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.
Showing posts with label SPECIAL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SPECIAL. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
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.
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Thursday, October 27, 2011
SPECIAL: KILL ALL ENGLISH MAJORS
"I adore children’s literature and I am an english major. I love the child-like innocence of children who do not completely grasp the idea of death."
"Nothing is sexier than a book.
That said, I absolutely ravish mine.
Pages will be bent, notes will be written in the margins, exciting phrases or quotes will be underlined and spines will be cracked.
When others see my books, they know I've loved these books long enough not to be shy with them anymore."
"With regards to studying songwriters in English courses, I actually wrote an entire paper on 'Tangled Up in Blue' by Bob Dylan for my AP English Literature class in High School. Once I actually started researching it, I was shocked to find every verse (there's seven of them) was its own Shakespearean Sonnet. I find it amazing that people can write one Shakespearean Sonnet, and here there were seven that not only told their own story, but tied together to tell an overarching story. Writing the paper made me appreciate the song on a whole new level, and really opened my eyes to how truly poetic songs can be."
YOU KNOW, IF YOU MAKE UP LIES ABOUT THEM
"You will learn to love the characters, and its remarkable how vivid he made them in a way we can relate to today for a book written in the 1950's."
THIS MAN IS TALKING ABOUT JOSEPH HELLER'S CATCH-22:
"I really appreciate it when a book respects the intelligence of its readership. If a book is going to be 'experimental' in any way, I love those that throw you into a world with no explanations - a literary baptism of fire (ie: Orwell's 'Animal Farm')."
"I'm writing an essay right now on Neil Gaiman's 'American Gods.' Storms play a large part in the book. You have NO idea how RIDICULOUSLY happy I was when I typed down the phrase 'the oncoming storm.' In the context of the essay, it has nothing to do with Doctor Who, but in my head, I can't help but feel ridiculously happy that I managed to write about Neil Gaiman AND sneak in a Doctor Who reference. That's all. =D"
"So, out of curiosity, am I the only nerd that has 'favorite words'? Two of mine are Juxtaposition, and Nihilist. I usually find every reason to use them when I can (although, this is much more successful with the former than the latter)."
"Yeah, I'm a heathen
Yeah, I'm an anarchist
Yeah, I abuse Heroin
And yeah, I'd rather be hated for what I am, than loved for what I am not.
Fuck Cobain and Lennon
Fuck Osbourne and Clapton
Fuck the Music
Fuck the drifting Clouds
Fuck the sea and trees
Fuck the sky and birds
Fuck the rabbits and fuck the sunshine
Fuck your plum cakes and your apple pies
Fuck your mind and rape your soul
Fuck Marx and Nietzsche
Fuck Aeschylus, fuck Wordsworth, fuck Milton
Fuck Fidel and Gandhi
Fuck De Broglie and fuck Bohr
Fuck Wagner and Tchaikovsky
Fuck democracy and communism
Fuck crack and weed and speed and mead
Fuck the mushrooms and the grass
Fuck Martha Stewart and Tyler Durden
Fuck Darwin and fuck I-Ching
Fuck Branson, fuck Trump, fuck Hefner, fuck Gates
Fuck Johnnie Walker and Zino Davidoff
Fuck Joseph
Fuck Mary
Fuck Jesus
Fuck Vishnu
Fuck Allah
Fuck your God
Fuck all your Idols
Fuck Bush, fuck Blair, fuck Gyurcsany, fuck Jintao
Fuck the system, fuck the government
Fuck controversy and censorship
Fuck commercialism and materialism
Fuck Education and thought control
Fuck the Establishment
Fuck the Revolution
Fuck Freedom
Fuck Anarchy and Nihilism
I'm sick of all this shit
Fuck the whole motherfucking thing
All I want now is my life back
So my soul can sing"
"99% of the books I read (except school ones) aren't 'literature'. Star Wars, Star Trek, Warhammer 40k, etc. I see no problem with this."
"I am a comma WHORE."
"I'm also good at math. That's right, an English major who's good at math. In 6th grade I memorized 26 digits of pi for fun. I still know them."
"I hate poetry is what it really comes down to. And most classic literature. Jane Austen? Can't read it. Am I in love with the masterpiece theatre's version of Pride and Prejudice? Hell yes. Something about the pacing of books from that time bore me to tears."
"I don't enjoy reading books ... honestly, the medium just doesn't hold my attention. I know I don't have a short attention span, because I can read a multiple-page thread on a forum in one sitting, so that's not it. I can't quite put my finger on what makes me dislike books as much as I do, I do spend a lot of time reading; I'm just not reading printed words. There was an article in Publisher's Weekly a while ago about how people who cry that teens these days aren't reading as much are wrong, because they are reading, but rather than reading books, newspapers, and magazines, the'yre reading wikis, blogs, and forums. That's my reading habits in a nutshell."
"Nothing is sexier than a book.
That said, I absolutely ravish mine.
Pages will be bent, notes will be written in the margins, exciting phrases or quotes will be underlined and spines will be cracked.
When others see my books, they know I've loved these books long enough not to be shy with them anymore."
"With regards to studying songwriters in English courses, I actually wrote an entire paper on 'Tangled Up in Blue' by Bob Dylan for my AP English Literature class in High School. Once I actually started researching it, I was shocked to find every verse (there's seven of them) was its own Shakespearean Sonnet. I find it amazing that people can write one Shakespearean Sonnet, and here there were seven that not only told their own story, but tied together to tell an overarching story. Writing the paper made me appreciate the song on a whole new level, and really opened my eyes to how truly poetic songs can be."
YOU KNOW, IF YOU MAKE UP LIES ABOUT THEM
"You will learn to love the characters, and its remarkable how vivid he made them in a way we can relate to today for a book written in the 1950's."
THIS MAN IS TALKING ABOUT JOSEPH HELLER'S CATCH-22:
"I really appreciate it when a book respects the intelligence of its readership. If a book is going to be 'experimental' in any way, I love those that throw you into a world with no explanations - a literary baptism of fire (ie: Orwell's 'Animal Farm')."
"I'm writing an essay right now on Neil Gaiman's 'American Gods.' Storms play a large part in the book. You have NO idea how RIDICULOUSLY happy I was when I typed down the phrase 'the oncoming storm.' In the context of the essay, it has nothing to do with Doctor Who, but in my head, I can't help but feel ridiculously happy that I managed to write about Neil Gaiman AND sneak in a Doctor Who reference. That's all. =D"
"So, out of curiosity, am I the only nerd that has 'favorite words'? Two of mine are Juxtaposition, and Nihilist. I usually find every reason to use them when I can (although, this is much more successful with the former than the latter)."
"Yeah, I'm a heathen
Yeah, I'm an anarchist
Yeah, I abuse Heroin
And yeah, I'd rather be hated for what I am, than loved for what I am not.
Fuck Cobain and Lennon
Fuck Osbourne and Clapton
Fuck the Music
Fuck the drifting Clouds
Fuck the sea and trees
Fuck the sky and birds
Fuck the rabbits and fuck the sunshine
Fuck your plum cakes and your apple pies
Fuck your mind and rape your soul
Fuck Marx and Nietzsche
Fuck Aeschylus, fuck Wordsworth, fuck Milton
Fuck Fidel and Gandhi
Fuck De Broglie and fuck Bohr
Fuck Wagner and Tchaikovsky
Fuck democracy and communism
Fuck crack and weed and speed and mead
Fuck the mushrooms and the grass
Fuck Martha Stewart and Tyler Durden
Fuck Darwin and fuck I-Ching
Fuck Branson, fuck Trump, fuck Hefner, fuck Gates
Fuck Johnnie Walker and Zino Davidoff
Fuck Joseph
Fuck Mary
Fuck Jesus
Fuck Vishnu
Fuck Allah
Fuck your God
Fuck all your Idols
Fuck Bush, fuck Blair, fuck Gyurcsany, fuck Jintao
Fuck the system, fuck the government
Fuck controversy and censorship
Fuck commercialism and materialism
Fuck Education and thought control
Fuck the Establishment
Fuck the Revolution
Fuck Freedom
Fuck Anarchy and Nihilism
I'm sick of all this shit
Fuck the whole motherfucking thing
All I want now is my life back
So my soul can sing"
"99% of the books I read (except school ones) aren't 'literature'. Star Wars, Star Trek, Warhammer 40k, etc. I see no problem with this."
"I am a comma WHORE."
"I'm also good at math. That's right, an English major who's good at math. In 6th grade I memorized 26 digits of pi for fun. I still know them."
"I hate poetry is what it really comes down to. And most classic literature. Jane Austen? Can't read it. Am I in love with the masterpiece theatre's version of Pride and Prejudice? Hell yes. Something about the pacing of books from that time bore me to tears."
"I don't enjoy reading books ... honestly, the medium just doesn't hold my attention. I know I don't have a short attention span, because I can read a multiple-page thread on a forum in one sitting, so that's not it. I can't quite put my finger on what makes me dislike books as much as I do, I do spend a lot of time reading; I'm just not reading printed words. There was an article in Publisher's Weekly a while ago about how people who cry that teens these days aren't reading as much are wrong, because they are reading, but rather than reading books, newspapers, and magazines, the'yre reading wikis, blogs, and forums. That's my reading habits in a nutshell."
Monday, September 26, 2011
SPECIAL: TATTOO
"'I’ll follow you and make a heaven out of hell,
and I’ll die by your hand which I love so well.'
Fourth. A Midsummer Night’s Dream Act 12. Shakespeare."
