Comments on this article about the fall of the "Great Books" approach?

[Laurel-in-CA]

https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2018/04/the-stunning-overthrow-of-the-great-books/

 

[chiguirre]

I wasn't sure if the eminently resentful author was being ironic or oblivious when he attacked the purveyors of "ressentiment".

 

On a more practical note, many schools do offer a Great Books program (UT Austin, U of H, Notre Dame, Colombia, Mercer off the top of my head). Many more offer a wide array of courses to fulfill the general ed requirements so students can decide for themselves if they prefer to read the ancient Greeks or modern Americans or 19th century Russians. You can't read everything in college but you can get a taste of how to approach a book that will set you up for a lifetime of reading.

[Carol in Cal.]

It rang true to me.

[Sneezyone]

Oh for heaven’s sake. Bitter much? One cannot discuss the exclusivity and limitations of ‘classics’ (which include texts that stretch well into the 20th century) without acknowledging that they are often ONLY classics because they conformed to the sensibilities and preferences of the dominant class of the era, not because there was necessarily anything revolutionary about their themes or language or structure. Nowhere is that more evident than children’s literature. I’m all for studying the works that influenced the development and growth of western civilization but the hubris of designating any/all ‘classics’ as ‘great books’ will never fly with me.

[Tanaqui]

I don't like being bullied, and the tone of that post is really, really grating. It's not an article. It's a screed.

Indeed, I found it so disagreeable that I google the author and... well, let's just say I'm not even a little surprised at his other views.

[Pegs]

I couldn't finish reading that.

[Sneezyone]

38 minutes ago, HeighHo said:

 

So, your definition of 'classic' is revolutionary in theme, language, or structure?

 

Please use your critical reading skills. I said that what passes for ‘classic’ is often deemed so because of those things not that I believe that to be true.  If you are seriously interested in knowing my thoughts, we can continue the discussion but it seems like you’re having an emotional reaction to my posts.

[....]

4 hours ago, Pegs said:

I couldn't finish reading that.

Me, neither.  His writing style is awful!

[Bluegoat]

I also didn't much like the tone.

However, I did a Great Books education in university, the program is still there and I'm still fairly involved at the university.  And crazy as it seems, the kinds of shenanigans and stupid argument he describes actually seem to be what is going on, particularly among student union type advocates.  I actually find this kind of like a living parody, something that should only exist in some crazy ironic comedy, but there it is.

I think people kind of miss the idea of what a great book is when they suggest that it just happened to align with what people thought.  Sure to some extent that is true - that is why they were read and influential, and that is why we read them.  They became important in the canon because people thought they were important, and so they became part of the development of literature, they impacted how people thought.  They are read now because they tell us a lot about what and how people thought and they allow us to enter into it.  

It's just a beginning, of course, ultimately readers can fill in more and more books and build up a wider and deeper picture.  But starting with the books that were most influential means it's possible to see a thread, a conversation, that connects them, and ultimately connects us to them.  

i am always reminded a few years ago, the CBC tried to compile a list of the great Canadian songs through the history of pop music.  They had a panel of experts, and some kept arguing for these obscure songs to represent certain movements. They wanted to include these rather than songs that had been hugely popular and emblematic to a whole generation.  While it's true that the obscure songs had influenced some of the musicians, in presenting a list of the most important songs, it gave entirely the wrong impression.  Kind of like taking Austen off of a first year reading list to replace it with Virtue Rewarded.

[Sneezyone]

46 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

I also didn't much like the tone.

However, I did a Great Books education in university, the program is still there and I'm still fairly involved at the university.  And crazy as it seems, the kinds of shenanigans and stupid argument he describes actually seem to be what is going on, particularly among student union type advocates.  I actually find this kind of like a living parody, something that should only exist in some crazy ironic comedy, but there it is.

I think people kind of miss the idea of what a great book is when they suggest that it just happened to align with what people thought.  Sure to some extent that is true - that is why they were read and influential, and that is why we read them.  They became important in the canon because people thought they were important, and so they became part of the development of literature, they impacted how people thought.  They are read now because they tell us a lot about what and how people thought and they allow us to enter into it.  

