Deep Springs College

[rednegativity]

<p>JROSE, I have read a bit of Either/Or, but not much at all. </p>

<p>Ith2010, regarding your Eggers mention–who else is ridiculously excited for the Where the Wild Things Are film? I know this sounds silly, but this is the golden era for literary children’s film, and WTWTA essentially initially this new film season.
Joan Didion is god, also.
And, welcome indeed.</p>

<p>Samuel: Have you read T.S. Eliot’s short essay about Ulysses? The heart of the essay really has nothing to do with Ulysses, but with the death of the novel, defined as such. He makes the argument that Modernist epics, rooted in classicism but associated with modern concerns, with seemingly disassociated themes and such, are the next step in literature. He wrote this recently after Ulysses’ publication, and his prediction may well have been not accurate as a prediction, but nevertheless it is accurate as an observation. Have you noticed, Samuel, that novels today are never noticed for long–even famous novels that are written well with literary purpose such as The Road by McCarthy–unless they fit into that category of modern epics? 2666, for example, is at the height of the form of a book composed of seemingly disjointed sections that, through analysis of perception and other related themes, tackle the entirety of humanity, if you’ll forgive the way I word it. The Savage Detectives, though it is not nearly as long, is composed of three sections, one of which is composed of even smaller thematic chapters, and each thematic chapter is broken into narrations from a total of fifty-something narrators. Infinite Jest, in its telling of multiple stories over the course of a giant of a novel, seems to capture a similar feeling. From a critical perspective, do you agree that this new incarnation of literary form is a necessary evolution? It seems to have been postponed for far too long. Even Thomas Pynchon epics don’t quite get at what I am trying to describe. I recommend the essay, basically, but I also have a question: Do you think that Vollmann fits into this? I know he focuses on history and such, but his works all seem to have that ‘epic’ flavor, as far as I can see from reviews and whatnot.</p>

<p>I find it appropriate that on the Amazon pages for Vollmann, the “Books other customers bought” are 2666, Infinite Jest, and Pynchon. Have you read Skating Rink? Its the newest Bolano to be translated.</p>

<p>And, regarding your question about politics–
I suppose I am largely libertarian. I fit in liberal groups much more efficiently, but I find that, fiscally, I can’t agree with them. Socially, however, I am very liberal. You?</p>

[samuel924]

<p>Ok awesome post, by the way. So, in regards to whether the novel has had a “necesarry evolution”, I think of it more as kind of a natural evolution. Why I say that is I think authors were boerd of that same sort of linear plot line that were used for so long prior to Ulysses and then of course later on into DFW, Bolano, and Pynchon.</p>

<p>Segueing into Vollmann, so I think that you’re right in your assumption that a lot of his novels have a sort of " epic" tinge to them. So for instance Europe Central is made up of multiple different stories , which I guess could fit into that mold. But in other books like " The Royal Family" he writes in a mystery style. So I think he can kind of shape shift into any literary mode he wants to; hopefully if I go to DS I can be as well trained of an intellectual and writer as Vollmann!</p>

<p>So my politics are extremley left. If this helps put it into perspective I worked for Denis Kucinich in the 2008 election before Obama- Hillary- John Edwards ( sigh) took him out of the election, for obvious pragmatic reasons. But yah I think since we’re still young, have no taxes to pay etc., now is the time that we should be idealists and so I’m all for raising taxes for social good and the like, for now. Im not sure how much I want this to be a political forum, even though If it turns into one that would be okay, I’m just kind of reluctant to have sharp divisions in our prospective class before we even make it ( or not) to Round2</p>

[rednegativity]

<p>Thanks. I didn’t have time to read my post earlier and now I see that I really just rambled, but I suppose rambling (or automatic writing?) is an efficient outlet? The only downfall is that that which is produced by automatic writing is rarely something to be proud of.</p>

