A/P Philip Holden (email: ellhpj@nus.edu.sg)
[ Introduction and Description | Schedule and Readings | Assessment and Policies | Related Resources ]In this week we'll be changing our approach as we move into Unit 2. In the first Unit, we looked in detail at three different genres of Literature. In a way, what we were trying to do was to ask the question "How does literature work"? We did this by going beneath the surface of the work and considering how it was made, just as in order to understand how a computer or a car works we have to open the bonnet or the casing and look inside.
In the next few weeks, we'll be asking a slightly different question: "What is Literature For?" To answer this, we will be looking at articles written by critics and theorists of Literature over the years. Note that we do not have to agree with these views--in fact, it will be impossible to agree with them all. Entering the debate will be difficult at first, because many of the writers we are reading are not writing for an audience of twenty-first century Singaporeans. They thus make assumptions about what their readers know, and will refer to concepts and ideas with which you may be unfamiliar and, you will thus find the readings difficult.
In order to participate in debate about issues in society, no matter what your academic specialty, you will need to learn to read unfamilar texts, and to form an opinion about them. We'll spend some time in this class, then, exploring the articles, and thinking about how we can learn skills of critical reading:
Although Arnold's and Leavis's essays (which we have only short extracts from) were written several decades (and in Arnold's case, over 100 years) ago, in Britain, not Singapore, they have been very influential, and many people still unconsciously subscribe to their beliefs. Both Leavis and Arnold see Literature as good, as capable of civilizing and improving people morally. Note that both Arnold, in particular, uses the word "culture" rather than "Literature." It is probably worth knowing that for him, great Literature was ine of the highest manifestations of culture.
The Philip K. Dick and D. H. Lawrence story are included for discussion purposes. Read them and enjoy them--they will be something of a relief after the heavy effort of the Leavis and Arnold essays! Note that D. H. Lawrence was an author whom Leavis loved, and whose works are often taught at schools or at universities. In contrast, Philip K. Dick is a science fiction writer who has a huge popular following but is only taught in specialist popular fiction or science fiction courses at university. It is likely that Leavis would regard Dick's short story, like film, as "purely commercial exploitation" and symptomatic of "levelling-down" (21).
1. Arnold, Matthew. "Culture and Anarchy." Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: A Reader. 2nd Ed. Ed. John Storey. Athens: U of Georgia P, 1998. 7-12.
2. Leavis, F.R. “From Mass Civilisation and Minority Culture.” History in Our Hands: A Critical Anthology of Writings on Literature, Culture and Politics from the 1930s. Ed. Patrick Deane. London: Leicester UP, 1998. 16-25.
3. Dick, Philip K. “Minority Report.” Minority Report. London: Gollancz, 2002. 1-44.
4. Lawrence, D. H. “The Horse-Dealer’s Daughter." England, My England and Other Stories. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1979. 137-152.
Post a reply to ONE of these questions on the IVLE site at any time before 6 a.m. on the day of our class meeting.
Note that you should not feel anxious here about getting Leavis and Arnold "right". The purpose of the postings for this week is to give us a basis for a discussion in which we'll try to work out what the essays mean, how they can be applied to the present day, and whether we agree with their basic ideas or not. If you make a genuine effort to engage, you will be rewarded!
Last updated: 11 August, 2003