TripWillis

It's a slippery designation.

This is a pretty good way of looking at it. It's important to know influence, even if you don't do "influence studies" per se. Edit: Basically, it's the duty of everyone who does not particularly like the capital-C Canon to know it very well. DH = Digital Humanities. I like interdisciplinary stuff like digital humanities in theory, but I worry that, as with cognitive criticism, darwinist criticism, etc., it's part of a not-so-new trend to make humanities a science that produces results quantitative and satisfying to administrative capitalists -- it's similar to what was being tried with formalism, but way way crasser and also less interesting. I think the pressure to make English a science comes from anxiety over its being underfunded by comparison to the sciences. As I said earlier, along with Bennett, I think humanities has to maintain some autonomy from the sciences and analyze scientific epistemes. It has to be the conscience of the sciences.

Since English deals with language, which constructs basically all experience, there's bound to be disciplinary overlap. "All encompassing" is the wrong term. Re: the zero common intellectual ground, for one, you're exaggerating, and for another, methodological and canonical variance sustains the discipline. It always has. Again, see Graff's book for a 200 year history of methodological and canonical debates. Edit: I mean, the whole post is obviously exaggerated, so maybe I should just kick myself for taking the rhetorical bait.

Again, we're mostly in agreement except: 1.1. -- I'm not getting why, nor how this process works -- how can you address aesthetics first and how does that value determination decide whether it's worth proceeding into further inquiry? How do you not address both at the same time? Can you give me a 1.1.1? 2.21 -- no it doesn't. I hope you didn't think I was making the argument that it should be "invalidated." The word I used earlier was "interrogated." 3 -- As you said, your examples of text expansion are very extreme. Can you give me a practical example in order to set the stage for a more nuanced conversation about text expansion? I could start: performance studies. It's not as if anyone is actually drawling lines in the sand about these matters, and it's not as though one journal article about fast-food packaging destroys the discipline (btw, if anyone is writing about those things, it's most likely that they're doing it under the interdisciplinary heading of "American Studies" work, so don't worry -- English is safe from the fast-food scholars!) 3.1 -- I hope where we're getting with this conversation is recognition that what "we" "should" be doing is very difficult to make homogenous; something there is that doesn't love a literary discipline that doesn't use diverse methods (hey, Frost! Thanks, canon!) I don't want to take Shakespeare away from anyone. I think the distinction you draw between the "linguistically/scientifically/philosophically inclined" scholar and the socio-culturally inclined scholar is not the stablest set of archetypes, but I understand your point. I do socio-cultural work, but it's not as though there's nothing philosophical, scientific, or linguistic about it. Actually, far from it. Let's resist these false choices about methods. I think the only way interdisciplinarity and expansion causes English to "lose its soul" is if it tried to kowtow to administrative darlings like DH and such simply because they're sexy on paper. Edit: I don't want to keep prodding, because I know we aren't that far apart. I'm just still struggling over a few aspects of your argument. Edit 2: on the point of English losing its soul, see http://www.amazon.com/Professing-Literature-Institutional-Twentieth-Anniversary/dp/0226305597/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363574746&sr=8-1&keywords=professing+literature -- these methodological arguments have always been going. English is safe.

Another good contribution. Well said. Edit: BTW, this whole debate affected me so much it made me change my avatar.

I wonder if A&E or Discovery are going to make a show called CANON WARS.

I'm actually very much in agreement with everything you said. I don't even have a problem with the investigation of aesthetic value; I just, and this is similar to what you said, think it needs to intervene in its own process and it needs to not be beholden to what it deems an objective system. The canon cannot be disposed of, but the canon project, as it stood/stands, tried to pose artificial constraints on aesthetics that aren't desirable or sustainable. Edit: As far as the taco bell thing goes, that started as a straw man and I don't feel like touching it. I feel kind of bummed with the way that no one except Bennett has actually taken the time to engage with this question beyond "canon wars" talking points.

I think you're willfully characterizing my approach inaccurately, so it's hard to speak to your concerns. I let myself experience works of art, but I'm also a critic, and criticism is part of what makes those experiences worthwhile for me. Criticism that is worth anything involves interrogation and intervention, not replication. This doesn't mean I subvert all texts I read.

Damnit, I accidentally down voted you when I meant to upvote. I blame the canon.

