Not a Very Mother's Day Appropriate Blog

I read an article in the Chronicle a couple of days ago about orphans in literature.  Seems like a strange topic, right? Well it kind of is, but, according to Terry Castle, the author of the article ("Don't Pick Up"), orphans are all over the place in literature and the theme of them is an important one to the story of humanity. 

Castle points out that one of the first places we see orphaning in literature is with the exilement of Adam and Eve from Eden. In that tradition, we see the concept of orphanhood as essential to the process of becoming human.  After all, Adam and Eve lose any real claim to their only parent figure in the moment they are exiled; they become orphans. 

The author exemplifies several other works of great literature that involve and center on orphans and the theme, but most interesting in the entire long article (it's over 7,000 words! Which is one of the reasons I'm giving you the Cliff's Notes) is her perspective of her own students. 

While, she believes that the concept of "becoming an orphan," a true individual without ties (of the sort that restrict), is essential to an individual's growth and increased ability to think and reason on their own, she argues that young people today are not necessarily indulging themselves in any sort of self-orphanage.  She says, rather, that they, as products of helicopter parents, are allowing themselves to remain too close and in too constant of contact with their parents even as they go through their college years, years meant to be some of the most invigoratingly independent of them all.

The bewilderment with which she contemplates her students 24-7 attachment to their parents (seven-plus phone calls a day, constant text messaging back and forth, etc) is wonderful and enlightening because a reader cannot help but ask themselves what side of the table they're on: a momma's boy/girl or an "orphan"?    

I do agree with Castle when she argues that we are killing our chances for independent thinking and independent action when we stay in constant contact with parents and when we base our concept of ourselves on them- what they do, what they expect, what will make them proud, etc.  It's freeing to have someone recognize that this is not the way we should live our lives and that to do so is counter to a literary theme of, and a human need for, self-exploration and a certain amount of self-orphaning in order to fully grow up. 

To somewhat more objectively confirm her point beyond just my instant emotional reaction to it, I compared notes with some of my favorite literary characters.  Let's start with Jay Gatsby (where else?)- he has such a desire to free himself from the ties that bind him- to his past, his upbringing, his family- that he even changes his blood name (James Gatz, anyone?).  Let's go to the other end of the spectrum and take a look at Jo March of Little Women.  Admittedly, this is a story that is pretty centered on family; however, it is undeniable that Jo must break away from her family, move to the city and live on her own, before she can become the person she is going to be.  And with that said, this theme becomes a much more commonplace one- people need to venture out on their own in order to evolve- they must seek out new frontiers, they must cast off expectations. 

As far as the real world goes, though I can't speak for generations of yore, it seems that this trope of independent exploration as a right of passage to adulthood is somewhat uncommon.  Today, this can be blamed on a number of things; the economy is not the least of which.  Of people I know in their mid/late twenties more live with their parents (or are highly dependent on their support) than not.  Hell, the guy who lives in the apartment above me gets weekly grocery deliveries from his mom, to which he giddily exclaims, "thank you, Mommy!" every god-damn time.  Isn't that a little gross?

While I do find myself in disgust over grown men using the term "mommy" and being concerned in any way, shape, or form for their parents' sensitivities toward their lifestyle (I find myself often suppressing a "man-the-fuck-up! Do you think Jack Kerouac really cared if he offended his mom? No, he was busy worrying about the world at hand and giving voice to it!" or something equally irrational), I also recognize that I had the good fortune of being raised by some pretty badass, not-easy-to-offend people (though, I admit, to even point this out as a rationalization of my character may reveal my own struggle with parental over-identification).  Either way, I try to pity rather than judge those who've had more of a Little Woman experience.  But, come on, even Jo learned that at some point, you have to worry about you, and you have to become whoever you're going to be. All on your own.          

Thanks for reading. Until next time,

Leena

If you'd like to check out the article mentioned in the blog, you can access it at

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Case-for-Breaking-Up-With/131760/?sid=cr&utm_source=cr&utm_medium=en

And Jack Said, "Let There Be Discourse," and it Was So. And it Was Good. (Walt 1:1-2)

A few quarters ago, I enrolled into a class called "Bible as Literature." I jumped at the chance to take this class - not only was it taught by Liam Corley, but I've said time and again that English majors need to know their bible. Going into this class, I was a bit apprehensive, despite my enthusiasm. I was raised in a Christian household, but never really felt that Christianity was something aside from a story. Sure, I sang the songs and memorized bible verses, but that was about it. That, though, is irrelevant; what is relevant is that the bible is an interesting document that everyone, I think, should read.