HEY IDIOT, GOT A SUGGESTION FOR YOU: IF YOU'RE GOING TO GET A LINE FROM A BOOK TATTOOED ONTO YOUR BODY, AS IN, THIS SHIT IS GOING TO BE ON YOUR SKIN FOREVER, READ THE BOOK FIRST
THE MERE ACT OF TRYING TO OPEN IT TO ACT TWELVE OUGHT TO PUT YOU ON THE ALERT
THEN YOU CAN THINK TO YOURSELF FOR TWO SECONDS UNTIL YOU REALIZE THAT "HEY, THIS COUPLET OF SHAKESPEARE ISN'T IN IAMBIC PENTAMETER AND IS IN POINT OF FACT A RUNNY PUDDLE OF SHIT......... MAYBE I OUGHT TO CHECK THAT MY POTENTIAL TATTOO ISN'T FROM A NO FEAR SHAKESPEARE 'TRANSLATION' OF THE PLAY, INSTEAD OF THE PLAY ITSELF"
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
SPECIAL: MORE FUCKING ENGLISH MAJORS
"I actually like some of Whitman’s work, I just think he was a total douche who needed to quit with all of the 'I’m going to be the writer for all of America' stuff. As a writer, I know that’s a ridiculously stupid and naive attitude to have, and I really wish someone could have punched him and told him to stop being an ass and write another book!"
"Being an English major I took a semester long Shakespeare course ... reading plays, hence Shakespeare, is something I truly loathe."
"Shakespeare... why is it nobody reads him for fun? Well, anyway, I find this, his most famous play, to be amusing in that, while most people know the story, they may not know the following facts that make the play absurd (yes, yes, different cultures, different customs, different times. I know. I was an English major, too, but really?!)"
"I have a BA in Literature ('Would you like fries with that?'). I took a course in Romantic lit, and mentioned in class that I didn't care for Wordsworth. The prof replied that if I hadn't read a lot of a poet's work (which I hadn't), I wasn't in a position to make that judgment. That still doesn't make much sense to me, but anyway..."
"When I was in college I used to outrage other English majors when I honestly answered their questions about poetry preferences. 'How can you major in English and hate both Romantic and Victorian poetry?!' I don't know, I was and I could."
"I have a lot more going for me in life than grammar. I use it as much as I can, generally, but sometimes I just don't feel like it."
"For the writer trying to get out of the writing rut... oh god, I live there sometimes. The only thing that really, truly pulls me up out of it is reading a good story, and there are two I can highly recommend. Neil Gaiman's 'American Gods' and Anne Rice's 'The Witching Hour' (which I'm currently reading now). They both have a talent for writing, of course, but more importantly, they have a talent for storytelling, and that kickstarts me. Hope that helps. :)"
"I love it when lyrics are studied as literature. Because, really, they’re poems, and some songs should be valued just as much as Wordsworth and Eliot."
"At my school (Emerson College) you're required to take two lit 'pre-reqs' to move on to the more interesting and original courses. I signed up for Brit Lit right away thinking we would study contemporary writing -- not so. I struggled through that class not only because of the content, but because I didn't get along with the professor, either. Having to listen to a professor wax poetic about John Donne is not my idea of educating nor interesting."
"I'm feeling a little silly right now but could you tell me the word for when two people work together and there work ends up being exactly the same.
I know it's pronounced like 'cuhlood' but I can't spell it!
Please help!"
"Thought I would pipe in with my list of life-changing or just-really-good books:
Life of Pi (Yann Martel) - a cross between an adventure story and spiritual musings; LIFE CHANGER
The Giver (Lois Lowry) - YA dystopian novel
Enders Game (Orson Scott Card) - gonna back up Olive in this one
The Eyre Affair (Jasper Fforde) - crime/fantasy/sci-fi/general nonsensical brilliance
Lord of the Rings Trilogy (JRR Tolkien) - worth every page of elvish (which I may have skipped :D)
In a Sunburned Country (Bill Bryson) - Nonfiction, travel/humor/Australia
Mythology (Edith Hamilton) - because a background in myths always helps
The Da Vinci Code (Dan Brown) - because it is summer, and you deserve a mental break
Oscar Wilde's plays - verbal juggling at it's best
American Gods (Neil Gaiman) - fantasy/mythology/modern epic, big but entrancing
Good Omens (Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchet) - the Apocalypse at its funniest
Sherlock Holmes (Arthur Conan Doyle) - any and all (a note on diving into the Holmes cannon: if you want to dedicate yourself to reading them all, read in publication order, but if you want to start out with a sort of test drive, start with the short story collaboration)
All of these are books that mean a lot to me, and that I reread constantly."
"Also, as far as the art of penmanship is concerned, I tend to agree! I love dip pens and fountain pens and the beautiful script that can be made with them!"
"I just spent five or six hours reading up on the biblical and freudian symbolism in an anime (Neon Genesis Evangelion - a masterpiece ... right up until the ending. Dx), because the anime was fucking awesome, and the symbolism added some depth to the work.
I love, love, love stories -- not just books. Whatever media I can find them in, a good story is a good story!
(My list of masterpieces are Watchmen (Graphic Novel), His Dark Materials, Ender's Game, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Moon (Indie movie), District 9 (Movie), and Forrest Gump. It's a very short list.)."
"This is for the non-lover of Shakespeare. One of my teachers in college used to tease me when we'd get to the poetry section of whichever class we're in that semester... I hate poetry. A lot. Every once in a while, I'll surprise myself by liking a specific author or poem. As a whole though, I don't actually enjoy poetry and I always feel like I'm betraying my major. You don't have to like everything that every other major likes just to be a 'good' English Major."
"Regarding grammar:
If it's not properly used everywhere, then it shouldn't be used anywhere at all.
I.e. even on the internet, texts, e-mail, whatever, grammar should be exemplified and made a priority. What's the point of using grammar if you're alienating it to certain 'scholarly' aspects of the language? Besides, it's not like it's particularly difficult.
Language is language despite the vessel and when we grow lax and delude ourselves that this meme is any different from a dissertation, then we've lost our linguistic hold on reality. And frankly, as English majors - that's all we've got."
"Being an English major I took a semester long Shakespeare course ... reading plays, hence Shakespeare, is something I truly loathe."
"Shakespeare... why is it nobody reads him for fun? Well, anyway, I find this, his most famous play, to be amusing in that, while most people know the story, they may not know the following facts that make the play absurd (yes, yes, different cultures, different customs, different times. I know. I was an English major, too, but really?!)"
"I have a BA in Literature ('Would you like fries with that?'). I took a course in Romantic lit, and mentioned in class that I didn't care for Wordsworth. The prof replied that if I hadn't read a lot of a poet's work (which I hadn't), I wasn't in a position to make that judgment. That still doesn't make much sense to me, but anyway..."
"When I was in college I used to outrage other English majors when I honestly answered their questions about poetry preferences. 'How can you major in English and hate both Romantic and Victorian poetry?!' I don't know, I was and I could."
"I have a lot more going for me in life than grammar. I use it as much as I can, generally, but sometimes I just don't feel like it."
"For the writer trying to get out of the writing rut... oh god, I live there sometimes. The only thing that really, truly pulls me up out of it is reading a good story, and there are two I can highly recommend. Neil Gaiman's 'American Gods' and Anne Rice's 'The Witching Hour' (which I'm currently reading now). They both have a talent for writing, of course, but more importantly, they have a talent for storytelling, and that kickstarts me. Hope that helps. :)"
"I love it when lyrics are studied as literature. Because, really, they’re poems, and some songs should be valued just as much as Wordsworth and Eliot."
"At my school (Emerson College) you're required to take two lit 'pre-reqs' to move on to the more interesting and original courses. I signed up for Brit Lit right away thinking we would study contemporary writing -- not so. I struggled through that class not only because of the content, but because I didn't get along with the professor, either. Having to listen to a professor wax poetic about John Donne is not my idea of educating nor interesting."
"I'm feeling a little silly right now but could you tell me the word for when two people work together and there work ends up being exactly the same.
I know it's pronounced like 'cuhlood' but I can't spell it!
Please help!"
"Thought I would pipe in with my list of life-changing or just-really-good books:
Life of Pi (Yann Martel) - a cross between an adventure story and spiritual musings; LIFE CHANGER
The Giver (Lois Lowry) - YA dystopian novel
Enders Game (Orson Scott Card) - gonna back up Olive in this one
The Eyre Affair (Jasper Fforde) - crime/fantasy/sci-fi/general nonsensical brilliance
Lord of the Rings Trilogy (JRR Tolkien) - worth every page of elvish (which I may have skipped :D)
In a Sunburned Country (Bill Bryson) - Nonfiction, travel/humor/Australia
Mythology (Edith Hamilton) - because a background in myths always helps
The Da Vinci Code (Dan Brown) - because it is summer, and you deserve a mental break
Oscar Wilde's plays - verbal juggling at it's best
American Gods (Neil Gaiman) - fantasy/mythology/modern epic, big but entrancing
Good Omens (Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchet) - the Apocalypse at its funniest
Sherlock Holmes (Arthur Conan Doyle) - any and all (a note on diving into the Holmes cannon: if you want to dedicate yourself to reading them all, read in publication order, but if you want to start out with a sort of test drive, start with the short story collaboration)
All of these are books that mean a lot to me, and that I reread constantly."
"Also, as far as the art of penmanship is concerned, I tend to agree! I love dip pens and fountain pens and the beautiful script that can be made with them!"
"I just spent five or six hours reading up on the biblical and freudian symbolism in an anime (Neon Genesis Evangelion - a masterpiece ... right up until the ending. Dx), because the anime was fucking awesome, and the symbolism added some depth to the work.
I love, love, love stories -- not just books. Whatever media I can find them in, a good story is a good story!
(My list of masterpieces are Watchmen (Graphic Novel), His Dark Materials, Ender's Game, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Moon (Indie movie), District 9 (Movie), and Forrest Gump. It's a very short list.)."
"This is for the non-lover of Shakespeare. One of my teachers in college used to tease me when we'd get to the poetry section of whichever class we're in that semester... I hate poetry. A lot. Every once in a while, I'll surprise myself by liking a specific author or poem. As a whole though, I don't actually enjoy poetry and I always feel like I'm betraying my major. You don't have to like everything that every other major likes just to be a 'good' English Major."
"Regarding grammar:
If it's not properly used everywhere, then it shouldn't be used anywhere at all.
I.e. even on the internet, texts, e-mail, whatever, grammar should be exemplified and made a priority. What's the point of using grammar if you're alienating it to certain 'scholarly' aspects of the language? Besides, it's not like it's particularly difficult.
