Lit programs that have not succumbed to postmodernism/cultural studies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the OP and that's ridiculous.

I think there's really a two-front war in defending the integrity of the university.

On the right, you have those who want to teach sanitized history or creationism.

Then there's the woke left who want think the proper teaching of the humanities should be replaced by faddish identity politics.

I reject both.

Answer these two questions regarding your bolded statement, Comrade:

- What is the "proper" teaching of literature, precisely.

- Who in academia believes that. Please focus on your word "replace" and provide evidence. Academics write papers for a living so it should not be hard for you.

Sounds like you do not know anything about studying literature, otherwise you could engage with her opinion. So, how do you think literature has been engaged with in the far and near past? Why did this engagement evolve in this way. Why should this type of engagement be dismissed or not dismissed.

If all you know is what you see now and say this is now and that is all that matters, you are not able to discuss this topic as an educated person would (or at least some educated before say 2015 or so)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So a serious “literature” education only values English langauge writers who have been dead for at least 150 years. Nothing else is of value. That’s not studying literature

This response is a huge part of the problem. We live in the USA. Our culture, politics, customs, etc. are products of the Western World. There are undoubtedly fantastic works of literature in China and India (for example) that have been hugely influential in Asia. But regardless of your feelings, they’re not relevant here.

Furthermore, stating that authors like Shakespeare and Dickens “have value” does not mean they are the ONLY authors who have value. What are you even talking about?

What century are you writing from? How did you figure out time travel?

The US is a western society.

"Western" = more than two or three countries.

If the major is English Literature ....

If the major is World Literature ...

If the major is Literary Theory ...

If the major is Literature and Culture ...

and so on. Different literature majors have different emphases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take a look at Holy Cross. A great classics dept, the only Jesuit liberal arts college, and a great track record getting students into law, medicine and PhD programs.

You mean the Holy Cross English department that offers

“ Interdisciplinary courses cross-listed with Africana Studies; Catholic Studies; Gender, Sexuality, and Women's Studies; and Peace and Conflict Studies”?

Jesuits have always cared about marginalized people. The focus is on inquiry and critical reading — not indoctrination. For example, the Gender studies group condemned the over-turning of Roe v Wade, while others at the school applauded it. It will be debated, but students are not taught a right answer.

Same as at most Catholic colleges, btw, not just Jesuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The late great Harold Bloom warned how literary studies was taken over by cultural studies, i.e. not reading the great works at all or "reading" Shakespeare and Dickens through faddish ideological lenses (feminist, Marxist, por-modernist). Traditional literary scholars are in the minority.

At what colleges these days can one get a serious education in literature these days?

I don't think you'll find many literature departments in the major universities that do not read the great works "at all." I won't speak for the SLACs, though I doubt it as well. Any respected literature department will surely cover classics, though of course there will be debate on the idea of a canon in and of itself. I just looked at the English Depts of a couple of Ivies to make sure things haven't changed so much since I received my PhD a couple of decades ago and they haven't.

As far as reading through a framework, that is an entirely different question because... well, I get that you see certain approaches as "faddish ideological lenses," but in our era very few serious scholars believe that anyone can ready any work of literature without some kind of critical lens. Most people accept that there always has been an ideological lens. Openly acknowledging one's approach became standard many decades ago in response to a time when critics and scholars, often unaware of their own lenses, read literature in a way that betrayed their own classist views, for example, in a way that just comes across as inadequate now.

I am not insensitive to what you are asking, though. When I was getting my PhD, and especially when I was preparing for my comprehensive exams, I longed for huge survey courses where the professor might just rattle off bullet points of why each author was considered great. I used to joke with my classmates about missing the "How lovely" School of Criticism. And, personally, as someone who specialized in the literature of a century or two ago, I like so-called great works! I also wished that professors would always include an author's major work instead of assuming students would already know it and opt for the lesser known.

I think if what you are looking for is solid introduction to Western thought, Columbia's core will be attractive. I think you might also like St John's College.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the OP and that's ridiculous.

I think there's really a two-front war in defending the integrity of the university.

On the right, you have those who want to teach sanitized history or creationism.

Then there's the woke left who want think the proper teaching of the humanities should be replaced by faddish identity politics.

I reject both.

Answer these two questions regarding your bolded statement, Comrade:

- What is the "proper" teaching of literature, precisely.

- Who in academia believes that. Please focus on your word "replace" and provide evidence. Academics write papers for a living so it should not be hard for you.

Sounds like you do not know anything about studying literature, otherwise you could engage with her opinion. So, how do you think literature has been engaged with in the far and near past? Why did this engagement evolve in this way. Why should this type of engagement be dismissed or not dismissed.

If all you know is what you see now and say this is now and that is all that matters, you are not able to discuss this topic as an educated person would (or at least some educated before say 2015 or so)

And the reasons you went ad hominem and didn’t answer the questions are obvious.

Answer the questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The late great Harold Bloom warned how literary studies was taken over by cultural studies, i.e. not reading the great works at all or "reading" Shakespeare and Dickens through faddish ideological lenses (feminist, Marxist, por-modernist). Traditional literary scholars are in the minority.

At what colleges these days can one get a serious education in literature these days?

If you want to read books, read books. If you want to know the discipline of literary studies, you learn the discipline as it currently exists. Time travel to 1955 is not an option.

[Anonymous]

St. John's.
College of Charleston.
Davidson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The late great Harold Bloom warned how literary studies was taken over by cultural studies, i.e. not reading the great works at all or "reading" Shakespeare and Dickens through faddish ideological lenses (feminist, Marxist, por-modernist). Traditional literary scholars are in the minority.

