From: mtaranto@shearson.com (Mark Taranto)
Subject: Re: Literature students
Organization: Yale CS Mail/News Gateway
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 03:59:29 GMT


[This isn't like the stuff I usually post.  I rarely respond in the
second person, I only occasionally compare art to bodily functions,
but I did excise one particularly bad pun (which I was going to dedicate
to Mike Godwin) because it didn't fit in with the rest of the article.
Well -- I'll post this anyway]
 
 
 
wwhitman@nevada.edu (MICHAEL WISE) writes:
 
> Mark, where are you when I need you?
> I'm almost agreeing with Clayton.
 
It's OK, big guy -- I'm right here.  I'll try to get you through this.
Take a deep breath.  Close your eyes, and think of England.  (Damn,
was Michael around for that thread?).
 
It is OK to almost agree with Clayton.  Most of his facts are accurate
(although selectively picked -- like a Beerenauslese), some of his
conclusions are reasonable.  It only gets a little wacky when he adds
things like "It is because of all you liberals."
 
> It is true that literature courses are meant to provide students with
> certain tools for the dissection of literature. It is true also that
> dissection of literature takes away from the initial impact of reading
> and loving a work of fiction.
 
Is this true?  I don't know -- I've never taken a literature class.
I didn't start reading until I was 21.  I did have to take some Upper
Division English classes -- but took Grammar & Linguistics.
 
But I do remember going to a lecture where two somewhat famous people
were to debate "Why one studies Literature."  As near as I could tell,
one claimed that one stated that it should be studied to further the
cause of Socialism, and the other stated that it should be studied to
enable one to think more clearly.  When the first was pressed as to how
the cause of Socialism would be furthered, he responded that it would
happen because studying Literature would help people to think more
clearly.  I thought that they were both full of shit.
 
But as for what Michael says -- it seems to me that my friends who know ALL
about dissecting literature still love that initial impact, and are still
blown away by beautiful words.  Sure, there are those who are too pretentious
to allow themselves to enjoy a good piece of art -- but these people
probably wouldn't allow themselves to enjoy a good shit, either.
 
> But the real value for a student is seeing the way we as professionals
> can show how the work achieves its effect. That is what we are meant to
> teach in these classes. I go into Intro to Lit and try to explain every-
> thing, so that students get an idea where are literature comes from, and
> so that they can understand where it is going.
 
Oh, Michael, You are such an idealist.  I imagine that you are a great
teacher for those who love the stuff.  Barclay should study with you.
But -- at 18 I would have run as fast as I could in the other direction.
 
[Hemingway discussion deleted, because Michael seems like such a nice guy,
and I don't have the heart to tell him that I've never read Hemingway, and
may never read Hemingway, and that any discussion of 20th Century Literature
should involve writers on the other side of the Ocean and if you want
narrators who are unfriendly (though not nasty) try Ford Maddox Ford's
THE GOOD SOLDIER as the best damn example of that I've ever seen -- but
I won't say any of this].
 
>       I just think they should come away with something.
 
YES YES OH YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
> Whether they memorise it and repeat it as a mantra anytime the
> discussion turns to literature,
 
NO NO OH NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
 
Mark
 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books