<p>I have researched a few of his novels and histories, and I decided to start with Rising Up and Rising Down, not because of the length but because the topic interests me very, very much (the successful use of the thematic element of the history of violence within Cormac McCarthy’s Blood Meridian was, in my opinion, the reason that Blood Meridian is such a masterpiece, and a passage near the end of The Savage Detectives is concerned with the history of violence, though to a lesser degree). But Amazon failed me for all except the abridged version, which I am not interested in, Borders obviously failed me, and both Page One and Page One Too failed me (but a clerk at Page One Too said that the database showed that there was a copy of the seven volume set in 2004, which temporarily elevated my hopes). When I was informed that the cheapest seven volume set is about $500, and that after that the next cheapest is $700 and then $2200, I gave up (at least for now) and I decided to start with Europe Central. Have you read Europe Central in its entirety? And you mentioned starting Rising Up and Rising Down earlier–do you have the seven volume edition from McSweeney’s, and if so, how did you obtain it?</p>

<p>That reminds me: Who here regularly reads McSweeney’s? I don’t, as I cannot currently afford the subscription price, but I have picked up a few copies of various ‘episodes’, and they are fantastic (particularly the comic book volume–something I never thought I would admit!).</p>

<p>I recently started an independent study with my high school creative writing teacher that is focused on Eliot’s idea of the modern incarnation of the ‘mega-novel’ as a classically inspired and concerned epic that revolves around perception and modernity. My teacher decided to focus on Modernist novels, meaning that, even though he also adores Bolano, we are not going to read 2666 as part of the project, but we will read Ulysses and In Search of Lost Time, as well as a possible third work. (Any ideas for Modernist novels that fit the ‘epic’ theme that I have been talking about?) This independent study, I realized today, is very reminiscent of many of the classes that I have seen at Deep Springs–not in subject matter, but in the breadth of the topic–and it made me excited once again for the application process. Recently I have been focusing on the Chicago application (Chicago being my second choice), but I am going to shift my focus again back to DS (the application for which is much more demanding, of course).</p>

<p>Even though I am not extremely left, I respect that very much. I wish I could convince myself to be fiscally left–maybe you could try to convince me? We should have an argument about this, if you don’t mind. I don’t care if we have it over private messages or in this thread, but I have been looking for someone to convince me to be fiscally left. My odd-sounding desire to be fiscally left is as such: I was raised libertarian (just as the vast majority of teenagers have the same political affiliations as their parents), and I very much believe in freedom (in topics such as free-market just as in topics such as free-speech) and individual rights; on the other hand, my aforementioned respect for fiscally left voters (and people too young to vote such as myself and, as far as I know, you, I suppose) lies in the very idealism that you mentioned. They all (well, not the liberals that are liberal only because of their friends or parents, but the idealistic liberals who are educated and who question their beliefs) seem to have a passionate drive for social freedom, a freedom that only seems to be possible in a somewhat monitored state of fiscally-limited freedom. I found myself empathizing with Howard Roark in The Fountainhead when I read it two years ago, even when he destroyed a home for unfortunate people. This empathy is double sided: on one hand, the idealism (an idealism more often found in liberals) displayed is awe-inspiring, as is the love for art; on the other hand, I agreed that artistic integrity, individual rights, and other related topics are more important than tainted charity.
So, I know it sounds like I am already playing some twisted form of devil’s advocate against myself, and I am, in a sense. I want to hear an argument against my fiscally right beliefs so that I can use logic and reasoning–rather than preconceived notions implanted by my parents and friends–to decide for myself. I may stay libertarian, I might change. I am entirely open-minded, but, having said as much, please be as brutal against my beliefs as possible. I don’t mind criticism.
[[[Also, as a side note, you said that, in a landscape void of taxes, youth is the optimal stage in which to be idealistic–a notion that I agree with 100%, but, though I am only 17 and unable to vote, I am currently paying for State and Federal taxes alike, as well as medicare (which, because I am 17, does not benefit me) and Social Security on every check I receive at my part time job, which, because I cannot yet vote, is taxation without representation. Does the Declaration of Independence not demand that any group that finds themselves, in America, paying taxes without representation not only make a point but to take arms in defense of their rights? I am not suggesting that taxes should not exist, of course, and I also am not suggesting that 17 year-olds should be able to vote, but I should not, so long as I cannot yet vote, have to pay taxes–especially, but not limited to, the taxes which do not directly benefit me; state and federal taxes both pay for services that I do use such as roads (even though, being unable to vote, I should not have to pay for them either), but medicare and social security have no impact on me except a decreased weekly pay. Alright, this rant is over, but it plays into the founding for my fiscally right-oriented beliefs.]]]</p>

