You know....I've read all of those texts you've selected....suddenly I feel very happy.
I would have loved a class like that....time to discuss & really get into a topic. Instead of the great race through as many books as possible that I've expereinced in Lit classes in the past.
I think the course sounds great, and I love the way you talk about wanting to teach it - I took "Gothic and Melodrama" this year at my university, and whilst the texts and themes were really rich and interesting and I enjoyed the reading, the way the tutor ran the course was just completely uninspiring. Each week was on a different text (starting with The Castle of Otranto, ending with Seven Gothic Tales, and every single week he'd have such specific ideas of what was and was not important to discuss and just ask endless series' of leading questions that he wanted very particular answers to. It was a stifling atmosphere, he often laughed at people for suggesting answers he didn't agree with (they were either too basic or too complicated and missing an "obvious point") and by the end of it people just barely spoke at all. He was obviously very clever and knew a lot about the texts, but he should have just gone and written a book on them, not taught them. He was the worst seminar-leader I've encountered during my three years here, and
( ... )
...whilst the texts and themes were really rich and interesting and I enjoyed the reading, the way the tutor ran the course was just completely uninspiring.
I've been in the same sort of class far too many times, especially since coming to graduate school. The ESP school of class discussion: "I'm thinking of something... on page 237 of the text... what is it?" If I ever run a class that way, I hope my students mutiny or throw pencils at me or something.
And I would be very curious to see the reading list and other materials you mentioned, whenever you have time to send them -- no rush; I feel sure this is a busy time of the semester for you too!
If you needed to broaden your focus a bit, you could always throw in one of the Bronte sisters, or *perish the thought* Dickens. Both authors demonstrate nice parallels to gothicism. Personally, though, I cannot stomach Dickens.
It might also be interesting to examine the genre in light of its primarily female authorship, and the reaction these "scribbling women" received at the time.
You could also look at the changing connotations of "sentimentality" from the romantic period through the Victorian and modern eras. It is amazing how the term has become both feminized and derogatory.
If you needed to broaden your focus a bit, you could always throw in one of the Bronte sisters, or *perish the thought* Dickens.
Heh. I'm not a Dickens fan either. If I were doing a more general course on the Gothic, I would include more 19th c. stuff (and also American authors, Charles Brockden Brown and so on), but it *is* ostensibly an 18th c. course, and I'm already stretching the boundaries.
And yes, authorship and sentimentalism (and the connection between sentimentalism and 1. gender and 2. activist literature) are things we'd certainly talk about.
Were the interviewers worried about the third of the term that postdates the eighteenth century? It seems to me that reception's an important (and oft-neglected) part of topic-oriented courses, but perhaps they've a tighter view. (Wouldn't Shelley be within the long eighteenth?)
A little gratuitous squeeing for Romance of the Forest. The details have faded, but I remember enjoying it very much.
I don't think it's the dates that worried the interviewers particularly; they were interested in the choice to finish up with Faulkner, but that didn't seem to be a deal-breaker for them. (They also know that my director is the local "let's firebomb periodization!" guy, so I don't think they were even particularly startled.) And yeah, Shelley can be lumped into the long eighteenth century quite reasonably.
In fact, I think they found Shelley and Faulkner rather reassuring; they're the most canonical works on the list. It's really the "too weird / too narrow / too noncanonical" that's likely to be the sticking point. It doesn't help that the interviewers specialize in quite different periods; two of them in particular, I think, felt out of their depth and didn't like that.
Except perhaps for the Godwin, which I own but haven't read, the C18 texts seem fairly canonical to me. (Canonical enough.) I guess I'm spoiled. Or, to put a better spin on it, insofar as I understand your course desc and choice of texts, I'd privilege cohesion over sweeping strokes. Pity I'm not one of the other-period people on the committee. :P
Except perhaps for the Godwin, which I own but haven't read, the C18 texts seem fairly canonical to me.
Interesting. I think of Godwin as possibly the most canonical 18c *author* on the list, though for his nonfiction more than Caleb Williams.
I think it's one of those things where those of us who consider the Gothic an interesting and worthwhile topic (for whatever reason) look at the list and say "yes, of course, canon," but folks who don't already know something about the topic look at the list and say "huh?" The actual canon depends on and is determined by the pre-existing abstract conceptual canon.
And I suppose it also depends on the attitudes of the particular people one knows. The 18c prof teaching the department's current undergrad 18c novel course included The Castle of Otranto this semester, but only to make fun of it, as a couple of my former students relayed to me with considerable indignation. Not a good precedent.
Pity I'm not one of the other-period people on the committee.Indeed. One of the committee members is
( ... )
Comments 30
I would have loved a class like that....time to discuss & really get into a topic. Instead of the great race through as many books as possible that I've expereinced in Lit classes in the past.
Reply
Reply
I've been in the same sort of class far too many times, especially since coming to graduate school. The ESP school of class discussion: "I'm thinking of something... on page 237 of the text... what is it?" If I ever run a class that way, I hope my students mutiny or throw pencils at me or something.
And I would be very curious to see the reading list and other materials you mentioned, whenever you have time to send them -- no rush; I feel sure this is a busy time of the semester for you too!
Reply
If you needed to broaden your focus a bit, you could always throw in one of the Bronte sisters, or *perish the thought* Dickens. Both authors demonstrate nice parallels to gothicism. Personally, though, I cannot stomach Dickens.
It might also be interesting to examine the genre in light of its primarily female authorship, and the reaction these "scribbling women" received at the time.
You could also look at the changing connotations of "sentimentality" from the romantic period through the Victorian and modern eras. It is amazing how the term has become both feminized and derogatory.
*now back to my general lurking*
Reply
Heh. I'm not a Dickens fan either. If I were doing a more general course on the Gothic, I would include more 19th c. stuff (and also American authors, Charles Brockden Brown and so on), but it *is* ostensibly an 18th c. course, and I'm already stretching the boundaries.
And yes, authorship and sentimentalism (and the connection between sentimentalism and 1. gender and 2. activist literature) are things we'd certainly talk about.
Reply
A little gratuitous squeeing for Romance of the Forest. The details have faded, but I remember enjoying it very much.
Hope all goes well!
Reply
In fact, I think they found Shelley and Faulkner rather reassuring; they're the most canonical works on the list. It's really the "too weird / too narrow / too noncanonical" that's likely to be the sticking point. It doesn't help that the interviewers specialize in quite different periods; two of them in particular, I think, felt out of their depth and didn't like that.
Reply
Except perhaps for the Godwin, which I own but haven't read, the C18 texts seem fairly canonical to me. (Canonical enough.) I guess I'm spoiled. Or, to put a better spin on it, insofar as I understand your course desc and choice of texts, I'd privilege cohesion over sweeping strokes. Pity I'm not one of the other-period people on the committee. :P
Reply
Interesting. I think of Godwin as possibly the most canonical 18c *author* on the list, though for his nonfiction more than Caleb Williams.
I think it's one of those things where those of us who consider the Gothic an interesting and worthwhile topic (for whatever reason) look at the list and say "yes, of course, canon," but folks who don't already know something about the topic look at the list and say "huh?" The actual canon depends on and is determined by the pre-existing abstract conceptual canon.
And I suppose it also depends on the attitudes of the particular people one knows. The 18c prof teaching the department's current undergrad 18c novel course included The Castle of Otranto this semester, but only to make fun of it, as a couple of my former students relayed to me with considerable indignation. Not a good precedent.
Pity I'm not one of the other-period people on the committee.Indeed. One of the committee members is ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment