On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:55:03 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:37:13 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 10/9/09 11:28 AM, Gene wrote:
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 07:33:33 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

And we discussed many other things in English Lit than just English Lit

Well, then, what you had was some sort of Socratic Dialog or Seminar,
not an organized class. A proper class has an approved syllabus and
the instructor sticks with that syllabus to make sure the course
objectives are met. A class entitled one thing in which all things are
taught is just a free-for-all.... usually driven by the personal
whims and interests of the teacher. This is the equivalent of
education by ADD........


Uh, I disagree. In the 7th and 8th grade, when we were discussing
Dickens in English class, we also discussed the society in which the
novels were set, and some of the reasons why Dickens chose the subjects
he did. I'm sure we stuck with the teaching plan by doing so.

Uh.... no, we don't disagree and the teaching plan likely included the
social conditions of the novel. As I posted earlier:

"The study of Literature should or could encompass the following
points:

1. The body of written works of a language, period, or culture.
2. ........"

thus, "the society" is fair game. Reading NON-English Literature in
English Lit is NOT fair game and, certainly, "And we discussed many
other things in English Lit than just English Lit" is just hosed.


Profs build many frameworks around lit interpretation, including
psychological. Comparisons to current culture always rightfully
intrude for context, even if the prof doesn't want it to.
Human nature.
As you said though, a syllabus prevents a free-for-all.
When you get to Practical Criticism at the college level it all
becomes a bit metaphysical, with definitions and constraints blurring.
At least it did to me.
The Intentional Fallacy demands erasure of the proscribed limits of
interpretation. Anything goes.
Always struck me that the concept should be called "The Fallacy of
Intent" for clarity, but I didn't devise the term.
Ever consider that the physical appearance of words on the page impact
the brain? IOW, the shape of the word "brook," and its letters, not
its sound rolling from the lips. Poetry is always touted as a voiced
medium, but it is actually most often read by the eyes rather than
heard by the ears.
I could never sell a prof this concept, but I didn't try too hard.
Going sideways here.
I'm on your side with the KJ bible not belonging in Eng Lit, beautiful
English much of it is.
I did have it in World Lit.

--Vic