<p>Also (haha as if this post needs any more text), you said that hopefully you can be as well trained of an intellectual and writer as Vollmann–do you want to be an author after your formal education? Or did you only mean that you hope to be able to write as well as he can? One way or another, someone as obviously intelligent as you doesn’t need Deep Springs to have a successfully Faustian intellectual life–but that isn’t to say that Deep Springs wouldn’t help! My college counselor said that, for any independent yet socially founded scholarly intellectual, Deep Springs is the single greatest college in the world. It sounds like a perfect fit for you.</p>

<p>I think my post warrants a epigraph-like apology of an epilogue from Pascal, Lincoln, and Twain:
I am sorry to have written such a long letter, but I did not have time to write a short one.</p>

[samuel924]

<p>Let me just say prior to me responding to your post, that I am astounded by your prose. It seems to me that every time I craft a piece on a computer, whether it be email, Facebook wall posts, or even this thread, I retrospectivley see it as sounding awful. </p>

<p>But now to the crux of the issue(s): First of all, I was really fortunate in being able to obtain an Unabridged version of Rising Up and Rising Down from the library, which was a score if there ever was one. But I read many segements from it and found it really awesome and compelling and really got me thinking about the true nature of violence. But naturally, being that I am a full time student, I didn’t want to put myself into the commitment that really throwing yourself entirely into a book like that requires, alas. And the same goes for Europe Central, which I will try to finish this year. But, I’m really not sure If I want to be a writer; It sounds very appealing and I think I just might, but I could simeltaneously teach Philosophy or Literature… Time shall tell. </p>

<p>So onto the political stuff… So the basic essence on my fiscal liberalism is the thought that those who have, should be and are indebted to those who do not have as much. I am very much a proponent of a graduated income tax, and I find Obama’s plan of the top 2% of Americans having higher taxes is fundamentally just. I really feel that those who can live " the good life" and have so much, should really not take that for granted. In most modern day fiscally conservatives minds, there is this notion that " I worked hard for my money, and so the poor can go screw themselves because I want a tax cut." And then those conservatives, Reagan being among them, who bought into that notion of “trickle down economics” which just didn’t and won’t work, because of the greed that most rich people have, I just simply dont agree with that. Granted, no one should have to pay so much in taxes that they themselves can not sustain a life that they deserve, but, I think as a nation we should look upon ourselves and see what we have, and why not give a little back to those who are scratching off food stamps and can not afford a hot shower, or can barley pay their rent, etc. I really just don’t think any american should be living like that, and so I digress, and my fiscal liberalism is grounded in my desires to increase social welfare in this country.</p>

<p>Oh but just one thing, so you mentioned the Fountainhead, you’re not an “objectivist” are you? Because Ayn Rand scares the crap out of me…</p>

[rednegativity]

<p>Hahaha, to get this out of the way: No! I am not an objectivist. Admittedly, I thought I was back in 9th grade, before I even really knew what it meant, but that was also when I thought that the average classic rock band demonstrated an uncanny understanding of what was, to me at the time, “music theory”. I also thought that education was pointless back then. But I have changed my ways! And now I laugh at Ayn Rand. Never fear!</p>

