(Australian) Elite girls' school 'kills the study of literature' (Shakespeare goes Marxist)

The Australian ^ | April 15, 2006 | Justine Ferrari

[SauronOfMordor]

I cut my own throat in class one day by stating that I felt ideological critiques of literary works were nothing more than intellectual masturbation.

I think that any critiques of literary works are intellectual masturbation. Just READ the damn stuff. If it speaks to you, then great. If it doesn't, find something that does.

I just think that too many literary critics are trying to cover up their own creative constipation

[<1/1,000,000th%]

They left out sexual preference????

Shameful. /sarcasm

[RepoGirl]

Ever heard of Lysenkoism?

Nope, sure haven't.

[RepoGirl]

I just think that too many literary critics are trying to cover up their own creative constipation

Amen! My writing mentor use to remind us, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, become critics."

Look at Roger "fatboy" Ebert. His one and only screenplay was Valley of the Dolls (come to think of it, he might have also written Pirahna...) Fine films, indeed.

[LexBaird]

You can read a bit about it here. Basically, Lysenko was a quack who rejected genetics WRT crop yields. He was also the darling of Lenin and Stalin, and thus had the power to purge any dissenting theories.

[SWilliams]

OK first off I am a SCEGGS student and the exam question within the article was the one that was proposed to me during the Year 11 term 1 exam last year.

At the very beginning of the course i to felt that it was stupid to get us to write a paragraph on how a feminist, Marxist and race reading is supported in the text but as we meaning the class went through the text it became clear on how the teachers were wanting us to respond to the Question.

The fact that the readings were developed more recently than when the plays were written IS NOT what was the mean to be the point of the exercise. The point of analyzing the play using these reading was to BROADEN our own understanding of the text and how different view points can change how the reader responds to the play.

For Example:
A FEMINIST reading may may write a negative response to the play because of the underlying nature of the man being superior to the females in the play, and many other ways that can be disputed.
A RACE reading of the play could be on how the nature of the moor Othello, having to constantly prove himself even after showing himself to be a capable leader while Cassio achieved his position due to family and being a white man.

Many different readings can be used to examine the text. When we were studying Othello there were other readings that were used including Social-Political reading.

[Artemis123]

Your opinion is exactly the same as my dad's and (admittedly probably just to spite him), I have never agreed with this train of thought. Literary analysis is SO important...and fiction, similarly, should be taken seriously. Yes, novels contain elements of the author's imagination but large segments of the novel develop from more serious issues in our world at large. Consider authors in opressed countries. They cannot write bland, non-fiction novels about the suffering or restrictions that their government or state leader imposes; their book would almost certainly not be published. A fiction book, however, a little more subtle, can allow these authors to express their views and opinions on the matter...and, I might add, give us fantastic insights into how people are living in the circumstances, through character developments, etc...and when it comes to Shakespeare, which is, I believe, where this forum initiated...it does not matter that Shakespeare lived before Marxism..one of the fantastic things about Shakespeare is that his work transcends time and culture barriers...sure, his plays may not have people being lined up on a wall and shot, but the same moral and ethical foundations are in his works, and from these we can further understand the nature of humans and their evils, which has never changed.

[Borges]

Marxism is a theory of History so you can apply it to any point in human history.

[Borges]

Fiction affects the way people see the world. Shakespeare virtually invented modern English and the idea of the human personality as an ever changing thing. You don't think something like Uncle Tom's Cabin or 1984 had an effect on history?

[Borges]

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, become critics."

Against that here's Henry James' idea that 'Critical Perceptiveness is a rarer gift then writing fiction.' Criticism is an Artform as well.

[Xenalyte]

ONE of the world's leading authorities on Shakespeare's work, Harold Bloom, and the nation's pre-eminent poet, Les Murray, have declared literary study in Australia dead after learning that a prestigious Sydney school asked students to interpret Othello from Marxist, feminist and racial perspectives.

See, this kind of mush-headed drivel is exactly why I am not a college English teacher. I couldn't spout this crap with a straight face.

When we were in grad school, a friend of mine and I fantasized about a Deconstruction Paper Generator that would spit out gibberish like this, so we wouldn't have to waste time "thinking" it up.

[Xenalyte]

Bloom was held in great disdain when I was at the University of Houston.

But then, the freaks I went to school with thought Derrida, Foucault, and Irigaray were the last word in lit crit.

[RepoGirl]

Well, I'm not going to argue with a master like Henry James. I was one of the few who defended him back 'in the day'.

The thing is--Henry James is a phenomenal writer as well, so any criticism from him has merit. Your average New York Times hack, or academic 'shining star' is a failed literary writer (and yes, I'm aware of the glaringly broad statement that is, but them's my story, and I'm a-stickin' to it.)

And I always maintain, it's easier to critique and deconstruct than it is to create. Look at Roger Ebert.

[Borges]

Criticism is creation. Not all writing has to be fiction. Oscar Wilde was another who thought that criticism was an Art. The idea that you have to also do something to write about it is a fallacy. A great historian doesn't have to have first hand experience at what he's documenting to be a great historian.

[Borges]

Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont's Fashionable Nonsense criticizes Irigaray, as a general example of what the believe is the anti-scientific tendency of "postmodernism".

They cite her analyses of E=mc² as a "sexed equation" (because it privileges the speed of light) and her argument that fluid mechanics has been neglected by "masculine" science that prefers to deal with "masculine" rigid objects rather than "feminine" fluids

[beef]

Fiction affects the way people see the world.

No kidding.   People clamor to be emotionally manipulated by made up stories.

You don't think something like Uncle Tom's Cabin or 1984 had an effect on history?

Of course it did, and that IMHO is a real  problem. 

[Borges]

Fiction doesn't always just work on the emotions. It can work on the intellect as well. Opinions can often be expressed with more nuance and detail when expressed metaphorically.

[beef]

Opinions can often be expressed with more nuance and detail when expressed metaphorically.

 

 If everyone understood it that way, then there would not be a problem.
 

[Borges]

What other form of understanding fiction is there?

[CheyennePress]

You won't catch too many males making this assertion is my guess, but Isabel Archer in Portrait of a Lady may be the most interesting character that I've come across in literature. James is phenomenal. I actually made a pilgrimmage of sorts to Lamb House in Rye, England, to see his house. On one hand, I was very enthusiastic to see children going from door to door and caroling. It fit the cobbled streets perfectly (and Rye is a beautiful little town). Sad thing is that none of them knew who Henry James was. To be fair, the oldest was only about 12 or so, but I'm willing to bet James is the most famous person to have lived in that town.