Tag Archives: english studies

Final Blog Post

Posted on by
1

Once more into the breach, dear friends…

So we come now to the end of the semester. The reflections from today were unique. I see the aesthetic school coming into being with me personally. I think I’ve been arguing for it for a few weeks without realizing it. But I really appreciated what Shaina said in terms of the coming together of the more intellectual and the more aesthetic being where the true intrigue comes from art. I fully agree.

That was what I really failed to articulate. I have come to see the discipline of English Studies as somewhat inhuman, not in a bad way, but more so like Dr. Seaman spoke of today, something seeking to remove the emotional connections and such, although as she pointed out, this is not the case for our discipline. I have come to view it as something of a multi-directional pendulum. Through time, the discipline will shift in all sorts of directions. The longer it shifts from one direction to another to another, the more its movements will settle in the middle ground, where I think we can all agree is the best and most well-rounded place. Continue reading →

Proposal

Posted on by
Reply

Orwell, Marx, and Application
George Orwell’s Animal Farm is a novel in which the livestock on a farm come together and revolt, taking power from the tyrannous human owners. The novel implies satire of events which had transpired in and after the Bolshevik revolution of Russia in which Marxist Communists took control of the nation. The civil war ended in the creation of the Soviet Union, the world’s first experiment with Communism as a national and economic entity. The actions which then take place in the novel correlate to various specific situations of the developing Communist country. Throughout the novel, the pigs take limited initial control of the farm as the governmental body and slowly take more and more control of the farm, living off the work of the other animals, and quelling resistance to their wishes with a pack of dogs they take and raise from birth.

In my paper, I intend to make the case that Orwell’s writing represents a negative theory of Communism common to westerners in the era immediately following World War II. This is especially in respect to various abuses of power that the Soviet and Chinese governments committed after their revolutions, but also to qualify these actions by polarizing the Soviet Union and China’s development against fundamental precepts of Communism. In this, I intend to draw from foundational pieces like the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. In the Manifesto, Marx makes his case for the existence of Communism, its objectives, its aims, and the means by which it should come about. This is to support the claim that Orwell (and many of his contemporaries in the West) did not really fear the rise of Communism itself, but instead the rise of something more sinister, such as totalitarianism which evolved in both the Soviet Union and China. This presents one of the most stark contrasts with the governance of the farm by the pigs in Animal Farm and the objectives Marx envisioned. Continue reading →

Annotation for a solution

Posted on by
1

I don’t believe that I have really reflected on the more meta aspects of the course in a long time. This seems like a more positive time to do so in terms of the annotations just turned in. Quite frankly, although I had completed 6 annotations by the Monday before, Tuesday was an excellent lesson in giving adequate time for these annotations to be completed.

I feel myself fortunate to be in a 300 level English course simultaneously with this introduction to the studies as it has really benefited me more in that I have been able to see the actual practical application of everything we’ve been doing. Also, this has been teaching me potential better ways in which I could have completed the coursework in my other class, lessons which I would not have learned quite as strongly had I had 299 separately from the other class.

The annotated bibliography has been far more difficult an undertaking than I thought they would. I think that it is good that this class is here and that I can learn from these mistakes now, as I realize that the standard set here really applies to my future studies in English Literature that I’ll have for the next few semesters. Attention to detail and taking the time to let articles sink in is really what I did not anticipate. In a lot of my other courses, it is sufficient to skim through material and draw conclusions that don’t always hit quite as closely as they should. In terms of this big project, I think I have finally begun to employ the degree of focus that I need, and have been intrigued by my own ability to draw conclusions from multiple sources into a new conclusion that is independent, which until this semester I was not used to. It is strange taking these uncertain steps into making claims that haven’t already been established. I think that the ability to make a confident claim is integral to the study of English, and have greatly appreciated the skills that I have honed here which beforehand I didn’t have.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

English Major with a Concentration in Geological Applications

Posted on by
1

I was very impressed with Dr. Cohen’s lecture “Feeling Stone,” this past Thursday. Going into the lecture unsure of what to expect—as I feel much of the audience was—I was most pleasantly surprised by the interdisciplinary nature of the talk. While expecting a strong discussion of the “role” of stone in Medieval Literature, maybe some allusions to “the sword in the stone,” or a talk about Stonehenge, I was instead confronted with an eloquent lecture, obviously written by someone familiar with the study of language, that was a meld of mythical, historical, scientific, anthropologic and literary. In fact, I really wondered at restricting this lecture to one of the “English department” the topics were so integral and varied. I think the geology department should have at least gotten an in on it. Cohen himself was endearing and earnestly interested in the research he was presenting us with, and more than once I found myself checking my own established views concerning lithics due to something he had said. After all, what if rocks are only “dead” to us because we do not yet have the capacity to understand the ways in which they are “alive?” If coral is alive, who says granite can’t be? Especially when you consider how much the element of time factors into our preconceived notions of what it means to be “alive.”