<p>As I mentioned before, because of my love of McCarthy and similar authors and even poets, the history of violence is something that really interests me. Today, in my Senior Humanities class (which is essentially a philosophy seminar; I can’t believe my high school even offers this course), we were discussing Plato’s manifestation of justice, and the origin of history came up. I had to restrain myself from bringing up Vollmann, even though I still haven’t read him, so as not to distract the class too much. But, let it be known that it would be no exaggeration to say that I am jealous of your library. I am going to ask my school if they can find it on the inter-library loan. If this thread lasts a while, keep me updated on your progress with both Europe Central, which it seems I will have to settle for, and Rising Up and Rising Down.</p>

<p>What is it about being a writer that attracts you most? This is not an interrogation, of course, as I too want to be a writer, but, having read Bolano lately, this has come up in conversations that I have had with my creative writing teacher–why do writers write? what keeps us writing? how come even cynics become writers, even cynics who detest people in general, who publish for the very populace that the detest? what does it imply to be a writer? etc–and I am really curious what it is about other writers that gives them this urge. I cannot find an answer for myself. I forget who it was–Yeats? I don’t think so, but someone similar stylistically–that said “I write because I have to.” And this is the cheap answer. It may be completely true, but it remains a cheap answer. And so I was curious about what you thought; what are your reasons, or is it really nothing more than an impulse?</p>

<p>I don’t have much time now, and I probably won’t tomorrow either, which is why I am not waiting to post until I have more time (it would take a while), so I can’t dweel on the political section. Basically, I agree with your reasoning. Not entirely–but quite a bit. Of course, you are mostly discussing things such as higher taxes for people with larger incomes, something that really does just make sense. So. I agree with this. But the main thing for me, fiscally, is the economic factor. Liberals tend to–note that I only think that it is true to a certain extent, as they are not socialists to the degree that most libertarians claim–‘enjoy’ regulating the economy. This is obviously, because of safety and all, necessary in extreme situations. But I have trouble whenever any branch of government attempts to directly interrupt the natural flux of the economy. And, though I am completely opposed to smoking, I find it to be a brashly offensive slap in the face of the populace of our country’s supposed intellect that our government would take something that it deems legal–which is to say that our government finds smoking to be acceptable, that it is, of course, fair and good to be in the tobacco market–and then put direct taxes on the product, limiting its sales and affecting workers at the companies, putting a harder burden on people who are addicted, etc etc etc as I am out of time and have to leave. But it would be a different story if cigarettes were illegal. Because that would mean simply that: that they are illegal. But it is an incredible contradiction that our government would brand something acceptable and then directly punish people that use this completely acceptable and legal product/service. This is only one example, and only one aspect of my fiscal independence, but I do have to leave. Au revoir! You can just reply to all I’ve said so far and I’ll get back to you on Sunday or so. And, by the way, you have no reason to see your writing as awful, as it is not. Adios.</p>

[samuel924]

<p>Hey, So first of all, that class sounds awesome… Do you go to a public or private school? Anyways, On the note of " If this thread last while" I really hope it does, or we could all just become facebook friends or something ( even though this is basically an email conversation between you and me!)… But I think It’s cool how we’ve gone all the way to this tangent from the outset of discussing Deep Springs… </p>

<p>So onto the political stuff: So It seems to me that you really agree with Adam Smith’s economic theory of the " Invisible Hand", which I can see value in, but I think there really does need to be governmental regulation into an economy of some sort, regardless of if it disrupts the " natural flux " of the economy… Amazing point on the contradiction of cigarettes and pricing etc., I totally agree. That being said, I don’t agree with that as an allegory for government intervention into an economy; there can’t really be economic anarchy, that would be bad, and I personally just kind of mistrust the general public with something as serious as an economy, and therefore our elected officials simply should regulate an economy… But if people want to, go ahead puff away on those cigarettes haha, kill themselves. </p>

<p>Oh the naivete of 9th grade, how I miss it too…Im too bitter now haha.</p>

<p>Well take a nice vacation from CC land .
Adieu</p>

[samuel924]

