Be wise. Be brave. Be tricky. ([info]slithytove) wrote,
@ 2006-07-26 08:47:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry

Were you once an English major? I was. Ultimately I became discouraged with the dreary state of English criticism, and that was one thing (there were others) that drove me away from an academic career, first into business, then into medicine. I could not see spending the rest of my life writing papers about other people's papers about other people's papers.

And I had come to English because I loved fiction. And poetry. The written English word, the story, the narrative, the adventure, the characters, the texture and rhythm and touch and taste and feel of nouns and verbs, piled up in dizzying, vertiginous, heartstopping towers of beauty and meaning.

'Thomas H. Benton' (a pseudonym), an American university English professor, asked his students why they wanted to study literature. Take a look at the answers they gave him. Do they sound familiar to you? They sure do to me. Every single one (except the penultimate one) resonates with me. My belief, correct or incorrect, that by the mid-1970s the scholarship of English literature had gotten so far off the rails that it no longer cared about any of this stuff was why I quit the field. This was before post-modernism, post-structuralism, and critical theory hit their stride. I hear it's only gotten worse since.

One other thing.

Benton starts off his essay talking about the film, Dead Poets Society, and says this:

I might have been attracted to a teacher like Mr. Keating at times, but my rational side would have agreed with his older colleague, Mr. McAllister, who laments, "You take a big risk encouraging your students to be artists, John. When they realize they're not all Rembrandts, Shakespeares, or Mozarts, they'll hate you for it."

Will they? Do you think? Art is one those endeavors to which many are called, but few are chosen. Most kids who think they're going to be great artists, like most kids who think they're going to be pro ball players, will fail.

But how one reacts to that depends on the individual. In the late 1970s I tried to teach myself to draw. I bought a few 'How to Draw' books, some sketching materials, and started drawing things around the house: cups, shoes, clothing draped over chairs, the view out the window. I was never very good, and quit after about a year. But it was a worthwhile effort: trying to see the world as an artist sees it was a new, rather shocking experience. I found that when I had looked at objects, I hadn't really seen them, because I couldn't reproduce what they looked like. The experience made me more appreciative of what artists do, and of the subtlety and skill in good paintings and drawings. It gave me a new map to lay across the world, a new way of seeing.

I don't feel bitter that I never became a great artist. I'm still richer for the experience of having tried. I hope young people who are encouraged to be writers and poets feel the same, even if they are not the ones 'chosen'.



Paperback Writer talks about how to create series novels. Interesting stuff.




SOU

mo

meaning: mourn, loss, death

喪主== moshu == (noun) chief mourner
喪中 ==  moshu == (noun) mourning




Obscure origin. Henshall suggests taking the top elements as 'ten' (十) plus two 'mouths' (口), and 'clothes' (衣) that is missing parts, and as a mnemonic: 'Twelve mouths mourn missing clothes.'

Info from Taka Kanji Database
List of compounds including this character from Risu Dictionary



(Post a new comment)


[info]fairmer
2006-07-26 01:09 pm UTC (link)
Yep--I wanted to be an English major right up until I figured out what English majors did. It was so wrong. I took one English Lit class in college and promptly became an anthropology major.

I had a similar but less intense reaction to history, too. I was going to double-major. Instead, I'm this close to a history minor--I could've taken one more class, but decided I'd rather just graduate.

(Reply to this)


[info]jaylake
2006-07-26 01:35 pm UTC (link)
I never wanted to be an English major, never studied lit (or writing) in college, but I still love the stuff. And frankly, I don't think I'd have the writing career I've had if I had gone down that path. Another career, maybe better, maybe not, but not this one.

(Reply to this)


[info]insheepsclothng
2006-07-26 01:40 pm UTC (link)
I never wanted to be an English major because making money was kind of important to me, but I took a bunch of English classes for the easy As. And burned out on writing papers by the end of sophomore year. I still hate writing, 6 years later, and I used to enjoy it.

(Reply to this)


[info]dagoski
2006-07-26 01:47 pm UTC (link)
The reasons the students gave are all reasons why I enjoyed lit classes so much and why I write when I'm not overwhelmed by class and work. I skipped out on English as a major to do science so I never encountered the academic establishment. It's enough to turn a person into a genre hack, which, of course, still beats working for a living.

