I'd ALSO point out that, with the exception of certain special individuals--like that certain actor from Statford way back when--most authors HAVE had an education...

And DID study literature to some degree, whether it was reading it by themselves in college or taking classes or getting a private tutor because their family was wealthy or being a courtly author or a Renaissance man...

So, if nothing else, teaching Honors Shakespeare and studying THAT might not make ME a Shakespeare...

But teaching Shakespeare can lead to another, shall we say, T.S. Eliot (as he was very much a product of Oxford and literary study.)

Plato learned from Socrates, and Socrates was, after all, "just" a teacher, in the end...he spent his life "just" studying and thinking about philosophy and questioning things...

And because he did that study and passed it on, he had a student write those ideas down, Plato--

And those ideas form the basis of Western thought.

So even pure theory and study, so long as it's passed on in writing and/or teaching--which all professors will do, one or the other--can be beneficial.

Again, Philosophy is not Literature, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. I"m not criticizing the Humanities in general, only the study of Literature, which is a small subset.

I'll agree that if you want to be an author, then studying some literature is important, so you are cognizant of what has come before you. However, I don't understand why it takes 4 years, especially since it seems you can say pretty much anything about anything and be "right".

"Please take a moment to compose yourself and decide what you're trying to say. Your statement was that humans without literature are animals. That is what you said.

In your defense you started talking about the borg, devoid of any humanities.

This logic is flawed for 2 reasons:

1) The borg were not animals, so you're not defending your position.
2) Literature is a subset of humanities, not the other way around, so you're changing your premise to defend your point.

"What occupation are you referring to that's JUST studying?"

I'm referring to to professors who don't seem to produce anything of their own of note and spend their time teaching works, as if the author was a failure and the students are too stupid to read the book themselves."

In this instance, I'm taking the Humanities as all equal...

Not my actual view, but as I'm already taking on the Scientific Community, it wouldn't do well to divide my own ranks. :)

So if we want to re-argue for "Humanities" instead of Literature--as it IS a subset--that's fine, though I'd also argue that, with the possible exception of music, literature is probably the deepest and yet the most accessible humanity easily (art and philosophy are more specialized and less...practical, art is, anyway, so it's between Lit. and Music for the communication-of-ideas angle, which I think Literature wins, as it can convey expressions as well as cohesive arguments, whereas music is more expressions generally, so I'd really argue that Literature is the "strongest" of the Humanities to take on Science as a partner--but, again, that may be my bias as an English major, so I'll leave it as an opinion.)

In any case:

1. Actually, the Borg WERE humans...they're assimilated aliens, remember, even humans? They have a computer mind, but still...they technically ARE still biological organisms...and we saw humans become Borg and back again, so it's safe to say that Borg are at least in the Animal Kingdom, albeit with a techno quirk.

2. Again, I change ff just because I feel this applies to the Humanities in general, but that Literature is also the strongest candidate here...

"I'm referring to to professors who don't seem to produce anything of their own of note and spend their time teaching works, as if the author was a failure and the students are too stupid to read the book themselves."

...

I'll be honest and say I've NEVER YET had an English professor like THAT.

I've had pompous ones who thought their view was THE view...but that's just arrogance, and that's it, not that we students were stupid if we disagreed (mostly) or that authors were failures and she was the Queen of Literary Understanding...

So just like apparently I've had poor Math teachers according to you...

Maybe you've had some bad English professors and have a negative view of them as a result?

Because I've had a wide variety of them now over 3+ years or so...

And not ONE fits your description.

"However, I don't understand why it takes 4 years, especially since it seems you can say pretty much anything about anything and be "right"."

Literature isn't about being RIGHT...

It's HOW you say it and WHY you argue the way you do that counts, or...well, how you say it that "makes it right."

It's not like a math problem, but you cna plug in any number and you're right because you bulshitted a test...

It's a critical thinking exercise, asking YOUR opinion on this and that...

And you're "right or wrong" based on how well you can defend your opinion and develop your ideas...

The best ideas and words win (unless, of course, you somehow manage to get elementary plot details wrong, like say Scrooge is still wicked at the end of "A Christmas carol," but that's probably without saying.)

It has a different end goal and end product than the Sciences...

In a Math or Science class, I'm generally asked "What...?"
In Literature classes, I'm asked "Why?" Or "What do you think about...?"

And I'd rather the latter and be treated like a human with an opinion than the former and use my calculator and memorized theorems to solve problems that end, full-stop, and themselves have no practical application here unless I were to suddenly get a job doing this.

And if I were going to get a job doing this...I'd again cite what the Japanese do--

Become apprenticed to this form of math and it's applied use at a high school-college age.

"In this instance, I'm taking the Humanities as all equal..."

