June 13th, 2005


(no subject)

You know the difference between English and History? When you're studying History and it gets dull or painful or otherwise unbearable, you can comfort yourself with the fact that as it really happened, it happened for a multitude of reasons, ie: Humans are Just Dumb and Stuff Happens. So, they weren't *just* doing it to piss you off.

In Lit, however, this is not necessarily the case. I mean, if you're even passably good at what you do, you have to acknowledge there being an even chance that somewhere down the line, someone *will* be forced to study you, your work, and its many and varied social and political implications and very complicated symbolism, whether there's any there or not. In fact, if you *are* an artist of any merit, you have an ego the size of a small sun, whether you know it or not, because if you didn't you wouldn't be able to keep doing the art thing, because despite its infrequent nice bits it's not really all that much fun. Which might lead one to assume, for example in the case of Wordsworth, that they're just doing it out of spite. In essence, the difference is that in History, it's nobody's fault, but in English, there's nobody to blame but the writer.

There's really nothing like studying literature to make you want to go back in time and kill people.

Yeah. I finished my paper.

Shut up. I love literature. :P
  • Current Mood
    accomplished accomplished
  • Tags

Gacked from nostalgia_lj

Ten Most Harmful Books of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (AKA: A Recommended Reading List for Political Subversive Types, Heh)

Just thought I'd share this, in case you, as I did, look at the list and come up ashamed by how few of them you've read. ;) (Silly conservatives. *headshake*)

My favourite part was the Neitzsche entry: "The Nazis loved Neitzsche." My brain automatically screamed "Godwin's Law!" and broke down into giggles. ;)