First of all, the bible is in everything. I mean seriously, tale as old as time - Chaucer and Dante to Whitman and Dickinson. It's in just about everything in the canon as we know it. The bible holds a wealth of stories from a variety of story tellers, and it certainly keeps the active reader on his/her toes; however, there was one thing that I was left with after I read it.

It's fucking insane.

I wish I had a dollar for every time I said something like "oh shit" or "oh my god" when I was reading the bible actively. There is some seriously questionable shit in that book. At some parts, it almost felt like it was written by Brett Easton Ellis. Furthermore, it's confusing as all hell, and it makes little to no sense at parts.

Now before you go get your torches and pitchforks, please realize that I am looking at the bible as a piece of literature. All I want to say is that it is a very complicated text, and the events throughout the bible add to its almost cryptic qualities. The bible, to me, is one of the most important literary documents in the history of written word. It's up there with the Iliad, and anyone who would disagree would have to argue his/her ass off in order for me to take them seriously.

But enough of that. I want to hear what you folks have to say about the bible. And, please, don't bring religion into this conversation. I want to actually have a conversation, and bringing religious baggage to the table doesn't do anything but stop a potential meaningful conversation.

Note: You can talk about the bible without bringing religion into it.

Anticipating your comments,

JF

Building Better English Majors Part I

The English Undergraduate program at Cal Poly Pomona is wonderful - that is, if you take out the useless English majors, the awful admissions bureaucracy, and add in a few more million dollars to the budget. I've had a great time as an undergraduate student at Cal Poly, and this magazine would not be where it is today if it weren't for the occasional combat boot to the back of the head; however, it is becoming clear that our department, as great as it is, needs some major improvements. We need to re-examine what it is to be English majors at Cal Poly just as much as the department needs to re-examine what they must do in order to facilitate our growth as academics.
One of the largest flaws I see in the undergraduate program at CPP is the set of classes the department has deemed the "core classes." All English Literature majors are required to take Shakespeare After 1600, Literary Theory, Advanced Expository Writing, and Grammar of Modern English - the rest of the units are up to the student.

I, by no means, am one for imposing an entire curriculum on a student; however, I think there are a couple of fundamental things an English major needs to have under their belt before they complete their Bachelor's Degree. The four core classes, while useful in their own regard, are not enough to build a foundation for even a decent English major - of course, this is just my opinion. The core we currently adhere to needs to be revised, and the department needs to consider re-establishing a core that actually means something.

The first section of the core should be a two-part class based in Literary Theory. Literary Theory should be taught early on in the undergraduate career, as it is the first real tool a fledgling English major needs in order to be successful. Lit Theory, as it currently is set up at CPP, briefly looks at four to six theories over the span of ten weeks, creating merely a synopsis for students to work off of. The first section of Literary theory should, therefore, be a broader, deeper examination of the theories rather than a quick glossing over of Derrida or Aristotle - especially because entire classes could be focused around either of said theorists. The second portion of Lit Theory should be dedicated solely to the application of the theories learned over the course of the previous installment of ten weeks. Theory class, as it currently stands, can only touch upon meaning, and - in my experience - the application of theory seems to follow auto-didactically after the class is over. If a secondary "application" class were to be followed directly after the "theory" based class, students would more likely to understand and use theory correctly and efficiently.

-side note - I'm a huge theory guy, so I apologize if the previous paragraph came off as a rant

The other classes all sort of go hand-in-hand. The other parts of the core should be Bible as Literature, Myth as Literature, and Dante's Divine Comedy. If this seems like a weird triad for what the core of literature should be, then you might want to quit reading this post now and go apply to be a business major or something of that banal nature.

Bible as Literature needs to be taught. It's in everything. Seriously. I'm not even going to waste my time creating a catalog of everything that's been influenced by the Bible. If an English major isn't at least familiar with the Bible, everything else is kind of a muddled mess.

The same goes for myth. I seriously can't believe Ovid isn't a mandatory text for all English majors. In fact, more Ovid references come immediately to my mind than Bible references. I admit, I started reading Ovid late in my academic career, but I really wish The Metamorphoses had been introduced to me earlier; it would have made things a lot easier.

Finally, we need to read The Divine Comedy. I still have only read parts - and even then I've only read translations. We need to read TDC for so many reasons; many of which are the same reasons why we need to read Chaucer. Translation of text is something all English majors - who, I assume, are language lovers - need to do for a multitude of reasons. Furthermore, Inferno alone is referenced throughout literature as much as the Bible or Ovid are. These three texts are the basis by which many texts were crafted, and a fundamental understanding of each of them is crucial to the success of any would-be scholar.

For the sake of space on the blog, I'll stop here. I'll be sure to continue this article next week.