At what colleges these days can one get a serious education in literature these days?

If you want to read books, read books. If you want to know the discipline of literary studies, you learn the discipline as it currently exists. Time travel to 1955 is not an option.

The study of literature is too important to cede to the woke ideologues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with OP.

One LAC offers a course titled Queer Feminist Environmental Studies (Hamilton College).

Is it required?

Required or not, it’s still ludicrous.

I agree, but I just wouldn’t send my kid there. Doesn’t affect me.

Well aren't you an enlightened POS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The late great Harold Bloom warned how literary studies was taken over by cultural studies, i.e. not reading the great works at all or "reading" Shakespeare and Dickens through faddish ideological lenses (feminist, Marxist, por-modernist). Traditional literary scholars are in the minority.

At what colleges these days can one get a serious education in literature these days?

If you want to read books, read books. If you want to know the discipline of literary studies, you learn the discipline as it currently exists. Time travel to 1955 is not an option.

The study of literature is too important to cede to the woke ideologues.

What does that mean, exactly? There is plenty of parroting of this sentiment among (for example) red-state boards of education, but very few of them are able to explain this. 'Great' literature from the past was not composed as a moral handbook that one can mine for eternal truths. It reflected its time, place, and culture, just as modern literature does. The fact that some people want there to be a teleology of the western canon doesn't make it true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The late great Harold Bloom warned how literary studies was taken over by cultural studies, i.e. not reading the great works at all or "reading" Shakespeare and Dickens through faddish ideological lenses (feminist, Marxist, por-modernist). Traditional literary scholars are in the minority.

At what colleges these days can one get a serious education in literature these days?

If you want to read books, read books. If you want to know the discipline of literary studies, you learn the discipline as it currently exists. Time travel to 1955 is not an option.

The study of literature is too important to cede to the woke ideologues.

Curious that someone who so values literature would use a word as imprecise, subjective, and ultimately meaningless as “woke.” Talk about faddish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The late great Harold Bloom warned how literary studies was taken over by cultural studies, i.e. not reading the great works at all or "reading" Shakespeare and Dickens through faddish ideological lenses (feminist, Marxist, por-modernist). Traditional literary scholars are in the minority.

At what colleges these days can one get a serious education in literature these days?

I don't think you'll find many literature departments in the major universities that do not read the great works "at all." I won't speak for the SLACs, though I doubt it as well. Any respected literature department will surely cover classics, though of course there will be debate on the idea of a canon in and of itself. I just looked at the English Depts of a couple of Ivies to make sure things haven't changed so much since I received my PhD a couple of decades ago and they haven't.

As far as reading through a framework, that is an entirely different question because... well, I get that you see certain approaches as "faddish ideological lenses," but in our era very few serious scholars believe that anyone can ready any work of literature without some kind of critical lens. Most people accept that there always has been an ideological lens. Openly acknowledging one's approach became standard many decades ago in response to a time when critics and scholars, often unaware of their own lenses, read literature in a way that betrayed their own classist views, for example, in a way that just comes across as inadequate now.

I am not insensitive to what you are asking, though. When I was getting my PhD, and especially when I was preparing for my comprehensive exams, I longed for huge survey courses where the professor might just rattle off bullet points of why each author was considered great. I used to joke with my classmates about missing the "How lovely" School of Criticism. And, personally, as someone who specialized in the literature of a century or two ago, I like so-called great works! I also wished that professors would always include an author's major work instead of assuming students would already know it and opt for the lesser known.

I think if what you are looking for is solid introduction to Western thought, Columbia's core will be attractive. I think you might also like St John's College.

This is an intelligent and helpful comment, which is lovely to see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The late great Harold Bloom warned how literary studies was taken over by cultural studies, i.e. not reading the great works at all or "reading" Shakespeare and Dickens through faddish ideological lenses (feminist, Marxist, por-modernist). Traditional literary scholars are in the minority.

At what colleges these days can one get a serious education in literature these days?

If you want to read books, read books. If you want to know the discipline of literary studies, you learn the discipline as it currently exists. Time travel to 1955 is not an option.

The study of literature is too important to cede to the woke ideologues.

What does that mean, exactly? There is plenty of parroting of this sentiment among (for example) red-state boards of education, but very few of them are able to explain this. 'Great' literature from the past was not composed as a moral handbook that one can mine for eternal truths. It reflected its time, place, and culture, just as modern literature does. The fact that some people want there to be a teleology of the western canon doesn't make it true.

Thank you!

[Anonymous]

My understanding is that Harold Bloom was kind of a dick (may he RIP).

But in all seriousness, have you looked at the course requirements for an English lit major at...any college or university?

I attended a fairly lefty private university a while back. There certainly was some occasional political talk about the professors' opposition to the Iraq War (suprise! they were right!), and I chose to take some electives focused on gender and race (as well as a Shakespeare seminar!). But the bulk of the major was developing a base in the canon of English and American literature. Lots of stuff by old white guys. I looked back today at the required and elective courses in the department, and not much has changed. That is typically what you get when you choose to be an English major. If you're talking about comp lit then that's different.

It sounds like you're assuming a lot based on Bloom's comments and I suspect he wasn't saying what you think he was saying.

[Anonymous]

Bloom may have been outspoken, but no one can deny Bloom had a level of erudition few could match. And he was right about Harry Potter. It's not serious children's literature like The Wind in the Willows or Through the Looking Glass.