Is Trinity College properly "up there"

rainbowtrout

reason vs religion wrote: »

Loving the thread, guys! Keep up the good work.


Re. Joyce, it would seem to me that Ulysses is cited by too many great writers as being their favourite novel for it to be the various negative descriptions given to it in this thread. You may disagree with that particular conception of what the perfect novel should be, but you can't deny others theirs.

Lots of people might list it as their favourite novel, but it doesn't mean that people that hate it don't have a relevant opinion. Your statement is a little contradictory. You're saying people who like it can't be denied their opinion, but people who view it negatively can.

I read Catcher in the Rye when I was a teenager, maybe when I was about 14, and I hated it, and it's a novel that is given a lot of praise. So 10-12 years later I went back and read it again, just to give it another chance, in case teenage me just didn't get it the first time. Nope, I hated it the second time round too, except this time 20-something me was annoyed for not trusting teenage me's opinion. I had a conversation about it with a friend who is also an English teacher and she can't stand it either. I just thought Holden Caulfield was a whiny, pain in the arse. Both times.

TSMGUY

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Lots of people might list it as their favourite novel, but it doesn't mean that people that hate it don't have a relevant opinion. Your statement is a little contradictory. You're saying people who like it can't be denied their opinion, but people who view it negatively can.

I read Catcher in the Rye when I was a teenager, maybe when I was about 14, and I hated it, and it's a novel that is given a lot of praise. So 10-12 years later I went back and read it again, just to give it another chance, in case teenage me just didn't get it the first time. Nope, I hated it the second time round too, except this time 20-something me was annoyed for not trusting teenage me's opinion. I had a conversation about it with a friend who is also an English teacher and she can't stand it either. I just thought Holden Caulfield was a whiny, pain in the arse. Both times.

Holden Caulfield reviews Ulysses:
It's a crumby book, see. It's about phoney grown-ups being weirdos and phonies and it wasn't even funny. This guy Leopold Bloom's girl is cheating on him, and while some guy's giving her the time, Leo's just walking around Dublin, chewing the fat like a flit. I didn't even get a bang out of that, you should hear my little sister Phoebe tell a story, she kills me!

reason vs religion

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Lots of people might list it as their favourite novel, but it doesn't mean that people that hate it don't have a relevant opinion. Your statement is a little contradictory. You're saying people who like it can't be denied their opinion, but people who view it negatively can.

I read Catcher in the Rye when I was a teenager, maybe when I was about 14, and I hated it, and it's a novel that is given a lot of praise. So 10-12 years later I went back and read it again, just to give it another chance, in case teenage me just didn't get it the first time. Nope, I hated it the second time round too, except this time 20-something me was annoyed for not trusting teenage me's opinion. I had a conversation about it with a friend who is also an English teacher and she can't stand it either. I just thought Holden Caulfield was a whiny, pain in the arse. Both times.

I don't agree it is contradictory. I'm saying one can prefer another kind of novel, but shouldn't dismiss it as objectively bad. Those who proclaim Ulysses their favourite novel aren't necessarily passing judgement on other people's choices, whereas those who say they hate it are.

That's an opinion I've encountered a few times. I, as it happens, thoroughly connected with Caulfield - especially in his relationship with his sister - and have gone back to it a few times to realise how little I have changed too!

TSMGUY

reason vs religion wrote: »

I don't agree it is contradictory. I'm saying one can prefer another kind of novel, but shouldn't dismiss it as objectively bad. Those who proclaim Ulysses their favourite novel aren't necessarily passing judgement on other people's choices, whereas those who say they hate it are.

That's an opinion I've encountered a few times. I, as it happens, thoroughly connected with Caulfield - especially in his relationship with his sister - and have gone back to it a few times to realise how little I have changed too!

all derision aside, Catcher in the Rye was an incredible book. Read it at 13 and again at 18, it perfectly captures adolescent disillusionment with the adult world Maybe Holden's a bit of a whiny, self-righteous ass, but what teenager isn't?

Bored_lad

Arts degrees have always been preferred in banking and finance and if you look at the big hedge fund managers and your bankers working for your large multinational banks you'll see that most of them come from varied backgrounds a lot of them from arts backgrounds as the arts teaches you the critical thinking needed for these jobs.

On the topic of Trinity being up there ya here in Ireland they may be seen as more up there as they are intentionally, but internationally they are seen as a well respected institution and I know they attend in house college fairs held in some good international private and international schools.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

rainbowtrout

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But I'm not a student of literature, I never have been, I never will be and that wasn't the point I was making.

