In preparation, give some thought here to what kind of game we're pursuing this semester. We know the white bear is literature, and we know approximately the dates between which it flourishes. We even (thanks to the writing/time-line exercise on the first day of class) have a few authors to anchor either end of our time span: Defoe, Swift, and Pope precede our opening date (1740s) and Wordsworth and Blake come at the tail end (1790s).
Before we ask what lies in between, though, perhaps we should ask how we'll know our prey when we see it.
What makes a text worthy of study some 250 years later?
- Its capacity to show readers what it felt like to be alive at the time it was written? (the "snapshot of its time" argument)
- Its ability to transcend its time and speak timeless truths to later eras? (the "Great Books" argument)
- Its significance within the unfolding tradition of English literature, building on prior works and laying the ground for future ones? (the canon of British literature argument)
- The clues it provides to the formation of present-day beliefs about the self and society? (the cultural historicist approach)
The question is not merely of theoretical interest. In these next three weeks, we'll be looking at texts that I've selected, with a view towards making these choices clearer while you get comfortable with C18 diction, vocabulary, and literary convention. After that, you'll be deciding for yourselves in your groups what particular texts warrant closer scrutiny--and other groups will be making that decision for you.
Which approach do you hope your peers will take?
Deadline: Wednesday (1/26), 1pm.
8 comments:
To begin, each of these arguments can be worthwhile, in a different way. Each element presented in these arguments has some validity. It seems the best approach to come at a problem from all angles, to truly understand it. If it came down to it though, the “snapshot of its time” argument would be the most beneficial. While it might take more work with this method, it would be able to teach much more. Not only could the read learn from what the book has to say, but also learn more about what living in this time was like, and help the reader relate to readers during that time as well. Reading a text that falls into the “Great Books” argument would be lovely, yet it doesn’t help the reader understand much about the time it was written in. A book could be from any point in time. If that is the desired approach, then why bother having classes divided by periods of time at all?
The class itself is a “snapshot”. The snapshots are a constellation of ideas but we have to choose how we would like to relate them. Not all English majors take the same classes. Say, somebody was more drawn to "A Vindication of the Rights of Women" by Wollstonecraft in a British Lit Survey class and that prompted them to take a class focused solely on women authors. That leads them to the next “star” in their constellation. In addition, there is more than one way to perceive history or else we would not have an array of philosophers, writers, historians to study from. Some people who take “historical materialism” stance are more concerned about its influence on the present; but I would hope my class mates choose the first option and present their material as a “snapshot” of the time period. In turn, I would be able to ask the questions I want. Part of the navigation process means asking questions- but does everyone have to take the same path? Allow each classmate to create their own constellation. After we’ve given (and listened to) a snapshot, we can create our own journey to newfound knowledge. the other approaches can be successful,intellectual and valid but I think it is unavoidable to have some bias since the group would determine how pieces of literature affected forthcoming beliefs, attitudes, and literature. I'm more interested in discovering what life was like in a specific time rather than try to figure out the connection to a different time period. We can track the white bear together as a class, but we should ask diverse questions and understand all the parts before attempting to understand the “whole” (the white bear?).
When I think of literature that can be studied some 250 years later I think of very popular and well know writers such as some of the ones mentioned like Swift and Pope. These writers are important because they allow the readers to enter into their worlds while reading their works. I think it is important for the reader to be able to identify with the time period in which the work was written in, in order to understand what the work is ultimately about therefore I definitely agree with the "snapshot of its time" argument because this holds the background to anything else that a reader can learn or deduct from any writers work from a long time ago.
While I think that all four aspects are important criteria for a literary piece's worthiness throughout time, there are two that to me, take precedence above the rest, and that is partly because they somewhat go hand in hand. The two approaches that I find most significant are the snapshot of its time argument, and the cultural historicist approach. Part of what we are as a society today, is a result of what society was long before us. Literature in the same, is partially a product of literature from centuries past. Reading about the past, and things that adequately represent the culture, beliefs, and current events of a period long before us, not only keep readers informed of history, but also provides a timeline which ends in the present. While all books have significance no matter what the era, not all carry over timeless truths or relatable concepts to the future. Historical approaches, and the way that history connects to the present, are the most essential concepts to why a book is worthy of study some 250 years later.
Perhaps I'm taking too much of a personal view on my education but I feel as though I need to take a more birds-eye view of the courses I take, to understand the history behind the artform of literature--and our ENGL 427 class is no different. To me, it's not enough just understanding how people during a particular era read books and related to it. I want to know how literature has evolved from what it used to be, what themes and truths of humanity have survived throughout time, and the direction the artform will take in the future. And maybe that's what survey classes are for, whereas specific courses such as ours emphasize the "snapshot" argument. However, I believe that the most important reason to study time periods in depth is to dig deeper into the evolution of thought. Some questions that I ask are: 1) What were the day-to-day concerns about the people during this time that were different from the era before and after them? 2) What sort of ideas were developed or overturned by authors? 3) And how did people view themselves and express their identity as representations or voices for their society as opposed to other time periods?
I don't know. Maybe these sort of questions aren't relevant to everyone. But for myself, the most intriguing approach is the canon of British literature argument.
I believe that the Snapshot of Its Time argument would be one of the better approaches to take. I believe that no one really has the right to ASSUME what an author's intent is/was, especially without any prior knowledge about that author or their previous works. Yet even still, many of us as English majors take it upon ourselves to apply EVERYTHING to life as we know itm, and how it many apply to our present day lives. However, who is to say that every author had an idea our how time would differ in the future. I am certainly sure they couldn't have possibly imagine that we would live in such an advance world filled with every form of technology you could think of. Things like this come in abundance for us and so we often take them for granted. The same applies for Literature, we have access to so many time periods that we don't always time the time to appreciate each for what they actually are...a valuable artifact that captured a specific moment in time. Now, I am not totally against application, because it is a very useful stategy to fully understanding why something of the past actually matters today. However, I do believe that we need to use basic kindergarten instincts and learn to put something back in its original place when we are done playing with it.
It appears that the snapshot in time is the most popular reason to study texts from the 18th century. But, I do not feel that the snapshot in time approach can stand alone without pairing it with the cultural historic approach. There must be some profound reason why we study periods of literature from different time frames other than simply "because it's a requirement to graduate." While I do not think that this time period is the utmost fascinating, I do think it is important to know the writers' emotions and historical significance in today's society. Not to say that there has to be an explicit connection between 18th century writers and their need to build a foundation for writers and readers today, but it is extremely interesting to know how their ideas and writing styles impact our opinions of culture and society from that time period.
I hope other groups choose to examine the stylistic choices of writers and their form. In today's world, it appears that stream of consciousness is taking over and writers excel at sharing their viewpoints in a more detailed, dramatic way. I am interested to see if there are any connections or correlations between the evolution of writing form over the centuries. Writing from that time period is very structured and tight; writers did not seem to find grandiose rambling worthwhile. But, today, that sort of writing style is sought after and praised. It is very interesting to see what shapes writing form and see how cultural historical significance shapes writers' style choices.
I feel like the "Great Books" approach should be the primary method of analysis given that it allows for a closer-to-universal audience than some of the other approaches, but this is not to say that the other methods have no worth. My hope is that my peers will not overlook this approach in favor of more specific ones, such as canonical and historical methods. In my experience the "Great Books" approach does not receive enough credit in college courses, or is at least overlooked.
Post a Comment