Please don't. I made it very clear that I wanted to talk about Literature, not Humanities in general. Changing the subject without warning is confusing and not conducive to a productive subject.

"Actually, the Borg WERE humans...they're assimilated aliens, remember, even humans? They have a computer mind, but still...they technically ARE still biological organisms...and we saw humans become Borg and back again, so it's safe to say that Borg are at least in the Animal Kingdom, albeit with a techno quirk."

What? Just, err, bleck, I don't even know. I'm trying to have a legitimate conversation about a field of study in the real world. Why do you keep talking about fictional characters and then try to jump through hoops in a convoluted attempt to make it fit the conversation? It does nothing to further our discussion.

"I'll be honest and say I've NEVER YET had an English professor like THAT."

I don't care what you're English professors are like. Again, I'm talking about Literature, not English. Again, I'll ask: do you have separate departments for English and Literature?

"It's HOW you say it and WHY you argue the way you do that counts, or...well, how you say it that "makes it right.""

Then why is this conversation so difficult for you?

I ask a simple question about the value of the study of literature, and you start rambling incoherently about God and the Borg. It infuriates me to no end.

"m trying to have a legitimate conversation about a field of study in the real world. Why do you keep talking about fictional characters and then try to jump through hoops in a convoluted attempt to make it fit the conversation? It does nothing to further our discussion."

Because that's what you do in Intertextual Literary studies...

Cite examples to prove your points...granted I don't generally cite a science fiction TV show, but as the nearest analogue to my concept of a human being without the Humanities was something Borg-like, I cited them.

If we're talking just no-Literature...I'd again argue there's something in the fictional and fantastic that human beings need for inspiration in order to make life seem meaningful...

Simply put--human beings as we now them today, and as we've seen in the past, need heroes, and not just the muddled heroes of politics, something that divides like nothing else...

They need heroes that are beyond human faculties, and yet still seemingly attainable.

The way Hercules, Gilgamesh, and Superman are all far stronger than we could ever be, but their attitude is relatable, something we can hold onto, and use for inspiration.

At the opposite end, Odysseus, Hamlet, Sherlock Holmes, and Batman are all generally more cunning and inquisitive than most of us--but again, it's a case of the ideal being higher up than the actual realistic goal, in order to lead us to that attainable goal.

Ditto the whole Jesus thing--NO ONE is so "nice" as he's purported to be...

But for us to have an idea of goodness, we need an example of the greatest good--hence our Jesus-clamoring as a culture of 2,000 years.

"Again, I'll ask: do you have separate departments for English and Literature?"

No.

To me, they're on and the same...I've never seen them divided, and never experienced one without the other at a higher-learning level.

Lit=Eng and Eng=Lit to me...

Let me ask my question in a different way:

As an author, presumably you're writing about something.

Clearly, you need to have a mastery of the English language, which you can can from English course, or through your own experience. You also require knowledge of something. Now, authors usually write about various and overarching topics, so an understanding of a general field (philosophy, history, science, etc), would be useful.

Now, if you write something well, you won't need professors to teach it to students; it will be self-evident. If you write something poorly, you don't deserve to have professors teach it to students.

Do you see what I'm getting at here?

"I'd again argue there's something in the fictional and fantastic that human beings need for inspiration in order to make life seem meaningful..."

Again, you're just stating things as truth and not really defending your position.

"To me, they're on and the same...I've never seen them divided, and never experienced one without the other at a higher-learning level."

Ah, perhaps that explains some of our disagreement. My experience has been that these fields are approached very differently. I usually get along pretty well with English people and very poorly with Literature people.

Literature is not self-evident that way any more than if I were to say "Well, surely you can teach yourself to understand Calculus?"

Maybe you can...

The majority need help.

Right or wrong, logical or not, the fact of the matter is...

The horse may not drink, but it definitely won't if no one leads them to water.

I tutor people who haven't read books in YEARS--and their speech and thinking and writing skills all show it--and ONLY are reading now because a professor is making them and trying to explain "1984" or whatever to them.



Another thing:

English professors and classes at the 200+ (that is, Literature Major level, past the 101 stuff) levels are really more discussion-based and not a lot of lecturing about why this means whatever in "Hamlet," it's a lot more talking about the text and debating and sharing ideas and theories THAT WAY...

At most, I've seen the Yale courses I download be part-lecture, part discussion, and THAT'S for the really high-end theory classes or exclusive Yale courses...if a professor is of such high esteem he's teaching in Yale, he probably wants to hear the sound of his own voice uninterrupted for a while and has probably earned it.

That being said, no Lit. class I've ever taken has NOT been more lecture than discussion-based.

So it's not so much, again, a professor teaching truths that we should all be able to get by ourselves...