It's just a beginning, of course, ultimately readers can fill in more and more books and build up a wider and deeper picture.  But starting with the books that were most influential means it's possible to see a thread, a conversation, that connects them, and ultimately connects us to them.  

i am always reminded a few years ago, the CBC tried to compile a list of the great Canadian songs through the history of pop music.  They had a panel of experts, and some kept arguing for these obscure songs to represent certain movements. They wanted to include these rather than songs that had been hugely popular and emblematic to a whole generation.  While it's true that the obscure songs had influenced some of the musicians, in presenting a list of the most important songs, it gave entirely the wrong impression.  Kind of like taking Austen off of a first year reading list to replace it with Virtue Rewarded.

Sure. A certain amount of that is valuable. I think it risks obscuring the parallel lives and experiences of marginalized groups though. Music is an excellent example of that. Before the consolidation of radio stations, there were hyper local and niche market songs with very high visibility and broad recognition within their markets. If I look at my dad’s generation, for example, the songs he grew up listening to are ‘classic’ R&B but they probably wouldn’t make the ‘great’ category because they weren’t popularized by mainstream artists. Maybe that’s not making sense or extending the metaphor too far but it’s problematic, to me, to primarily look at/see the things that have been elevated by mainstream groups because you miss important, large swaths of the human experience as a result.

[Bluegoat]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

Sure. A certain amount of that is valuable. I think it risks obscuring the parallel lives and experiences of marginalized groups though. Music is an excellent example of that. Before the consolidation of radio stations, there were hyper local and niche market songs with very high visibility and broad recognition. If I look at my dad’s generation, for example, the songs he grew up listening to are ‘classic’ R&B but they probably wouldn’t make the ‘great’ category because they weren’t popularized by mainstream artists. Maybe that’s not making sense or extending the metaphor too far but it’s problematic, to me, to primarily look at/see the things that have been elevated by mainstream groups because you miss important, large swaths of the human experience as a result.

 

Recording certainly made a huge influence on local music, and pushed it aside in some ways.  I'm not sure you could study the local in the era of recording though without also looking at the larger scene.

THe fact is that you can't read everything at once, and you have to start somewhere.  As an undergraduate, you start with the foundational texts.  They aren't an absolute set, but they are identifiable to a certain extent.  

No one ever said that an undergraduate education makes a person a scholar, or if they have they shouldn't.  It's supposed to be a beginning, in a way it's the preparation for real study.  You can't just skip something like Plato, for example, you won't even have the language to study the rest of the history of thought.  But that's what a lot of the demands by these student groups mean - you are taking out the foundational works because that is the only way to squeeze in all of human experience.  You can't extend the course of study.  

And of course the things is, you still don't do it, you still aren't offering anything like all of human experience.  The kids at my school used to be demanding more women, now they want more transgendered voices.  In a reading list where 75% of the books come from before the early modern period. That's a completely anachronistic demand.  They don't and won't know what categories of thought those in the past used because they are insisting on imposing the categories they think are important.  They are failing at the most basic attempt at understanding others' human experience, which is to let go of their own.  

A four year undergraduate degree is enough for most people who study something like literature to get a good overview of the basics, enough for some breadth but also treating those things with some real depth.  For someone trying to get another degree but also some basics in the LA, it's even tighter.  But they'll be in a good position to keep reading beyond that.

 

[Sneezyone]

15 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Recording certainly made a huge influence on local music, and pushed it aside in some ways.  I'm not sure you could study the local in the era of recording though without also looking at the larger scene.

THe fact is that you can't read everything at once, and you have to start somewhere.  As an undergraduate, you start with the foundational texts.  They aren't an absolute set, but they are identifiable to a certain extent.  

No one ever said that an undergraduate education makes a person a scholar, or if they have they shouldn't.  It's supposed to be a beginning, in a way it's the preparation for real study.  You can't just skip something like Plato, for example, you won't even have the language to study the rest of the history of thought.  But that's what a lot of the demands by these student groups mean - you are taking out the foundational works because that is the only way to squeeze in all of human experience.  You can't extend the course of study.  

