That last link looks terrific and very reliable Am-Chau; Jeffrey Weeks is an extremely well-respected historian in this area.
Early: So is it still her room when it's empty? Does the room, the thing, have purpose? Or do we -- what's the word? Simon: I really can't help you. Early: The plan is to take your sister. Get the reward, which is substantial. 'Imbue.' That's the word.
'Objects In Space'
All Ogle, No Cash -- It's Not Just Annoying, It's Un-American
Discussion of episodes currently airing in Un-American locations (anything that's aired in Australia is fair game), as well as anything else the Un-Americans feel like talking about or we feel like asking them. Please use the show discussion threads for any current-season discussion.
Add yourself to the Buffista map while you're here by updating your profile.
Angus G - May 12, 2003 8:19:18 am PDT #4667 of 9843
Roguish Laird
Am-Chau Yarkona - May 12, 2003 8:22:59 am PDT #4668 of 9843
I bop to Wittgenstein. -- Nutty
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.
Leigh - May 12, 2003 8:25:17 am PDT #4669 of 9843
Nobody
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.
Angus G - May 12, 2003 8:27:27 am PDT #4670 of 9843
Roguish Laird
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!
amych - May 12, 2003 8:28:51 am PDT #4671 of 9843
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?
It's funny because it's true!
No, really, it's not. t /humorless ex-English teacher
Am-Chau Yarkona - May 12, 2003 8:29:40 am PDT #4672 of 9843
I bop to Wittgenstein. -- Nutty
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.
Leigh - May 12, 2003 8:30:45 am PDT #4673 of 9843
Nobody
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.
Am-Chau Yarkona - May 12, 2003 8:41:18 am PDT #4674 of 9843
I bop to Wittgenstein. -- Nutty
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.
Leigh - May 12, 2003 8:43:09 am PDT #4675 of 9843
Nobody
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.
Am-Chau Yarkona - May 12, 2003 8:50:33 am PDT #4676 of 9843
I bop to Wittgenstein. -- Nutty
I actually had a teacher say to me that he respected my opinion even if he disagreed with it.
It's one of the things that makes English a wonderful subject. I've had similiar experiences, but the best example I've ever heard was my grandmother's story (she did English as her major subject when she went to collage as a muture student for a teaching degree) about arguing that, contrary to many tradition interpetations which have Desdemona a tragic heroine, she's actually a manipulative bitch (not my grandmother's words, but you get the idea). Her lecturer gave her an A-- one of the few he ever gave out-- partly for taking up a different stance.