Maggie's FarmWe are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for. |
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Friday, September 25. 2020Teach What You LoveA modest proposal for professors of literature
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Dispose of the English Department. It only inculcates a hatred of the classics in most students. English as a field of study is very new in academia. It offers little to the world. If you want to know what modern literature means, ask the author. No need for literary theorists.
Return composition back to profession TEACHERS, not professors with the wrong incentives due to research requirements. QUOTE: The time was then ripe for the question: if the study of ancient texts is a valid field for scholarship, why not modern texts? The answer, of course, is that the original raison d'etre of classical scholarship was a kind of intellectual archaeology that does not need to be done in the case of contemporary authors. But for obvious reasons no one wanted to give that answer. The archaeological work being mostly done, it implied that those studying the classics were, if not wasting their time, at least working on problems of minor importance. --Paul Graham, 'The Age of the Essay', Sep 2004And so began the study of modern literature. There was a good deal of resistance at first. The first courses in English literature seem to have been offered by the newer colleges, particularly American ones. Dartmouth, the University of Vermont, Amherst, and University College, London taught English literature in the 1820s. But Harvard didn't have a professor of English literature until 1876, and Oxford not till 1885. (Oxford had a chair of Chinese before it had one of English.) [2] What tipped the scales, at least in the US, seems to have been the idea that professors should do research as well as teach. This idea (along with the PhD, the department, and indeed the whole concept of the modern university) was imported from Germany in the late 19th century. Beginning at Johns Hopkins in 1876, the new model spread rapidly. Writing was one of the casualties. Colleges had long taught English composition. But how do you do research on composition? The professors who taught math could be required to do original math, the professors who taught history could be required to write scholarly articles about history, but what about the professors who taught rhetoric or composition? What should they do research on? The closest thing seemed to be English literature. [3] The article tells us that literary criticism, after being taken over by acolytes of Derrida,Foucault et al, ended up in destroying English departments. Very few want to major in English any more.
I find this rather ironic, given my experience decades before in high school and college English classes. One goal of English classes is to teach students to write. In my English classes, literary criticism was the approach to teaching composition. Unfortunately, I and many others greatly disliked being turned into Junior Literary Critics. As Junior Literary Critics we were forced into making conjectures about symbolism etc. that to us seemed like BS. Much better we had been assigned compositions on topics we KNEW. The classics might offer a glimpse into the world of reason, common sense and decency, honor, love of values, the discovery of individual rights and Capitalism, were it all came from, why it did and how it all went, what makes us human and why it is good.
We can’t have that!! The students might get the idea that they are human!! We can’t have that!! Leftoxenomorphs don’t like reason, common sense and decency and they don’t like humanity. And today’s academia and most everything else is firmly in the paws (pincers?) of leftoxenomorphs. Don’t expect improvement until the disinfection is carried out . . . if it is ever carried out. No guarantees. We do have to take a moment and stop and smell . . . the turds? People are discussing if it is politically correct to state that “2 + 2 = 4” (It isn’t!) We have to understand what we are dealing with. Leftoxenomorphs are not human. And they hate humanity. First, everyone needs to understand this is NOT to promote a multicultural society it IS to destroy OUR society. Tear our social structure down and replace it with cultural Marxism.
Secondly: This is an opportunity for every parent to teach their children their culture. If you are of English/Scottish/Irish descent then embrace this opportunity and teach your children the classics yourself. Enjoy expanding and refreshing your own knowledge of English literature. I would argue here that this is true for people with origin of other European countries too. Teach your children your unique culture as well as European/English culture as well. There are books written for children and websites as well that will get you started. Things like "Shakespeare for Children", or Classical music for Children" are good starting places. Do your homework so that you can go beyond this simple beginning. Additionally teach them about the history when your ancestors came to America; the Irish in the Northeast, the Scottish and Irish in the Appalachians, etc. IMHO The schools have been doing a very poor job of this for the last 50-75 years anyway and yet it isn't rocket science. The internet makes it easy. For example I spent about an hour to assemble 1 or 2 pieces from the classic composers to introduce two of my grand daughters to classical music. I chose music that they would be likely to hear and/or pieces that because of their power and quality that they need to hear. Because they are young I combine these "lessons" with ice cream and fun. I challenge them to remember the names and country of the great composers and an approximate dating of each composers life. Young children are like empty receptacles, eager to be filled with knowledge. For: “#4 OneGuy on 2020-09-25 14:03 (Reply)”
From the vast and gloriously rich and amazing world of classical music here are some, very modest, recommendations for children: - Johann Sebastian Bach’s Orchestral suites. - Ludwig van Beethoven’s Contredanses. - Jean-Philippe Rameau’s Suites: Suite en sol, des Nouvelles Suites 3 Menuets Suite en sol, des Nouvelles Suites 4 La Poule Suite en sol, des Nouvelles Suites 7 Le Enharmonique Suite en sol, des Nouvelles Suites 8 L'Egyptienne My modest suggestion is that children should have several hours a day of being accompanied by classical music appropriate to their age. I have the suspicion that I can not prove, that classical music helps, and a lot, in the development of a healthy human brain. Leftoxenomorphs, by the way, hate classical music. Surprise!! About 10 years ago I asked a friends daughter that is teaching English and literature at a private high school about teaching the classics. Her response was that she didn't bore them with the classics as the students have no relation to the subject matter within the books. I had no relationship to the classics either, but I struggled through them over fifty years ago and find that I gained a great deal of understanding from reading them. It let me see how others lived, suffered through hardships and outlooks on the lives of those in the 18th and 19th century. Even reading the books from the early 20th century let me see how much better life has become especially in America. Now it seems some are trying to take us back to some very difficult times. Teach the classics they might learn something.
"the study of literature is dying"
No, it is worse than dying; I'd say it is dead and has been dead for decades. Ever since they started with "deconstructionism" which tries to undermine what the author actually wrote the study of literature has been dead. |