And of course the things is, you still don't do it, you still aren't offering anything like all of human experience.  The kids at my school used to be demanding more women, now they want more transgendered voices.  In a reading list where 75% of the books come from before the early modern period. That's a completely anachronistic demand.  They don't and won't know what categories of thought those in the past used because they are insisting on imposing the categories they think are important.  They are failing at the most basic attempt at understanding others' human experience, which is to let go of their own.  

A four year undergraduate degree is enough for most people who study something like literature to get a good overview of the basics, enough for some breadth but also treating those things with some real depth.  For someone trying to get another degree but also some basics in the LA, it's even tighter.  But they'll be in a good position to keep reading beyond that.

 

Believe it or not, I actually agree. I think reading some of the foundational texts written and disseminated when others were not is valuable. I just wish proponents were more honest about the limitations of the works/times being studied. I’m a firm believer in there being no truly new ideas about human behavior under the sun but recognize that not all of them were recorded for posterity or broadly shared.

The place where I depart ways is during times when other voices *were* being recorded and weren’t receiving the same kind of amplification or recognition. We continue to see lists of ‘great books’ that are unaccountably exclusive well into these time periods.

[Lady Florida.]

7 hours ago, Pegs said:

I couldn't finish reading that.

I made myself finish but it wasn't easy.

7 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

 

Indeed, I found it so disagreeable that I google the author and... well, let's just say I'm not even a little surprised at his other views.

I didn't think to look him up until I read your post. I looked him up. Um, yeah. Not surprised.

2 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

Sure. A certain amount of that is valuable. I think it risks obscuring the parallel lives and experiences of marginalized groups though. it’s problematic, to me, to primarily look at/see the things that have been elevated by mainstream groups because you miss important, large swaths of the human experience as a result.

His whole argument seems to be "how dare schools try to include the experiences/beliefs of others".

Grrr. Another weird issue since the "new and improved forum" is that I can't post above the first quoted post. I would have written this first, then responded to the quotes.

Anyway -

It's ironic to me that he seems to want his readers to believe he has the high ground yet he doesn't use proper discourse and argument skills, and he descends into a political argument while trying to make us believe it's all about education. I'll be interested to read any comments. The post is just from yesterday and doesn't seem to have any comments yet. I've never heard of him or his blog so I don't know if his readers fawn over him, or if he even allows posts that disagree with his views.

[Bluegoat]

I'd say he is assuming his readers already are sympathetic to the great book approach, so he doesn't really need to talk about that.

He wasn't very concise though.

[Lady Florida.]

17 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

I'd say he is assuming his readers already are sympathetic to the great book approach, so he doesn't really need to talk about that.

He wasn't very concise though.

It seems to me he assumes his readers are against multiculturalism. He writes as though including others is a terrible thing. I'm not one of his followers though and while I don't think the great books should be abandoned I don't see them as the be all and end all. He apparently does. He also rails against liberals and Democrats (capital D, U.S. version). His wraps himself in the great books as his argument but what he's really doing is complaining about 'libruls'. 

[Bluegoat]

 

Hmm, I don't really know that he is against multiculturalism, but then I haven't read anything else he's said.  I don't think that particularly is what is behind having a view that canons in literature or LA more generally is important, so I wouldn't say that readers need to believe that to understand his sense.

[Corraleno]

So anyone who pushes to expand and diversify a list of books written/selected/canonized by and for old white men is nothing but an envious coward who " knows and resents his own weakness and mediocrity, and he hates the sight of greatness, which only reminds the lesser party of his own inferiority."

Uh, yeah, that must be it. <rolls eyes>

Ironic that someone who claims to revere the erudite writings and considered wisdom of ancient authors should be such a huge fan of a man who can't write a coherent 140-character sentence without random caps and several misspelled words. One wonders what they could possibly have in common....

[Corraleno]

33 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Hmm, I don't really know that he is against multiculturalism, but then I haven't read anything else he's said.  I don't think that particularly is what is behind having a view that canons in literature or LA more generally is important, so I wouldn't say that readers need to believe that to understand his sense.

Oh he is very explicitly against multiculturalism. He is anti-immigration, and has publicly stated that if you come to the US, you need to assimilate, because this is America. He does not think racism is a big deal, "no bigger sin than greed or wrath or any other sin." White men are being persecuted and they have no choice but to start playing identity politics in order to counter attacks from women and minorities. He is very much on the MAGA train.