<p>Illiad, Oedipus, King Lear, Don Quixote, Hamlet, Crime and Punishment, and maybe a few more. What do I do in that class, then?</p>
<p>Own it. 10 chars.</p>
<p>You read them again, in a small class of very smart people, led by a very enthusiastic and smart instructor, and talk about them until you understand them better.</p>
<p>I guarantee that, once you've seen the full booklist of lit hum, you won't have read half of it. but your background will give you the option, at least, of being able to slack for a few particular nights during the semester if you have to.</p>
<p>no matter how much you've read, it won't be fresh in your mind. so you wont' know as much about the book as the other kids who just read it last night. and you'll be expected to discuss it, lit hum is interactive. don't assume you're just going to coast through while everyone worships the ground you walk on. trust me.</p>
<p>plus, hamlet isn't in the curriculum, IIRC. Nor King Lear.</p>
<p>Well, PPD is right Denzera, they've updated the Lit Hum curriculum.</p>
<p>"You read them again, in a small class of very smart people, led by a very enthusiastic and smart instructor, and talk about them until you understand them better."</p>
<p>I've been doing this for the past four years.
What sort of high school did you attend, Denzera :P</p>
<p>Is your grade in the class based off your participation in such discussion?</p>
<p>First of all, we all know that you can read. There is no reason to show off how well-read you are. Being an intellectual braggart actually serves no purpose in any society, especially not a microcosm composed of the deepest intellects in the world. Columbia. Read the books again; I'm sure you're initial reading will be altered when you find yourself surrounded by 19 other well-supported opinions. These are the most fundamental, challenging, and compelling text in human history. It doesn't matter if you've read them. These books are the "great works" for a reason. They demand multiple readings and serious contemplation. I'm offended that you would even ask this question, offended that you would imply that you have nothing to gain from your professor who holds his or her PhD, from your classmates who are just as well-read as you are, or from the texts themselves. Literature is greater than all of us, and we owe these amazing works every bit of intellectual energy we can muster.</p>
<p>I'd personally recommend you not tell anyone you've read these books, feign surprise at every turn and use your prior experience with them to make you look like an exceptional student. Then, to use up all the free time you have, you could consider looking into some kind of addiction. It's common for college students to become addicted to weird Japanese stuff or alcohol, but I'd personally recommend gambling. I think it's more gratifying, and it's much less prevalent amongst undergraduates. It would set you apart during the job search or graduate school admissions.
First of all, we all know that you can read. There is no reason to show off how well-read you are. Being an intellectual braggart actually serves no purpose in any society, especially not a microcosm composed of the deepest intellects in the world. Columbia. Read the books again; I'm sure you're initial reading will be altered when you find yourself surrounded by 19 other well-supported opinions. These are the most fundamental, challenging, and compelling text in human history. It doesn't matter if you've read them. These books are the "great works" for a reason. They demand multiple readings and serious contemplation. I'm offended that you would even ask this question, offended that you would imply that you have nothing to gain from your professor who holds his or her PhD, from your classmates who are just as well-read as you are, or from the texts themselves. Literature is greater than all of us, and we owe these amazing works every bit of intellectual energy we can muster.
