of their character and demand explanation for their enjoyment. It is one of very few books to have achieved this status with me, along with Mein Kampf and The Bible."
"I could NOT stand Holden's CONSTANT whining! I mean, I even wrote in to my battered copy of the book, 'SHUT YOUR DAMN WHINING, HOLDEN! I MEAN, SERIOUSLY! GET A GRIP!!' I don't know why, but I can't handle people who whine and moan and complain..."
"i do not really km\now the book. I didn't read the book. but from what i heard it was okay."
"Boy, you are not CATCHING kids from going over the cliff, you are pulling them over it. I mean how can you catch someone if you are the one to be stopped, because you yourself don't know what you are doing?
This book may be so misleading... In the wrong hands it is a weapon of self-destruction. The point is it shakes the precarious principles on which teens' understanding of the world is based upon. Is it a good thing to do? I don't know, try to shake the foundations on which your new house is standing. Yeah, it's fun, but don't be surprised if one day roof collapses on your head."
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Beowulf IV
"Do not read the book. It is very boring, there are many confusing names and the content is weak. Beowulf is no hero but tries to be heroic.This book is an embarrasment to all readers young and old."
"I am not a fan of time period pieces."
"Wrote a thesis on Beowulf and the Nephilum. However, I didn't like the digressions within the story. And it's poetry? I don't get poetry."
"This book is absolutely terrible! Everyone's grandmother would be ashamed to know the language they use. It seems like a rated r book. A very disgusting read, so much talk about this person named Grendel who is portrayed as a cannibal. There is so much talk about blood and bones, ugh! Save yourself the effort and bypass this so called classic. I wish I didn't have to read it. If I could I would tell my teacher he was nuts for making me read it. Acutally what idiot made this a classic? My lord! Disgusting, absolutely awful. Save yourself in the name of classic books!"
"I've never understood why this is mandatory reading in british literature classes. First of all, it's not written about Britts, it wasn't written in English ... the text itself is garbage which is probably why the author is unknown. No one ever cared since it stunk so bad. The fact literature snobs think this is something special or even remotely unique should speak more about them then it. The ONLY thing this has going for it is that it's really really old. For whatever that's worth."
"Beowulf offers a story that is not based on love or any sort of romance. Beowulf, the warrior, does not fight monsters to win a girls hearts, but fights for adventure itself. Most stories today, don't do that. This is why I really enjoyed reading Beowulf."
"I am not a fan of time period pieces."
"Wrote a thesis on Beowulf and the Nephilum. However, I didn't like the digressions within the story. And it's poetry? I don't get poetry."
"This book is absolutely terrible! Everyone's grandmother would be ashamed to know the language they use. It seems like a rated r book. A very disgusting read, so much talk about this person named Grendel who is portrayed as a cannibal. There is so much talk about blood and bones, ugh! Save yourself the effort and bypass this so called classic. I wish I didn't have to read it. If I could I would tell my teacher he was nuts for making me read it. Acutally what idiot made this a classic? My lord! Disgusting, absolutely awful. Save yourself in the name of classic books!"
"I've never understood why this is mandatory reading in british literature classes. First of all, it's not written about Britts, it wasn't written in English ... the text itself is garbage which is probably why the author is unknown. No one ever cared since it stunk so bad. The fact literature snobs think this is something special or even remotely unique should speak more about them then it. The ONLY thing this has going for it is that it's really really old. For whatever that's worth."
"Beowulf offers a story that is not based on love or any sort of romance. Beowulf, the warrior, does not fight monsters to win a girls hearts, but fights for adventure itself. Most stories today, don't do that. This is why I really enjoyed reading Beowulf."
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Horace - Ars Poetica
"Classicists ... They can go fuck Horace if they want. I don't want to watch, but they are welcome to go fuck Horace, as far as I'm concerned."
"I think I can safely conclude that I would not want to be friends with this simpering ego of a man."
"OMG horace is an idiot T___T."
"Its odd that for the first time physics reflects actual life philosophy (not the college coarse you took to have it look good on your transcripts), and yet people are still hung up on these order systems like morality.
Morality is dead.
Nihilism is dead.
Ethic is dead.
And this is all so obvious with QM and string theory, yet yuppie college grads are so presistent with their dead greeks ... Horace was an idiot people, and it would be best to read him to learn to hate him better."