Language is language despite the vessel and when we grow lax and delude ourselves that this meme is any different from a dissertation, then we've lost our linguistic hold on reality. And frankly, as English majors - that's all we've got."
Thursday, July 7, 2011
SPECIAL: A READER COMMENT I JUST RECEIVED
"I have to agree with the fellows here.... Faulkner does indeed suck.
Stream of consciousness is just a way to put a good label on crap. Hell, one could easily argue that 'rap' is the same thing as the stream of consciousness narrative style.
Take this as a person who dominated upper div english courses at a top 10 university..... the entire basis of literature academia is just pathetic. Since there is such an emphasis on the classics, new works are often shunned or never researched. Thus, you're left with a predicament, how are you furthering the knowledge of literature if you keep clinging to these archaic pieces of writing?
Simple, you're inventing bullshit for theses. In fact, this is the same thing most students do for their english classes. We came up with bullshit, found pieces of 'evidence' that support our bullshit, and wrote a paper on bullshit. Now how do we get away with this? The academic community emphasizes the literature of those WHO ARE ALREADY DEAD. THUSLY, WE CAN NEVER GET A CONFIRMATION OR DENIAL OF THIS BULLSHIT. So as long as there is never an answer to these bullshit papers/theses, they can continue, uninterrupted.
Get real, and study something that will help society evolve."
Stream of consciousness is just a way to put a good label on crap. Hell, one could easily argue that 'rap' is the same thing as the stream of consciousness narrative style.
Take this as a person who dominated upper div english courses at a top 10 university..... the entire basis of literature academia is just pathetic. Since there is such an emphasis on the classics, new works are often shunned or never researched. Thus, you're left with a predicament, how are you furthering the knowledge of literature if you keep clinging to these archaic pieces of writing?
Simple, you're inventing bullshit for theses. In fact, this is the same thing most students do for their english classes. We came up with bullshit, found pieces of 'evidence' that support our bullshit, and wrote a paper on bullshit. Now how do we get away with this? The academic community emphasizes the literature of those WHO ARE ALREADY DEAD. THUSLY, WE CAN NEVER GET A CONFIRMATION OR DENIAL OF THIS BULLSHIT. So as long as there is never an answer to these bullshit papers/theses, they can continue, uninterrupted.
Get real, and study something that will help society evolve."
Thursday, June 30, 2011
SPECIAL: THE HORRORS OF EDUCATION
"I'm a high school student. Today, my English teacher said: 'The difference between sarcasm and irony is that sarcasm has to be mean, while irony is nice sarcasm.'"
"I'm totally opening my Goethe lessons with that when I have to cover him in class. 'Kids. Goethe sucks donkey dicks.'"
"Holden's incessant whining and indulgence in self-pity annoyed me. I wanted to say to him what I say to my son or my students: Look at your life and get over yourself."
"I know as an English teacher, I'm supposed to love The Canterbury Tales and there's a lot of language in there that's teachable, especially from an evolution of linguistics point of view. But it was just tough for me to get into. So there."
F. SCOTT FITZGERALD - THE GREAT GATSBY
"When my yr.11 class whined to our teacher over how much we hated this book, she replied with 'This is english advanced..you're not going to read fun,interesting books in english advanced..you're going to read boring, old novels'"
"Now I am a teacher and at one time found myself in a position where I had no choice but to assign my students _The Great Gatsby_ ... And don't you dare tell me I didn't get the book. Since I was supposed to be teaching the thing I read it three times (well, to be frank, two and half times; midway through my third reading, I gave up in disgust, both at myself, for having persisted so long, and at the novel itself). I mean, who really gives a fig for any of the characters in the book? Or for that stupid green light? Oooh, ah, and the Valley of Ashes! How very apocalyptic! And T. J. Mecklenburg, or whatever his name was. How could anybody really give a fig for any of it?"
"back in high school, after we were finished with the book, my english teacher told us he never understood why this book was so highly regarded. he called it 'stupid.' i had never agreed with a teacher until that moment."
SAMUEL BECKETT - WAITING FOR GODOT
"As an English teacher, an avid reader, a Lit major, et cetera, I am sure I am supposed to give this play six stars, but I was unimpressed. Severely. It feels more likely that this is an enormous hoax on the literary world than it is a legitimate piece of writing - as if in 40 or so years, the Beckett estate will reveal a letter saying something like, 'Just Kidding, y'all. It's garbage, and I know it'. The hat scene - surely cited as 'postmodern lunacy' or somesuch bilge in theatrical reviews, seems more like a tired Warner Brothers skit. Oh well."
HERMAN MELVILLE - BILLY BUDD
"I had to teach this book to juniors in high school and could never figure out why. It is a VERY difficult read and I absolutely hated the book until the end. I'm not sure if I would recommend it or not, but if so, I wouldn't recommend it to teenagers or even early college-aged students. It was very difficult."
"My A.P. English teacher decided that to pass her class we would have to read and take a test on Billy Budd, so we would be able to take the A.P. exam and pass it. This is a woman who appreciates good literature told us 'anyone who likes this book is crazy and should be shot.' needless to say I can't stand it. The only thing that perplexes me, is why people actually read it, why it's such a 'good' book."
SHAKESPEARE - JULIUS CAESAR
"I've never been a fan of reading Shakespeare. As a 10 gr. English teacher, I face the challenge of making relevant and exciting the reading of a play I don't find relevant or exciting."
CORMAC MCCARTHY - THE ROAD
(I DON'T REALLY THINK THIS IS A GOOD BOOK BUT THE QUOTE IS HORRIFYING SO HERE WE ARE)
"As an English teacher, I appreciated the imagery and the amazingly lyrical writing throughout the book. I will also admit to not being able to stop reading it, but not because I was enjoying it. This book was full of gruesome ideas and dark reality. Could this or would this happen after an apocalypse, I am convinced that it would, but I did not find the father continuing on with his son in this black, white, and shades of grey landscape inspiring or faith building."
MARK TWAIN - THE ADVENTURES OF HUCKLEBERRY FINN
"I want to love this book, really I do. I'm an English teacher so shouldn't I love it."
"I read this book out a sense of responsibility to America's literary canon. I hadn't read it since middle school. I've taught high school for ten years, and I would not choose this book to read with an English class. I just don't think it's really that deep. Satirical, comic, adventurous, page-turner, yes, but deep, well no. There are other books that made me think more. The people in the country towns are depicted as lawless and base. Jim, while noble and kind, is stupid. Huck is a child swayed by what other people think, and not yet old enough to make his own convictions. Tom Sawyer is a foolish child whose antics cause pain for people. The women in the book are all kind but out of touch with reality and easily duped. There are a couple well educated, intelligent characters, but they are the exception to the rule. For such a long book, there's just not much meat there."
"I know, I know... I am an English teacher who doesn't like Mark Twain. It's a shame, but at least I will never force my students to read this boring book!"
SOPHOCLES - OEDIPUS REX
"This book is overrated, or at least my teacher overrated it. In the beginning of the story, the prophet tells Oedipus that he will live in sin (make love to) his mother. My teacher constantly said that we wouldn't be able to fathom how awesome the plot twist would be, however it was spoiled near the beginning (and if you've ever read these stories, the prophet is NEVER wrong. No matter what happens, their prophecies will not be stopped). We cant forget that the ending is DEPRESSING! Dont bother waiting until you read this story to roll your eyes and say 'THATS IT!?' because I'll tell you now. Oedipus unrealistically flies to get eaten by gods or something. No real reason, no real gain, no loss, just leaving his family for god(s)."
EMILY BRONTE - WUTHERING HEIGHTS
"Ugh. I don't have the level of concentration required to read this book right now. I made it up to like, page 70, mostly driven by guilt that I'm an English teacher and have never read this. Decided life is too short to trudge my way through Victorian sentences in a book where neither the characters nor the story interest me. I was, however, amused that the narrator used the word 'ejaculated' about 15 times in the first 20 pages to mean 'exclaimed.' ('"Wretched inmates!" I ejaculated mentally.') Otherwise, I was both bored and confused. I may come back to it someday, but probably not. I think I'll pick up the 3rd Twilight book instead."
"Very tedious. But on the bright side, now I can grade papers on this work intelligently."
SHAKESPEARE - ROMEO AND JULIET
"Geez... why do so many people insist that this is the PERFECT Shakespeare play for 9th graders? I don't think I can teach it again. HELP!!! I am drowning in a ridiculous love story that gets compared to gang warfare all the time."
"I don't even think Shakespeare wrote this one, it was probably one of those poseurs. Ugh! I had to teach this play and pretend I liked it! That was not fun."
"I am so so so tired of this play. It is an excellent introduction to Shakespeare for young readers (like the freshmen I teach it to) but it is defintely one of Shakespeare's weakest plays. (i.e What's up with all of the plot summary in the dialogue?)"
"I'm sick of this crummy work getting accolades from the literary adult world. Haven't kids suffered enough?"
CHILDREN CAN NEVER SUFFER ENOUGH
"I'm totally opening my Goethe lessons with that when I have to cover him in class. 'Kids. Goethe sucks donkey dicks.'"
"Holden's incessant whining and indulgence in self-pity annoyed me. I wanted to say to him what I say to my son or my students: Look at your life and get over yourself."
"I know as an English teacher, I'm supposed to love The Canterbury Tales and there's a lot of language in there that's teachable, especially from an evolution of linguistics point of view. But it was just tough for me to get into. So there."
F. SCOTT FITZGERALD - THE GREAT GATSBY
"When my yr.11 class whined to our teacher over how much we hated this book, she replied with 'This is english advanced..you're not going to read fun,interesting books in english advanced..you're going to read boring, old novels'"
"Now I am a teacher and at one time found myself in a position where I had no choice but to assign my students _The Great Gatsby_ ... And don't you dare tell me I didn't get the book. Since I was supposed to be teaching the thing I read it three times (well, to be frank, two and half times; midway through my third reading, I gave up in disgust, both at myself, for having persisted so long, and at the novel itself). I mean, who really gives a fig for any of the characters in the book? Or for that stupid green light? Oooh, ah, and the Valley of Ashes! How very apocalyptic! And T. J. Mecklenburg, or whatever his name was. How could anybody really give a fig for any of it?"