I disagree with the notion that trying to turn someone into an artist is wasted on those who don't have the innate talent. My parents in an attempt to fulfill their middle class aspirations through me sent me to all these art and music lessons after school. I knew pretty early one I didn't have talent in either realm(still looking for the field I do have talent in), but I got a lot out of the endevour nonetheless. I look at art differently than most folks and that's opened up a lot of conceptual territory for me. Music is the same way. I didn't wind up being a musician, but I'm a pretty fair music critic and I can lose hours in great works of all genres. Plus my music teacher was an old jazz man and I just liked hearing his tales of LA in the forties and fifties The way I see it, the artist is worth nothing without a person who can appreciate his work. And that's what putting non-artists through artistic training will develop.

(Reply to this)


[info]burnt_njal
2006-07-26 02:09 pm UTC (link)
Where to begin? My undergrad degree is indeed a BA in English. My original intent was to major in journalism because I liked writing but I soon discovered that wasn't the kind of writing I wanted to do. I majored in English because I loved reading and writing and, just as importantly, it was something I was naturally really good at. Because of this I wanted to pursue my PhD and quickly became disillusioned for all the reasons you give. Modern literary criticism seemed like the dreariest pursuits as did all of the incessant ass kissing necessary to survive.

Fast forward ten years and now I am going back to school to pursue a PhD in English but in creative writing, not literary criticism. I'm told there's a difference in culture and that, by and large, the criticism folks look down on the writers. The cw department also has a reputation for being very hands-off, which is appealing. As an advisor recently told me, "If you keep your head down, do good work, spend your time with people with like interests, and publish as much as you can you'll do fine." So that's the six-year plan...

I also go in as an unashamed fantasy writer with the intent of focusing my studies on the literature of the fantastic and a firm belief that the majority of literary criticism is self-serving bullshit. Will I survive? The experiment begins September 5.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

hmmm
[info]drkshadow03
2006-07-29 05:17 am UTC (link)
hmmm, what does that make me?

I'm an unashamed fantasy writer/reviewer/sort of critic going in to an English Grad program that claims to be heavy on theory. Luckily I see this as a second degree to enhance my library science degree (and teaching English not being my actual career goal), so maybe that'll make the difference.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]fiveandfour
2006-07-26 03:54 pm UTC (link)
Were you once an English major?

Yes and the reasons given by those students for choosing that major resonated with me, as well.

I recognized somewhere mid-stream (as an undergraduate) that the longer I stuck to the scholarship, the more I forgot why I loved literature and had chosen that as a major in the first place. For me, that mostly had to do with some gawd-awful professors who inevitably took the richest of works and turned them dry and dusty and - worst of all - boring. It got so bad that after being a lifelong voracious reader until that point, I went through nearly a decade of reading nearly nothing at all.

I'll take the professor's word for it that eventually the freedom to love literature comes back if you stick through the scholarship long enough, though the professors I had certainly showed no signs of it. I couldn't live with the despair of hating literature and in a way I regret that I gave it up because I can still see myself as an English professor, despite everything.

(Reply to this)


[info]dr_phil_physics
2006-07-26 04:23 pm UTC (link)
As an academic The Chronicle of Higher Education, from whence this piece comes, is definitely a guilty pleasure. I read this July 7th piece the other week and thought long and hard about it. I suspect that many majors differ strongly in why they attract the interest of students, what one has to do to make it your major study and finally what one has to do to make it a career. (grin) It's not just a problem in English.

But there's another component here, because a number of us who read [info]slithytove are writers, and that's the disconnect between the appreciation of reading and the mechanics of writing -- and the great divide that can occur when one studies English... Or as [info]burnt_njal puts it, the equally great divide between literay criticism and creative writing within the English field.

There was a another article on teaching a racist classic like Heart of Darkness back on May 19th. I immediately dove into the piece not because I am Conrad ran (I am), or greatly admire Heart of Darkness and its Vietnam spawn Apocalypse Now (I do), but because I felt this intense resonance with the color photo of the 1970s paperback (Heart of Darkness / The Secret Sharer) which was the one my sister used and I "borrowed".

