Fowler, and Mary's Complaint
In response to: [winstonsbitch's Entry on English]
Okay, to clarify. I am all for looking at literature in various lights. So, looking at the sex and women's roles in a few pieces of Literature is all fine and dandy. But do we bloody have to look at it in EVERY SINGLE WORK WE DO?
Methinks there be more to literature than sex
She has had a lot of interesting points on the subject. Frankenstein is a birth novel, in a sense. Frankenstein MAY very well have been influenced by Shelley's relationship with Percy Shelley and Lord Byron. It might even be useful in SOME cases to know about them having sex on her mother's grave. But I was expecting a survey of Literature; instead I'm getting "sex in literature", with a few other themes thrown in. That last class period was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. When she started the class out by talking about this weird theory that she didn't even explain well enough for me to see past its apparent absurdity to whatever truth was behind it, and then seemed about to go into exploring the text based on this theme, I just couldn't take it. If I wanted to spend a day or two looking at Frankenstein from a perspective I don't agree with, and one that is a bit tangential even, I'd be in a bloody class on the subject. I am not. So, I really don't see why we can't have a more even view of the text–surely she can teach about the basic themes in Literature at an undergraduate level, at least.
I am not against discussing sex. I am not against discussing homosexuality. I am certainly not against women's roles being less constricting. BUT, I am against that being all there is to literature.
Disclaimer: I am exaggerating for a point. She has explored philosophy, and racism in the couple works that REQUIRED her to do that.