"back in high school, after we were finished with the book, my english teacher told us he never understood why this book was so highly regarded. he called it 'stupid.' i had never agreed with a teacher until that moment."
SAMUEL BECKETT - WAITING FOR GODOT
"As an English teacher, an avid reader, a Lit major, et cetera, I am sure I am supposed to give this play six stars, but I was unimpressed. Severely. It feels more likely that this is an enormous hoax on the literary world than it is a legitimate piece of writing - as if in 40 or so years, the Beckett estate will reveal a letter saying something like, 'Just Kidding, y'all. It's garbage, and I know it'. The hat scene - surely cited as 'postmodern lunacy' or somesuch bilge in theatrical reviews, seems more like a tired Warner Brothers skit. Oh well."
HERMAN MELVILLE - BILLY BUDD
"I had to teach this book to juniors in high school and could never figure out why. It is a VERY difficult read and I absolutely hated the book until the end. I'm not sure if I would recommend it or not, but if so, I wouldn't recommend it to teenagers or even early college-aged students. It was very difficult."
"My A.P. English teacher decided that to pass her class we would have to read and take a test on Billy Budd, so we would be able to take the A.P. exam and pass it. This is a woman who appreciates good literature told us 'anyone who likes this book is crazy and should be shot.' needless to say I can't stand it. The only thing that perplexes me, is why people actually read it, why it's such a 'good' book."
SHAKESPEARE - JULIUS CAESAR
"I've never been a fan of reading Shakespeare. As a 10 gr. English teacher, I face the challenge of making relevant and exciting the reading of a play I don't find relevant or exciting."
CORMAC MCCARTHY - THE ROAD
(I DON'T REALLY THINK THIS IS A GOOD BOOK BUT THE QUOTE IS HORRIFYING SO HERE WE ARE)
"As an English teacher, I appreciated the imagery and the amazingly lyrical writing throughout the book. I will also admit to not being able to stop reading it, but not because I was enjoying it. This book was full of gruesome ideas and dark reality. Could this or would this happen after an apocalypse, I am convinced that it would, but I did not find the father continuing on with his son in this black, white, and shades of grey landscape inspiring or faith building."
MARK TWAIN - THE ADVENTURES OF HUCKLEBERRY FINN
"I want to love this book, really I do. I'm an English teacher so shouldn't I love it."
"I read this book out a sense of responsibility to America's literary canon. I hadn't read it since middle school. I've taught high school for ten years, and I would not choose this book to read with an English class. I just don't think it's really that deep. Satirical, comic, adventurous, page-turner, yes, but deep, well no. There are other books that made me think more. The people in the country towns are depicted as lawless and base. Jim, while noble and kind, is stupid. Huck is a child swayed by what other people think, and not yet old enough to make his own convictions. Tom Sawyer is a foolish child whose antics cause pain for people. The women in the book are all kind but out of touch with reality and easily duped. There are a couple well educated, intelligent characters, but they are the exception to the rule. For such a long book, there's just not much meat there."
"I know, I know... I am an English teacher who doesn't like Mark Twain. It's a shame, but at least I will never force my students to read this boring book!"
SOPHOCLES - OEDIPUS REX
"This book is overrated, or at least my teacher overrated it. In the beginning of the story, the prophet tells Oedipus that he will live in sin (make love to) his mother. My teacher constantly said that we wouldn't be able to fathom how awesome the plot twist would be, however it was spoiled near the beginning (and if you've ever read these stories, the prophet is NEVER wrong. No matter what happens, their prophecies will not be stopped). We cant forget that the ending is DEPRESSING! Dont bother waiting until you read this story to roll your eyes and say 'THATS IT!?' because I'll tell you now. Oedipus unrealistically flies to get eaten by gods or something. No real reason, no real gain, no loss, just leaving his family for god(s)."
EMILY BRONTE - WUTHERING HEIGHTS
"Ugh. I don't have the level of concentration required to read this book right now. I made it up to like, page 70, mostly driven by guilt that I'm an English teacher and have never read this. Decided life is too short to trudge my way through Victorian sentences in a book where neither the characters nor the story interest me. I was, however, amused that the narrator used the word 'ejaculated' about 15 times in the first 20 pages to mean 'exclaimed.' ('"Wretched inmates!" I ejaculated mentally.') Otherwise, I was both bored and confused. I may come back to it someday, but probably not. I think I'll pick up the 3rd Twilight book instead."
"Very tedious. But on the bright side, now I can grade papers on this work intelligently."
SHAKESPEARE - ROMEO AND JULIET
"Geez... why do so many people insist that this is the PERFECT Shakespeare play for 9th graders? I don't think I can teach it again. HELP!!! I am drowning in a ridiculous love story that gets compared to gang warfare all the time."
"I don't even think Shakespeare wrote this one, it was probably one of those poseurs. Ugh! I had to teach this play and pretend I liked it! That was not fun."
"I am so so so tired of this play. It is an excellent introduction to Shakespeare for young readers (like the freshmen I teach it to) but it is defintely one of Shakespeare's weakest plays. (i.e What's up with all of the plot summary in the dialogue?)"
"I'm sick of this crummy work getting accolades from the literary adult world. Haven't kids suffered enough?"
CHILDREN CAN NEVER SUFFER ENOUGH
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
SPECIAL: GOOGLE SEARCHES THAT HAVE LED PEOPLE TO BRGB
"why isnt the the trojan horse in homer's the iliad"
"what english majors could learn from jk rowling"
"this booke is very stupid, just like all the other secular writers out in the world."
"nambla fic genre"
"star trek women naked"
"what english majors could learn from jk rowling"
"this booke is very stupid, just like all the other secular writers out in the world."
"nambla fic genre"
"star trek women naked"
Monday, May 30, 2011
SPECIAL: PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT READ FREUD BEYOND HIS WIKIPEDIA SYNOPSIS SPEAK ABOUT THEIR VIOLENT EMOTIONAL JUDGMENTS OF HIS WORK
"I hate Freud and want to kill him because he made 'id' a real word so my spellcheck doesn't catch it when I misspell 'if' that way."
VERY REASONABLE
"I really hate Freud and all of his theories."
"I hate Freud. What a pervert."
"I hate Freud. I really, really hate Freud."
"I hate Freud.. and if he wasn't dead already.. I would wish him dead"
"Can't believe that dude was lecturing about what a genius Siggi Freud was. it's freakin 2011"
"i hate Freud & Rogers. there's no evidence in there theory."
"Freud was a creeper, if you listen to his ideas, you're a creeper ...
children dont understand the concept of mother and father so young, they dont recognize faces or personalities, its just people who give them things and pay attention to them ... freud was retarded im glad hes dead"
"sigmund freud sucks. He's bad to his student carl jung."
"unless you're a silly psychoanalyst. then everything has a sexual subtext! but i hate freud and all of that crap..."
"just hate how he shows up in every single book that mentions psychology. I think that our culture needs to get over him."
"I hate Freud man, everything he does!"
"Hate freud n his sex theories makes my essay writting take time ! #fml"
"I hate Freud. I wish he was alive so I could kill him."
"I think freud sucks and is psycho."
"Sigmund Freud sucks! I hate him for all this stupid pedagogy stuff and psychanalysis... It's sooo much to learn, damn!"
"I fucking hate freud.. Penises and all that shite!"
SIGMUND FREUD, INVENTOR OF THE PENIS
"Psychology can kiss my ass! Hate Freud and dont a shit about what he says lmfao x3"
"Final conclusion: I hate Freud! I don't like his theories, I'd, ego and superego! Not that true!"
"I'm tired of Freud and cognitive thinking ):"
"I would say more about my hatred for Sigmund Freud (yes, the psychology guy) but I'm so consumed by this hatred towards him, that the only words I can say are: 'Yes, I really hate Freud. Without a doubt, I want to revive the man and beat him to death, revive him again and then shoot him, revive him again and beat him with a sledgehammer, then revive him again and hit him with a phallic shaped blunt object.'"
"Yeah, I kinda hate Freud for being a misogynist mommy-complexed penile little weasel."
"I hate freud bc every argument begins and ends with 'it's in your subconscious' YEAH WELL THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH"
"ugh i hate freud. why do i have to write an essay about this horny ass man? honestlyyy"
"I hate Freud so much, I swear they aren't even words! :/"
"Erghh. I hate freud./.. Stupid pervert!!"
"I really hate freud and I can't believe we still are educated on his disproved, out of date theories"
"My dream interpretations have been shockingly accurate in the past, yet I STILL refuse to believe it's legitimate just because I hate Freud."
"I hate Freud. He's such an arrogant butt and so sexually obsessed, it's hard to believe that there are people who really take him seriously."
"when someone says 'according to Sigmund Freud...' I immediately render their argument invalid. I hate Freud."
"I have found yet another reason to hate Freud. They just keep on coming."
YEAH FREUD MIGHT HAVE HAD A THING OR TWO TO SUGGEST ABOUT THAT
"The amount of times I heard the words poo, turd, excrement, defecation, anal, and genitals in that lecture was just unnecessary. Hate Freud."
AND THAT
"I hate Freud. His entire philosophy says that everyone wants to screw their mom and I DO NOT want to screw my mom!!!"
YEAH HE'D FUCKIN LOVE THAT
ALSO, I'LL BE UPDATING EVERY SECOND DAY FOR THE NEXT FEW WEEKS, OVER EXAMS
VERY REASONABLE
"I really hate Freud and all of his theories."
"I hate Freud. What a pervert."
"I hate Freud. I really, really hate Freud."
"I hate Freud.. and if he wasn't dead already.. I would wish him dead"
"Can't believe that dude was lecturing about what a genius Siggi Freud was. it's freakin 2011"
"i hate Freud & Rogers. there's no evidence in there theory."