</p>
<p>I'm offended that you're so easily offended. Your overt ostentation is nothing more than a sign that the subjects of which you speak are subjects of which you are not familiar. Much like every person who says "everyone tells me I should be a psychologist," you believe in your greater interpretative abilities over those of the rest of us, and as a result you've framed this thread to be what you want it to be. While I would recommend you read great literary humor to offset whatever it is Atlas Shrugged may have done to you, in consideration of the fact that you believe you must muster "every bit of intellectual energy" every time you read some ancient behemoth it seems less likely that you are speaking from experience but rather speaking from the position of one who wants to have read but has not.</p>
<p>Great literature is the work of a mind that has been influenced by humanity. Literature is a glimpse into humanity from the eyes of another. Literature is a result of humanity, and it is a fractional part of humanity. It is impossible for a part of the whole to be greater than the whole.</p>
<p>In closing, you are a poo.</p>
<p>Offended,
tetrishead
Senior Director of Triangle Offense, Petty Vices and Internet Arguments ltd.</p>
<p>"It is impossible for a part of the whole to be greater than the whole."</p>
<p>somewhat agree, for the sake of arguement couldn't literature be the better section of the humanities pulling the average of the 'whole' up (i don't think it is)? but what's the whole we're talking about here? yes, you are studying a few people's views on humanity, but you are not the 'whole'. You are you, a little minion perpetually shrouded in the clouds of uncertainty and wonderment that encircle great philosophy and literature, if you aren't, you should be, trust me, it's worth it.</p>
<p>but in all seriousness and relevance, the reason lit hum is required and special is precisely because it isn't your average or even above average HS lit class. In high school you read great works to give you practice with reading, analysing ideas within the works. Lit hum and CC encompass those, but aim to show you how literature/philosophy (and by consequence humanity) has progressed. HS classes pay attention to smaller details, and go too slowly to achieve this. Lit hum and CC hardly overlap with HS classes, students who don't realize this, usually don't reread the books with the progression in mind and usually don't do too well.</p>
<p>TO TETRISHEAD:</p>
<p>I think it's possible for a part of the whole to be greater than the whole.</p>
<p>In an essay, you can have a nice thesis with bad argumentation. Thus the thesis, which is good, is greater than the ineffective essay (the whole). </p>
<p>Furthermore, if you found a pearl in the garbage, why would the whole [the can of junk + the pearl] be better than the pearl? If it is, it might not be by a whole lot.</p>
<p>Furthermore, there are many results of humanity, and fractional ones at that--how is it valuable to say literature is such? Aren't virtual pets like that? </p>
<p>"Literature is a glimpse into humanity from the eyes of another."
But aren't you looking at those eyes with your own eyes?</p>
<p>Diplomadocus,
Associate Chair and Robert F. Weiler Professor of Transcendent Hermeneutics at the Advanced Institute of Frankfurt-Notreally.</p>
<p>@confidentialcoll</p>
<p>The greatest books are rarely those that focus on "life, the universe, and everything." Generally, the most compelling narratives and the "great works" focus on the minutia, with the exception being many of the texts that were written from Classical Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages. Everyone was crazy then anyway, so it totally doesn't count.</p>
<p>@Diplomadocus</p>
<p>It all depends on how you define the whole. In my opinion, you cannot separate a part from the whole based solely on your perception of the quality of the parts. It's not the same as curve/no curve, individual students can be exceptional but in that situation what is being assessed is not the whole of the class but the individuals, and the individuals operate outside of the whole. Class does not create individuals, individuals coming together create class.</p>
<p>Literature could not be without humanity. If there is a part of the whole that is greater than another part it raises or curves the whole, it does not differentiate itself from the whole, it differentiates itself from the other part(s). There may be negatives and pluses within the whole, but the part would not exist without the whole, and it therefore cannot be removed from beneath the canopy of the whole. It can only be compared to other parts of the whole, not the whole.</p>