I've been teaching Heart of Darkness for nearly 30 years. My original paperback — which I still use — now yellowed and heavily underlined, is the Signet edition with a picture of a neurasthenic-looking bald man on the cover and the price of 50 cents stamped in the corner.


One picture of a faded paperback brought back all these thoughts and feelings -- and all of the negatives which the students brought were details that I felt highlighted the colonial era and were important points. Of course, I am not African American and my people are not being marginalized as faceless stereotypes by Mr. Conrad. But my love for this book will not waver in the face of crushing opposition or discussion.

Nostaglia and love for a book. If these can survive college English classes, whatever your major, then perhaps you have a chance. (grin) Me? I'm a physics teacher. (double-edged-grin)

Dr. Phil

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Well...
[info]wendyb_09
2006-07-27 01:21 pm UTC (link)
"...but because I felt this intense resonance with the color photo of the 1970s paperback (Heart of Darkness / The Secret Sharer) which was the one my sister used and I "borrowed"."

Hmm...Always wondered what happened to that book! Now I know!!

From the Sister in question...

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]deathwardegg
2006-07-27 03:21 pm UTC (link)
"Whence" means "from where", so "from whence" is not correct. And I assume you mean that "As an academic[,] ... [I find it to be] a guilty pleasure." I could go on. With these and the other spelling and grammar errors in your comment, I'm glad you teach physics, not English.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]dr_phil_physics
2006-07-27 08:43 pm UTC (link)
I'll plead guilty to two typos I noticed, as I didn't bother running LJ's spellcheck on my entry (not that it includes even obvious words like "blog"), and since it is not a peer-reviewed or edited document, I'm not going to worry too much about details (or criticisms) of a blog comment on English grounds, if the content of the message itself is reasonably clear.

But no less an authority than the American Heritage Dictionary Third Edition contains the following:

Usage Note: The construction from whence has been criticized as redundant since the 18th century. It is true that whence incorporates the sense of from: a remote village, whence little news reached the wider world. But from whence has been used steadily by reputable writers since the 14th century, most notably in the King James Bible: “I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help” (Psalms). It is difficult to label as incorrect a construction with such respectable antecedents. Still, it may be observed that whence (like thence) is most often used nowadays to impart an archaic or highly formal tone to a passage, and that this effect is probably better realized if the archaic syntax of the word — without from — is preserved as well.


So while American Heritage probably disapproves, I can still object.

Dr. Phil

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]harokitei
2006-07-26 04:36 pm UTC (link)
Yes, I'm an English major :X Just got my degree last year...aaaaaaaaaaack. I feel as if I have no special talent in it, but when it strikes me, I really love to compose short-story (autobiographical fiction) and poems!

(Reply to this)


[info]burnt_njal
2006-07-26 06:10 pm UTC (link)
This is partially in response to [info]dr_phil_physics and his comment about why students choose certain majors, but also to the point of the original post.

The question of what today's students study and why is geared towards professions rather than personal interests or intellectual exploration. Degrees in business, engineering, or tracks that are pre-med and pre-law are "useful" whereas degrees in the liberal arts for the sake of themselves are "useless." My undergrad English advisor told me that English was the best liberal arts degree because it was looked upon more favorably by potential employers than something like history or philosophy, which I guess are tantamount to an odious waste of time.

Alexander Meiklejohn wrote a great essay called "The Liberal College" in 1920 where he argues, if memory serves, that university students should be struggling with big questions, learning about the wider world and finding their place in it through much sifting and winnowing of ideas. That describes my "useless" degree in English quite well and many of my engineering and business school friends regret not having a similar experience because they had little leeway in choosing their coursework. They did all get better paying jobs straight out of college though.

So the trend seems to be less "Don't try to become a poet because you'll fail," but rather marginalizing the worth of poetry in the first place, which is disconcerting. And for the literary studies practitioner, I wonder whether self-important modern literary criticism doesn't stem from an inferiority complex in the wake of scientific progress.

Or maybe I'm just talking out my ass.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]dr_phil_physics
2006-07-27 09:00 pm UTC (link)
In 1976-77 when I was a freshman, my dorm's RA was a senior English major. As he made the interviewing rounds of Chicago banks, those doing the interviewing were all pleased to deal with an "educated" and "well-read" person -- and he eventually took a very nice position.