"Freud was a creeper, if you listen to his ideas, you're a creeper ...
children dont understand the concept of mother and father so young, they dont recognize faces or personalities, its just people who give them things and pay attention to them ... freud was retarded im glad hes dead"
"sigmund freud sucks. He's bad to his student carl jung."
"unless you're a silly psychoanalyst. then everything has a sexual subtext! but i hate freud and all of that crap..."
"just hate how he shows up in every single book that mentions psychology. I think that our culture needs to get over him."
"I hate Freud man, everything he does!"
"Hate freud n his sex theories makes my essay writting take time ! #fml"
"I hate Freud. I wish he was alive so I could kill him."
"I think freud sucks and is psycho."
"Sigmund Freud sucks! I hate him for all this stupid pedagogy stuff and psychanalysis... It's sooo much to learn, damn!"
"I fucking hate freud.. Penises and all that shite!"
SIGMUND FREUD, INVENTOR OF THE PENIS
"Psychology can kiss my ass! Hate Freud and dont a shit about what he says lmfao x3"
"Final conclusion: I hate Freud! I don't like his theories, I'd, ego and superego! Not that true!"
"I'm tired of Freud and cognitive thinking ):"
"I would say more about my hatred for Sigmund Freud (yes, the psychology guy) but I'm so consumed by this hatred towards him, that the only words I can say are: 'Yes, I really hate Freud. Without a doubt, I want to revive the man and beat him to death, revive him again and then shoot him, revive him again and beat him with a sledgehammer, then revive him again and hit him with a phallic shaped blunt object.'"
"Yeah, I kinda hate Freud for being a misogynist mommy-complexed penile little weasel."
"I hate freud bc every argument begins and ends with 'it's in your subconscious' YEAH WELL THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH"
"ugh i hate freud. why do i have to write an essay about this horny ass man? honestlyyy"
"I hate Freud so much, I swear they aren't even words! :/"
"Erghh. I hate freud./.. Stupid pervert!!"
"I really hate freud and I can't believe we still are educated on his disproved, out of date theories"
"My dream interpretations have been shockingly accurate in the past, yet I STILL refuse to believe it's legitimate just because I hate Freud."
"I hate Freud. He's such an arrogant butt and so sexually obsessed, it's hard to believe that there are people who really take him seriously."
"when someone says 'according to Sigmund Freud...' I immediately render their argument invalid. I hate Freud."
"I have found yet another reason to hate Freud. They just keep on coming."
YEAH FREUD MIGHT HAVE HAD A THING OR TWO TO SUGGEST ABOUT THAT
"The amount of times I heard the words poo, turd, excrement, defecation, anal, and genitals in that lecture was just unnecessary. Hate Freud."
AND THAT
"I hate Freud. His entire philosophy says that everyone wants to screw their mom and I DO NOT want to screw my mom!!!"
YEAH HE'D FUCKIN LOVE THAT
ALSO, I'LL BE UPDATING EVERY SECOND DAY FOR THE NEXT FEW WEEKS, OVER EXAMS
Saturday, April 30, 2011
SPECIAL: ENGLISH MAJORS MEDLEY
"about me
Immodestly bookish.
Lover of lists.
Imperfect bibliophile.
Devotee of late Victorian literature.
Extreme grammar nazi.
Obsessive writer.
Utterly enamored with witty epigrams."
"I've never been one for poetry, though I am an English major"
"Books are sacred. Books gain personality. Nothing feels better than opening a worn-out old favorite. I love the smell of a new book, fresh off the Barnes and Noble shelves."
"I am an English major, but unable to finish most classics in a couple days.
Maybe because I don't read hugely long books very quickly.
Also, I read faster when something is very interesting.
Not a whole lot of that, to me, in classics.
Modern books, heck yeah."
"Oh, believe me, I spent almost two months reading Dracula! I am not a fast reader when it comes to classics.
Hand me a Dan Brown book though and I’ll devour that sucker in two days. :oD"
"Ugg ... this book became a running joke for the English majors in my college because we all hated it so much. 'Well, it wasn't as bad as Billy Budd' was still a terrible review."
"NERD ESSAYS! :o)
This semester, I’m doing two finals on Doctor Who related topics. For my 'math class' (the quotation marks are necessary because it's essentially 'math for English majors' with very few numbers involved) we're doing a project on time travel (with plenty of pop culture references!) and in my journalism class I’m going to be writing my final article on Whovian culture, specifically at Anime Boston…where I will be going this weekend…*is a nerd*."
"I wrote a 5 page essay about Milton and punk as well. I connected Satan's soliloquy about the mind ('...can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven, what matter where if I be the same') with current conceptions of hell and autonomy in punk rock using the songs 'Hellnation' by Dead Kennedys and 'Roll Me Through the Gates of Hell' by Mischief Brew. Prof said it was my best paper all year."
"I love English syllabuses. I practically collect them. I like to analyze them and think about what the theme of that class is going to be. I like to critique their choices, I like to collect new titles for my reading list. I am obsessed with my brother-in-law’s high school English reading lists, and I think it creeps him out a bit. I love it when bookstores put out local school summer reading lists. For me, those are equivalent to Fall Fashion Week for a fashionista, or the Sunday Wall Street Journal for a stock-aholic. This all stems from my obsession with all things I read in high school. This is discussed in a soon-to-be classic scene from the recent film 'Easy A'. Basically the angst of our reading material seems to mimic that time of our life. I even had a friend who practically became half the characters we read about. I had to stop him at Gatsby, because that bordered on sacrilege for me."
"My Mexican Literature professor always brings old books from his parents library, one day we realized all of us were smelling them when he passed them along."
"I don't understand why they can't have classes on good books, like Watchmen"
"I'll read the back of shampoo bottle if nothing else is available, my brain tries to devour everything & contemplate it all at its liesure. I call it thinking, others call it woolgathering."
"Am I seriously the only English major who hates The Great Gatsby?
...
I thought The Great Gatsby was rather trite. I read it in high school like I was supposed to and I didn't learn anything new... it should be pretty obvious to most people that a married woman with a child is not going to leave her husband for some guy she probably met in high school who appears to be stalking her. Apparently it wasn't obvious to Gatsby, though?
...
That's just my opinion. I'll take Camus any day over Fitzgerald, so maybe I should just move to France where The Stranger is their sacred cow."
"I went through the whole history of Western literature (not exhaustively, but trying to get a representative sample) looking for the patterns and what the purpose of these stories was. Then I studies screenplays and movies, watching some 200 films, outlining many of them, getting the screenplays, reading them, and so on. All this time I was looking for why these artforms existed—and what their utility was.
But after about two years of this, I started to doubt whether I really believed in the story. I mean, there are people—I think they are likely to be religious—who really think a novel, say, says something really important and useful. Says something profound. Helps them get through life. Changes them. But what I discovered was that I’m not one of those people. Novels and stories and movies are mere entertainment. Sophocles is no better that Steven Segal. It’s just bread and circuses.
At bottom, a novel is an anecdote. And it’s all made up. It’s fiction. It’s a fantasy. This really comes how when you write one (or 4, as I have). You just—make shit up. It’s imagination, pure an simple."
"I'm not sure you're meant to understand what's going on; I'm not even sure Carroll knows himself. If I would have read this as a kid I would have been even more confused, so I've never really understood why this is considered such a classic children's book. It has the fantastical lands and characters of children's stories, but the subject matter seems to be something that few people will ever hope to grasp - let alone a child. This is coming from a guy with a BA(Hons) in English and History, although analysing the meanings behind novels was never my strong point. Half of the time I'm not even sure the 'meanings' some of my lecturers pulled out from the text were ever intended by the author."
"I don't think I've ever thought about what century a book is from before."
"Ugh. I really, really don't want to have to take an entire class on this in graduate school but it looks like it's going to happen. I don't like this, I never have and I probably never will. I don't think it's funny, and I hate the translations, and I found the stories boring. I understand that he was incorporating all these different types into one -- bawdy, fabliau, etc. -- but I still find it terribly boring and poorly written.
Writing is an art and a craft that took time to develop, much longer than many of the others. I don't want to look at the rudimentary forms of this art or the base of it, I want to look at what it has become, how a person today can communicate an idea or a concept using words in an elaborate, mysterious way. This is just... archaic and uninteresting to me. There's a reason I'm not a history major."
HE IS TALKING ABOUT CHAUCER
Immodestly bookish.
Lover of lists.
Imperfect bibliophile.
Devotee of late Victorian literature.
Extreme grammar nazi.
Obsessive writer.
Utterly enamored with witty epigrams."
"I've never been one for poetry, though I am an English major"
"Books are sacred. Books gain personality. Nothing feels better than opening a worn-out old favorite. I love the smell of a new book, fresh off the Barnes and Noble shelves."
"I am an English major, but unable to finish most classics in a couple days.
Maybe because I don't read hugely long books very quickly.
Also, I read faster when something is very interesting.
Not a whole lot of that, to me, in classics.
Modern books, heck yeah."
"Oh, believe me, I spent almost two months reading Dracula! I am not a fast reader when it comes to classics.
Hand me a Dan Brown book though and I’ll devour that sucker in two days. :oD"
"Ugg ... this book became a running joke for the English majors in my college because we all hated it so much. 'Well, it wasn't as bad as Billy Budd' was still a terrible review."
"NERD ESSAYS! :o)
This semester, I’m doing two finals on Doctor Who related topics. For my 'math class' (the quotation marks are necessary because it's essentially 'math for English majors' with very few numbers involved) we're doing a project on time travel (with plenty of pop culture references!) and in my journalism class I’m going to be writing my final article on Whovian culture, specifically at Anime Boston…where I will be going this weekend…*is a nerd*."
"I wrote a 5 page essay about Milton and punk as well. I connected Satan's soliloquy about the mind ('...can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven, what matter where if I be the same') with current conceptions of hell and autonomy in punk rock using the songs 'Hellnation' by Dead Kennedys and 'Roll Me Through the Gates of Hell' by Mischief Brew. Prof said it was my best paper all year."
