'Klanderud's List'

[Keith GOERINGER]

Prof. Beard wrote:

>Keith said that the public doesn't see things the way we do; he has it the
>other way around.  In fact, we don't see things the way the majority of
>people on earth see them.

Well, yes -- that was the very point I was trying to make...it's six of
one, half a dozen etc. etc.  The bottom line is, we do what we do because
we are (ideally) passionate about it, because god knows it ain't for the
money.  I think the problem we in the liberal arts have is sharing that
passion with people who are not normally going to be transfixed by the
gem-like perfection of a paradigm or that of a stanza of Mandel's^tam's
poetry.  You rarely read about that sort of thing in city newspapers or
even magazines.

>I've always marveled at the complete lack of logic in the study of
>literature.  Literary criticism is something only literary critics
>(dilletante and professional) do.  The only practical purpose of graduate
>programs in literature is to produce more literary critics.  For every
>deserving writer in the world there are probably 10,000 literary critics.
>Is every one of them essential to the functioning of society?

Forgive me, but this seems like flame-bait, plain and simple.  I am a
linguist, and have poked fun at my *literaturoedy* colleagues on more than
one occasion, but I think this type of criticism could be levelled at just
about *any* branch of the humanities by adherents of any *other* branch.
And if this is how a colleague feels about a fellow "liberal artist",
imagine how the non-academic public feels!  Whatever my feelings about
literary scholars may be, I basically have always assumed that there is a
"there" there, even if it eludes me more or less entirely.

>The reason literary critics have thrived so long is that they have been
>teaching language--something for which they have absolutely no credentials.

Again, I find myself in the odd position of feeling the need to defend
literary scholars.  This is based on my personal experience, but I can say
with utter sincerity that I would rather learn first-year Russian from lit
scholars than from most linguists.  Since overgeneralizations seem to be
the order of the day, I will say that, compared to most linguists I know
(with a few brilliant exceptions), lit grad students speak Russian more
fluently; have better pronunciation; and most *definitely* have a richer
vocabulary.  By and large, most grad students I know are capable teachers.
They know the grammar (or presumably they wouldn't be in grad school...),
and can speak at least conversationally.  The ability to give detailled
explanations of the grammar and/or history is wonderful -- but in the
context of a first-year class, not necessarily desirable.  Too much
information can overwhelm.  And in any event, in most deparments there is
some semblance of TA preparation, so few people would be walking into a
classroom cold.

My humble (and rather rushed) opinion.

Keith

Keith Goeringer
UC Berkeley
Slavic Languages & Literatures
keg at violet.berkeley.edu