<p>Oh so as I was thinking about it this weekend, I realized that I had’nt addressed the “writer” aspect of your question, which was a big oversight. So I’m not sure what attracts me to it. I’m a huge fan of the novel, I like it’s powers, and how it can go anywhere you want: there are no paradigms you must follow. But I also kind of am fond of the enigmatic nature of many authors, and how they can really let their works speak for them,and not necesarily go onto Charlie Rose or NPR to talk about or defend their work… Those are some of the reasons. how about you? You mentioned maybe wanting to become one right?</p>

[CAphotographer]

<p>I don’t mean to barge in on this wonderfully rich conversation, but rednegativity’s question about why writers write intrigued me—like it has many artists. But first let me back track. I came across Deep Springs, this unique and intriguing college, just a couple of weeks ago and immediately was struck by its rigor, intellect, community, people, and so on—the list truly could go on and on— and I, therefore, am thinking quite heavily about applying—I really I should start those essays! So that is how I came upon these message board posts. Now back to my original reason for jumping into this dialogue…</p>

<p>Being a hopeful writer—leaning more toward poetry—and a photographer, I continually ask this question both to fellow artists and myself, getting a wide range of interesting answers, specific, general and speculative—some people have no answer (and don’t seem to really care).</p>

<p>Reading your posts, I am immediately reminded of a poem by Reg E. Gaines, the African American poet most famous for being one of the founder fathers of the Nuyorican Poets Café and screenplay writer for “Bring in Da Noise, Bring in Da Funk.” (Be warned the poem is graphic, sexually.) In his poem, “I Don’t Feel Like Writing,” (which can be viewed at [YouTube</a> - “I Don’t Feel Like Writing” Reg E. Gaines](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQzTQNql9qQ]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQzTQNql9qQ)) Gaines greets his wife, having been away from her for a long while, and wants, yearns, needs, almost requires having sex with her the minute he walks through the door, so much so that he ends up basically raping her. He concludes the poem, realizing that he writes in order to understand his self better, to learn and grow, to deal with and solve problems, to understand his place in a society.</p>

<p>Reflecting on this poem, I believe there are two layers to red’s question: a more surface, personal level, and a deeper, underlying, psychological level that is universal—both are valid answers. I think Yeats—or whomever the quote is from—is correct, answering your question on the deeper stratum. The more personal layer varies.</p>

<p>There is a wonderful saying in ancient Greece, “gnothi seuton”, inscribed in gold letters on the portico of the temple at Delphi, helping me to better answer red’s question. I write and create art in a similar way Gaines does: to learn about myself, but I take this one step further. In knowing about myself, I understand more about others, about how I relate to others, about how I belong in the world, about how the world functions. (I don’t think Plato would have liked my answer, being that he felt art was an imitation of reality, and thus was dangerous and should be avoided.)</p>

<p>As you may have guessed, this question fascinates me, so I apologize for the length of my post.</p>

<p>(By the way, there is a wonderful short essay by the Native American Indian author and poet Sherman Alexie, titled “Why We Write”. If you are really interested in this subject, it is worth a read.)</p>

[samuel924]

<p>Hey CA Photographer,
Im glad to welcome you on to our lovely and humble thread of metaphysical-epistemelogical- and just plain awesome thread. Due to the depth and bredth of your post, it appears you’ll fit in just fine to our nice thread of cyberspace anonymity.
But I’ll cut to the matter at hand. So actually it’s interesting that point you brought up that through writing, we can find out more about, specifically, the world. I guess I was trying to articulate that ( or maybe just thinking it) that that’s one of the reasons I write. For instance, I live in NYC and I am able to observe my surroundings and thus am able to draw creativity from my surroundings. But there also Is a therapeutic sense of finding yourself through writing as well which was articulated in that really awesome link you shared by Gaines. </p>

<p>Welcome aboard my new friend!</p>

[CAphotographer]

<p>Samuel,</p>

<p>Thank you for the kind welcome. I find it exhilarating to be involved in a “metaphysical-epistemological-and just plain awesome thread” with other very bright people—something lacking in my current school. </p>