"I love English syllabuses. I practically collect them. I like to analyze them and think about what the theme of that class is going to be. I like to critique their choices, I like to collect new titles for my reading list. I am obsessed with my brother-in-law’s high school English reading lists, and I think it creeps him out a bit. I love it when bookstores put out local school summer reading lists. For me, those are equivalent to Fall Fashion Week for a fashionista, or the Sunday Wall Street Journal for a stock-aholic. This all stems from my obsession with all things I read in high school. This is discussed in a soon-to-be classic scene from the recent film 'Easy A'. Basically the angst of our reading material seems to mimic that time of our life. I even had a friend who practically became half the characters we read about. I had to stop him at Gatsby, because that bordered on sacrilege for me."
"My Mexican Literature professor always brings old books from his parents library, one day we realized all of us were smelling them when he passed them along."
"I don't understand why they can't have classes on good books, like Watchmen"
"I'll read the back of shampoo bottle if nothing else is available, my brain tries to devour everything & contemplate it all at its liesure. I call it thinking, others call it woolgathering."
"Am I seriously the only English major who hates The Great Gatsby?
...
I thought The Great Gatsby was rather trite. I read it in high school like I was supposed to and I didn't learn anything new... it should be pretty obvious to most people that a married woman with a child is not going to leave her husband for some guy she probably met in high school who appears to be stalking her. Apparently it wasn't obvious to Gatsby, though?
...
That's just my opinion. I'll take Camus any day over Fitzgerald, so maybe I should just move to France where The Stranger is their sacred cow."
"I went through the whole history of Western literature (not exhaustively, but trying to get a representative sample) looking for the patterns and what the purpose of these stories was. Then I studies screenplays and movies, watching some 200 films, outlining many of them, getting the screenplays, reading them, and so on. All this time I was looking for why these artforms existed—and what their utility was.
But after about two years of this, I started to doubt whether I really believed in the story. I mean, there are people—I think they are likely to be religious—who really think a novel, say, says something really important and useful. Says something profound. Helps them get through life. Changes them. But what I discovered was that I’m not one of those people. Novels and stories and movies are mere entertainment. Sophocles is no better that Steven Segal. It’s just bread and circuses.
At bottom, a novel is an anecdote. And it’s all made up. It’s fiction. It’s a fantasy. This really comes how when you write one (or 4, as I have). You just—make shit up. It’s imagination, pure an simple."
"I'm not sure you're meant to understand what's going on; I'm not even sure Carroll knows himself. If I would have read this as a kid I would have been even more confused, so I've never really understood why this is considered such a classic children's book. It has the fantastical lands and characters of children's stories, but the subject matter seems to be something that few people will ever hope to grasp - let alone a child. This is coming from a guy with a BA(Hons) in English and History, although analysing the meanings behind novels was never my strong point. Half of the time I'm not even sure the 'meanings' some of my lecturers pulled out from the text were ever intended by the author."
"I don't think I've ever thought about what century a book is from before."
"Ugh. I really, really don't want to have to take an entire class on this in graduate school but it looks like it's going to happen. I don't like this, I never have and I probably never will. I don't think it's funny, and I hate the translations, and I found the stories boring. I understand that he was incorporating all these different types into one -- bawdy, fabliau, etc. -- but I still find it terribly boring and poorly written.
Writing is an art and a craft that took time to develop, much longer than many of the others. I don't want to look at the rudimentary forms of this art or the base of it, I want to look at what it has become, how a person today can communicate an idea or a concept using words in an elaborate, mysterious way. This is just... archaic and uninteresting to me. There's a reason I'm not a history major."
HE IS TALKING ABOUT CHAUCER
Thursday, March 31, 2011
SPECIAL: ENGLISH MAJORS TALKING IS WORSE THAN THE HOLOCAUST
I'VE BEEN READING A COUPLE OF BLOGS LATELY WHICH DEAL WITH SIMILAR SNOBBERY TO MY OWN, BY WAY OF LITTLE ANIMAL GUYS SAYING THINGS AGAINST A PINWHEEL BACKGROUND. THEY ARE UNEVEN -- BECAUSE ALL OF THE CONTENT IS USER-SUBMITTED, THERE ARE NO REAL STANDARDS OF QUALITY. A LOT OF IT IS BASICALLY "DON'T CONFORM TO MY HALF-UNDERSTOOD CONCEPTION OF PRESCRIPTIVE GRAMMAR? I WILL END YOU, BITCH/*LOADS SHOTGUN*/DIE IN A FIRE/I AM FOURTEEN YEARS OLD AND WEAR T-SHIRTS FEATURING STEWIE FROM FAMILY GUY" BUT THE FREQUENCY OF GENUINELY AMUSING POSTS IS SURPRISINGLY HIGH. SOMETIMES THESE BLOGS ARE PRETTY FUNNY.
UNFORTUNATELY THEY ARE ALSO SOMETIMES UNBELIEVABLY STUPID. AND RECENTLY, ONE OF THE BLOGS DEVOLVED FROM POSTING FUNNY ARMADILLOS TALKING ABOUT JANE AUSTEN INTO POSTING A BUNCH OF ANONYMOUS COMMENTS ABOUT THE HARRY POTTER AND TWILIGHT SERIES. IT SPANNED ALL THE BIG QUESTIONS OF THINKING ABOUT BOOKS FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T READ MANY: WHAT CONSTITUTES "REAL LITERATURE"? IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIGH AND LOW CULTURE? HOW MANY WIKIPEDIA SUMMARIES OF POST-MODERN THEORISTS DO YOU HAVE TO SKIM BEFORE YOU ARE LITERALLY SWALLOWED WHOLE BY YOUR OWN ANUS?
AS USUAL MY FIRST REACTION WAS TO STRIP NAKED AND TIE A BELT AROUND MY NECK SO THAT I MIGHT ESCAPE THE UNIVERSE IN A FINAL, GLORIOUS FRENZY OF AUTO-EROTIC ASPHYXIATION. BUT THEN I THOUGHT "MAYBE I COULD JUST COMPILE THESE AND POST THEM ON THE INTERNET. HEH, THEN EVERYBODY WILL KNOW HOW MUCH BETTER I AM THAN THESE IDIOTS." I OPENED MY LAPTOP AND TIPPED THE MORNING'S THIRD BAG OF TORTILLA CHIPS INTO MY FAT SMIRKING FACE. "YEAH. NOW EVERYBODY WILL KNOW HOW SMART I AM."
SO HERE PRESENTED FOR YOUR READING PLEASURE ARE THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DISCUSSION. PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THESE ARE REAL PEOPLE, EITHER WITH, OR WORKING TOWARDS, DEGREES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE.
"I wouldn't say sorry to the person that took the 300-level course based on the Twilight books. I am writing a rhetoric paper on one of the speeches in the last book. As an English major, I think the books offer more academically than people think. This is only if the professor does it right."
"Why in the world are people absolutely obsessed with terrible modern series about vampires falling in love with humans and werewolfs? Why are they also swept up into Harry Potter; claiming that it is by far their favorite literature.
People should appreciate the classic masterpieces."
"To everyone hating on Twilight:
...
Please read this quote:
'Though the derision of the Twilight Saga's success is not altogether surprising, the public commentary repudiates the appeal of the narratives, positions girls and women as unexpected and unwelcome media fans, and denies the long and rich history of the relationships female fans have had with media texts and personalities. On top of this, the mainstream press has belittled the reactions of girls and women to the Twilight series and the actors who play their favorite characters, frequently using Victorian era gendered words like 'fever,' 'madness,' 'hysteria,' and 'obsession' to describe Twilighters. [...] These reports of girls and women seemingly out of their minds and out of control disparage female pleasures and curtail serious exploration of the strong appeal of the series.' Introduction to 'Bitten by Twilight,' by Melissa A. Click, Jennifer Stevens Aubrey, and Elizabeth Behm-Morawitz."
"In defense of the Harry Potter series, I don't see what's wrong with it. Maybe it's not epic, classic prose, but it's not as if classic literature was immediately well-liked either. People have a hard time defining what they consider classic literature, but most of the time it's something from further in the past and not something that's been released in the past decade or so. Personally, I'm an English major with a concentration in Literary Studies and I...don't want to say HATE it, but I'm not a big fan of classic lit. I appreciate it for how it has formed literature as we see it today (outside of garbage like Twilight), but people are too bent on holding classic lit above everything else and dismissing perfectly good, modern works because they weren't written 30 years before. I find it particularly unfortunate when people can't seem to get their noses out of the air and appreciate modern lit without comparing it to something written by Shakespeare or one of the Bronte sisters."
"In response to the anon who thinks we should stick to enjoying the 'classic masterpieces,' the canon is overwhelmingly comprised of literature written by white men. Many incredible literary works have been left off the list of masterpieces because they were written by women, minorities, etc. While I agree that everyone should look beyond Harry Potter and Twilight for good reading, the 'classic masterpieces' aren't and shouldn't be the primary focus of literature."
"Why, anon? Why are they so taken with these books? Why were you so taken with whatever books brought you into the scope of literature when you were younger?
Not everyone learned to read before they went to school, and not everyone who learned to read had an easy time with it. Some people have learning disabilities, some people have an easier time listening to literature than reading it, some people just can't comprehend the density of the early novels. It doesn't make them any less intelligent that they prefer Harry Potter to Ulysses. It just means that Harry Potter was what they were able to connect to on more than just a superficial level--on an emotional level, on an intellectual level. I've attended symposiums that have delivered astounding lectures on the symbolism and intent of the series. I've dissected the books in my grad-level classes alongside Milton and Tolkien.
So you, anon, with your elitist perspective--you, anon, who believes that reading is an art of the aristocracy and the fortunately literate, you can take your opinion to your 'superior tomes' and associate exclusively with your fellow scholars and intellectuals and look down on the unwashed masses all you like. Please forgive them for maybe discovering for the first time that they CAN and DO connect with literature, and PLEASE forgive that it's something so uncouth as Harry Potter, for they are not worthy to read your classics!"