The lecture reminded me of our day in class with English teachers working in other specialties, there to talk to us about the possibilities of the English major. Cohen’s work was an absolute tenement to this. The nature of an English major has so many angles, so many broad applications. It was wonderful to see a cohesive and integral study, that so strongly contradicted the stereotype of the English major as only literary, as being a stale recycling of developed ideas and themes of the past, a reciter of obscure old books. Because I am fairly sure only an English major could have given Dr. Cohen’s lecture: while much of the research was technical, the underlying foundation of the lecture was undeniably poetic and human, in a way that a geology professor, an anthropology professor, an art professor, or a science professor, could simply not have expressed. The lecture spanned historic sites of stone, art sculptures of stone, literature on stone, and science experiments on stone, but all of it was so nicely drawn together and synthesized. It really made me consider the level of critical thinking that we all use so casually in the classroom, and realize that this itself is a laudable skill we take away, almost unconsciously, from the broad spectrum of English studies.

Guest Speakers and English Studies

Posted on by
Reply

This Monday, in honor of English Studies Day, we had two
guest speakers, Dr. Chris Warnick and Carol Ann Davis, come in to class and
answer some questions about English Studies along with the ins and outs of
being an English major. This class was particularly interesting because we
addressed the changes currently happening in English, not only in our
department but in schools all across the country. Dr. Warnick noted that
English departments are experiencing a great shift with the growth in writing
studies, for some schools even offer a Writing Studies major now. I believe
this is an exciting time to be an English major because now classes are
focusing on elements of English Studies that were once on the “fringe.” For
instance, instead of just taking classes that expand upon literature and the
history of different periods, in the new major here at the College students are
additionally encouraged to take courses that address composition and rhetoric. This
shift provides students with an opportunity to study different elements of
English Studies that have not been as stressed upon in the past. I know I for
one never took any kind of rhetoric courses in high school so I look forward to
exploring that aspect of English under the new major. With this in mind, I
intend to take Dr. Devet’s Technical Writing course (Engl 334) this spring
because it will focus on forms of writing that I have never encountered before.
This sub-field of composition is one that I am interested in and look forward
to learning more about next semester.

In addition to discussing the shifting aspects of English
Studies, our two guest speakers gave helpful advice in regards to what to do
with an English major. With the job market appearing tough these days, it seems
extra difficult for those in the humanities to find a job they that enjoy and that
brings in money. Both speakers explained that students shouldn’t go to graduate
school unless they receive tuition waivers or stipends for teaching. This advice
is helpful because oftentimes students go to grad school if they don’t know
what that want to do yet career-wise (I know that’s what I was planning). However,
their advice was realistic and helpful for English majors because we can go
into almost any field, which at times is scary because there are almost too
many options to choose from. Overall, the guest speakers were a great addition
to this course because they explained the changes in English Studies and what
we can do with the tools we gain by being English majors.

I’m REALLY trying, I promise!

Posted on by
3

So, another day another dawn as Sean Puffy Combs would say.  Maybe.  But I digress.

I am actively seeking to make this approach work for me, and I think I am making strides, albeit slow ones.  I don’t think there is much more to get except for learning to practically apply the aspects of formalism, which we began with the Sonnet.  I accept its existence, its backgrounds, and its tenants, I just personally do not think that I am at the degree of proficiency in which I could do a formalist critique myself if left to my own “devices.”  I guess this is just a confidence issue in whether or not I have ingested the ability to act on these points we’ve been discussing.

