Books NOT to read-

[impending]

I mean, presumably the people in this forum are going to get their degrees and become part of a generation of academics, correct? It has no effect on anyone personally, but the idea that an anti-intellectual atmosphere is being fostered among people that will eventually be heads of their fields is absurd, non?

I'm not trying to be a jerk--I think there are some salient aspects of academia to be discussed here. The philosophy of education and what we value as academics is a major part of the scholarly process.

I only mean to inspire conversation, and the fact that my screen says "8 new messages" since I started typing this means I'm doing just that. But if you just want to circlejerk all over each other, please be my guest, I won't stop you

EDIT: ImWantHazPHD's gif sums this up really well

Refuse to foster anti-intellecutalism all you want; your original comment wasn't "conversation inspiring," it was a downright insult. You weren't refuting stratofanatic's argument for Harry Potter and Dave Eggers until after I called you out--you were attacking him/her personally, which I still hold is unnecessary and mean.

[user_name]

[Silent_G]

I agree. I sometimes have concerns about the intellectual values we're promoting. Contrary to dokkeynot's opinion, thinking critically or supporting an academic or intellectual standard doesn't just entail carrying on certain books or authors from generation to generation. There has to be room for change. Eggers and Rowling could be taught meaningfully in the right context. Literary worth itself doesn't always determine what gets taught. Look at Atlas Shrugged, which is a "bad" novel by consensus, but is also an important piece of culture. It's not about anti-intellectualism; it's about having a comprehensive view of the way literary values are taken up and put down by society.

Agreed.

[thestage]

Eggers and Rowling could be taught meaningfully in the right context. Literary worth itself doesn't always determine what gets taught.

But literary worth is what was up for debate in the first place. The argument (such as it was) was expressly not "Harry Potter is more worth teaching than Ulysses," it was "Harry Potter is a better book than Ulysses."

You can certainly teach Harry Potter in a meaningful setting. One of those settings, he said with smirk, is one in which poor writing is examined. Another is one in which the root of the series' popularity is examined, which would necessarily fall on literary techniques and subject matter that in some fashion appeal to popular sensibilities. You could look at it through the prism of archetype theory. You could look at the effect of the books on a sociological level, and then in turn examine how that has affected our relationship with reading in a broader sense, which then folds into hermeneutics or social theories or....I mean we could go on. But what forms the basis for any worthwhile approach to teaching and Harry Potter or teaching and any inferior text or cultural artifact, is that it is not the text itself that is imparting any worthwhile knowledge, but the particular theoretical prism through which the text is being viewed. Which is, incidentally, the main point of contention in regards to subsuming English under cultural studies, or cultural studies under English; and, not so incidentally, one of the main points of contention surrounding the place of literary theory within advanced literary education and scholarship.

Edited February 17, 2012 by thestage

[TripWillis]

But literary worth is what was up for debate in the first place. The argument (such as it was) was expressly not "Harry Potter is more worth teaching than Ulysses," it was "Harry Potter is a better book than Ulysses."

You can certainly teach Harry Potter in a meaningful setting. One of those settings, he said with smirk, is one in which poor writing is examined. Another is one in which the root of the series' popularity is examined, which would necessarily fall on literary techniques and subject matter that in some fashion appeal to popular sensibilities. You could look at it through the prism of archetype theory. You could look at the effect of the books on a sociological level, and then in turn examine how that has affected our relationship with reading in a broader sense, which then folds into hermeneutics or social theories or....I mean we could go on. But what forms the basis for any worthwhile approach to teaching and Harry Potter or teaching and any inferior text or cultural artifact, is that it is not the text itself that is imparting any worthwhile knowledge, but the theoretical approach itself. Which is, incidentally, the main point of contention in regards to subsuming English under cultural studies, or cultural studies under English; and, not so incidentally, one of the main points of contention surrounding the place of literary theory within advanced literary education and scholarship.

I have no interest in the "literary worth" argument to begin with. It doesn't really do me any good to debate quality in such broad strokes. I don't have an opinion on which book is "better" because I don't find that interesting. I'm not really even interested in debating whether or not Harry Potter is "poor writing." I don't read those books. I can't read everything and they're not my field.

I'm down with the rest of your post, except for this: "But what forms the basis for any worthwhile approach to teaching and Harry Potter or teaching and any inferior text or cultural artifact, is that it is not the text itself that is imparting any worthwhile knowledge, but the theoretical approach itself." I very rarely find that any text is devoid of imparting worthwhile knowledge, even ones that are designed for children and steeped in escapism.

[veniente]

What's it like to be illiterate and pursuing an English PhD?

Even through the haze of my hangover I recognise this as a new low.

[stratofanatic]

Sweet jiminmy crickets! Well, canon fanacticism is certainly alive and well. (Although I think the responder(s), I can't remember their name, did not quite realize the spirit of playfulness in which I offered the remark.) Although, if a serious debate about the canon is what you want. . .

. . . we might not get it here, what with the illiterate population being what it is.