I feel like I've been misunderstood. I am not suggesting we ignore aesthetics; what I'm saying is that it is not sustainable nor desirable to have a transcendental barometer for aesthetics. What I mean by "aesthetic worth valuation system" is something akin to how scholars approached things like classics in the 19th century through modernist criticism in the early 20th century. And that system can be very fascist and can also look through aesthetics in a way that keeps them detached from politics and culture, very convenient for neo-classical aesthetes like T.S. Eliot, whose politics were fascist. I think we should just be wary about any aesthetic approach that claims to be singular in focus, that suppresses texts, and that does not reflect on its own self-selection. Also, I study a lot of literary works that could be described as "paraliterature," and you would be surprised what kind of power they have and what you can find out about their aesthetics when you really engage with them. Texts exist outside any arbitrary system we devise anyway. And, in saying you favor a canon based entirely on a first criterion of aesthetic value determined by critic A, preceding any other approach, are you saying you also favor the active suppression of other texts, and why? I definitely object to the earlier characterization of certain scholars as "second rate social scientists." I find that label insulting to social scientists more than anything. Could not agree more with Keely though about actively debating "the canon" or talking about the concept of the canon, especially in pedagogy. It's not going away, so best to make the debate apparent and not just to teach the books without any sort of grounding. Not sure what you mean by "more empirically" though. What does a canon have to do with empiricism, and whose empiricism, and to what end? Sorry, I'm always skeptical about literary arguments that deal with working toward a better empiricism because I feel like once you wade into that territory you get into this murky thing of literary scholars trying to act like scientists instead of being the conscience of scientists, which I think is better. Edit: In other words, I'm with Hegel in resisting the way scientific logic cannibalizes all other forms of inquiry. I love science; I'm in favor of it; I just think that its useless if you don't apply the same analytical rigor to its epistemes that you do everything else. See Foucault, also.

I just think some kind of aesthetic worth valuation system is a less interesting critical pursuit than what we could be doing, at least as a primary focus.

I think what's key is that, in our pedagogy, we don't teach students the canon; we teach the students about the canon. Make that debate apparent.

We had this conversation in a class recently. I like the canon. It gives me something to paranoid read. Seriously, though, I do mostly af-am and queer, but I think the canon is pretty useful for knowing what people deem "literary." Taste, attitude, and dominance is never going to go away. I don't think you can avoid "canon." You just gotta know what it is and what your relationship is to it. I chose "revised canon."

I'm tellin' you guys, NRC rankings are much better. AND my school is ranked higher there so... there.

Hah! I'm torn -- they do deserve credit, but the culture of their English program has changed and they're no longer on the cutting edge of theory. Their American Studies program, on the other hand...

Maybe their fellowship package comes with a time machine to the early 1980s.

I also don't get this. Especially considering how much the culture has changed just since 2008. If people look, there's more movement near the mid-to-lower end. Stony Brook and Fordham both jumped.

Just in case anyone's interested, the new ones are up for 2013. It looks like nothing has really changed in the top 25. http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-humanities-schools/english-rankings More dramatic movement in the lower end. Stony Brook and Fordham both deservedly went up.

If it makes you feel any better, I got into their Ph.D. last year and was offered no funding. That's an even harsher blow. "Oh, sure, I'll go to your program for 5-7 years with no funding. I'll also blowdry my hair in the bathtub to save time! What could go wrong?"

"I'm sure they'll make you proud when their blog about animal studies and queer performativity reaches a thousand pageviews." Bitterness is an ugly thing. I'm sure the poster's general lack of humility, the competitiveness of the program, and his not getting in are some kind of correlated. Edit: Also, spouting Butler and Foucault, animal studies, and queer performativity? Wow, this person just described the general thrust of my work.

I wouldn't expect to hear too much until after the open house. That's generally how these things go.

Comp lit and English are pretty distinct departments at my school. And I'm done with coursework soon. Edit: I'm actually not sure I've met a single person from comp lit. For better or for worse. Still, if she's to be believed, we'll get along no problem in real life. She gets along with everyone!

I swear it wasn't me. I like ya alright. It's DH's aura.

I wish you all the best.

I disagree. I think honest dialogue is good. But, I've had plenty of rigorous debates on here without bomb throwing. I also don't get how Don't Hate's posts were "honest" when they seemed more like naked provocation. The only thing intense about her presence was that she was acting, under circumstances of anonymity, the way that no one would act in real life if they wanted to have collegial relationships with people.