<p>I bet NYC is an amazing city to learn about the world, so much culture, so much energy. I live outside of San Francisco, and I consider it a mini NYC: colorful, eclectic, intellectual, artistic, infusing me with knowledge that cannot be learned from a book. I often find myself being trapped indoors reading or studying, but some of my most important life discoveries have been observing, and just plain living, but that is a very long story, something I plan to write about in my essay application.</p>

<p>Last night, I saw the Shakespeare comedy, “Midsummer Nights Dream”. It was an amazing interpretation and production, truly laugh-out-loud funny. In reflecting on the play, it occurs to me, that one reason I aspire to write is to entertain, or at least hope to entertain; subsequently, Shakespeare has become sort of my artistic ideal. His work can be experienced on so many different levels, creating an amazingly rich experience, touching so many people. For example, his work entertained both the uneducated class, helping them escape the negativity and harshness of their world, and the rich elite class, titillating them with references to ancient Greek and Roman, providing them with psychological or quick-witted dialogue, that to do this day is impressively hard to match. I find this complexity quite astonishing.</p>

<p>In the last few decades, an entertaining and beautiful aesthetic, pleasing on a physical level, has come into question. In photography, for example, there is a movement, or style if you will, that purposely strips the photograph of any beauty, hoping to make the concept the focal point, not the beautiful tonality, balanced composition, and the like, feeling these physical aesthetics detract from the message. But in doing so, I feel the artist has segregated himself from the world, catering only to a highly educated class. And while I find myself not wanting to “dumb down” my art, to please others, I am conflicted with my responsibilities as an artist. Consequently, I find it important, like Shakespeare did, to reach out to many people—otherwise art becomes a selfish vocation.</p>

<p>Shakespeare was able to make his art accessible, entertaining all kinds of people, on so many levels, while still maintaining incredible intellectual complexity. Such an ideal task to reach! Can one span their art from a purely physical level to the highest reaches of intellect? The question sounds lofty, and idealistic, but it is something I hope to work toward in my writing and photography—just some rambling as I deal with acquiring more and more knowledge.</p>

<p>Do you think an artist—a writer, painter, photographer, sculptor, film maker, etc.—has a responsibility to society and to humanity?</p>

[samuel924]

<p>Hey,
So I’m going start out by saying that San Francisco is my favorite city in the US, just about…</p>

<p>But now onto the crux of the matter: writing. So Midsummer Nights Dream is an awesome play and is really hysterical. I actually saw 12th Night not too long ago and It was also “laugh out loud” funny ( Shakespeare= the true definition of lol, lol.) But I think you’re true in your observation of his appeal to so wide a variety of people in his time, which is obviously a natural thing for a writer to want to do. And also to entertain the reader; actually you would most likely enjoy this tidbit, so when they were compiling the list for the " Great Books of the Western World" series in the 40’s , RObert Maynard Hutchins said that for him, in order for a book to be great, it has to keep him entertained as well…</p>

<p>However, for me, and I’m not sure how much of this previous thread you’ve read, but we were talking baout authors like David Foster Wallace, William Vollmann, Roberto Bolano, and Pynchon, all of whom challenge their readers tremendous amounts to derive exceptional benefit, and in most cases to even understand the narrative. So I have a definite appreciation for both " schools" of writing, and It’s hard for me to say with certainty which one I prefer, perhaps a bit of both???</p>

<p>So addressing your final question… In your last post you provided us with a clip from Gaines, where e talked about his need to write as a means to self actualization etc. So I think that there’s no real debt or responsibilty to society but rather as our buddy Bill Shakespeare said “To thine own self be true”. It seems that If artists are striving so hard to appease their responsibilty to society than their art will suffer because of that… </p>

<p>So yah I actually havent been working on my DS essays since August… Im not even sure Im going to apply but this thread is fun at least… Anyways where else are you applying?</p>