[DorindaAfterThyrsis]

Could you rephrase that post? I'm afraid I didn't quite understand, owing to the fact that I'm illiterate.

[TripWillis]

Sweet jiminmy crickets! Well, canon fanacticism is certainly alive and well. (Although I think the responder(s), I can't remember their name, did not quite realize the spirit of playfulness in which I offered the remark.) Although, if a serious debate about the canon is what you want. . .

. . . we might not get it here, what with the illiterate population being what it is.

I think as soon as accusations of illiteracy and not belonging in the discipline entered into here, everyone's ears closed to a real debate. Thanks gradcafe trolls! There are so few of you, but you make everyone else look like angels!

[stratofanatic]

The delicious irony in the situation is that the (perceived) disparagement of Joyce evoked spluttering outrage, yet the placing of the Bible on here elicited almost no comment whatsoever.

@Dorinda,

Since I don't want any (more) misunderstanding, the original "illiteracy" remark was directed towards yours truly. Hoked on fonix werked 4 me & all that. I certainly wasn't calling anyone *here* iilliterate.

[TripWillis]

The delicious irony in the situation is that the (perceived) disparagement of Joyce evoked spluttering outrage, yet the placing of the Bible on here elicited almost no comment whatsoever.

@Dorinda,

Since I don't want any (more) misunderstanding, the original "illiteracy" remark was directed towards yours truly. Hoked on fonix werked 4 me & all that. I certainly wasn't calling anyone *here* iilliterate.

I defended the Bible!.... wait hold on... I can't believe I just typed those words.

[DorindaAfterThyrsis]

@Dorinda,

Since I don't want any (more) misunderstanding, the original "illiteracy" remark was directed towards yours truly. Hoked on fonix werked 4 me & all that. I certainly wasn't calling anyone *here* iilliterate.

I know....I was trying to be wry and glib and funny, but due to my current state of Emotional Basketcase, it didn't quite translate.....I may or may not be comedically illiterate.

[TripWillis]

I know....I was trying to be wry and glib and funny, but due to my current state of Emotional Basketcase, it didn't quite translate.....I may or may not be comedically illiterate.

Did you get into Chicago and Duke's VERY SPECIAL programs in English?

[marlowe]

On the topic of Maurice Sendak: watch this if you haven't already seen it. Hysterical stuff, and I don't usually love Colbert.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/406796/january-24-2012/grim-colberty-tales-with-maurice-sendak-pt--1

If you liked it, there is a part II that is even funnier.

[stratofanatic]

@Dorinda,

I was hoping that was the case!

@Marlowe,

haha, yes. I saw that when it aired, and it's terrific.

But here's the thing -- when Colbert asks him if he writes childrens' books, and Sendak that gives a writer's typical eyeroll-inducing-response, "I don't write childrens's stories. . . I WRITE, and then someone says, 'That's for children!'" my question to Sendak is, "Your stories are 500 words long!!!! What the heck do you think they are if not childrens's stories?????"

Edited February 18, 2012 by stratofanatic

[thestage]

so length and demographic are now inextricably related?

[Timshel]

Oh, man. Everyone in here needs to calm down! Let's get back to books not to read.....Okay, I'll start. On the Road. There, I've said it. I've read it at LEAST four times and I just don't get the allure.

Now, your turn!

Edited February 18, 2012 by Timshel

[koolherc]

I find that TripWillis' Baldwin avatar makes his statements seem even more balanced, sincere, and well-intentioned.

Inspired, I will upload an avatar, too.

I find myself often hating Aristotle, but I don't read Greek, so maybe that's not fair.

[Two Espressos]

What's it like to be illiterate and pursuing an English PhD?

I mean, presumably the people in this forum are going to get their degrees and become part of a generation of academics, correct? It has no effect on anyone personally, but the idea that an anti-intellectual atmosphere is being fostered among people that will eventually be heads of their fields is absurd, non?

I'm not trying to be a jerk--I think there are some salient aspects of academia to be discussed here. The philosophy of education and what we value as academics is a major part of the scholarly process.

I only mean to inspire conversation, and the fact that my screen says "8 new messages" since I started typing this means I'm doing just that. But if you just want to circlejerk all over each other, please be my guest, I won't stop you

EDIT: ImWantHazPHD's gif sums this up really well

Wow, you're acerbic as all hell! I love it, though. I must admit to laughing aloud at the "what's it like to be illiterate and pursuing an English PhD?" comment.

On Harry Potter and other matters of literary worth:

I don't think there's any way to establish a firm canon (as others have stated), but c'mon, not every piece of writing is as deserving as others. I'm starting to think about the academic department in White Noise that analyzes cereal boxes.

I think a starting point for establishing "literary" value (and I realize that this is contentious and certainly open to criticism/debate) is to evaluate the complexity of the ideas within the work and the originality with which they are expressed. One also can look at the historical/cultural impact, etc, certainly, but hugely canonical works (think Shakespeare plays) aren't ubiquitously read simply because they've had enormous historical/cultural impact, you know?