<p>Basically, saying literature is greater than "us" is equivalent to saying a car is greater than the assembly line that produced it. No assembly line, no cars. Cars are dependent, and they cannot be compared to the line because without the line they do not exist. They are an end result of the line, just like literature is an end-result of humanity (thought, language). An essay is not the same, it is similar to individuals creating a class. The different parts of an essay, whether it be the overarching thesis, an individual phrase or a single paragraph can be restructured or removed to create a new whole. Parts -> Whole. Literature, on the other hand, is a result of human thought- and human thought exists because humanity exists. Whole -> Parts.</p>
<p>This is all irrelevant though, as my main goal was to insult trackster262. We should remember this, and strive to focus on our objective. Which is to insult trackster262. Who will end up being that guy working at Kinkos who's really into this new abstract painting he saw at his friends art gallery opening on Atlantic Boulevard next to the Bennigans. He will be offended that you are not into abstract art, and he will think you stupid because you do not see the symbolism in tying a garbage can to a dead goat with interlinked multicolor slinkys.</p>
<p>Moreover, it is my opinion that Carthage has to be destroyed.</p>
<p>Offended and Not Going to Take It Anymore,
tetrishead
Departmental Head of Your Gall is Never Ending</p>
<p>"saying literature is greater than "us" is equivalent to saying a car is greater than the assembly line that produced it. No assembly line, no cars."</p>
<p>you silly marxist you, the cars are in fact greater than the assembly line because alot more goes into making them than the mechanical hands putting them together - the designers, engineers, investors, CEOs, managers etc. the car represents the culmination of years of design, improvement and collective work, likewise we may be a part of humanity, but the reason we're dumped in a classroom and forced to study these texts, is because not only are they culminations of great though, they are enduring culminations, which have built upon literature before them and shaped it thereafter.</p>
<p>great designers (and some assembly men) must study, and have studied, monumental designs, and their designers, sure old literature that we study can be less clever, witty, complex than yours which 'focus on minutiae', but they are undeniably monumental, justifying our studying them. </p>
<p>trackster in saying 'greater than all of us' probably meant us in the context of college confidential / columbia. the literature studied is, i would wager, greater than the average columbia student / college confidential addict. </p>
<p>i'm offended that your offended that he was easily offended, let the offended be offended as they please (notices inherent contradiction :D)</p>
<p>it depresses me that this is the best thread in the last few weeks.</p>
<p>
[quote]
you silly marxist you
[/quote]
Saying that literature cannot be compared to humanity because it is a byproduct of humanity is not technically socialism. There is no other method for the creation of literature but through the existence of man. Until my Australian shepherd can write expository prose my theory stands.
[quote]
the reason we're dumped in a classroom and forced to study these texts, is because not only are they culminations of great though, they are enduring culminations, which have built upon literature before them and shaped it thereafter.
[/quote]
The reason we're dumped in a classroom and forced to study these texts is because we applied and decided to attend college, and because people in a position of power decided what was to be studied. Not every curriculum is good, not every professor is intelligent. I'm not going to argue against the 'great texts', because for the most part I think they should be taught, but what is and isn't great appears to be defined from college to college.</p>
<p>
[quote]
sure old literature that we study can be less clever, witty, complex than yours which 'focus on minutiae', but they are undeniably monumental, justifying our studying them.
[/quote]
What do you mean by "yours", precisely? If Voltaire and Horace are new then bread is on the cutting edge of food technology.
[quote]
trackster in saying 'greater than all of us' probably meant us in the context of college confidential / columbia. the literature studied is, i would wager, greater than the average columbia student / college confidential addict.
[/quote]
He didn't mean anything, he was trying to make some grand statement to make himself look intelligent because he saw someone asking a reasonable question as an affront to his existence. Either he misinterpreted the point of the thread or he's just a pompous moron. There is no rationality here.