"I think I can safely conclude that I would not want to be friends with this simpering ego of a man."
"OMG horace is an idiot T___T."
"Its odd that for the first time physics reflects actual life philosophy (not the college coarse you took to have it look good on your transcripts), and yet people are still hung up on these order systems like morality.
Morality is dead.
Nihilism is dead.
Ethic is dead.
And this is all so obvious with QM and string theory, yet yuppie college grads are so presistent with their dead greeks ... Horace was an idiot people, and it would be best to read him to learn to hate him better."
Sunday, August 5, 2012
James Joyce - Ulysses VI
"No one has read this book. And those who have are either lying or have bored themselves to tears ploughing through incomprehensible rubbish in order to pass their degrees/impress their friends."
"Some of the dullest drivel I've ever read. I sometimes read it aloud to my sisters simply for the comedy value (as kids they expected a good, straightforward narrative!) There's a reason why prior authors did not write rambling first-person accounts of our most trivial thoughts. It was a good reason."
"This book generally tops the lists as best, or worst book in English in the 20th century. Those who say it is the best do so because they have been told by teachers, professors and such; few have read the book in its entirety. In fact I will go as far as to claim that there are two kinds of readers who say they have read Ulysses; fools and liars. Fools because they have waded all through the muck; liars because they have read only parts of the work. I tried to read this first in my 20s and tried again in my 50s."
"It is all a foolery and judges whoever they are and what academic height they have ascended are foolhardy guys to select James Joyce for his aesthetic excellence, in fact artistic claptrap. I had been a wastrel to devote the rarest moments of my life to this arty idiocy. I will henceforth not give any attention to it. I have read a few chapters to waste my time.
I have to rack my brains to read his outlandish words. It is a wordy book and written out of his hubris sophisticating it to the degree getting even scholars or professors of English giddier and giddier.
Why cannot a great piece of art simple and why the panel choose a book them for the highest score. I have some friends pursuing higher academic courses who find the book really disgusting.
...
Most of us are hooked to a certain stylistic vehemence and form and we like Miltonic prose and yet few really enjoy reading them. We are accustomed to applaud a certain piece of literature and we are always admiring the Shakespearean mold or biblical fervor but in actual fact that remains to be limited to the textbook type. We are always told to read some great classics but in actuality do not enjoy them. Great epics have always been subjects of admiration and they cannot engage us when we read them.
In the same vein we tirelessly admire James Joyce but I do no think anyone really can enjoy reading this mass of nonsense.
...
I have tried to read his Ulysses with a dictionary in front of me but I always found it arduous job and I realized I have been a wastrel.
...
Literature was once an art that was written to entertain or instruct a few erudite people and the general public were not included in that herd. But in the course of time literary values got reconsidered and it was co0mmonly agreed that a piece of literature must be all inclusive people from a gamut of social layers must profit from it not just the aristocratic elites. From this perspective even Joyce was within this frame of thinking. He did not write for the mass and he solely write for the few academic class. That is why he is not the one to be selected or prized
...
OK, some of you are fans of this lifeless writer for his boring erudition. A kind of myopic attitude. And running after a style. I loathe this classical stigmatic icon. I choose not to be a wastrel. I do not want to waste even 10 minutes on such rubbishes. What do I look for there? Style? There are other greats style-wise. Content or philosophy? And there is none and some others said better what they wanted to say. A stupid literary committee formed everywhere to list the best books come from a dimwitted academics. They are updated themselves with the goings-on today in literatures, reading culture, people's interests, beliefs and most importantly the stream of modernity.
I am a voracious reader and I read all sorts of books but when it comes to making an analogy of such writers and their overrated statuses I find the very basis of judge repelling
I disliked the way he incessantly overrated shadowing some of the greater writers by some literary judges and that is why I raised this issue to read the views of the rest of readers. There are some blind supporters and they are simply an devoutly idolizing him. It is also interesting to read their fanatical ideas too.
...
James Joyce and his Ulysses. It has stirred up lots of sensations. An Idol of a legion of literary fools. With his hogwash he fooled all. I find it unworthy of even ten minutes' read. I simply remain stunned why our readers remain so much obsessed with his rashness to aesthetically lionize him for his terse syntactic structures and unusual words. Today any fools can come up with a cache of long-winded words but he cannot succeed the way James Joyce could. Ulysses had once been highly admired and down the channel of history the rest of judges imported from the early critics
...