You read the text, come away with some understanding of it, and through debate and conversation utilizing the text, other texts, theory, and good old fashioned logic and debate tactics, you come away with your own, greater, unique understanding of the text.

" I usually get along pretty well with English people and very poorly with Literature people."

What's the divide in your experience, then, since I don't even know where you'd divide that...unless Eng=something like Communications, but if that's the case, I'd think they'd be COMM and not ENG people...

See, now this post at 5:43 EST was very clear and helpful. I have a better understanding of what you're saying now.

I guess my question the is: after having discussed a work with a number of people, what have you actually gained?

----

I tend to associate English more with learning how to use the English Language and the actually producing your own work. I associations Literature with studying other people's work and talking about it.

I consider communication to be on a level of bullshit comparable only to Art History and design-your-own-majors.

"I guess my question the is: after having discussed a work with a number of people, what have you actually gained?"

-As a writing hopeful, I gain the knowledge of how different people read and respond to different words and ideas differently...I can try and thus think and keep track of what ahs worked and what hasn't, and if there's significant debate over an issue, and I feel I can argue the point strongly, I can try out arguments here in the hopes of publishing a text with my ideas on that point, either in a non-fiction Literary Criticism form or in the more accepted published journalist/novelist form...maybe that's obvious but yeah--if you're going to be a writer, you need to know how and what other people think, and how they respond to the written word and certain ideas. Literature classes both thus provide for writers a history of thought and writings as well as a forum to test the waters to learn and try and improve both one's own understanding of the material as well as understand others and their views--even if I disagree--so I can someday convert these old, understood ideas into a new text with new ideas and a new way of saying it that both links to the past and speaks to a new generation of listeners.

-Maybe trivial, or again, going without saying, but if I'm sketchy on what a text might mean, a discussion can allow me to see things I didn't see in there before...now, if it's a logically implausible argument and it's just someone shoehorning bullshit in there, THAT can be chucked aside, case in point--this semester, the same person has said:

"Shakespeare and Chaucer were the only authors to ever 'get it right.'" (No mention of what 'it' is, mind you.)

-"'Ulysses is too hard...if it's so hard, why do we have to read this, if I can't understand it?"

-"Just because I'm in a Modern British Lit. class, why should I have to read and learn what Eliot had to say?" (Sort of like saying "Yes, I chose to take this Modern World History Class, but why do I need to care about the World Wars?")

-"Henry VIII brought pants to England!" (WHY this was necessary for a Lit. class...is anyone's guess...and what the English were all wearing over their nether regions before Henry in this kid's mind is anyone's guess, 1500 years of naked Brits in the cold winters near London, I guess...?!) O.O

And then a couple bits of stuff that, quite frankly, doesn't bear repeating.

So yeah, as "subjective" a field as it can be, there are times when you can say "Dude, shut the fuck up, you are wrong and taking up air and space that can be put to better use."

That all being said, there have been instances where I can see something new in the text where I hadn't before the conversation, and THAT can give me an idea to write about, or a new outlook on a certain political or sociological issue, etc.

-Good debate practice as well, you learn better communication skills

-As an Intertextualist, you can see--or I do--how texts, and thus ideas, interact, and THAT brings you a step closer to forming a unified theory of ___, whatever it is those ideas concern, and this is aided by discussion.

And so on...at 3:10am, that's the ones that come off the top of my head, probably forgot some...



"I tend to associate English more with learning how to use the English Language and the actually producing your own work. I associations Literature with studying other people's work and talking about it."

Well, I'd advocate for:

1. Learning how to use the English language
2. Studying how the pros have used it successfully in the past to communicate ideas
3. Talk about these works and the language and how they all function
4. Take this knowledge and use it to write SOMETHING, to get either your own ideas out there or AT LEAST repackage the old ideas as new and re-argue them in a fresh way that you've thought out and written up.

I'll agree that if you study Literature and don't plan to ever write anything on the subject yourself, you're wasting everyone's time.

But I'll also say I don't know of many English majors like that--certainly not my friends, we're trying to write a book together, sort of a many-perspectives piece, and get it published with the help of a couple of our professors who just published new poetry books--and none of my professors...

With the exception of one, but she's a grandmother at this point and has taught many years, so I think some slack can be cut to her for not exactly being full of literary energy to write something new...

@obi

Thank you. I have a much better understanding now. In the future, please try to explain things the way you just did without all the religious melodrama.

I can see how if you want to be a writer, discussing and studying other works first would be helpful. The impression I always had was that people who studied literature either didn't write their own works, or only wrote about other people's work (which we seem to agree is a waste of time, yes?). Perhaps I've just had very bad exposure to literature people.