tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5073324181298653888.post263630864828301693..comments2023-10-05T06:53:54.346-07:00Comments on Literary and Cultural Theory, Spring 2009: In Defense of the GenreAgata Brewerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16276419816240130630noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5073324181298653888.post-58643666955988051922009-02-16T19:13:00.000-08:002009-02-16T19:13:00.000-08:00Although I agree with some points here and I under...Although I agree with some points here and I understand the appeal of (pardon the cliché) “going against the tide,” I feel that your post is somewhat shallow. It’s really nothing personal.<BR/><BR/>Gregerson is entitled to his opinion; this much is true. However, Gregerson is also entitled to his own ignorance of simple facts and the simplification of the overall idea of the Senior Colloquium course. If you read some of the letter-to-the-editor responses to Gregerson’s column, you will see that portions of St. Augustine’s Confessions are indeed part of the Colloquium corpus. Further, you make a serious error in including a hypothetical scenario in which “great literature” is replaced by “books written by ethnic or female authors.” This is obviously not the case, nor will canonized literature ever be replaced merely for the sake of diversity. In fact, your argument negates itself: there is a balance in the course between classic literature written by “dead white men” and classic literature from more diverse authors. A tip in either direction upsets the purpose of Colloquium itself. By focusing on the classic literature of the “DWM”, the course does in fact advance elitism and oppression. There are indeed many great works by the DWM, but to exclude a work of equal literary merit because a contemporary African-American woman wrote it can only be ascribed to oppression of literature and an ignorance of culture. This would be the true injury to a Wabash education.<BR/><BR/>Please don’t get me wrong, I understand where you’re coming from. I realize the vast amount of DWM literature should be passionately explored alongside the vast amount of non-DWM literature. In all honesty, I commend you for taking an opposing stance, but I implore you to think more deeply about what makes literature worth reading.Mack O'Shaughnessyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09269272850087044358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5073324181298653888.post-89093635537803464522009-02-16T17:52:00.000-08:002009-02-16T17:52:00.000-08:00I think Scott has some valid points here. Mr. Greg...I think Scott has some valid points here. Mr. Gregerson is most certainly entitled to his opinion about the reading list for Senior Colloquium. And The classics of literature should never be sacrificed for the sake of "diversity" within the classroom. However, I felt Mr. Gregerson's article seemed to imply that we should only conform to the canon of our time as acceptable reading material. At its essence, I felt the article was antithetical to the liberal arts education at Wabash. The most fruitful learning experiences I have had at Wabash were the ones where I had to step outside of my comfort zone and read something new or to listen to someone's opposing point of view. I felt Mr. Gregerson's article was an attempt to discourage this type of learning by scoffing at the contemporary works on the curriculum as a bunch of nobodies and hacks. But, Gregerson's opinion posed some other questions, and I believe Mr. Bustamante put it quite adequately when he questions exactly what a classic is. In all Scott, I laud you for recognizing the merit in Mr. Gregerson's opinion.Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09194958420980337307noreply@blogger.com