Fast forward to modern times, when many of my physics students are engineering majors. Teach in an engineering school and you'll have to deal with their cost-benefit analysis work ethic -- what possible good is reading literature going to do when you're designing diesel engines? (sigh) We've forgotten that the liberals arts curriculum was supposed to be the liberal arts and sciences, and keep letting both English and Engineering majors off the hook.

I maintain a 100+ title book list for a science literacy assignment I require in all physics classes -- you have to read a book and write an opinion paper. The first time I had a pile of papers in my hand, I thought, "This is great, I'm a Physics professor not an English major." Then I read the first paper. And the second. And out came the colored pens (they don't have to be red). I may not, as was somewhat unjustly criticized earlier, be an English major, but I am still capable of grading down on spelling and basic grammar faults.

The point of this tale is the appalling number of papers which begin by explaining that the student hasn't read a book in years, if at all.

So I explain to my engineering students that engineers have to write reports. They have to communicate their results and/or write up documentation and instruction manuals. Or at least provide the drafts that technical writers can work from. English should be their friend, not their enemy.

Dr. Phil

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]cristalia
2006-07-26 06:26 pm UTC (link)
I started out as an English major, and dove into Linguistics after a year. I actually have a whole rant on how I think university English departments and their approach to fiction are what's produced everything I find tepid about modern mainstream literature, but that's for another day.

Let's just say I found nobody who talked about how the writer did what they did, just put them up on a pedestal and invited us to revere from afar. And of course, to tear them down behind their back, since they're dead.

It's a cruel culture that thinks it has more consequence than it does.

(Reply to this)


[info]mtreiten
2006-07-26 09:02 pm UTC (link)
A very interesting commentary on this by Neal Stephenson at Slashdot. Go part way down the interview, shortly after the big OUCH.

http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/20/1518217

This has put things into a different perspective for me. Beowulf vs. Dante writers.

(Reply to this)

in which I froth
[info]faithhopetricks
2006-07-26 09:05 pm UTC (link)
EngLitCrit in grad school broke my brain. But that's an old dull story.

"You take a big risk encouraging your students to be artists, John. When they realize they're not all Rembrandts, Shakespeares, or Mozarts, they'll hate you for it."

I personally think this is a really damaging and destructive -- and fully mistaken -- viewpoint. Yeah, I like to write. Yeah, I want to be a professional writer. Yeah, I'm not Dickens or Austen or Shakespeare. So what? The idea that unless you are Rembrandt, Shakespeare or Mozart, you have to get the hell out of the artistic field, is particularly American (IMHO) and stupid. I really dislike the idea of art-as-therapy, as well, but most people can try taking up painting or writing for just their own self-fulfillment and enjoy it and it definitely brightens their lives. What's so wrong with that? I wish more people who weren't "Artists" felt welcome enough to try to take up artistic pursuits, and that "art" wasn't a rarefied enough haute-bourgeoise or whatever thing that "ordinary" people -- those of us who aren't Rembrandt, Shakespeare or Mozart -- feel "Oh, I can never do that." In my ideal society, art would be a lot more integrated into the basic structure of things: a lot more people would draw, and paint, and write, and sing. And they would have fun.

It's like basketball. Is there only one Michael Jordan? Sure is. Is it a crime to go around telling little kids they can be Michael Jordan, when it is much more likely they will win the lotto and get struck by lightning simultaneously? (GIANT SPORTS COMPANIES I AM LOOKING AT YOU.) Definitely. Does that mean no one ever should play basketball except for Michael Jordan? Well, no, that's stupid. I daresay Michael Jordan wouldn't have gotten to be Michael Jordan except by having the time to play against all those people playing basketball who weren't, well, Michael Jordan. It's not like he can go out there and play perfect basketball all by himself. He's the top, yeah, but since when do we have to do the reverse of lopping heads off tall poppies and say _only_ the tall poppies get to play basketball? Er. That got v mixed somewhere.