[quote]
i'm offended that your offended that he was easily offended, let the offended be offended as they please
[/quote]
That you are offended by my offense with regards to the offense of another offends me because it is my God-given right to be offended by the easily offended, and to also be offended by those who feel offense at the offended nature of someone who has been offended by anothers offense.</p>
<p>Garbage can,
tetrishead
Dead Goat</p>
<p>I like reruns. Hogan's Heroes is still good.</p>
<p>"Saying that literature cannot be compared to humanity because it is a byproduct of humanity is not technically socialism."</p>
<p>no, no, no, marx proposed the theory that a work is only as a good as the labor that has gone into it, so workers on a farm deserve to keep all the produce to themselves. i was saying the literary work is not just a creation of our collective stupidity, but of great thinkers, and are culminations of their deep thought. The way those works have changed and shaped thought render them monumental.</p>
<p>" Not every curriculum is good, not every professor is intelligent."</p>
<p>well many colleges read similar texts to ours, chicago definitely reads adam smith's wealth of nations if I remember right, and most colleges would study these works in a lit class, but few as a comprehensive canon showing clear progression in thought. columbia's curriculum has been debated and optimized over the years, since many of the profs are smart, well read and have phds from top univs, that's good reason to call it a good curriculum.</p>
<p>"What do you mean by "yours", precisely?"</p>
<p>i don't know, whatever you were referring to, which focus on minutiae.</p>
<p>"He didn't mean anything, he was trying to make some grand statement to make himself look intelligent because he saw someone asking a reasonable question as an affront to his existence."</p>
<p>perhaps</p>
<p>"it is my God-given right to be offended by the easily offended"</p>
<p>how is it your god given right to be easily offended (because being offended at someone else's being easily offended is, afterall, being easily offended), and not his god given right also? if it is his god given right, then your being offended is irrelevant.</p>
<p>This thread almost makes me happy about the enormous quantity of money I am spending for my child to be at Columbia.</p>
<p>This thread makes me glad I was SEAS and not one of those CC fruits.</p>
<p>
[quote]
no, no, no, marx proposed the theory that a work is only as a good as the labor that has gone into it, so workers on a farm deserve to keep all the produce to themselves. i was saying the literary work is not just a creation of our collective stupidity, but of great thinkers, and are culminations of their deep thought. The way those works have changed and shaped thought render them monumental.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not going to say that LTV isn't stupid, but it's not directly applicable to this circumstance. The topic is whether or not literature is greater than "us" when it's technically a manifestation of our thought. A creation of a man can be greater than that man, or even many men, but it cannot be greater than man. It can transcend time (which is why we still read Homer), but it is only consumable by man and it can only be created by man. This is probably just going to have to come down to an ideological difference of opinion, but I see the comparison between literature and man to be analogous to a comparison between a tree and an apple. They are not comparable. You can compare an apple to another apple, or an apple to another fruit, but you cannot say that a few apples are greater than all the trees because apples are a result and a part of the trees.
[quote]
well many colleges read similar texts to ours, chicago definitely reads adam smith's wealth of nations if I remember right, and most colleges would study these works in a lit class, but few as a comprehensive canon showing clear progression in thought. columbia's curriculum has been debated and optimized over the years, since many of the profs are smart, well read and have phds from top univs, that's good reason to call it a good curriculum.
[/quote]
A good curriculum is one that
[quote]
i don't know, whatever you were referring to, which focus on minutiae.
[/quote]
Crime and Punishment focuses on minutia. When I say the minutia I'm talking about a few characters and a purposely limited narrative (as opposed to the Illiad or something like the Lord of the Rings), as those are what I consider the best books. This is all opinion of course, it probably goes back to my preference of narrative exploration over analytical discussion in almost every topic.
[quote]
how is it your god given right to be easily offended (because being offended at someone else's being easily offended is, afterall, being easily offended), and not his god given right also? if it is his god given right, then your being offended is irrelevant.
[/quote]
Technically I am less easily offended than the easily offended because my offense is dependent on the initial offense of another, and the one variable that must exist is that said initial offense has to be trivial in nature. Not all offenses are trivial, and without the trivial offense I cannot be offended, so claiming that I am easily offended is inaccurate because my offense is contingent on an offense in a specific situation.</p>
<p>Also, my being offended is not irrelevant because I got some good shots in with the Kinkos thing. That validates what I have done here. I have made a mark on the world.
If it makes you feel better, I'm probably not getting into Columbia.</p>
<p>"A good curriculum is one that"</p>
<p>The rest of that apparently disappeared.</p>
<p>A good curriculum is one that advances the goals of its intended or stated purpose. It can mean a lot of things, and I wasn't making an indictment of Columbia (although I do know one crazy narcissistic undergraduate psychology professor personally). The curriculum at Columbia is not perfect, nor is it perfect anywhere else. We are not forced to study these texts, we choose to do so, and you should not assume that every curriculum is at the level of Columbia's.</p>