<p>AND REDNEGATIVITY! WHERE ARE YOU?!?!?! You must meet my new friend!</p>

[rednegativity]

<p>SAMUEL, I AM HERE!!</p>

<p>Welcome, CA Photographer!</p>

<p>And now I must be off–all apologies, but really I am entirely out of time. Just reading the entries on this board is somewhat demanding, much less contributing! And oh how I ramble and ramble–I have not the time today!</p>

<p>I will return tomorrow. Perhaps in the morning?</p>

<p>One quick thing:
I agree that overly pretentious art that alienates some of the audience is often off-putting, but that isn’t to say that art must be easy to understand? So long as it is enjoyable to a relatively intellectual mind–say, a novel with beautiful paragraphs and soaring insights between complex issues–then it doesn’t need to be dumbed down, does it? I do agree that Shakespeare is a perfect ideal, in that he does indeed achieve a height of intellectual literary consideration while still entertaining the masses. I really do agree. But do you think this is necessary? Is Finnegan’s Wake, then, not great, only because it is incredibly difficult? Some passages are hilarious even if you are not sure what they mean (I haven’t read much more than 30 or so pages, it was just too much!), but, even if it wasn’t at all hilarious, the entirety of what I have looked at is incredibly affecting on some deeper level.</p>

<p>But I really am out of time! Adieu!</p>

[CAphotographer]

<p>In no way am I saying that the likes of T.S. Eliot and James Joyce were not brilliant. Their work is incredibly intelligent and thought provoking, with a great deal to be learned from them. Perhaps I am saying that Shakespeare, in my mind, is greater because of his ability to be intellectually complex and accessible at the same time. I get great pleasure it solving the difficulty in poems such as Eliot’s “The Wasteland”, but find it somewhat troubling that part of my satisfaction is because I feel like I have solved a puzzle. Should art be only a puzzle to be solved? What about the physical reaction, pleasure, the visceral level? Originally art was used as a means to touch all people, but I feel like there has been a chasm in art that I find a little troubling. But perhaps, like red mentioned earlier and T.S. Eliot so eloquently stated, this could be the new path of art. Anyway, these are just thoughts I have been dealing with lately. In the meantime, I still enjoy the intellectual stimulation of difficult work.</p>

<p>(I will admit that both of your words regarding “2666” intrigued me, and I have put the book at the top of my personal reading list—although sadly I probably won’t have time to get to the book until winter break.)</p>

<p>Samuel, to answer your question regarding other schools I am applying to:</p>

<p>I am a non-traditional student and have already graduated high school. I even went to community college for a little while after graduating, but dropped out. I had no ambition and the only thing I worked hard at was to try as little as possible to maintain a B average. (To give you a clue, I don’t think I read a single novel in High school English. Oh the horror, I know!!) My years away from school were great and very difficult at the same time. Without writing a very long response, all I will say is that in hitting a very low point in my life, I have become more driven than I ever was and can truly say I love learning and working hard towards my education. Subsequently, I have been taking classes at a local community college for the past year, while working full time. Schools that I will probably apply to are as follows: UC Berkeley, UCLA, Williams, Amherst, Kenyon, Pomona, Tufts/School of the Museum of Fine Arts (dual degree with a BA and BFA), and probably a couple other Liberal Art Colleges. How about yourself?</p>

<p>Oh, and by the way, I truly enjoyed the anecdote about Robert Maynard. Thank you for sharing!</p>

[samuel924]

<p>Well you can’t really go wrong with any of those schools on your list! Anyways, I’m applying to St. John’s College in Annapolis ( actually already have applied), Reed College, Grinell College, Shimer College, DS, and maybe UChicago…</p>

[CAphotographer]

<p>I can tell you are into the concept of the Great Books education. That is awesome! I am curious, what are your reasons?</p>

[samuel924]

