Well, it might be the simpler English course this semester, but that doesn’t mean its potential for frustration is in any way diminished. Some lecturer wasted an hour of my life today talking about the binding and cover of Whitman’s Leaves of Grass, the three metaphors in the title of that work, parroting some Emerson essay for about thirty minutes, and extolling the virtues of the American character as though it were some homoerotic process of creative inspiration. Oh. Dear. And I won’t even start on her ineptitude in the art of clicking “next” in Powerpoint. Shoot me now.
Unfortunately it is the same lecturer again tomorrow. I’m going to be getting an aisle seat close to the door.
Then there is (mercifully) a one-week hiatus, after which she will proceed to (probably) butcher Emily Dickinson — who looks vastly more interesting than Whitman to start with, but I fear this can only mean there is further to fall.
I have to agree. I also thought that the lecture was terrible. First the change the reading list completely.… Now this!Unfortunately I’m noticing a theme amongst the lectures of this course so far… something that i can only label as ‘suckiness’… and its not looking good for the rest of semester. I’m suprised someone actually got any impression of what she was going on about. I swear she was making up bull. No wonder so many people tuned out and started talking about what they would be doing afterwards and devising escape plans to make it happen sooner…
She wasn’t just making up bull. A lot of it (all of it?) checks out as okay and true, etc., but it just has crap-all relevance to the notion of inventing modernity. Being inspired by Emerson’s conception of a poet and/or sexual creation has, it would seem, very little to do with anything. She alluded to the course’s title (ENGL1015: Inventing Modernity, for all the spectators out there) at one point and pulled a surprised face that there was some link between what she was talking about and that. It was one of those cathartic moments wherein you can see the lecturer realise they’ve been wasting the time of everyone in the room extensively. Sigh.
And yes, the devising escape plans thing is so true :-| I especially enjoyed watching the main lecturer (MH) appear to be on the verge of apoplexy as she turned around whenever people were speaking at the start (treating everyone like school students, which shouldn’t have to be the case if the lecture wasn’t crap), but by the end resignedly sitting in her chair facing stoically forwards. Maybe that’s a little cruel of me… maybe.
Oh, and if anon would care to reveal his/her identity that would be most welcome. I’ve port-scanned your IP to no avail and am intrigued to know who else that visits this website is doing that course!
oh the PAAAAAAIIN
Sydney uni may have the better history courses, but it seems that UNSW has the better english courses. Id rather the better english courses cause (most of) the history courses are inherently interesting, while methinks you need to work hard to make an interesting enlgish course…
have a fun semester!
What’s it all got to do with school?
Oh the course is awesome. I’ll have great fun when not in lectures. Heck, if they can whip out someone better than the two we’ve had already (it’d be hard not to, there are some awesome staff around) I’ll have great fun in lectures, getting excited and vaguely end up resembling one of those in-car bobbing-head dogs nodding in agreement. If. I’m just having trouble seeing past my anti-US-nationalism prejudices… some of the stuff the lecturer was reading today from Whitman would be either burnt or hidden in the deepest recesses of the faculty office were it written by a Briton, in all probability. It is really quite nauseating at times, and clearly conveying an absolute blindness to the realities of one’s own country: of course there are things wrong with it. In the case of Whitman, we know that as an abolitionist he was probably quite aware of things wrong with his country, yet chose to write what he has anyway; reflecting upon some mythical ‘national character’ clearly not borne by its constituents! Ridiculous.
And as for what this all has to do with school, not much. I recycled the category when I started uni and probably should have setup a new one. In fact I might do that soonish before it all gets too out of hand. Perhaps…
Aaaahahahahahaha, Joshua the “in-car bobbing-head dog”! I LOVE IT!
I did Inventing Modernity for a while last year. It sounds like it has degraded since. Though it also sounds far less jam-packed, too.
Apart from the stupidity of bringing in black slaves from Africa (who were sold by their own black tribal leaders, it must be noted), the U.S. was a great country until around the mid-20th century, so I think you need to give Whitman a break. I mean, for a start, just think of concepts like freedom of speech and of association, freedom to own a gun; their constitution was truly ground-breaking at the time. No other country in the world has those types of rights!
Anyway, you could always venture into the world of functional linguistics (grammar, grammar, grammar, grammar, and more grammar) in ENGL1005 Language and Image. :D
Specifically I would criticise Whitman’s ridiculously permissive definition of a poem. So much so that by the third edition of Leaves of Grass it was necessary to re-label everything on the contents page “Poem of…” or similar, so prosaic was his ‘poetry’. In relation to America, this is in response to his characteris/zation of the American state, people, and self as poetry of one form or another. And we would do well just to keep clear of his self-messianic pseudo-religious humanist crap, because I can have very little nice to say on that subject.
For your second point, I am doing that course also. I saw you in the first Tuesday lecture (I will normally be attending Fridays but for where I desparately need that day free) but you were too far away for me to say hi. So hi ;-)
Woo hoo. You’re doing EDUC (formerly EDUF) 1019 too, aren’t you? TITM. I tried looking for you today.