As a reader and writer too I have found James full of arrogance and he won though he did not qualify for it. The world is like that. There is no standards"
"I read the first 20 some pages of the book and then skipped around after that for about a total of 50 pages.
The final 20 some pages appear to be rambling comments without even rudimentary punctuation or grammar. Basically, a child older than 12 who does reasonably well in school would write better than this.
The author did not seem interested in trying to communicate anything to the reader. When I checked Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Joyce ) I see that Pound promoted Joyce. I put 2 and 2 together and suspect Joyce is part of the Imagist school and that actually explains why the writing doesn't make sense.
I realize that people will say I should give the book more time, perhaps months, but the book has not kept my interest. That is, it has not offered enough to justify that investment of my life. In time any gibberish can start taking on meaning. The books that I would dedicate months to are of the order of, say, The Bhagavad Gita, not some Imagist experiments.
...
When someone with supposed authority lists a book as one of the best books in English they are implying that everyone who is competent should be reading that book. When the book fails to communicate, fails to deliver on the promise these authorities have made, confusion results.
People who want to write start thinking: 'Maybe I should write drivel too if this is what makes a book great!' So they do. Soon they wonder why no one reads them. They wonder why the academics who praised Joyce so much haven't included their work in the list as well. Even readers wonder if just maybe they are too stupid to enjoy this, too dumb to see the clothes on the Emperor prancing around in his underwear (or less), but unfortunately for the academics who made the list, those doubts don't last long."
"Some of the dullest drivel I've ever read. I sometimes read it aloud to my sisters simply for the comedy value (as kids they expected a good, straightforward narrative!) There's a reason why prior authors did not write rambling first-person accounts of our most trivial thoughts. It was a good reason."
"This book generally tops the lists as best, or worst book in English in the 20th century. Those who say it is the best do so because they have been told by teachers, professors and such; few have read the book in its entirety. In fact I will go as far as to claim that there are two kinds of readers who say they have read Ulysses; fools and liars. Fools because they have waded all through the muck; liars because they have read only parts of the work. I tried to read this first in my 20s and tried again in my 50s."
"It is all a foolery and judges whoever they are and what academic height they have ascended are foolhardy guys to select James Joyce for his aesthetic excellence, in fact artistic claptrap. I had been a wastrel to devote the rarest moments of my life to this arty idiocy. I will henceforth not give any attention to it. I have read a few chapters to waste my time.
I have to rack my brains to read his outlandish words. It is a wordy book and written out of his hubris sophisticating it to the degree getting even scholars or professors of English giddier and giddier.
Why cannot a great piece of art simple and why the panel choose a book them for the highest score. I have some friends pursuing higher academic courses who find the book really disgusting.
...
Most of us are hooked to a certain stylistic vehemence and form and we like Miltonic prose and yet few really enjoy reading them. We are accustomed to applaud a certain piece of literature and we are always admiring the Shakespearean mold or biblical fervor but in actual fact that remains to be limited to the textbook type. We are always told to read some great classics but in actuality do not enjoy them. Great epics have always been subjects of admiration and they cannot engage us when we read them.
In the same vein we tirelessly admire James Joyce but I do no think anyone really can enjoy reading this mass of nonsense.
...
I have tried to read his Ulysses with a dictionary in front of me but I always found it arduous job and I realized I have been a wastrel.
...
Literature was once an art that was written to entertain or instruct a few erudite people and the general public were not included in that herd. But in the course of time literary values got reconsidered and it was co0mmonly agreed that a piece of literature must be all inclusive people from a gamut of social layers must profit from it not just the aristocratic elites. From this perspective even Joyce was within this frame of thinking. He did not write for the mass and he solely write for the few academic class. That is why he is not the one to be selected or prized
...
OK, some of you are fans of this lifeless writer for his boring erudition. A kind of myopic attitude. And running after a style. I loathe this classical stigmatic icon. I choose not to be a wastrel. I do not want to waste even 10 minutes on such rubbishes. What do I look for there? Style? There are other greats style-wise. Content or philosophy? And there is none and some others said better what they wanted to say. A stupid literary committee formed everywhere to list the best books come from a dimwitted academics. They are updated themselves with the goings-on today in literatures, reading culture, people's interests, beliefs and most importantly the stream of modernity.