TSMGUY

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't agree. In fact, often to the detriment of students' understanding of a wide spectrum of literature, far too much emphasis is put on a very narrow and sometimes irrelevant canon that has been somewhat arbitrarily picked by a small academic elite. You often see tendentious arguments being used - "You have to read Ulysses because LOADS of literary scholars read Ulysses and say you have to read Ulysses." It's damn near tautological - Joyce is great because he's great!
Well why is he great?!
Because we say he is.
And why do you say he is?
Because he's great, ad infinitum. I don't think any literature student HAS to read anything, save for maybe Shakespeare as a matter of convention (and he was, almost objectively, awesome).
Loads of terrible authors are "canonical".E.M Forster, Chaucer, the Bronte sisters and countless others bore me to tears. I think that time would be better spent reading other writers I enjoy. If you believe in the liberal arts system which is interdisciplinary, it stands to reason you must support freedom of study within a subject as well.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

TSMGUY

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

that's a false equivalence, come on! In fact, it's a strawman argument. WWI is objectively an inescapable and essential part of history, one of few unavoidable parts of history absolutely essential to understanding history. Admittedly, Ulysses is a massive part of literature, but it's not the same thing. Harry Potter has a bigger cultural impact than Ulysses, that doesn't mean it merits more consideration. Skipping Ulysses is more like a history student not learning about the Bayeux Tapestry! It hardly disbars one from being a "proper" English student.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

TSMGUY

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Disadvantage if you want to be a scholar, as was the case a century ago. Most English graduates go on to work in broadcasting, writing, journalism, even law. I'm not saying you should make English more vocational but there is the danger of spending an inordinate amount of time on the so-called "canon", which largely consists of very old, Western European writers and, in the process, missing out on a huge wealth of international and modern literature that's both more engaging and better written. It's like insisting physics students should spend a huge amount of time focusing on Aristotle's metaphysics because down the line loads of physics branched from that, or saying we an engineer should read Euclid's elements because it's part of the mathematical canon. English faculties place far too much emphasis on prestige and history, and not enough on quality and diversity/breadth. A very cursory look at Chaucer could tell me all I need to know about what he contributed to modern Literature, there's no need to devote a whole module to him as Cambridge does.

randylonghorn

TSMGUY wrote: »

that's a false equivalence, come on! In fact, it's a strawman argument. WWI is objectively an inescapable and essential part of history, one of few unavoidable parts of history absolutely essential to understanding history. Admittedly, Ulysses is a massive part of literature, but it's not the same thing. Harry Potter has a bigger cultural impact than Ulysses, that doesn't mean it merits more consideration. Skipping Ulysses is more like a history student not learning about the Bayeux Tapestry! It hardly disbars one from being a "proper" English student.

Not as I said, a huge fan of Joyce (or Salinger, RBT!) but in fairness, he is far more pivotal to EngLit than the Bayeux Tapestry is to History.

I think both Joyce and Salinger suffer from the same problem, actually; they have very genuine admirers / adherents, and we have a couple in this thread, but they also have a cult status, especially in universities, and a lot of students who gush about them because it's "cool".

It was a bit the same with Tolkien at one stage (and I do love me some Tolkien, and have since I was 12) but that seems to have changed, everyone watches the films now instead of reading LOTR, and in a sense you could argue that Tolkien lost his intellectual "coolness" when he became mainstream through the films.

Interestingly, I saw Harry Potter listed on an EngLit course in the US recently; now, I'll admit that my inner child did quite enjoy the HP books, but I'm really not sure I'd list them as having major literary merit!

TSMGUY

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes, more so than Ulysses, if you're speaking about people, and not literary scholars. I'm not being a populist, I'm simply illustrating that impact isn't a barometer of quality or a marker of how much time should be dedicated to the study of something. Students should have greater autonomy. Many writers go to college with the intention of becomin writers, not literary critics. Far too much emphasis is placed on "practical criticism" and there's an elitist aversion to creativity and composition. One can't complain about the declining influence of literature when every attempt is made to stifle ingenuity and modernity in its earliest stage.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

TSMGUY

randylonghorn wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Alright Bayeux Tapestry was a bit hyperbolic, I'll admit, but my point still stands. And you guys have misconstrued my point about Harry Potter. I'm just saying the fact that a book has made an impact on a lot of readers (and, for better or worse, Harry Potter has changed the face of literature and altered what publishers do and don't publish), doesn't mean it HAS to be studied. There's so many inferior English writers who are given undue weight just because literary critics have given them weight. Why aren't dostoevsky, nabokov and achebe authors of must read canonical books? In a word, English courses are insular. There's this smug consensus that there's some pre-ordained list you have to stick to even though there are far better (and just as intellectually rigorous) authors from abroad and from the recent past.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Everything I need to know, certainly, in the context of a 3 year degree where there's a whole world of literature to get through. And when I say modern I mean 1850-present day.

There are so many authors better than Chaucer, Jesus man! Tolstoy, Kafka, Orwell, Dostoyevsky, even Huxley! Your admiration for Chaucer is even more baffling than your admiration for Rand!

randylonghorn

TSMGUY wrote: »

Why aren't dostoevsky, nabokov and achebe must read canonical books? In a word, English courses are insular. There's this smug consensus that there's some pre-ordained list you have to stick to even though there are far better (and just as intellectually rigorous) authors from abroad and from the recent past.

Probably because you're signing up to study English Literature i.e. literature written in English, not necessarily international literature / literature in translation.

That said, I wouldn't totally disagree, and many universities offer modules in comparative literature, often co-operatively between departments.