I am also led to a curious epiphany in that it seems that the structure of this class (from the schedule) is solely around criticism, and it seems that criticism is the majority of English studies (I’m not saying it is, just seems that way at this point).  It seems strange that we take in different lenses with which to analyze scientifically or quantify the material brought to us, and in focusing on this, it seems that something is invariably lost.  I cannot help but think of my own writing, and think that I am not looking for it to be analyzed or compared.  I partially want it to be entertaining, but I really want it to convey a message.  You could take every filter you want to a story or poem I wrote, and you could still fail to see it for what it is.  Almost like (I know, too much use of the Dead Poets Society) in the Dead Poets Society when Robin William’s character instructs the class to remove the page from their texts in which the value of a poem is quantified by a linear graph.  I understand the dichotomy(see, love dichotomy) of this position, and I can see both sides.  Eventually, you have to have something more tangible or empirical to ground your studies.  But this also holds your studies back from their full potential.  It takes the pleasure out of it.  It makes us the people Samuel Clemons would all too happily execute or something(see? wow I can insert hyperlinks and everything.  Woah.  No worries, I’m taking this aside out of my word count for credit…).

I just get the sense that we are removing the key purpose for writing: to inform, to entertain, to open up subject-matter itself.  Sometimes, a tree is just a tree.  Sometimes it isn’t.  But this seems somewhat forced and contrived if criticism is the end all to English studies.  The human element seems to me inseparable.  And whereas we claim that we are not removing it with multiple criticisms, or we second guess people making blatant statements (like maybe Mark Twain was trying to make a hint in telling us not to look for hints), it seems that appreciation and study of a subject is more about riding a wave than it is controlling a river’s flow.  Sorry if that’s out-there/sounds-like-hippie-bullshit.  I think I should have shut up around paragraph 2.  I am going to review what I have written and continue (because I think this gives me the ability and opportunity to argue with myself.  someone hide the gun.)

Having re-read the above paragraphs, I only wish to contribute that I am not saying that we just sit around in English studies and talk about how texts and authors make us “feel.”  But more so, discuss the impacts and implications of works themselves, as to original intent.  In this way, as history is cyclical, so all of a sudden, Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” works multi-generationally for fighting poverty and oppression.  Stuff like that.  Yeah.  Didn’t really give myself an exit strategy here, did I?

Sum up in one sentence or less? Criticism is part of English studies but is not the end all.  It just has appeared this way for the majority of my “Literately aware” life.  For the record, I hope my premises and assumptions are wrong.

Tagging And Titling Posts Is Stressful

Posted on by
Reply

I certainly have encountered new criticism prior in my studies, but I certainly had no idea that it was called new criticism, nor what this term technically meant. It was fascinating to study the methods new criticism uses and as well as the ones it refuses. While I understand the merit of it, I could not imagine using formalism exclusively. I think it is an extremely useful tool to help get involved in the nitty gritty of the text and I think it is instrumental in grasping what constitutes good writing (which, in turn, serves as an example to anyone attempting to create good writing themselves). I also think that our study of the study highlighted its flaw—just as we could not understand how formalism was used exclusively when it was created until we looked at it in light of the history of English studies, we cannot understand how a piece of literature works or does not work until we look at it in the light of the history of the author’s personal life and the history of the world at the time it was written.

I am grateful for formalism because it is the most scientific and basic English studies can get. Once you bring in the outside factors surrounding the piece, you are more susceptible to bring in outside factors surrounding yourself as the reader. Two readers of complete different moral compasses will undoubtedly see a text differently, but neither can deny that certain words or devices are used to accomplish the task of supporting the theme. Also, it feels safe to me. For example, in my English 202 class, we have a variety of different topics or responses we can use to write a paper. I’ve chosen the one that examines the text formalistically because that feels like less of a risk than choosing to examine the implications of the authorial intent on the main character’s morals. I feel like there are more ways to go wrong with the latter than the former.

One thing I was surprised about in class is that most people thought the Leavises were extreme and kooky. Well, actually, no. I rather agree with both accounts. I also agree with the Leavises ideas, even the ones that seemed outlandish to some. I particularly liked the quote in that reading that declared that a “teacher of literature was no longer just a teacher like any other, but rather ‘a missionary’. Indeed… the study of literature for its own sake was practically a religious duty and literature itself almost a religion” (14). I am completely comfortable with looking at literature as a nearly religious experience. It is, for me at least, a huge source of morality and indeed, a certain kind of morality that cannot be obtained elsewhere. This is why I love reading and discussing reading so much. I think that in present day America, we are too busy worrying about offending people’s beliefs to state or challenge our own. Sure, it’s nice to be considerate of other’s feelings, but over-consideration only serves to make one’s understanding of themselves weaker and less meaningful. These big questions need to be tackled and literature provides a medium distant enough from personal experience that conversation can emerge with less shyness.

This is where I stop myself from ranting further. Also, I would like to state that I still do not know what the fated question that is integral to everyone studying English is, and it still haunts me.