I am a voracious reader and I read all sorts of books but when it comes to making an analogy of such writers and their overrated statuses I find the very basis of judge repelling
I disliked the way he incessantly overrated shadowing some of the greater writers by some literary judges and that is why I raised this issue to read the views of the rest of readers. There are some blind supporters and they are simply an devoutly idolizing him. It is also interesting to read their fanatical ideas too.
...
James Joyce and his Ulysses. It has stirred up lots of sensations. An Idol of a legion of literary fools. With his hogwash he fooled all. I find it unworthy of even ten minutes' read. I simply remain stunned why our readers remain so much obsessed with his rashness to aesthetically lionize him for his terse syntactic structures and unusual words. Today any fools can come up with a cache of long-winded words but he cannot succeed the way James Joyce could. Ulysses had once been highly admired and down the channel of history the rest of judges imported from the early critics
...
As a reader and writer too I have found James full of arrogance and he won though he did not qualify for it. The world is like that. There is no standards"
"I read the first 20 some pages of the book and then skipped around after that for about a total of 50 pages.
The final 20 some pages appear to be rambling comments without even rudimentary punctuation or grammar. Basically, a child older than 12 who does reasonably well in school would write better than this.
The author did not seem interested in trying to communicate anything to the reader. When I checked Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Joyce ) I see that Pound promoted Joyce. I put 2 and 2 together and suspect Joyce is part of the Imagist school and that actually explains why the writing doesn't make sense.
I realize that people will say I should give the book more time, perhaps months, but the book has not kept my interest. That is, it has not offered enough to justify that investment of my life. In time any gibberish can start taking on meaning. The books that I would dedicate months to are of the order of, say, The Bhagavad Gita, not some Imagist experiments.
...
When someone with supposed authority lists a book as one of the best books in English they are implying that everyone who is competent should be reading that book. When the book fails to communicate, fails to deliver on the promise these authorities have made, confusion results.
People who want to write start thinking: 'Maybe I should write drivel too if this is what makes a book great!' So they do. Soon they wonder why no one reads them. They wonder why the academics who praised Joyce so much haven't included their work in the list as well. Even readers wonder if just maybe they are too stupid to enjoy this, too dumb to see the clothes on the Emperor prancing around in his underwear (or less), but unfortunately for the academics who made the list, those doubts don't last long."
Friday, August 3, 2012
Joaquim Maria Machado de Assis - Posthumous Memoirs of Brás Cubas
"Some say it is a novel but the author, the Brazilian Joaquim Maria Machado de Assis (1839-1908) says that is is a memoir. However, a memoir is supposed to be fiction. But how could this be fiction if it was written by the protagonist, the Brazilian rich and indolent Bras Cubas after his death? Dead people cannot write a novel"
"i don't laugh from books. i don't like funny books."
"Brazil have certainly produced fantastic writers, but I fail to miss to point of this book"
"i don't laugh from books. i don't like funny books."
"Brazil have certainly produced fantastic writers, but I fail to miss to point of this book"
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Homer - The Odyssey IV
"I have two degrees in English and have never read The Odyssey cover to cover"
"It is a great story! I am a giant fan of mythology and this is quite an epic. This follows Oedipus's journey through the seas and to multiple mythical islands. It is fantastic!"
"This book was about a man named Odysseus who led a crew of men after the victory of the Trojan War. He encounters many different creatures such as the cyclops, and the witch. He fought them bravely and tried to save his crew. But the one journey that he couldn't prevail to defeat the monsters in the Land of the Dead. Odysseus had barely managed to escape in the end saving no one but himself from the Land of the Dead."
"Boring, full of nonsense, stupid, annoying, and just unrealistic! All the characters are selfish. Telemachus and Penelope are huge wimps, Suitors are stupid antagonists, Calypso is unrealistically dumb, Odysseus is senseless, the Gods have no motivation for ANYTHING they do, Athena randomly beautifies people for no reason whatsoever, Poseidon's a pathetic bastard, Gods are self-centered beings that require praying and sacrifice every second if someone was to go on an adventure. SELFISH SELFISH SELFISH! I really hate this book, I can't believe I had to read it for school. Why in the world does anyone think it's any good???"
"a book for which you need a translator / interpreter only to find out how booooring it is."