"To the other Anon who asked why people are obsessed with modern series *cough* Twilight *cough* as well as Harry Potter, I feel that you are letting yourself remain too pigeonholed in literature. The great, classic works once started somewhere, and although I detest Twilight, I appreciate good modern literature. One day, as with the classics, people may look back on things such as Harry Potter or Wicked (by Gregory Maguire) and study the political symbolism or great stylistic ideas behind them. What we need to understand is that even though you may not like a piece of literature, it has become part of history; people, years from now, will try to figure out why or why not we did not like something. So please, do not come off as someone that, because of your preference in literature, thinks that everything else is lower. Yes, people should appreciate the classic masterpieces, but the wide and beautiful world of writing is constantly evolving. Open up your mind to those as well. Who knows, maybe Harry Potter will become part of the Canon one day."
"In response to a post I read on March 19th on the issue of people claiming their favorite books are Twilight and Harry Potter, and how those people need to appreciate classic literature:
While I do agree that most of the 'literature' we find today is nothing in comparison to classics, I do have to point out the frustration I feel when people compare the Harry Potter and Twilight series. As a Realist Literature fan myself, I've never really liked anything written within the last one-hundred years. However I must comment on how Rowling created a fascinating story with a writing style which matured alongside her characters and audience. If the evolving writing doesn't qualify for some, it's also important to note that the series follows the classic 'Hero's Journey' form and is already beginning to be analyzed as a social commentary.
I agree people should be educated in the classics, but it's also important not to dismiss Harry Potter simply because it is targeted at children and young adults. We can look at many children's books in the past who have spread important messages through very simple texts, and have stood the test of time to become those literary classics we now revere.
Harry Potter tells an engaging story with an age appropriate writing style, while at the same time giving a nod to preceding classic literary forms. It has themes and can be 'close-read' like any other legitimate text.
Twilight is about a self-effacing girl who can't function without her boyfriend and his stalker-like behavior. The writing style reflects the work of one who thinks looking up words in the thesaurus and writing in excessive passive voice equates legitimate literature. Simply put, it seems to me that Harry Potter has the possibility to be examined as literature and Twilight remains nothing more that a type of 'fluff' novel.
Although I would hesitate to call anything an 'instant classic', I would also like to pose this question: Will our generation's children be reading Twilight or Harry Potter?"
"In response to the anon complaining about people loving HP over classic masterpieces: I think you have to see the difference in the way people love the two things. I personally am an English lit student and some of my favourite novels are 'classics'; Mrs Dalloway, Wuthering Heights, The Unbearable Lightness of Being etc. But if asked what my favourite books are, that list has always included Harry Potter. That series has been with me for ten years, and nothing quite compares to opening one of those novels and getting lost in that world again. I love reading novels that make me think or that are written in a language that moves me, but I also know that some people just want a story to escape into, and Harry Potter provides that beautifully. The way the story is constructed, the enourmous variety of characters and ideas that Rowling used to craft a whole world that feels like it really could be just around the corner, it is all astonishing and I admire her for that as much as I admire other writers for the way they use language or the ideas they convey.
I won't comment on Twilight because I haven't read it and don't intend to, and have issues with it myself from what I've heard about it. But Harry Potter played a huge role in my childhood and I a so grateful it is part of my life. I fuelled my love for reading and writing. And I think that children who discover Harry Potter in their youth are all that more likely to keep reading later on and read your classic masterpieces."
"I must say, that I partly disagree with the previous anon. I'd consider Harry Potter a masterpiece in itself. Why should it be such a negative thing that the Harry Potter series are people's favourite books? Most people, like myself, have grown up with the series, and I believe that it's most definitely done a lot for children's literature. That can't be disputed. I know the anon was saying that people should appreciate the classic masterpieces as apposed to the aforementioned Harry Potter series, which is fair enough, but you have to consider the people you're saying that to. Most Harry Potter readers are children, and people and in their pre-teens, and I don't mean to be funny, but most kids that age don't spend their free time reading shakespeare or john donne. If you think about it, the Harry Potter series does have its links and interjections with classic literature and mythology. I myself have learnt a lot about classic literature from the series, such as Chaucer, and I think that's where J.K. Rowling should be credited for her excellent storywriting skills. It's difficult to be able to construct such a structured plot, and incorporate the amount of classic and historical references as Rowling does, so I think it's slightly unfair to suggest that people are disregarding classical literature, when they're probably already learning about it in the books they find interesting."
"To the anon who commented saying, 'People should appreciate the classic masterpieces:'
Classic literature is not for everyone. We're English majors, we eat that stuff up, but even I will admit to disliking some of the 'masterpieces.' It's personal preference. There's nothing wrong with people reading and enjoying a book about werewolves and vampires or witches and wizards if that's what interests them.
Reading, for me at least, is an escape. It allows me to lose myself in a world that is not my own. I grew up on Harry Potter and it is one of my favorite series, but that doesn't mean I don't 'appreciate' what came before it, or that I'll dismiss what comes after it. J.K. Rowling changed the world with her books, and Harry Potter will become classic literature.
As to Twilight, I'll be the first to say those books are not well-written at all, and they belong as far away from the canon as possible, but they got people who wouldn't normally read, to actually read. I mean seriously, isn't that the whole goal? To get people reading?
It's like music, there's something for everyone and not everyone likes the exact same genres/artists/songs. Everyone is going to like different literature. You shouldn't disregard that. You should embrace it."
"I love classic literature. I read big books all the time. I relish having to look up new vocabulary. I like having to work at my reading. I like battling against archaic wordings, and out-of-date turns of phrase, and old fashioned conventions.
But if you asked me what three books I'd want with me on a deserted island for the rest of my days, I'd tell you honestly that I'd rather have Good Omens, Paper Towns and Lord of the Rings than all the Dickens and Shakespeare in the world."
"Lovely opinion! I feel essentially the same way! :o)"
(IF YOU TOO ARE NOW NAKED AND JERKING/CHOKING YOURSELF ALL THE WAY TO THE REALM OF THE SUBLIME, PLEASE DO CHECK OUT THE CLASSICS MAJOR CROCODILE, WHICH HAS A HIT RATE OF ABOUT 90% IN MY QUALIFIED AND SCIENTIFIC OPINION, AND PROVES THAT A FEW PEOPLE STILL KNOW HOW TO READ.)
UNFORTUNATELY THEY ARE ALSO SOMETIMES UNBELIEVABLY STUPID. AND RECENTLY, ONE OF THE BLOGS DEVOLVED FROM POSTING FUNNY ARMADILLOS TALKING ABOUT JANE AUSTEN INTO POSTING A BUNCH OF ANONYMOUS COMMENTS ABOUT THE HARRY POTTER AND TWILIGHT SERIES. IT SPANNED ALL THE BIG QUESTIONS OF THINKING ABOUT BOOKS FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T READ MANY: WHAT CONSTITUTES "REAL LITERATURE"? IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIGH AND LOW CULTURE? HOW MANY WIKIPEDIA SUMMARIES OF POST-MODERN THEORISTS DO YOU HAVE TO SKIM BEFORE YOU ARE LITERALLY SWALLOWED WHOLE BY YOUR OWN ANUS?
AS USUAL MY FIRST REACTION WAS TO STRIP NAKED AND TIE A BELT AROUND MY NECK SO THAT I MIGHT ESCAPE THE UNIVERSE IN A FINAL, GLORIOUS FRENZY OF AUTO-EROTIC ASPHYXIATION. BUT THEN I THOUGHT "MAYBE I COULD JUST COMPILE THESE AND POST THEM ON THE INTERNET. HEH, THEN EVERYBODY WILL KNOW HOW MUCH BETTER I AM THAN THESE IDIOTS." I OPENED MY LAPTOP AND TIPPED THE MORNING'S THIRD BAG OF TORTILLA CHIPS INTO MY FAT SMIRKING FACE. "YEAH. NOW EVERYBODY WILL KNOW HOW SMART I AM."
SO HERE PRESENTED FOR YOUR READING PLEASURE ARE THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DISCUSSION. PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THESE ARE REAL PEOPLE, EITHER WITH, OR WORKING TOWARDS, DEGREES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE.
"I wouldn't say sorry to the person that took the 300-level course based on the Twilight books. I am writing a rhetoric paper on one of the speeches in the last book. As an English major, I think the books offer more academically than people think. This is only if the professor does it right."
"Why in the world are people absolutely obsessed with terrible modern series about vampires falling in love with humans and werewolfs? Why are they also swept up into Harry Potter; claiming that it is by far their favorite literature.
People should appreciate the classic masterpieces."
"To everyone hating on Twilight:
...
Please read this quote:
'Though the derision of the Twilight Saga's success is not altogether surprising, the public commentary repudiates the appeal of the narratives, positions girls and women as unexpected and unwelcome media fans, and denies the long and rich history of the relationships female fans have had with media texts and personalities. On top of this, the mainstream press has belittled the reactions of girls and women to the Twilight series and the actors who play their favorite characters, frequently using Victorian era gendered words like 'fever,' 'madness,' 'hysteria,' and 'obsession' to describe Twilighters. [...] These reports of girls and women seemingly out of their minds and out of control disparage female pleasures and curtail serious exploration of the strong appeal of the series.' Introduction to 'Bitten by Twilight,' by Melissa A. Click, Jennifer Stevens Aubrey, and Elizabeth Behm-Morawitz."
"In defense of the Harry Potter series, I don't see what's wrong with it. Maybe it's not epic, classic prose, but it's not as if classic literature was immediately well-liked either. People have a hard time defining what they consider classic literature, but most of the time it's something from further in the past and not something that's been released in the past decade or so. Personally, I'm an English major with a concentration in Literary Studies and I...don't want to say HATE it, but I'm not a big fan of classic lit. I appreciate it for how it has formed literature as we see it today (outside of garbage like Twilight), but people are too bent on holding classic lit above everything else and dismissing perfectly good, modern works because they weren't written 30 years before. I find it particularly unfortunate when people can't seem to get their noses out of the air and appreciate modern lit without comparing it to something written by Shakespeare or one of the Bronte sisters."
