English

[Mistress of Darkness]

It's okay JP, your appreciation for braindead entertainment returns somewhat after you graduate.

And I think you're right EUOL about more specialized classes for creative writing. I remember being very disappointed by the class suggestions for a creative writing emphasis in the English major. 218R and 318R where about it as I remember. I think another thing the CW classes should do is look at modern day, popular fiction. John Grisham, Danelle Steele, James Michner, etc., since the point of being a CW is usually not to write a fantastic piece of literature.

[Fellfrosch]

I don't think that you can boil writing down to that level, EUOL, at least not without losing something. If I hadn't gone through so many traditional literature classes I wouldn't appreciate what literature can do or say, and I wouldn't have the drive to write stuff of my own. In other words, if all you focus on is how to say something, what you end up saying won't be worth the trouble.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I don't think that EUOL means to imply that literary criticism is useless to a writer. After all, some of the most significant literary critics were successful (and now canonized) writers in their own right (T.S. Eliot, just to throw out one name). Just that they don't need as much of it as a CmLit major would.

[Fellfrosch]

I actually think that's exactly what he was implying. He's often said, on the forum and in person, that a writer looks for completely different things in a text than a literary critic does. But I suppose we won't know for sure until he gets back from WFC and tells us.

I have to admit, though, that some literary study classes aimed at writers would be very helpful.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

ok, maybe he is implying it. In that case, I'll say that my comments were what I feel to be a more realistic approach to his ideas.

[EUOL]

I'm not saying that a creative writer shouldn't take lit classes.  A creative writer should take a broad range of classes, from the visual arts, to history, to literature.  However, I think there should be a division as I've mentioned so that there can be specialized classes to help the writer.  

A painting major will study art differently from a humanities major.  What more and more schools are realizing is that creative writing is really closer to painting than it is to literary analysis.  That isn't to say that lit classes are useless, but tell me this, Fell:  What about those lit classes helped you most?  Was it understanding feminist criticism of the texts, or was it simply reading the texts themselves?

[Brenna]

Not that this has any relevance to EUOL's post, but you all are forgetting that there should also be a special section for folklore.  It is also a valid area of study which should get more attention (says the one getting her master's in English with a folklore emphasis).

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I dunno, you'd have to make a better case for me that folklore studies are something other than specialized literary analysis. I'm not saying that there are some very specialized concepts invoved in folklore, but the Medieval Romance brings with it such considerations as well. Even just poetry v. drama v. narrative, and specialized types of poetry, etc.

[stacer]

Actually, there are 4 PhD programs in the U.S. in folklore, and many more master's. For the PhD programs, one's in California, one's in Texas, one's in Pennsylvania, and one's in Indiana. I've actually been thinking about going on to one of these programs. Given my interest in children's literature and folk and fairy tales, it might be a good career move, as there are few children's critics with formal folklore training.

But I don't know if you'd want to major in it as an undergrad. I'd think you'd want more of a broad education, and then narrow down as you go to higher degrees. But maybe that's my own personal bias, as my undergrad is in marriage, family, and human development, and my master's will be in children's literature. And to get my MFHD degree--well, not as part of the degree, but along the road--I took classes in animal science, agriculture, biology, family history, editing, art history, and photography. So I feel like I have a pretty broad background academically, none of which involves folklore or even English literature beyond one children's literature survey class.

Wait, no--I did take two writing classes my last semester. Okay, looking back on those two classes and looking at my purely literary masters, I agree with EUOL on the English thing. Writers do need writer's craft classes. I think that's the thinking behind MFA programs in writing, though--you get a background in whatever you want as an undergrad, then do a 1 1/2 to 2 year program that teaches you the craft of writing (and MFA is a terminal degree). My roommate has a degree in technical writing from her undergrad at Weber State, so some schools do offer some specialization.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I guess I see a difference between a few degree programs in it and it being a whole section of the department. We're talking about these programs replacing a program in "english." I just don't see it as significantly different from a literature major to make it something other than a specialized focus. <shrug> I suppose I'll be disagreed with though on that point.

[Fellfrosch]

Understanding the different forms of literary analysis (feminist, marxist, formalist, deconstructionist, etc.) was an enormous benefit to me as a writer, because it taught me what writers do and what readers look for. Some targeted classes that teaches HOW a writer does what he does would certainly be appreciated, but I wouldn't want to lose the first part.

[42]

I guess one question that should be asked before creating different specializations is, "How much is their to study in that field?"

I'm thinking of programs like engineering. If you didn't have an undergrad in engineering there is almost no way that can study it in graduate school. You would just be completely lost and it would take too much time get caught up.

A lot of humanities subjects and some social sciences are not this way. English is a prime example because of how it has been taught. So far, it doesn't take much to get up to speed with what is going on in the english community if you are a native speaker and have completed college. Is there really so much that needs to be learned in a specialization that is requires being a seperate area of study?

I think what EUOL would like to see is some aspects of English being treated like a fine art discipline. BFA, BM, MFA and MM degress require that you have a certain amount of skill before entering the program like unto a engineering or medical degree. However, there is a very snobbish, club type attittude in fine art degrees. Each fine art program tends to be built on the premise that the instructors are more knowledible than the students. However, the "when you are as experienced as I am you will know." kind of attittude to teaching kind of falls apart when it come under scrutiny. The largest example being that there are many, many people ho have become successful in these fields without the guidance of a experienced instructor. Unfortunately, many fine art programs in the US are have become nothing more than vanity projects. That's not something that you usually find in the hard sciences.

Course, this comes back to something I am painfully realizing. Not all college degrees are worthwhile investments. So how would specialized English programs become worthwile investments and not vanity projects?

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

That is definitely something worth considering: after all, except in academics, the only thing a degree in the Humanities does is show you're capable of completing the degree. No one needs an English major specifically, just a degree holder (yes, it's a generalization, but it's generally true, even if not so under certain specific cases).

[42]

Course if you want a career in academics, the humanities seems to be the way to go. Humanities academics usually don't require you to have lots of vocational experience like a lot of sciences require.

Otherwise, humanities and a lot of social sciences seem to be rather directionless as to what they intend their students to do with their knowledge.