"This is the oldest story we have as a race, and it has got to be the first and oldest Mary Sue. So....Odysseus is gone ten years battling at Troy and FINALLY the war ends but it takes him another ten years to get back. He is 'brave and heroic' but really came across as a braggart and d-bag. He EXPECTS people to offer him hospitality and offer him presents, he is a CONSTANT liar. Even when he gets home, he lies about who he is to Minerva until he realizes who she is. (Never trust a man that can lie so easy.)
...
The icing on the cake, though, is the fact that he finally wants to get home because he misses his land and belongings. Not because he misses his wife and son. Wow. When he goes to Hades and speaks to the dead, his questions are all about wether his wife is true to him and taking care of his property and if his son is still holding his belongings.
Could a man be more self-centered? Why do we revere and praise this guy as a hero? The ONLY reason this book gets any star, is because I love Greek mythology. I thought, like with other classics I'm reading or re-reading as an adult, maybe I can interpret it differently and appreciate it better, whereas I might not have as a teen. Nope. Book sucks. I don't care if it is a classic and the oldest recorded story of man. It is a Mary-sue of wishful thinking and just as I would harshly judge a contemporary piece that replaces good story with fluff, I gladly shuffle this book back under my coffee table, hoping it does a better job of keeping my drinks from sliding to the floor, than it did at entertaining me."
"The Odyssey by Homer is a collection of 24 short 'books' of poems. I started reading it about two months ago, and I find it, unfortunately, very difficult to comprehend, as you might easily with Harry Potter or The Hunger Games."
"Even as an English major I don't think I will ever be mature enough to enjoy or understand this book."
"It is a great story! I am a giant fan of mythology and this is quite an epic. This follows Oedipus's journey through the seas and to multiple mythical islands. It is fantastic!"
"This book was about a man named Odysseus who led a crew of men after the victory of the Trojan War. He encounters many different creatures such as the cyclops, and the witch. He fought them bravely and tried to save his crew. But the one journey that he couldn't prevail to defeat the monsters in the Land of the Dead. Odysseus had barely managed to escape in the end saving no one but himself from the Land of the Dead."
"Boring, full of nonsense, stupid, annoying, and just unrealistic! All the characters are selfish. Telemachus and Penelope are huge wimps, Suitors are stupid antagonists, Calypso is unrealistically dumb, Odysseus is senseless, the Gods have no motivation for ANYTHING they do, Athena randomly beautifies people for no reason whatsoever, Poseidon's a pathetic bastard, Gods are self-centered beings that require praying and sacrifice every second if someone was to go on an adventure. SELFISH SELFISH SELFISH! I really hate this book, I can't believe I had to read it for school. Why in the world does anyone think it's any good???"
"a book for which you need a translator / interpreter only to find out how booooring it is."
"This is the oldest story we have as a race, and it has got to be the first and oldest Mary Sue. So....Odysseus is gone ten years battling at Troy and FINALLY the war ends but it takes him another ten years to get back. He is 'brave and heroic' but really came across as a braggart and d-bag. He EXPECTS people to offer him hospitality and offer him presents, he is a CONSTANT liar. Even when he gets home, he lies about who he is to Minerva until he realizes who she is. (Never trust a man that can lie so easy.)
...
The icing on the cake, though, is the fact that he finally wants to get home because he misses his land and belongings. Not because he misses his wife and son. Wow. When he goes to Hades and speaks to the dead, his questions are all about wether his wife is true to him and taking care of his property and if his son is still holding his belongings.
Could a man be more self-centered? Why do we revere and praise this guy as a hero? The ONLY reason this book gets any star, is because I love Greek mythology. I thought, like with other classics I'm reading or re-reading as an adult, maybe I can interpret it differently and appreciate it better, whereas I might not have as a teen. Nope. Book sucks. I don't care if it is a classic and the oldest recorded story of man. It is a Mary-sue of wishful thinking and just as I would harshly judge a contemporary piece that replaces good story with fluff, I gladly shuffle this book back under my coffee table, hoping it does a better job of keeping my drinks from sliding to the floor, than it did at entertaining me."
"The Odyssey by Homer is a collection of 24 short 'books' of poems. I started reading it about two months ago, and I find it, unfortunately, very difficult to comprehend, as you might easily with Harry Potter or The Hunger Games."
"Even as an English major I don't think I will ever be mature enough to enjoy or understand this book."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)