Man Am I Geeked, and Man Did I Need This
Hey Everybody,
As many of you already know, I have finally gotten the date set for my comprehensive exam. I begin the written portion on the 29th of June and finish with the oral portion on the 8th of July. I'm finally starting to be able to make some real progressive strides forward, which I've been needing to happen for some time now. Today, I was asked by my narrow comittee member to write up some brief topic ideas, just kind of first draft areas of interest and exploration, that he will ultimately use to compose the questions for his section of the test. I decided to post them (as an LJ-Cut) so those of you who are interested in the work I am doing can know what I'm doing. Remeber these are just topic IDEAS, could be changed or modfied, and are certainly as they stand very incomplete... enjoy :)
K-Dog
* I've really become interested in the goals and theories of novelists within the narrow section. A great many of them, Whitman, Howells, Twain, Crane, Norris had very definitive ideas about what "Realism" should achieve, what the responsibility of the novelist should be, and what social and democratic effect of the novel should have. That continues into the twentieth century with writers like Sinclair Lewis. What's interesting to me are (1) the discrepancies and differences these writers seem to have with one another at times, and (2) there are a great deal of critical pieces that suggest these goals have not been achieved... when it seems to me they had and have. Whitman in "Democratic Vistas" was very critical of the existing examples of his push for a democratic literature. And Lewis all the way in 1930 in his acceptance speech of the Nobel Prize, "The American Fear of Literature," seemed to suggest that the social and democratic goals of the novel still haven't happened, name dropping all the writers he felt were bad or failed, as well as hinting at the young ones he had hopes for. I couldn't help but wonder, had they been reading what was being written? Because it seems to me that there are all kinds of model examples of what they were hoping for.
* Another area of interest is both the historical lack of canonization on the part of these realists and the seeming failed or at least confusing endeavors of "realism," which is why scholars seem to have continued troubles trying to define it, and the current new interest and new significance on the part of these writers. Many of them seem almost prophetic today, especially Lewis' *It Can't Happen Here*. The social concerns, the moral decadence of the 20s, political corruption and general distrust of the "American Way," commercialism, materialism and superficiality beginning at the turn of the century and continuing well into the 20th century acts almost like a prophetic precursor for what's going on today, which is why there seems renewed interest some of these guys. One of the reasons I think most of them fell out of favor to begin with was the result of the particular critical social stances when it came to America, the American mythos, and patriotism and nationalism. Though Whitman and Howells still remained more-or-less devout, patriotic Americans, with Howells encouraging a more genteel realist fiction slanting toward the positive sides of American life, Norris, Dreisner, Crane, Lewis, Dos Passos slanted toward the negative. All kind of literature during this time was praising more-or-less socialist views, which in my opinion is one of the reasons it fell out of favor within the University post-WWII days. Moreover, other major influences within the University and literary achievement, in particular modernism and the intellectual force of Pound and Eliot, had goals and directions that were almost in complete contradiction with Realism. Pound and Eliot did not regard literature as democratic; it was elite. Highest artistic achievements, as far as they were concerned, were removed from and therefore not subordinate to politics or psychology or philosophy... the whole "art should not mean, but be" thing.
* And of course, another area of interest is the overall relationship between the literary tradition, beginning with Transcendentalism in the 1840s, and the University that I wish to explore (and is my seeming most possible dissertation topic at this point). Because of the great deal of canonized writers who were college educated, particularly from either Harvard or Yale, the literary tradition and the moral and social attitude of the University seem to walk hand-in-hand, very much like the general Humanities do today. My first start to this exploration was a paper I did for Dr. Kuipers regarding Charles W. Eliot and his compellation library for the public, *The Harvard Classics*. Turned out Eliot was president of Harvard for 40 years, from 1969 to 1909, which also happens to be the definitive transitional period between the literary tradition of the late nineteenth century and the budding directions of the twentieth. Eliot was also HUGELY Emersonian. Almost all the hopes and directions Eliot had for Harvard seem to stem from either Emerson, other Transcendental figures, or general Transcendental theory when it came to education. It's hard for me to imagine that Transcendentalism didn't, even at least subtly, permeate throughout the general mentality and attitude of the University, and therefore influencing the University educated person. Which bring us to all the writers during this time (1880s -19040s) who seem to possess and instill elements of "lingering Transcendentalism" within their characters, plots, and outcomes of the literature of this time. Transcendentalism still seems to be functioning as a somewhat subconscious moral compass, which generally clashes violently with the existing social concerns and criticisms of the day. There is almost a general sense within these writers that a Transcendental "self-reliant, Walden pond appreciating, celebrate myself" ideal COULD have been achieved, if not for the corrupt and deteriorating political and social mess of the late nineteenth century/early twentieth century. [And here's the money shot] Transcendentalism, which lingered within the University throughout the 1880s thru the 1940s, I feel more-or-less gradually transformed into the increasingly subversive (sometimes radical), liberally slanted, socialist mentality filtered throughout the Humanities today. And whether not this is, has proven to be, or will prove to be, a good or a bad thing is another discussion all together.