On Rowling, I think her real contribution to literature is that the HP books encouraged a whole generation to lift their head from the laptop / phone and READ again, and I suspect that they may stick around for a while in that role.

Personally, C. S. Lewis and Rowling are "go to"s when I'm Christmas shopping for young teenagers.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

TSMGUY

randylonghorn wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

well now, if we're being facetious we could say Chaucer wrote in Old English. Achebe, though Nigerian, wrote in English. Nabokov also wrote many of his books in English as well as his native Russian, so it doesn't seem to be a legitimate reason to disbar writers from courses.

Also, how old are you that Tolkien was ever cool!

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

bits here and there, same as Milton and all the writers in the cambridge recommended reading list (which oddly, includes the King James Bible) who don't particularly interest me. I'm stuck into some Crime and Punishment and Edgar Allen Poe (guilty pleasure tbh) at the minute, but I doubt you could recommend me anything to change my mind. I'll tell you what, if you read Things Fall Apart by Achebe, I'll read something of old Chauceyboy that you recommend. Unless you're too busy hedgefunding!

randylonghorn

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In fairness, Perma, Chaucer takes a bit of getting into, and more guidance than the more modern books.

Hmmm ... i wonder if they still insist on Beowulf at Cambridge? :pac:

Btw, TSM, Chaucer wrote in Middle English, for Old English you would be looking at Beowulf!

And it's not that long since Tolkien was very cool indeed among a certain set ... pretty much until the films came out I would say.

TSMGUY

randylonghorn wrote: »

In fairness, Perma, Chaucer takes a bit of getting into, and more guidance than the more modern books.

Hmmm ... i wonder if they still insist on Beowulf at Cambridge? :pac:

Btw, TSM, Chaucer wrote in Middle English, for Old English you would be looking at Beowulf!

And it's not that long since Tolkien was very cool indeed among a certain set ... pretty much until the films came out I would say.

Ah sure, Modern English is closer to Modern English than Middle English! I stand on my point. Down with Chaucer, up with Nabokov and Achebe.

randylonghorn

Hwæt! Wé Gárdena in géardagum
þéodcyninga þrym gefrúnon·
hú ðá æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Oft Scyld Scéfing sceaþena þréatum
monegum maégþum meodosetla oftéah·
egsode Eorle syððan aérest wearð
féasceaft funden hé þæs frófre gebád·
wéox under wolcnum· weorðmyndum þáh
oð þæt him aéghwylc þára ymbsittendra
ofer hronráde hýran scolde,
gomban gyldan· þæt wæs gód cyning.

A very brief extract!

Something to look forward to reading in bed, TSM!

TSMGUY

randylonghorn wrote: »

Hwæt! Wé Gárdena in géardagum
þéodcyninga þrym gefrúnon·
hú ðá æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Oft Scyld Scéfing sceaþena þréatum
monegum maégþum meodosetla oftéah·
egsode Eorle syððan aérest wearð
féasceaft funden hé þæs frófre gebád·
wéox under wolcnum· weorðmyndum þáh
oð þæt him aéghwylc þára ymbsittendra
ofer hronráde hýran scolde,
gomban gyldan· þæt wæs gód cyning.

A very brief extract!

Something to look forward to reading in bed, TSM!

g'way you, sports science PLC it is!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

TSMGUY

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

your girlfriend is roughly 19 and you find the time to read!:D

rainbowtrout

TSMGUY wrote: »

well now, if we're being facetious we could say Chaucer wrote in Old English. Achebe, though Nigerian, wrote in English. Nabokov also wrote many of his books in English as well as his native Russian, so it doesn't seem to be a legitimate reason to disbar writers from courses.

Also, how old are you that Tolkien was ever cool!

To be fair, the first LOTR film came out around 2001. Tolkien wasn't really all that mainstream up until then. Very few, if any of my friends had read Tolkien before the film, where as now everyone's heard of LOTR and the Hobbit.

I'd hazard a guess that the majority of people who've seen the films, still haven't read the books.

randylonghorn

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

We'd find learning German easier though!

Mind you, if it weren't for the Saxons before them, we'd happily be conversing with the English in Gaelic ("Celtic"), and I wouldn't have to deal with the constant "why tf do we have to learn Irish?!" threads! :pac:


Ah, but you went to UL, not Galway, RBT!

There was a whole LOTR cult there, I think Trinity was as bad.

TSMGUY

rainbowtrout wrote: »

To be fair, the first LOTR film came out around 2001. Tolkien wasn't really all that mainstream up until then. Very few, if any of my friends had read Tolkien before the film, where as now everyone's heard of LOTR and the Hobbit.

I'd hazard a guess that the majority of people who've seen the films, still haven't read the books.

well I think I remember an episode Friends before the films came out where, in a flashback, Ross and Chandler are massive LOTR geeks, so maybe in certain circles it had a lore.
AH, here were are
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcNhuHVfz20

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

randylonghorn

TSMGUY wrote: »

Ross and Chandler are massive LOTR geeks

/heads out to burn his copy of LOTR