Though I do sometimes wonder whether it's even possible to do an English Major properly without having studied history.
Well, that's what I did...but that does mean I
always
feel like I'm fudging a lot on history (ha, now I tell you all!), and literary studies is more history-focused than it's ever been, so I'd definitely recommend doing some history if you have the chance/inclination. (Then again maybe insanely detailed historical analysis will go out of fashion in lit crit and we can all get back to good old fashioned close reading or inpenetrable abstract theorising...here's hoping!
t wink
)
That last link looks terrific and very reliable Am-Chau; Jeffrey Weeks is an extremely well-respected historian in this area.
Jeffrey Weeks is an extremely well-respected historian in this area.
That's good to know-- I'll give it the time for a careful read through.
Then again maybe insanely detailed historical analysis will go out of fashion in lit crit and we can all get back to good old fashioned close reading or inpenetrable abstract theorising...here's hoping!
Dear lord, please let this happen. I get to have two Arts subjects a semester, I don't wanna do history!
t /whine
My main reason for avoiding the subject was the having to have a source which will back up your wild theories (whereas in English you can have a theory and there's no need for anyone but the marker to agree with you *cough*), but since nothing can be as hellish as the citing required of my first Law assignment, I should just give up on using that as an excuse.
whereas in English you can have a theory and there's no need for anyone but the marker to agree with you *cough*
It's funny because it's true!
It's funny because it's true!
No, really, it's not.
t /humorless ex-English teacher
Then again maybe insanely detailed historical analysis will go out of fashion in lit crit and we can all get back to good old fashioned close reading or inpenetrable abstract theorising...here's hoping!
Yes! The close reading and the inpenetrable theorising! I'm good at those. History is interesting, but I'm not so good at it.
in English you can have a theory and there's no need for anyone but the marker to agree with you *cough*
In fact, sometimes they don't even have to agree! You just have to argue it convincingly.
It's those damn pesky facts. They ruin everything, I tells ya.
Edit: now I look crazy, because everyone has faster fingers than me. Facts ruin history, that's all I'm sayin.
It's those damn pesky facts. They ruin everything, I tells ya.
I don't mind facts so much, it's having them in so many places and in so much doubt. I mean, "the text says blahblahblah" is a fact, and easy, and neat, because either it does or it doesn't and the only thing in doubt is what blahblahblah means, which is entirely personal; but "in 1430, people did blahblahblah" is presented as a fact, but it might not be. Especially if in three others books it says, "in 1430, people did yaddayaddayadda". And then you have to reference all four books, and that's okay when you're really interested in both blahblahblah and yaddayaddayadda, but when you not? It's no fun.
Um. Yeah. I may just be a little bored, here, and it's making me boring.
Whee, serial posting ahoy.
In fact, sometimes they don't even have to agree! You just have to argue it convincingly.
Oh, I love this part. Once when I was stupidly arguing that T.S Eliot's Prufrock was crap (do not mix caffeine, poetry analysis and deadlines--there is no good there), I actually had a teacher say to me that he respected my opinion even if he disagreed with it. Lovely tolerant man he was - if I were him, I would have locked me in a classroom and refused to let me out till I started speaking sense.
On edit:
It's no fun.
Yep, thus comes my avoidance. Which will no doubt bite me in the ass when I'm abducted by aliens and they won't let me go till I tell them who Australia's first Prime Minister was. You'd be surprised how often I worry about that, really. I choose to blame my over-indulgence in sci-fi as a child.
