This Blog Is No More:)
--time: 11:38 AM |
two waysThere are, in my opinion, two basic ways of teaching people about various theories and schools of thought in their fields.
A teacher can simply give the categories. For instance, my complit theory professor taught in this way. We studied Narratology, then Structuralism, New Historicism, etc. This is the category. Those who use this category think these things. Move on.
This does not lead to actually understanding the categories. Instead students are encouraged to shove themselves into a category (by, for instance, writing an essay using a Freudian approach), without really understanding the ideas behind the category. Instead, this sort of thinking propagates the idea that literary theory can be broken down to such (usually discrete) pieces, rather than being something greater that generated the categories.
This is how my literary professor taught and now, while I can discuss Lacan or Green Theory, I really do not see the point. This is why I grew disenchanted with literary theory. Why did it matter? I received no answers.
The other way to teach tackles the back, underlying issues first. This professor encourages his or her students to explore the ideas that shape the field. For instance, each week in my history class, we explore a different topic. We ask questions like: How do we think about time and what impact does that have on history? What are the strengths and weaknesses of a counter-factual? How can we write out a history? How do we select and rank evidence? What constitutes evidence in the first place? And so on.
The professor guides us to thinking about these issues and to understanding history as a field by doing so. Then, later, when we encounter a category or label during our readings, we can situate it in relation to the underlying issues and to other categories.
Rather than being confronted with a bundle of disconnected and ungrounded labels, this approach teaches the student to think about the real issues that the various theories address. The categories then have a context and a meaning. Environmental History is not just writing about landscapes-- it is a way of looking at history that requires one to have certain ideas about the nature of evidence and to borrow from a select group of narratives.
Unlike my understanding of Green Theory in literature, which was presented to me more or less as just focusing on nature in literature, rather than as an actual school of thought and ideas, Environmental History has a grounded place in my mind. The category matters. It is not merely a way of writing; it is a way of thinking and of approaching history.
Labels are false and ill-fitting whenever one tries to pick one arbitrarily. A label should be organic, something a person grows into as he or she studies the deeper issues and decides their position personally on those areas. More simply, the category and label are a convenience, shorthand for a larger ideology.
In literature I tried to fit myself to a label from the first day. I liked Narratology, maybe I was a Narratologist. The idea was that I could match myself up to certain characteristics of a category and find my placement that way. In history I am not yet certain of where I stand inside a specific category, but I am growing to get a better idea of what I believe about the historical field and am slowly finding myself moving toward certain categories and away from others.
Basically, this all boils down to me wanting to know why my lit prof could not have taught as my history prof is doing. Of course, I already know the answer. Lit prof was teaching Lit Theory and Crit. History prof is teaching how to write history. Different classes, different requirements. I just really wish my lit class had been a how to write as well-- t'would have been far more useful.
I should also note that I've only just encountered Environmental History while reading an (excellent) essay by William Cronon, which isn't even about environmental history, really. So my understanding of it is not the most sophisticated yet.
--time: 8:50 AM |
battlestar galactica1. So very, very pretty. This is actually what prompted me to finally rent (and watch) season one. I was stuck finishing a row after Doctor Who Friday and caught the beginning of BSG. I loved how it looked, so I rented. A shallow reason, yes, but I needed something captivating to watch.
2. No one told me there was a mini-series pilot. Thanks.
3. Dr. Gaius Balter is a horrible person, but he is my favorite character at the moment (followed closley by Sharon). I love his multi-tasking conversations, skill at cards, and his hell of blood samples.
4. Starbuck escaping the moon in a Cylon raider definitely beats John escaping the hive ship in a Wraith dart.
5. Consequences are actually played out!
6. The first half of season one is not captivating. If I had not been held hostage by a mindless project, I would have likely stopped watching. The second half, however, is fascinating.
7. I will not admit how long it took me to realize the Helo sequences weren't flashbacks. For those who may tease, please refer back to #2.
8. Why is everything octogonal? Surely there is a reason beyond just different. Hexagonal would have made more sense: 6 corners and 6 sides for the 12 colonies.
9. Personally, I think the Arrow of Apollo is a bit more metaphorical. As in I think the AoA is Helo. The Doorway of Athena is another person-- his Sharon, perhaps? Speaking of Helo, I think he ties Sharon for second place in #3. His conflict after he learns the truth about Sharon is extremely captivating.
10. BSG is a good series. I don't love it like I love House or SGA. Then again, with House and SGA the cast is smaller and the dynamics simpler. Characters, more than anything else, are what pull me into tv shows. The more I learn about the characters of BSG, the more I like the show. What's keeping me watching right now? The father-son dynamic between Adama and Lee. The sibling-potential lover dynamic between Kara and Lee. Helo's internal conflict. Everything Sharon. The tension between Roslin and Adama. Baltar's varying levels of faith and how his belief synchs with reality. I want to see how these all play out.
That's why I'll be watching season two (and likely three).
--time: 9:10 AM |
repurposingCacophony is dead and Maelstrom will soon be. Both are just taking up space.
Pandemonium will stay, but it will be repurposed in some fashion (or restarted elsewhere). I started this blog back when I didn't have many people to talk with. I needed it to get ideas out of my head, etc. Now I do not lack for chat partners and this blog has fallen into disuse. I am no longer sure what to post upon it. Do
you care about my frustration with a local hair salon? Or about how cold it was this morning? I certainly wouldn't if it was about anyone else. Such stuff is dull and boring. Hence the repurposing.
Also, this blog does not have the benefit of cuts, which is something I appreciate about LJ (along with its community-building features). There is a very good chance I'll move this to LJ or to Vox. If I move (which grows more and more likely), I will leave this page up, however. Mostly b/c I still find myself searching through my archives for links/etc that I know I've posted about.
Tis all.
--time: 7:49 AM |
a revisionDon't
just complain.
--time: 3:51 PM |
a simple principleIf it bothers you,
And you can fix it,
Then
fix it;
Don't complain.
--time: 3:43 PM |
audio memoryRecently I was trying to remember a phrase. All I could recall was the rhythm and the last word.
Because things are easier to show in music notes...
| half beat
D regular one beat
() groups notes together, like the curve and number that goes underneath notes
~ half rest
^ full rest
(|||) | D ~ | D D D
The last D is the word 'God'
de-de-de de da de da da da I suppose could be another way to show it.
Any guesses as to the phrase? I know what it is now and I can guarantee that everyone who has gone to school to either Reitz or Sig has heard it. I would bet that every high school student has heard it, in fact.
--time: 11:50 AM |
bravenet.com