As many of you already know, I have finally gotten the date set for my comprehensive exam. I begin the written portion on the 29th of June and finish with the oral portion on the 8th of July. I'm finally starting to be able to make some real progressive strides forward, which I've been needing to happen for some time now. Today, I was asked by my narrow comittee member to write up some brief topic ideas, just kind of first draft areas of interest and exploration, that he will ultimately use to compose the questions for his section of the test. I decided to post them (as an LJ-Cut) so those of you who are interested in the work I am doing can know what I'm doing. Remeber these are just topic IDEAS, could be changed or modfied, and are certainly as they stand very incomplete... enjoy :)
K-Dog
* I've really become interested in the goals and theories of novelists within the narrow section. A great many of them, Whitman, Howells, Twain, Crane, Norris had very definitive ideas about what "Realism" should achieve, what the responsibility of the novelist should be, and what social and democratic effect of the novel should have. That continues into the twentieth century with writers like Sinclair Lewis. What's interesting to me are (1) the discrepancies and differences these writers seem to have with one another at times, and (2) there are a great deal of critical pieces that suggest these goals have not been achieved... when it seems to me they had and have. Whitman in "Democratic Vistas" was very critical of the existing examples of his push for a democratic literature. And Lewis all the way in 1930 in his acceptance speech of the Nobel Prize, "The American Fear of Literature," seemed to suggest that the social and democratic goals of the novel still haven't happened, name dropping all the writers he felt were bad or failed, as well as hinting at the young ones he had hopes for. I couldn't help but wonder, had they been reading what was being written? Because it seems to me that there are all kinds of model examples of what they were hoping for.
* Another area of interest is both the historical lack of canonization on the part of these realists and the seeming failed or at least confusing endeavors of "realism," which is why scholars seem to have continued troubles trying to define it, and the current new interest and new significance on the part of these writers. Many of them seem almost prophetic today, especially Lewis' *It Can't Happen Here*. The social concerns, the moral decadence of the 20s, political corruption and general distrust of the "American Way," commercialism, materialism and superficiality beginning at the turn of the century and continuing well into the 20th century acts almost like a prophetic precursor for what's going on today, which is why there seems renewed interest some of these guys. One of the reasons I think most of them fell out of favor to begin with was the result of the particular critical social stances when it came to America, the American mythos, and patriotism and nationalism. Though Whitman and Howells still remained more-or-less devout, patriotic Americans, with Howells encouraging a more genteel realist fiction slanting toward the positive sides of American life, Norris, Dreisner, Crane, Lewis, Dos Passos slanted toward the negative. All kind of literature during this time was praising more-or-less socialist views, which in my opinion is one of the reasons it fell out of favor within the University post-WWII days. Moreover, other major influences within the University and literary achievement, in particular modernism and the intellectual force of Pound and Eliot, had goals and directions that were almost in complete contradiction with Realism. Pound and Eliot did not regard literature as democratic; it was elite. Highest artistic achievements, as far as they were concerned, were removed from and therefore not subordinate to politics or psychology or philosophy... the whole "art should not mean, but be" thing.
* And of course, another area of interest is the overall relationship between the literary tradition, beginning with Transcendentalism in the 1840s, and the University that I wish to explore (and is my seeming most possible dissertation topic at this point). Because of the great deal of canonized writers who were college educated, particularly from either Harvard or Yale, the literary tradition and the moral and social attitude of the University seem to walk hand-in-hand, very much like the general Humanities do today. My first start to this exploration was a paper I did for Dr. Kuipers regarding Charles W. Eliot and his compellation library for the public, *The Harvard Classics*. Turned out Eliot was president of Harvard for 40 years, from 1969 to 1909, which also happens to be the definitive transitional period between the literary tradition of the late nineteenth century and the budding directions of the twentieth. Eliot was also HUGELY Emersonian. Almost all the hopes and directions Eliot had for Harvard seem to stem from either Emerson, other Transcendental figures, or general Transcendental theory when it came to education. It's hard for me to imagine that Transcendentalism didn't, even at least subtly, permeate throughout the general mentality and attitude of the University, and therefore influencing the University educated person. Which bring us to all the writers during this time (1880s -19040s) who seem to possess and instill elements of "lingering Transcendentalism" within their characters, plots, and outcomes of the literature of this time. Transcendentalism still seems to be functioning as a somewhat subconscious moral compass, which generally clashes violently with the existing social concerns and criticisms of the day. There is almost a general sense within these writers that a Transcendental "self-reliant, Walden pond appreciating, celebrate myself" ideal COULD have been achieved, if not for the corrupt and deteriorating political and social mess of the late nineteenth century/early twentieth century. [And here's the money shot] Transcendentalism, which lingered within the University throughout the 1880s thru the 1940s, I feel more-or-less gradually transformed into the increasingly subversive (sometimes radical), liberally slanted, socialist mentality filtered throughout the Humanities today. And whether not this is, has proven to be, or will prove to be, a good or a bad thing is another discussion all together.