I am in disbelief of this..

[Tashtego]

I agree Fett. Deep doo doo.

BillZ- I saw you mentioned Letters from Earth. I take it you liked it? I need to go back and read that again.

[horns666]

I agree Fett. Deep doo doo.

BillZ- I saw you mentioned Letters from Earth. I take it you liked it? I need to go back and read that again.

Yes, I love that book..well I actually relate to it, before I actually read it. It was brought to my attention by anohter JCF member..Emmy..she hasn't been around here much lately..but I did just get her Christmas card!!

Since it involves Religious subject matter, which is forbidden fruit at this time..

I will PM you the link of the book..for your enjoyment.

Bill Z

[fett]

I agree Fett. Deep doo doo.

Being a Kramer "Owner" in more ways than one,

[danastas]

I was thinking of an introductory undergraduate class that provides context and background to the literary criticism the student will be going on to participate in for at least the rest of his academic career. Cultural marxism and its intellectual progeny dominate the way the humanities are taught and the way literature is discussed today but of course this was not always so.

First, it's hard to tell who is going to be a Lit. major at that level, or even who will go on to grad. studies. This is why literary theory isn't taught at the undergrad level, or if it is, it's a general survey for majors. Regardless, Marxist ideology and its progeny? I'd like to see a university that teaches that way in the USA. I can't think of one. Also, how is deconstruction its progeny when deconstruction (a phase which ended in 1990) was most heavily involved in a critique of marxism? In other words, Marxism was never the center of anything, and it certainly isn't much discussed today.

A conservative approach would present classical thought on the human condition as an alternative basis for literary & historical criticism and analysis. This would include the development of western ideas about free will, individual responsibility and moral absolutes. These are some of the philosophical pillars our society was built upon. They oppose the determinism implicit in marxist thought which has evolved into the racial and sexual identity politics that dominate the political/cultural debate today.

I don't know where to start with this. This is the job, essentially. Free will, individual responsibility, moral absolutes are classical terms and fundamental concepts for criticism, much like aesthetics or abstraction, terms which can be "taught" and "learned," but most importantly they form the base for a discussion that's been going on now for 2,750 years. Where do you think something like poststructuralism comes from if not an examination of thinkers such as Kant, Kierkegaard, Nietszche, who took on these questions of morality and free will over a hundred years ago? To revert back to them without any context whatsoever as to how these terms have been received in the ensuing 200 years is to pretend the last 2 centuries never ever happened. Which, I guess, is indeed a conservative point-of-view. Maybe that's the problem. A conservative would automatically be labelled a dinosaur if he were to return to Kant's examination of free will, and simply say, kant was right. We don't need to learn anything more. It would be as though someone told Eddie Van Halen to put the guitar down because that's not how Charlie Christian would have played it.

Returning to the original point, I will reiterate, the english and history departments of the University I am most familiar with are utterly dominated by people who philosophically adhere to the identity politics that are the current dominant manifestation of leftist ideology.

Which ones? I'd like to check out what they're teaching.

I got onto the databases and checked out the link to the Oxford page by the way. Overall, as it says in its mission statement, the journal is just a compendium of work found in other journals. That Faulkner/Bush article was about a reporter who hung out with Iraqis that worked with Western NGOs. They had a book club and they were reading an obscure Faulkner novel, and trying to understand America and Bush through that novel. The New Black Politics article was a book review of 10 books on the African-American political landscape, so it wasn't literary after all. Then there was an article on Walter Moseley and the politics of Black detective fictions. That article was about the fact that a majority of blacks in literature are usually on the wrong side of the law, whereas Moseley's books break new ground as they show blacks in law enforcement. Those were the only three articles that seemed to touch on politics.

Anyway, I haven't heard the name Marcuse on the lips of any academic in the last 10 years, and I studied with and associate regularly with some of the leading people in lit theory, like Jeff Nealon who delivers a pretty incisive critique of neo-Marxist thought (i.e. the likes of Frederic Jameson, never mind Marcuse who is a fossil).

By the way, even Horowitz who wrote about the 101 most dangerous professors thinks that courses that study gender and identity are proper (even though he thinks they lean to the left, why I don't know.) Check it out: http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.ph...kwg4spprg1qc4n

Michael Berube furthermore explains the kinds of laws we're dealing with that will, presumably, make things even for conservatives.

http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/academic_freedom/

Here's a funny one addressing some of the issues in this thread: http://www.michaelberube.com/index.p...ut_of_academe/

[fett]

All I know is that all the Profs I dealt with (and I went to a University that had real Profs and no TA's) told us what to read and what to say. I took a "Phiosophy of Religion" course. I was a very good reader of what the Prof wanted. I wrote a paper that "rejected" the religion part and got an "A" grade. I took a Poli-Sci course, can't remember the title, but the Prof used to work for the UN. I wrote a paper the day before the paper was due. I stayed up until 2AM cranking out stuff. He made the mistake of giving back the papers right before the final Blue Book. I got an A- (for typos). He was so impressed, he wanted to keep a copy for his files. I did OK on the final. But, I produced what he wanted to hear and got a B for the course. Let that be a lesson to all you college kids. Forget about it. Just give them back what they want to hear and you are in. Just do it knowing that you have your own mind. .

