Tuesday, May 2, 2017
refreshments and set-up 12-12:15
Panel 1: Readers Remaking Texts 12:15-12:40
Candace Rohr, “What’s So Great about Gatsby? : Identity and Race in the Great American Novel”
Abby Stahl, “Letter to Lucy”
Grant Pigeon, “Metacriticism in House of Leaves, or, How to Put Together an Absurd Jigsaw Puzzle without a Box”
Panel 2: Texts in the World 12:45-1:10
Will Simmons, “The Wolf in Business Clothing”
Lauren Langston, “This Type of Chigurh Isn’t Sweet”
Logan Richey, “The Significance of Normalized LGBT Relationships in More Than This”
break for more refreshments 1:10-1:20
Panel 3: Reading through Style 1:20-1:45
James Weitzel, “Poe’s Appeal to Those Isolated in a Modern World”
Gabbi Simpson, “The Socioeconomic Implications of Race in The Help”
Ella Webster, “Magic Tricks and Mirrors: Trauma and Fragmented Memory in In the Lake of the Woods”
On p. 97, the book states that “Ideology is that group of intertwining beliefs that makes possible certain kinds of cultural consensus or knowledge, but precisely because it is everywhere and nowhere, ideology tends to disappear-so to speak- “into” the things that it makes possible.” Do you agree or disagree that Ideology has the capability to create things, or is it just a group of thoughts that generate discussion?
[This is Will’s question for Tuesday’s reading, posted by me.]
Return to the paragraph in the middle of page 7 of “Why Theory?” (the one beginning “This book proceeds under the assumption…”). What is your understanding of what the authors of Theory Toolbox think theory can offer you?
Eaglestone’s chapter on “Critical Attitudes” extends our discussion in class on Tuesday about how “context” gets used (and, in some approaches, deliberately NOT used) in interpretation. At the end of the chapter, Eaglestone notes different “blind spots” and “gaps” in both the intrinsic and extrinsic ways of reading he describes. Why might it be useful to take one approach or the other, despite these gaps and blind spots?
Eaglestone’s chapter “Literature, Value, and the Canon” argues that studying English means “reading, studying and writing about the canon” (PDF page 2). Is this a good thing? A bad thing? Why? (Be sure to ground your response in material from the reading, so that it’s not purely personal opinion.)
Eaglestone’s chapter “Where Did English Come From?” gives a brief history of the development of English as an academic discipline. What does knowing this history encourage you to think about differently, in terms of your own experience and understanding of English as an academic subject? (Remember to connect your response to a specific moment or two in the text of the chapter.)
Get yourself acquainted with the way I’ve structured the course by investigating the course blog. Here you should be able to find enough to give you an impression of the class before we meet on Jan 12. In the course description (“our course” in the blog menu) and syllabus (“policies” and “schedule” in the blog menu), you’ll see that most of our coursework will be done here on the blog site—but with papers submitted, and related comments and grades posted, in OAKS. Take a look around, get familiarized, and feel free, please, to contact me with any questions that might arise before the first day: seamanm[at]cofc.edu.