Hi All. I don't mean to monopolize the ether, or usurp the powers of the Blog Queen. I'll shut up after this, but another question ocurred to me after reading one of Nic's recent posts to the ever-expanding poetry thread.
What is popular culture? Is it just what is popular to the largest number of people? Can there be a popular culture which is not so widely "popular" (unpopular popular culture)? Is it defined by its relationship to some other culture (high culture, elite culture, academic culture?)? I.e., popular culture is what ordinary people like, what the masses like, what people read and watch and listen to outside of school? What do we do with popular culture over time? For example, most of you would probably think of Beowulf, Shakespeare, and Dickens as high culture, academic stuff, yet they were all pop culture in their own day. Beowulf was (maybe) sung for warriors in the beerhall, Shakespeare was the most popular playwright in Renaissance London (and plays were the most popular form of entertainment, right up there with animal bloodsports), and many of Dickens' novels were first published serially in popular magazines.
And here are my last questions: why should we study popular culture, and, if we do study it, what do we study? In the nineteenth century, the same questions were asked about English Literature (as opposed to Literature in Latin and Greek). Shouldn't we just study hard, serious stuff, and leave everyone to read and enjoy the pop stuff on their own? If we do study pop culture in the university, do we study it in the same way as "high" culture (whatever that is), or do we study it instead for (say) social, political, cultural purposes? For example, since, so the argument would go, there's not much of "literary" interest in a Danielle Steele novel, if we are going to study it, we'd study it to determine things about how pop culture works, why people read pop novels, and so such stuff.
What do you think?
Here's a question for all of you. It might generate an interesting discussion, but it also has a serious purpose. Obviously, despite the many advantages to studying English at the Mansfield campus (small classes, lots of contact with faculty, a communal feeling, plentiful wildlife!), one drawback is that we faculty can't offer as wide a range of courses as can the much larger group in Columbus. Even in the courses we do offer, we can only include so much in ten weeks. As we hire more excellent new professors (welcome Cynthia Callahan, Susan Delagrange, and Norman Jones!!), this situation is improving, but I'm curious to know what you feel are the most significant gaps in our course offerings or our syllabi. What courses do you really wish were taught but aren't? Which authors do you wish were included, or which works would you like to read? I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts on this, and I suspect my colleagues would too, and there might even be ways in which some remedies could be found -- if there were a huge groundswell of interest in a course on Danielle Steele for instance:).
Well, we've exhausted another poetry thread. It's filling with spam, so I thought I'd take the liberty of starting a fresh, spam-free thread. First, I enjoyed the first annual (or more frequent?) Poetry Slam. I'm impressed that we have so many serious (and even not so serious -- thanks Trish!) poets among us. I'm looking forward to seeing some of those poems in the Cauldron, since one reading is hardly enough. Thanks to all of you who made that happen!
I assume you'll post poems as per usual, but here's a question to get things going too: what IS a poem? I took a stab at this in my last post on the previous thread, but I wonder what you all think? Do you like Auden's definition of a poem as a verbal contraption? Or Wordsworth's statement that "poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings: it takes its origin from emotion recollected in tranquility"? Can poetry be both? Is it something different?
Dearest English Clubbers
(sounds like we are a dancing club with cool anglo-saxon acents) ---heh.
POETRY SLAM (open mic night)
2/10 6-11:30 (this friday!)
in the coffee house
(little room where we have ALL our cool meetings )
EVERYONE WELCOME,
(Even if you have never been to an english club activity, or meeting...this is your chance to jion our "pastoral frolicking minds" )
bring:
1. a dish or drink to share ( stop by the writing center for ideas)
2. POETRY! (i know that around here it is hard to come by)
3. Instruments are also welcome. So bring that o drum y'all!
your most humble "English Parliment"
(or jesi)
This may be venturing too far into political territory, which can be dangerous, but we can try anyways. There has always been a lot of controversy surrounding universities in reference to their ideology- i.e. their 'liberalism' (think about college campuses in the sixties). The Association of American Colleges and Universities sees Liberal Education as "a philosophy of education that empowers individuals, liberates the mind from ignorance, and cultivates social responsibility." But the term liberal of course has certain political and ideological connotations that complicate that definition. Certainly there are professors across the country that hold strong political and social views, but so do most American citizens. Where the situation gets politically sticky is the professor's role as a shaper of young minds. Is there a danger here in the hallowed halls of learning? Is it a hyped-up issue, or do people have legitimate concerns? Does the ideology of teachers even have that great an effect on students?
(Attached are some articles of interest that might be worth reading in response to these questions)
Student Activist
What is Liberal Education?
Liberal Bias
frontpagemag.com