[Tashtego]

First, it's hard to tell who is going to be a Lit. major at that level, or even who will go on to grad. studies. This is why literary theory isn't taught at the undergrad level, or if it is, it's a general survey for majors. Regardless, Marxist ideology and its progeny? I'd like to see a university that teaches that way in the USA. I can't think of one. Also, how is deconstruction its progeny when deconstruction (a phase which ended in 1990) was most heavily involved in a critique of marxism? In other words, Marxism was never the center of anything, and it certainly isn't much discussed today.



I don't know where to start with this. This is the job, essentially. Free will, individual responsibility, moral absolutes are classical terms and fundamental concepts for criticism, much like aesthetics or abstraction, terms which can be "taught" and "learned," but most importantly they form the base for a discussion that's been going on now for 2,750 years. Where do you think something like poststructuralism comes from if not an examination of thinkers such as Kant, Kierkegaard, Nietszche, who took on these questions of morality and free will over a hundred years ago? To revert back to them without any context whatsoever as to how these terms have been received in the ensuing 200 years is to pretend the last 2 centuries never ever happened. Which, I guess, is indeed a conservative point-of-view. Maybe that's the problem. A conservative would automatically be labelled a dinosaur if he were to return to Kant's examination of free will, and simply say, kant was right. We don't need to learn anything more. It would be as though someone told Eddie Van Halen to put the guitar down because that's not how Charlie Christian would have played it.



Which ones? I'd like to check out what they're teaching.

I got onto the databases and checked out the link to the Oxford page by the way. Overall, as it says in its mission statement, the journal is just a compendium of work found in other journals. That Faulkner/Bush article was about a reporter who hung out with Iraqis that worked with Western NGOs. They had a book club and they were reading an obscure Faulkner novel, and trying to understand America and Bush through that novel. The New Black Politics article was a book review of 10 books on the African-American political landscape, so it wasn't literary after all. Then there was an article on Walter Moseley and the politics of Black detective fictions. That article was about the fact that a majority of blacks in literature are usually on the wrong side of the law, whereas Moseley's books break new ground as they show blacks in law enforcement. Those were the only three articles that seemed to touch on politics.

Anyway, I haven't heard the name Marcuse on the lips of any academic in the last 10 years, and I studied with and associate regularly with some of the leading people in lit theory, like Jeff Nealon who delivers a pretty incisive critique of neo-Marxist thought (i.e. the likes of Frederic Jameson, never mind Marcuse who is a fossil).

By the way, even Horowitz who wrote about the 101 most dangerous professors thinks that courses that study gender and identity are proper (even though he thinks they lean to the left, why I don't know.) Check it out: http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.ph...kwg4spprg1qc4n

Michael Berube furthermore explains the kinds of laws we're dealing with that will, presumably, make things even for conservatives.

http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/academic_freedom/

Here's a funny one addressing some of the issues in this thread: http://www.michaelberube.com/index.p...ut_of_academe/

Are we having the same conversation? I never advocated not teaching any particular literary theory. I'm arguing that conservative perspectives are excluded, that the current environment is illiberal. Criticism of the current state of affairs is not an attack on academic freedom. Quite the opposite, it is an insistance to improve academic freedom. The analogy is not to ignore EVH because Charlie Parker didn't do it that way but to teach Charlie Parker as well as EVH. To reverse the organized exclusion of Charlie Parker advocates from the argument. To not allow or encourage mob violence against Charlie Parker advocates.

-oops

[horns666]

EHV..?

Eddie Halen Van..

[atomic charvel guy]

Eddie Hand Valium

[Tashtego]

sad thing is I did it twice.

[Shawn Lutz]

check out the big brain on brad....

my heads hurting with all of this "book read smarts" talk...

I'll be in the bangin paris thread

[fett]

Yeah, my eye hurts reading this. There seems to an intellectual binge going on here. I have had my degree for 30 years now and I feel much better.

[danastas]

I thought of a conservative course. The Valor of Soldiers in War. I think you could do a lit course on that subject. People would even be interested in it, but be prepared. There would be controversy, because any good professor interrogates the terms being used, so there would have to be a critique of War and Valor as well.

Criticism of what state of affairs? Poststructuralism? All these theory heads are already engaged in these debates. As with everything, as in life, people move on. Debates evolve. Frankly, I'm not aware of any so-called "other voices" who aren't being heard in literary debates. As in who? Kant? he's being taught. There are critics of deconstruction. Lots of them. They are taught too. Just who specifically is being left out?

[fett]

Who chooses the books to be read? Who steers the discussion? Who grades the essays? Who has control of the general direction the course follows? The Prof does. Or a lacky. Because the Prof is too busy trying to be "Made". There is no such a thing as "clear" learning. It's more about "clear" leaning. I'm sorry. I'm pissed and concerned about a real matter so I will vent here.

[danastas]

Thank God it works this way. Otherwise, what would be the point?