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”?

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.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. A lot of people are missing the point. Traditional literary scholarship does not mean "there's only one proper way of reading and that's it." It's just a rejection of faddish ideological interpretations. It's about literary quality not identity politics.

There are many fine authors from outside the US and Europe. For example Borges and Vargas Llosa in Latin America. But you don't see Identity Politics practitioners championing them because they don't have the right politics (or maybe they're dismissed as "white" rather than "POC")?

So to be clear you don’t think it’s worthwhile because it offends your political sensibilities. Has nothing to do with academic inquiry or the idea that the study of literature can evolve over the years. You probably championed the J Evan’s Pritchett method of evaluating poetry.

The reactionary responses of some are exactly what’s wrong with today’s faddish approach. Someone asks for programs with critical reading of literature and the knee jerk response is Liberty- a response lacking in critical reasoning, but it fits leftist talking points.

It is fine to seek out different things, and with the cost of college today, many want to endure their degrees will still be relevant in 20 years.

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?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._John%27s_College_(Annapolis/Santa_Fe)

This is what you're looking for. Lots of dead white men.

Nothing wrong with dead white men.

No, but reading no one but dead white men is pretty limiting.

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?

I’m talking about your first paragraph. People should only study “Western” literature? Does Tolstoy count? Having such a narrow minded view of literature that ends in 1900 is silly.

Yes, Tolstoy counts. Happy?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. A lot of people are missing the point. Traditional literary scholarship does not mean "there's only one proper way of reading and that's it." It's just a rejection of faddish ideological interpretations. It's about literary quality not identity politics.

There are many fine authors from outside the US and Europe. For example Borges and Vargas Llosa in Latin America. But you don't see Identity Politics practitioners championing them because they don't have the right politics (or maybe they're dismissed as "white" rather than "POC")?

+100

I wonder how these people would feel if I decided to teach a class on Mishima.

Let’s see from an modern identity politics framework we have:

Pros:
Not white
Queer undertones
Dislike of American foreign policy
Dislike of American materialism
Attempted violent overthrow of the government

Cons:
Male
Asian, aka white-adjacent
Military veteran
Hated by leftists
Reactionary politics
Fascist

Clarification: The rejection of *only* faddish ideological interpretations. It's not the traditional scholars who are insisting on uniformity. It's the woke ideologues who think it's cool and edgy to have 2 hour seminars on why Walt Whitman was a racist.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. A lot of people are missing the point. Traditional literary scholarship does not mean "there's only one proper way of reading and that's it." It's just a rejection of faddish ideological interpretations. It's about literary quality not identity politics.

There are many fine authors from outside the US and Europe. For example Borges and Vargas Llosa in Latin America. But you don't see Identity Politics practitioners championing them because they don't have the right politics (or maybe they're dismissed as "white" rather than "POC")?

+100

I wonder how these people would feel if I decided to teach a class on Mishima.

OP here. A lot of people are missing the point. Traditional literary scholarship does not mean "there's only one proper way of reading and that's it." It's just a rejection of faddish ideological interpretations. It's about literary quality not identity politics.

There are many fine authors from outside the US and Europe. For example Borges and Vargas Llosa in Latin America. But you don't see Identity Politics practitioners championing them because they don't have the right politics (or maybe they're dismissed as "white" rather than "POC")?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see you're not a big fan of tolerance or freedom of expression.

Or they have standards..

+100

The only standards you have are whether it was written more than 100 years ago and was it written by a white guy.

And written in the English language for a British audience.

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.

Queer feminist environmental studies sounds like an interesting course. But hey that’s just my opinion as straight, white, male, traditional conservative who values the marketplace of ideas and recognizes that queer and feminist takes on all kinds of issues have long been suppressed by lazy hetero men who are unable to comprehend and afraid to compete with other perspectives.

Sure we believe you.

Queer Feminists of Color Environmental Studies offered at Hamilton College. Candidate for most ridiculous course of the century.

This question is framed in sort of a weird way.

I have two friends who are professors. One is a Shakespeare expert and the other teaches Russian lit, both at schools that are often discussed ion this board. Both look at the literature through “different” lenses — eg, looking at class, race, gender in Shakespeare (which are actually huge themes in Shakespeare) and the other looking at post-modern themes I’m too dumb to articulate in Russian lit. You don’t get tenure writing the same stuff about Shakespeare that’s been written for 400 years. Plus, it’s not that interesting for students to only talk about the obvious stuff. If you can look at a work from a few different perspectives, doesn’t that make it more interesting? I think there are lots of schools still teaching “the canon” but if you aren’t looking at it from different perspectives to see how it can speak to our modern lives, that it’s pretty moribund.

By the way, the Rest is History podcast did an excellent podcast on the history in Canterbury Tales and why this was a shockingly radical piece for its time, including the feminism inherent in the work. Highly recommend! And those guys are not what I’d call radical deconstructionists.

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.

And a Christian nation.

LOL no.

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?

Literature was read through these lenses when I got my BA / MA at a Jesuit university 25 years ago. You can read it through multiple lenses. If you don’t, I don’t know that there’s enough to talk about and write about (whether there’s value in doing so is another question.)

Same at another Catholic college 30+ years ago. As a lit major, I remember courses in World Literature By and About Women, literature of modern wars written by diverse authors, but also the usuals: surveys of traditional British, US, Asian, Middle Eastern, and Russian authors, Arthurian legend from the most ancient texts through the most modern interpretations, and so on. An undergrad lit major will read widely. I also remember a course where we studied marxism through a feminist lens.

But I don't buy that Literature majors are reading, for example, Dickens through an ideological lens without also reading the original (unless the original was assumed to have been read in high school) -- how else would a student draw anything from the re-take? Can you link to the course catalog of a college that does not cover a breadth of literature for a literature major?