For another thing, Shakespeare was hardly seen as The Greatest Artist of His Time, much less The Greatest Artist of All Time, when he was living. Definitely ditto Mozart. It's easy to look back on earlier periods and think "Well this person was obviously a genius and that one shouldn't've ever picked up a pencil," but it's more than hindsight -- it's a kind of mumification of the past and a sealing-away of art into some kind of trophy case where we are ordered to admire the ceaseless lifeless glitter of RembrandtShakespeareMozart. I personally think it's a real shame the way art is cut off from the lives of most, frex, modern Americans -- except for the ersatz shit they get in stuff like magazines and reality shows and interchangeable bestsellers -- and if some kind of aesthetics was more integrated into daily life, people would enjoy it more. Which I really think is a big point of art in the first place.

Yeah, when you go that way, you wind up with a lot of crappy high school bands. But you also wind up with a lot of high school kids who probably would've never picked up an instrument in their lives otherwise, whose lives do go on to include music in some form, or whose lives have been touched by it. Stuff like band and art should be _required,_ like math. I detest this particularly American idea that unless you are The Best -- usually "naturally," in the "gifted" sense -- at something, you can sit down and shut up.

feh.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: in which I froth
[info]catsparx
2006-07-26 11:33 pm UTC (link)
I agree with you whole heartedly. From what I've experienced of America, your culture is very strongly focused on the idea of winners and losers. You're either a star or you aren't. In Australia we're more about the concept of having a go. We even have a commonly used term for it -- battlers. We're all 'battlers' and some of us make it to the top and some don't and thats OK. Of course, once you get to the top you have to deal with 'tall poppy syndrome'. We can be very hard on our own.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: in which I froth
[info]faithhopetricks
2006-07-27 04:48 am UTC (link)
Yeah, it's totally win/lose. Which I really dislike, and which isn't borne out by literary history at all, anyway (most of the writers who are exalted now were obscure during their lifetimes).

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: in which I froth
[info]ktnflag
2006-07-27 12:46 am UTC (link)
On the other hand, when you tell kids that all their attempts at artistic expression are on par with Rembrandt, Shakespeare, and Mozart - to preserve their all-important "self-esteem" - you wind up with an entire generation of deluded failures.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]ktnflag
2006-07-27 12:51 am UTC (link)
No, because I wanted to ask, What time is my Gairdner arriving?, not Would you like fries with that?

(Reply to this)


[info]filomancer
2006-07-27 03:06 am UTC (link)
I was an English major, sort of. My college didn't have an "English" department, only "Literature and Languages," and half my L&L track was Russian literature, which we read (mostly) in Russian. I ended up doing two senior projects, one a translation of a Russian literary fantasy novella and the other, a senior thesis in anthropology (which ended up being my second major, sort of), on the symbolism of evil, from an anthropological perspective, in works ranging from Hamlet to Dracula. That part of it was all a very positive academic experience.

I went to Bennington for the creative writing track. While I did get something out of the workshops and so on, that was in many ways a terrible experience. Unlike the Russian, German, and Spanish professors, who were way into fantastic literature, some other elements in the L&L dept were actively hostile and contemptuous of anything not straight-up Mainstream (not that they had a word for it other than "literature." I left college for graduate school in anthropology and didn't write fiction for years.

Having gone through a non-English doctoral program, I think some of the problems people have mentioned here are endemic to graduate study in general, especially in the humanities. Graduate school is where you go to learn how to talk the talk and walk the walk, and you are rewarded not for loving the subject matter or (often) for having creative insights, but for mastering bibilographies, methods of argument, and styles of self-presentation. Some people come out the other end in better shape than others.

Should you encourage people to write who will never be Shakespeare? Come on. I struggled through this with music and quit playing the piano for more years than I quit writing. Classical music has particularly brutal standards of what my sister refers to slightingly as "connoisseurship." But, though I'll never be a concert pianist, the music is still wonderful to play. Making music yourself is a completely different experience from listening to others make it. Should no one be able to have the experience of playing Beethoven unless they're a Murray Perahia?

(My brother points out that a lot of what we now call "classical" music was published for domestic consumption. People didn't have canned entertainment, and if they wanted music they had to play it themselves. I would say that it's not just US attitudes about "winners" and "losers" but the fact that our culture is now so ultra-mediated, and huge corporations, to whom nothing is worthwhile unless it has an audience of millions, have so come to dominate distribution of the arts, that we tend to lose sight of the face-to-face, the domestic, the local, and the pleasures you can find in it.)

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…