English Department Limits Graduate Admission to Pre-1900's Focus

[JBStillFlying]

@mtmind

Except that no one claimed they were “not better” in any objective sense, because there is no objective “better.” That is the problem with your position and @marlowe1’s claimed contradiction. Like @Marlow1, you mistake the observation that your “standards” are subjective with the claim that they are objectively wrong. They aren’t, but the defense (which you offered) claiming a non-subjective higher ground fails. It becomes a matter to discuss, debate, and consider, which is, IMO, what @MWolf was offering. And he makes a good argument.

Um - not sure which of my earlier commentary you are referring to - I’m wondering if you jumped to conclusions. My comments regarding which type of literature is more popular at UChicago is data-based so an objective statement. My earlier comment about Pound being influential in his time period is also objective. Whether one thinks he’s “better” than another author tends not to be the standard for choosing texts at UChicago; they are chosen for their influence on subsequent writers, on the arts, on the culture and/or the social system. (ETA: same as any other discipline; you usually study the work of whoever has had the largest impact on the field). Also, there has indeed been “objective” commentary that Old White Dudes are not relevant to the young people of today. Perhaps it was later clarified to be acknowledged as an assertion and I missed that?

@mtmind

In other words, IMO @MWolf wasn’t necessarily disputing whatever it is that you and others find compelling about Pound. It seems to me he was offering a well-reasoned alternative perspective suggesting why some figures are so abhorrent to our common sensibilities that they ought not be celebrated. I have to say, from the perspective of someone who knew very little about Pound the man, his arguments were far more compelling than those offered in Pound’s defense. The idea that we should overlook his despicable actions because he was supportive of other writers, or because a few Jewish intellectuals were apparently friendly with him? Not only absurd, but a strong argument for not ignoring the context when addressing the works.

Well, again . . . . “he was an anti-Semite” isn’t really literary criticism. Really, the decision whether to include any author in a course - at least at UChicago - will likely rest on the rationale pertinent to the discipline. Students can always avoid the course if their sensitivities prevent them from participating fully; as previously mentioned, UChicago’s English curriculum is pretty flexible. Since Pound has indeed been included on the curriculum of a course or two in recent years, I can only conclude that those who are scholars in the field of English literature are using a different criteria for choosing their reading list than either you or MWolf. UChicago isn’t really known for banning books - in fact, they are kind of into supporting complete academic freedom and freedom of expression.

It’s important not to ignore context, as oftentimes this informs the author’s writings. However, it’s a tad difficult to argue “context” without doing the reading in the first place! “He’s too despicable for me to read” probably won’t get one very far in the academy, especially if the topic is something like American Ex-Pat Modernist Poets.