"In response to the anon who thinks we should stick to enjoying the 'classic masterpieces,' the canon is overwhelmingly comprised of literature written by white men. Many incredible literary works have been left off the list of masterpieces because they were written by women, minorities, etc. While I agree that everyone should look beyond Harry Potter and Twilight for good reading, the 'classic masterpieces' aren't and shouldn't be the primary focus of literature."
"Why, anon? Why are they so taken with these books? Why were you so taken with whatever books brought you into the scope of literature when you were younger?
Not everyone learned to read before they went to school, and not everyone who learned to read had an easy time with it. Some people have learning disabilities, some people have an easier time listening to literature than reading it, some people just can't comprehend the density of the early novels. It doesn't make them any less intelligent that they prefer Harry Potter to Ulysses. It just means that Harry Potter was what they were able to connect to on more than just a superficial level--on an emotional level, on an intellectual level. I've attended symposiums that have delivered astounding lectures on the symbolism and intent of the series. I've dissected the books in my grad-level classes alongside Milton and Tolkien.
So you, anon, with your elitist perspective--you, anon, who believes that reading is an art of the aristocracy and the fortunately literate, you can take your opinion to your 'superior tomes' and associate exclusively with your fellow scholars and intellectuals and look down on the unwashed masses all you like. Please forgive them for maybe discovering for the first time that they CAN and DO connect with literature, and PLEASE forgive that it's something so uncouth as Harry Potter, for they are not worthy to read your classics!"
"To the other Anon who asked why people are obsessed with modern series *cough* Twilight *cough* as well as Harry Potter, I feel that you are letting yourself remain too pigeonholed in literature. The great, classic works once started somewhere, and although I detest Twilight, I appreciate good modern literature. One day, as with the classics, people may look back on things such as Harry Potter or Wicked (by Gregory Maguire) and study the political symbolism or great stylistic ideas behind them. What we need to understand is that even though you may not like a piece of literature, it has become part of history; people, years from now, will try to figure out why or why not we did not like something. So please, do not come off as someone that, because of your preference in literature, thinks that everything else is lower. Yes, people should appreciate the classic masterpieces, but the wide and beautiful world of writing is constantly evolving. Open up your mind to those as well. Who knows, maybe Harry Potter will become part of the Canon one day."
"In response to a post I read on March 19th on the issue of people claiming their favorite books are Twilight and Harry Potter, and how those people need to appreciate classic literature:
While I do agree that most of the 'literature' we find today is nothing in comparison to classics, I do have to point out the frustration I feel when people compare the Harry Potter and Twilight series. As a Realist Literature fan myself, I've never really liked anything written within the last one-hundred years. However I must comment on how Rowling created a fascinating story with a writing style which matured alongside her characters and audience. If the evolving writing doesn't qualify for some, it's also important to note that the series follows the classic 'Hero's Journey' form and is already beginning to be analyzed as a social commentary.
I agree people should be educated in the classics, but it's also important not to dismiss Harry Potter simply because it is targeted at children and young adults. We can look at many children's books in the past who have spread important messages through very simple texts, and have stood the test of time to become those literary classics we now revere.
Harry Potter tells an engaging story with an age appropriate writing style, while at the same time giving a nod to preceding classic literary forms. It has themes and can be 'close-read' like any other legitimate text.
Twilight is about a self-effacing girl who can't function without her boyfriend and his stalker-like behavior. The writing style reflects the work of one who thinks looking up words in the thesaurus and writing in excessive passive voice equates legitimate literature. Simply put, it seems to me that Harry Potter has the possibility to be examined as literature and Twilight remains nothing more that a type of 'fluff' novel.
Although I would hesitate to call anything an 'instant classic', I would also like to pose this question: Will our generation's children be reading Twilight or Harry Potter?"
"In response to the anon complaining about people loving HP over classic masterpieces: I think you have to see the difference in the way people love the two things. I personally am an English lit student and some of my favourite novels are 'classics'; Mrs Dalloway, Wuthering Heights, The Unbearable Lightness of Being etc. But if asked what my favourite books are, that list has always included Harry Potter. That series has been with me for ten years, and nothing quite compares to opening one of those novels and getting lost in that world again. I love reading novels that make me think or that are written in a language that moves me, but I also know that some people just want a story to escape into, and Harry Potter provides that beautifully. The way the story is constructed, the enourmous variety of characters and ideas that Rowling used to craft a whole world that feels like it really could be just around the corner, it is all astonishing and I admire her for that as much as I admire other writers for the way they use language or the ideas they convey.
I won't comment on Twilight because I haven't read it and don't intend to, and have issues with it myself from what I've heard about it. But Harry Potter played a huge role in my childhood and I a so grateful it is part of my life. I fuelled my love for reading and writing. And I think that children who discover Harry Potter in their youth are all that more likely to keep reading later on and read your classic masterpieces."
"I must say, that I partly disagree with the previous anon. I'd consider Harry Potter a masterpiece in itself. Why should it be such a negative thing that the Harry Potter series are people's favourite books? Most people, like myself, have grown up with the series, and I believe that it's most definitely done a lot for children's literature. That can't be disputed. I know the anon was saying that people should appreciate the classic masterpieces as apposed to the aforementioned Harry Potter series, which is fair enough, but you have to consider the people you're saying that to. Most Harry Potter readers are children, and people and in their pre-teens, and I don't mean to be funny, but most kids that age don't spend their free time reading shakespeare or john donne. If you think about it, the Harry Potter series does have its links and interjections with classic literature and mythology. I myself have learnt a lot about classic literature from the series, such as Chaucer, and I think that's where J.K. Rowling should be credited for her excellent storywriting skills. It's difficult to be able to construct such a structured plot, and incorporate the amount of classic and historical references as Rowling does, so I think it's slightly unfair to suggest that people are disregarding classical literature, when they're probably already learning about it in the books they find interesting."
"To the anon who commented saying, 'People should appreciate the classic masterpieces:'
Classic literature is not for everyone. We're English majors, we eat that stuff up, but even I will admit to disliking some of the 'masterpieces.' It's personal preference. There's nothing wrong with people reading and enjoying a book about werewolves and vampires or witches and wizards if that's what interests them.
Reading, for me at least, is an escape. It allows me to lose myself in a world that is not my own. I grew up on Harry Potter and it is one of my favorite series, but that doesn't mean I don't 'appreciate' what came before it, or that I'll dismiss what comes after it. J.K. Rowling changed the world with her books, and Harry Potter will become classic literature.
As to Twilight, I'll be the first to say those books are not well-written at all, and they belong as far away from the canon as possible, but they got people who wouldn't normally read, to actually read. I mean seriously, isn't that the whole goal? To get people reading?
It's like music, there's something for everyone and not everyone likes the exact same genres/artists/songs. Everyone is going to like different literature. You shouldn't disregard that. You should embrace it."
"I love classic literature. I read big books all the time. I relish having to look up new vocabulary. I like having to work at my reading. I like battling against archaic wordings, and out-of-date turns of phrase, and old fashioned conventions.
But if you asked me what three books I'd want with me on a deserted island for the rest of my days, I'd tell you honestly that I'd rather have Good Omens, Paper Towns and Lord of the Rings than all the Dickens and Shakespeare in the world."
"Lovely opinion! I feel essentially the same way! :o)"
(IF YOU TOO ARE NOW NAKED AND JERKING/CHOKING YOURSELF ALL THE WAY TO THE REALM OF THE SUBLIME, PLEASE DO CHECK OUT THE CLASSICS MAJOR CROCODILE, WHICH HAS A HIT RATE OF ABOUT 90% IN MY QUALIFIED AND SCIENTIFIC OPINION, AND PROVES THAT A FEW PEOPLE STILL KNOW HOW TO READ.)
Thursday, March 17, 2011
SPECIAL: WOMEN MAKE JOKES ABOUT ENJOYING ONLY THE "PEACE" BITS OF WAR AND PEACE
"I loved the storyline, except for the war parts. I guess I should have guessed at least half of it would be about war."
"I'll admit that I 'skimmed' some of the 'war' parts to get to the 'peace' parts"
"I skimmed the war parts:)"
"I don't even like books about war. (Case in point: I scanned half of War and Peace. I think which half is obvious.)"
"I loved the 'Peace' parts of the book, but skimmed most of the 'War' sections."
"I rather enjoyed the peace chapters but got bogged down in the war chapters."
"I have a confession: I skip the war parts"
"I liked the peace parts"
"Great book, but I couldn't get through the war part, which considering the title obviously is quite a bit of the book."
"Too much battle for me."
"Loved the peace sections best."
"I'll be honest: the 'war' parts kind of drag."
"Too many battle scenes, but the characters are awesome."
"The Peace parts were better than the War."
"I remember that I liked the peace sections, but the war not so much."
PART II: MANLY MEN WHO LIKE WAR MAKE JOKES ABOUT ONLY ENJOYING THE WAR PARTS
"The war part was pretty good. The peace has been less exciting..."
"I'll make this one easy for all of you. WAY too little war, WAY too much peace."
"I'll admit that I 'skimmed' some of the 'war' parts to get to the 'peace' parts"
"I skimmed the war parts:)"
"I don't even like books about war. (Case in point: I scanned half of War and Peace. I think which half is obvious.)"
"I loved the 'Peace' parts of the book, but skimmed most of the 'War' sections."
"I rather enjoyed the peace chapters but got bogged down in the war chapters."
"I have a confession: I skip the war parts"
"I liked the peace parts"
"Great book, but I couldn't get through the war part, which considering the title obviously is quite a bit of the book."
"Too much battle for me."
"Loved the peace sections best."
"I'll be honest: the 'war' parts kind of drag."
"Too many battle scenes, but the characters are awesome."
"The Peace parts were better than the War."
"I remember that I liked the peace sections, but the war not so much."
PART II: MANLY MEN WHO LIKE WAR MAKE JOKES ABOUT ONLY ENJOYING THE WAR PARTS
"The war part was pretty good. The peace has been less exciting..."
"I'll make this one easy for all of you. WAY too little war, WAY too much peace."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)