hawkeye7269

Well, if I may, that has been the dominant idea for quite a long time about art - just look at anything from the Renaissance period, either literature or music or the visual arts - it's about God and faith and the truths associated with religion/Christianity. So those writers were definitely thinking that there was one Truth, and they were pursuing it. So I don't think it's particularly absurd to read those writers looking for the truth they wrote about. Now, if we want to talk more recent writers, who don't think that way about truth, then sure - it's mostly inappropriate to force truth upon them when they don't want it. My sole point is simply that to study writers like Shakespeare, we need to recognize what they were looking for and talking about - and it was truth, like it or not. Koolherc, I would agree with your comment, but it's undercut by those writers' belief in God, which renders moot the point about literature being mostly biology/culture derived. The existence of God is not my point here - simply that, if you believe in God, as Shakespeare did, you believed in one singular truth. And wrote about it. I'm simply making the historical point here. Again, I do not wish to offend - simply discuss literature in the public square in a friendly maker. I mean no offense! PS. Two Espressos - in regard to your thought/question about those things like murder which just seem naturall wrong - CS Lewis has a lot to say about the nature of value systems in his short, excellent book "The Abolition of Man." I highly recommend it, very thought provoking!

Well, pick something and go with it. I'm curious as to why you think this is particularly controversial. No sarcasm there, I do want to know. Exchange of ideas and all.

On topic for this thread: Atlas Shrugged is something which Dante easily could have put in the Inferno as one of the punishments in the lower circles of hell. Sure, we can talk about her philosophical worth as a writer, but did Ayn Rand REALLY need to write a thousand pages trying to tell us what Gordon Gekko managed in three words: "Greed is good"? I know some people like her philosophy, which is fine, but can we just agree that her writing is like a red hot poker to the eye? As to the point of canon (maybe it should have its own thread?): I particularly want to respond to the comment about whether ideas have intrinsic value or whether the value is produced by the arbitrary values choices of society. On the one hand, Billy Shakes himself very definitely thought that there are natural values which cannot be disputed - i.e., Truth. He worked to incorporate these Truths into his works at every turn - so, setting aside how we may now view it, it seems we must at least agree that Shakespeare did not think that the cultural norms of society determined values and relative truths. In other words, he was entirely opposed to any form of relativism. But that IS a separate question from how we now think about him, obviously. I'm a traditionalist, not into theory, so I'm biased towards thinking that we, as scholars, are meant to investigate literature in order to find the Truth which is lurking therein. The purpose of art is the conveyance of Truth - and writers like Shakespeare, Milton, Spenser, etc, were exceptionally good at doing this, thus their success. So, in short, I just want to offer a brief defense for the notion of the intrinsic value of ideas - which is of course predicated on the existence of certain, unchangeable truths in the universe. I don't know how that idea will go over, but there it is. In any event, this is a great conversation! Well worth having, lets please continue!

Yes! Success is possible without the BA in English. I have a BS in Biology and a BA in History, with only about four legitimate English courses to my name, none of which were theory driven (not necessarily a bad thing). I wrote an Honors Thesis on Milton, and took an Honors seminar or two in the field. My dual degrees prohibited me from spending too much time doing English classes. Nonetheless, I was just yesterday accepted to a Ph. D program in English at Catholic University in DC, with full funding. What seemed to do it for them was my writing sample, personal statement which tied my previous fields of study to English, and some strong letters from English professors. It sounds like you've got a bunch more courses than I had, so I think your chances of getting accepted are as good as anyone's. In fact, some programs seem to like non-English students, as it adds a unique perspective to the department. I hope you get accepted somewhere! I think its great to have students with a variety of backgrounds in the field.