next »

[benjamin_myers]

I usually enjoy Mr. "Benton's" articles, but I think the latest missed the mark, relying too much on the cliche of "dry" graduate study.  Perhaps we just attended very different sorts of institutions, but graduate school certainly did nothing to make me more cynical about literature, nor did it push me in any way into a cold sort of "politicized" relationship with books, as he suggests.  Rather, the deeper study of ideology and culture helped me to realize more fully the depth and wonder of a good text, the sort of puzzles set out by a fascinating read.  If my literary heroes became more flawed, they also became more human.  That's why I became a Spenserian, but I won't bore you with the details.

In short, it was a very intellectually exciting time, not one of disillusionment but rather of growth.

My question is, did the article ring true for anyone? 

By the way, I was disappointed to start with, since, judging by the title, I had hoped for an essay outlining the great damage done by that movie to the teaching of English.  I mean, now, if one doesn't stand on the desk and do impersonations, one gets marked down on the evaluation.

[iomhaigh]

I cannot imagine attending a graduate program that was like the other classes in that fictional school.  Is the grind of grad school deadly?  Heck ya!  But soul-killing? No, not at all. 

Anyhow, the article did not ring true for me at all, but then I teach a lot of dramatic literature, so we jump around on the furniture quite regularly in class.

[mabeelrc]

A friend of mine, Andy, was teaching English literature in China.  During a break in the States he saw the movie and was quite pumped up about it.  He determined that on the first day back at class he would do the deed--he would jump up on the classroom desk and pop the question, "Why am I standing on this desk?"

(A little background:  Chinese students are very, very reserved.  And Chinese classrooms are usually quite dirty.)

The day came and Andy swept into the classroom and jumped up on the desk.  He knew immediately that he had done the wrong thing.  Things weren't happening like they had in the movie.  The students were aghast, stunned, speechless.  Andy began to sweat.  The room was silent.  Andy had already committed himself to the act; he couldn't back down.  Face was involved.  It was a standoff.

Finally, one student, slowly and almost painfully raised her hand to give an answer,  "Mr. Andy, is it because the floor is dirty?"

[plainjane]

I was equally puzzled by several of the broad statements Benton makes in his column, most especially his dictum about the politicization of successful graduate students:

Those who stay have political commitments (and probably come from undergraduate programs where those commitments are encouraged early), or they develop them as graduate students, or they feign or exaggerate them to get through.

I'm not sure what Benton means here by "political commitments" -- it's a pretty vague term. But it clearly means something specific, and specifically bad, to Benton -- his shudder of horror is almost palpable. I'm guessing he means a Marxian/ Foucauldian/ identity studies type angle on literary analysis, but I'm not sure. So I can't refute Benton as thoroughly as I'd like, not knowing exactly what these problematically political commitments are supposed to be. But I can say that I completed my PhD at a prestigious (and very leftist -- though that may be redundant) English department without ever espousing any more explicit political commitments than a devotion to academic freedom, an opposition to plagiarism, and a generalized belief in social equality. I never felt any pressure to assume any political commitments, either in general or in particular. Plenty of my colleagues did, just as plenty of my colleague did very theoretical work; I did not, and was never pressured to do so.

I think one of the more insidious tendencies of the writing in the Chronicle (and at times on these fora) is to extrapolate from our own personal experiences to the academy as a whole. We seem to have a profound commitment, not to politics, but to anecdotal argument.

Of course, perhaps Benton only meant politics in the "how can I convince my adviser to get my research funded" kind of way -- in which case, yes, politics are indeed completely necessary to an academic career!

[blue_raja]

I have never understood the bashing that "Dead Poets Society" receives from many scholars and professors.  I have always thought the characters in films of this sort were very interesting, and even inspirational at times.

True, few of us are Robin Williams, but that does not mean that we have to conduct our classes as if they are wakes.  I see nothing wrong with having a bit of fun with the material, especially if it sparks the students's interest and gets them to pay more attention to what we are teaching. 

Good teaching contains a good deal of performance, after all.

[joehardy]

Years ago, just after Dead Poets Society came out on video, I lived down the street from a former student who was not working in the public schools as a librarian/teacher.
Every once in a while he would come by the house and ask if we could either watch DPS together or, if not, would I let him borrow it so he could watch it alone. "I want to be reminded of just why I'm in this profession" is what he would always say at those times.
We usually watched it together because, I too, as a college professor, needed that inspiration.
No, I've never had students stand on their desks. It has never been necessary and modern desk design makes it rather hazardous as well. But I've always believed my role was to engage human minds and that meant treating my students as active classroom participants, not passive receivers of knowledge from on high.

[benjamin_myers]

Oh, I enjoy watching the film, too.  And, I like the enthusiasm of the movie.  What is missing, however, is the hard work it takes to form the foundation for enjoying poetry deeply.  How about a few scenes in which they work through some prosody to gain a fuller appreciation of rhythm?  How about a scene in which they uncover the compelling historical circumstances behind a poem?  Of course, that wouldn't be a very fun movie.

In short, what I regret is how the film has lead many to enter the English class expecting mere fun when we are trying to give them something much more meaningful.  I want my students to derive pleasure from poetry, but a pleasure far beyond the mere fun of standing on desks and banging on drums:  the real pleasure of intellectual engagement.

The movie is fun, but what Williams does in it is simply not teaching.

[joehardy]

Oh, I enjoy watching the film, too.  And, I like the enthusiasm of the movie.  What is missing, however, is the hard work it takes to form the foundation for enjoying poetry deeply.  How about a few scenes in which they work through some prosody to gain a fuller appreciation of rhythm?  How about a scene in which they uncover the compelling historical circumstances behind a poem?  Of course, that wouldn't be a very fun movie.

In short, what I regret is how the film has lead many to enter the English class expecting mere fun when we are trying to give them something much more meaningful.  I want my students to derive pleasure from poetry, but a pleasure far beyond the mere fun of standing on desks and banging on drums:  the real pleasure of intellectual engagement.

The movie is fun, but what Williams does in it is simply not teaching.

Actually, I don't see it as a "fun" movie. It's really a tragedy of sorts. And some of the things Keating has his students do certainly wouldn't seem like fun to the students he called upon.
I see its value in the spirit of teaching as developing an honest thirst for understanding and experience.
My junior year in high school, I was in what was called Honors English and it came time for Shakespeare. Now I was an avid reader, as were virtually all of us in the class, but Shakespeare had always been taught from a very lofty height, as if it were something we were to worship in quiet awe. A performance of a Shakespeare play was to be an occasion to dress up and, at the end, to applaud but only politely. In teaching Macbeth, the teacher drew parallels with soap operas and other contemporary dramas, especially focusing on Lady Macbeth. She didn't dumb anything down but made us realize that, behind the archaic-sounding language was some real storytelling, some really developed characters, and some really good drama (as well as comedy, of course.) Ever after I looked upon either reading a Shakespeare play or seeing a performance as an opportunity to go on an adventure and not merely a rather dull opportunity for pious worship.
This was decades before DPS and we were never made to stand on desks, but we all left that class with a far greater appreciation of literature and a desire to experience it rather than just read it reverently.

[benjamin_myers]

Well, I too had many English professor who inspired me with "an honest thirst for understanding and experience."  Not one of them, however, did so by means of a stand-up comedy routine. 

Like I said, I like the movie, but I still think its depiction of the learning (and teaching) process is misleading.  Of course, I'm not upholding some arbitrary doctrine of "realism" in film.  I'm merely saying that the movie has contributed to the already prevalent sense among this generation of students that "entertainment" is the highest good.