<p>Yah I am… So my first reason is pragmatic, in that I know that I want to read all of these books that make up the “western cannon”, and If I don’t do It in college, I’m not sure that I ever would. But continuing on that, If I do read them at a college level, like at St. John’s, with everybody else around you reading those books and discussing them, I would derive exceptional benefit from the readings… And yet another reason why is because the books are so timeless and yet timely and are still, for the most part so relevant to todays society and we can still learn as much from them now as humans could when they were first published…</p>

<p>What are your views on the concept of a Great Books education besides " that is awesome!" ?! I really love this topic btw.</p>

[CAphotographer]

<p>The former US Poet Laureate and UC Berkeley English Professor Robert Haas recently gave a talk at St. Mary’s College and discussed the benefits of the Great Books curriculum—Haas being a graduate of the school’s program. He mentioned that in reading Homer’s “Iliad”, a student understands the consequences of war, resulting in a better understand of basic human nature, leading to being a better citizen of society—which is the ultimate goal of education. This is one of many reasons Haas used in his speech to support the study of the Great Books.</p>

<p>While I am GREATLY intrigued by the concept, I have two questions or concerns. Firstly, the program covers great breadth, but I am not sure it goes into enough depth, which is in my mind where knowledge is acquired and remembered. For example, in looking at the curriculum and schedule, I noticed some of the great books, like Tolstoy’s “War and Peace”, are only discussed in a week. Tolstoy’s novel is incredibly long and has enormous depth, so I question how much a student can really cover and get out of in such a short time. I am the type of person that really loves to dig deep and scoop out the marrow of a subject, as opposed to glossing over its surface, and looking back on this past year of schooling, the best classes I have taken, the most useful knowledge that I have acquired and remembered, have been because I spent a month or more focusing on one specific subject, searching and scouring deeply for its knowledge. (I can tell you more than you probably want to know about the important and enigmatic painting “Las Meninas” by Velazquez.)</p>

<p>My second question concerns the Eastern books and the great knowledge that comes from these very different cultures. We live in an international world, a world that is much broader than Western ideologies, a world where I think a person can greatly benefit by understanding concepts outside his own culture. For example, in my Asian Art History class we have been discussing the Vedic scriptures, and their concepts are truly fascinating, mind-boggling even, changing the way I react and view the world, concepts like nothing that can be found in any western literature. But maybe a student goes on to study such work in graduate school, and maybe studying both Western and Eastern ideologies would spread someone too thin—back to my idea of depth in a subject.</p>

<p>So while I admit I have these questions, I still see a lot that can be learned from studying the Western classics. And it seems to make great sense to cover the work that is known to have stood the test of time, rather than knowledge that continually changes. In college, therefore, I plan to study some of the classics; they are fascinating and rich in knowledge. So I support you seeking a Great Books education and think it is a great fit for a lot of people, but I am not sure it is for me. I think it is exciting and know you will learn a lot from it! Just remember there is a whole other world out there. But if it worked for Robert Haas, it can most certainly work for you—he is an incredibly deep and brilliant man.</p>

<p>(As a side note, I have been watching some DVDs discussing the Great Books. They truly are fascinating!)</p>

[samuel924]

<p>Hey CA,
Sorry for the really delayed response, I’ve been busy… Well I have no idea what St. Mary’s College is… I would think It would be naturally a catholic school hence the name, but St. John’s College is also a great books school that’s not catholic…</p>

<p>I think your concern on bredth v. depth is utterly valid and most likley true. I know St. John’s way of dealing with it is to form groups of people who want to read more of certain things in depth ( like War and Peace for instance)…</p>

<p>And just as valid is your Eastern Classics concern, which I started thinking about more in depth this summer when I read the Tao Te Ching and the Bhagavad Gita and was overwhelmed by their amazing philosophical complexities and richness… But just for my purposes I’d like to first read the Western Classics and then progress to the East later on, but that is in no way a value judgement on East is worse than West …</p>

[Ith2010]

<p>I figure this is a pretty well-read group - have any of you read much of Alan Watt’s stuff?</p>

[samuel924]

<p>Nope not I…</p>