On the topic of Maurice Sendak: watch this if you haven't already seen it. Hysterical stuff, and I don't usually love Colbert.

http://www.colbertna...ce-sendak-pt--1

If you liked it, there is a part II that is even funnier.

I'm glad you posted this! I loved this interview.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Two Espressos

[Origin=Goal]

Anything by Althusser. His prose and content is irreparably obscurantist, his readings of Marx simply wrong (barring some of his work on ideology, which are basically fanciful extrapolations of early Marx), and his followers often insufferable.

Aristotle is a different story for me, but I definitely am not a fan of his "style," if it can be called that. (But I don't read ancient Greek either and am not a classicist)

[koolherc]

One also can look at the historical/cultural impact, etc, certainly, but hugely canonical works (think Shakespeare plays) aren't ubiquitously read simply because they've had enormous historical/cultural impact, you know?

No,... what do you mean? I would say that that is the only reason that they're read. If you're claiming people read Shakespeare "instead for its content" or something, you're missing the fact that the content has come to take social import because of the influence that the plays themselves have had. Indeed, the only reason canonical works are ubiquitously read is because of the historical/cultural impact they've had---even if the readers are driven by a "shallow" reason: eg. "Oh, Shakespeare is high culture! We must all read him!" The person who might be quoted saying that has had their sense of "high culture" influenced/formed/informed by Shakespeare's work and how society has come to understand it as a substance in itself.

(This long response may not have been necessary, but I'm bored.)

[Two Espressos]

No,... what do you mean? I would say that that is the only reason that they're read. If you're claiming people read Shakespeare "instead for its content" or something, you're missing the fact that the content has come to take social import because of the influence that the plays themselves have had. Indeed, the only reason canonical works are ubiquitously read is because of the historical/cultural impact they've had---even if the readers are driven by a "shallow" reason: eg. "Oh, Shakespeare is high culture! We must all read him!" The person who might be quoted saying that has had their sense of "high culture" influenced/formed/informed by Shakespeare's work and how society has come to understand it as a substance in itself.

(This long response may not have been necessary, but I'm bored.)

A disclaimer: I've been drinking a (rather stiff) gin and tonic, so forgive any loss of lucidity on my part!

Let me attempt to re-frame thoughts. I meant that there is much more to Shakespeare than simply his huge historical/cultural impact. His plays express a wealth of often highly complex ideas; we read Shakespeare not simply because he's popular but because he has a lot of important things to say.

His plays have always been popular, and of course this popularity causes others to read him, fueling it ad infinitum.

But Shakespeare possesses "literary value" not simply because he's popular...am I making any sense? I can't seem to formulate a coherent response here.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Two Espressos

[Two Espressos]

Gah, double post. Sorry guys.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Two Espressos

[veniente]

Wow, you're acerbic as all hell! I love it, though. I must admit to laughing aloud at the "what's it like to be illiterate and pursuing an English PhD?" comment.

On Harry Potter and other matters of literary worth:

I don't think there's any way to establish a firm canon (as others have stated), but c'mon, not every piece of writing is as deserving as others. I'm starting to think about the academic department in White Noise that analyzes cereal boxes.

I think a starting point for establishing "literary" value (and I realize that this is contentious and certainly open to criticism/debate) is to evaluate the complexity of the ideas within the work and the originality with which they are expressed. One also can look at the historical/cultural impact, etc, certainly, but hugely canonical works (think Shakespeare plays) aren't ubiquitously read simply because they've had enormous historical/cultural impact, you know?

I'm glad you posted this! I loved this interview.

I would question:

1. Why we need to establish 'literary' value in the first instance, and what is meant by it? Particularly given, as TripWillis has noted, English today finds literariness and textuality in many places.

2. How, and by whom, is this 'value' being 'measured' (or, more accurately, conferred)? And, similarly, who decides and on what bases do they decide that some writings/texts are more valid or 'deserving'(!) than others.

3. Against what template is the 'complexity of ideas' to be measured?

4. Why is 'originality' important? And, what does it look like?

5. Shakespeare as somehow transcending history/culture/politics and processes of canonicity.

6. Why I care?

Edited February 18, 2012 by arrivant

[koolherc]

A disclaimer: I've been drinking a (rather stiff) gin and tonic, so forgive any loss of lucidity on my part!

Let me attempt to re-frame thoughts. I meant that there is much more to Shakespeare than simply his huge historical/cultural impact. His plays express a wealth of often highly complex ideas; we read Shakespeare not simply because he's popular but because he has a lot of important things to say.

His plays have always been popular, and of course this popularity causes others to read him, fueling it ad infinitum.

But Shakespeare possesses "literary value" not simply because he's popular...am I making any sense? I can't seem to formulate a coherent response here.

Uhuh, but ideas aren't "important" in and of themselves but rather relative to a set of values decided upon consciously and non-consciously by a society. You say he has "important things to say" but they're only important relative to someone's culturally-informed belief-system. What he has to say is in fact pretty unimportant to a lot of people, which is (one reason) why a lot of people don't like his work.*

*To be clear, I love Shakespeare. Dearly.

Edited February 18, 2012 by koolherc