My English Lit. class is such a joke - and not in a good way.

Today we had this quiz... Throughout the last week (which is what the quiz was on) she emphasized lots of stuff. I can tell you who (William the Conqueror) and when (Oct. 15, 1066 during the Battle of Hastings) the French took over the throne of England, and why (because Edward the Confessor [who also began the construction of Westminster Abbey] promised him the throne but, didn't deliver), and William also brought over the system of Feudalism, which pretty much meant everything besides the churches belonged to the king. I can name the first 5 kings in that bloodline (Will I, Will II, Henry I, Stephen, Henry II [who also had 4 brothers, Richard (the Lionheart), Geoffrey, Henry III, John]). I know John Wyclif was the first person to translate the Bible into Middle English, Caxton brought the printing press to England from Germany, and the most popular things in print were the Bible, Mort d'Arthur, and the Canterbury Tales. I know Thomas Beckett was murdered in 1170 in the Canterbury Cathedral and that's why the 32 (30 characters, Chaucer [who was born around 1340, no one knows for sure, and died in 1400], and the host [who served as a judge, referee, and guide]) travelers in the Canterbury Tales are on their journey (well, for various other personal reasons, but that's the general consensus).

Also I know lots of other various shit that was mentioned and emphasized throughout the lecture by the teacher and I was positive would be on this objective test. Nope, she asks us stuff like, 'name 3 authors other than Chaucer who represented Medieval literature.' I knew two, because we read one of them and I know Thomas Malorey did Mort d'Arthur, so that was two. But she never, ever, mentioned another one. And if she did (which she didn't), it was so brief and nowhere near as relevant as any of the pieces of information I listed above.

Fuck knowing historical context of pieces of literature, we need to know tiny details never mentioned in class, and somehow find them on our own.

Continue reading...

Though I haven't finished Lolita yet, I flipped to the back and read Nabokov's notes on the novel (from a year after it was originally published [published 1955, so 1956]).

First, I was slightly annoyed at how he implied his English work was inferior to his Russian work. Why? Because, to put it simply, the vocabulary used in that novel is nothing short of amazing. Especially for a second (actually, I think it may be third or fourth) language. Of course Nabokov always emphasized the importance of form over content. Regardless, I would sell my soul for the ability to write like that, and him passing it off as minor literature left me in a state of awe.

That aside, this point of his was interesting:

It is childish to study a work of fiction in order to gain information about a country or about a social class or about the author.

Funny, because that's what I've been doing for the last year or so in my American/English/World Lit classes. I think his point is that fiction writing should be entirely fictitious, where it takes place in its own world and doesn't rely on the bounds of reality.

Maybe. And I would agree.

In summary: studying fiction as writing is good, but not if you're looking for a history lesson.

Continue reading...