Strong Verbs Are Just Better

As with the previous instance, most social-media using persons have probably got the general idea, but here I present a summative post for friends, relations and the terminally curious, covering the period Halloween-Christmas 2013:

( What I did in Europe, by Amy, Age 26 )

People wearing black Balaclavas should not:

- wear large black sunglasses
and then
- ride bicycles very swiftly down the main pedestrian concourse of the uni.

Because it is not reassuring to start your working day with a BLACK FACELESS THING cycling toward you at a great rate.

- Doing English (2000) is primarily aimed at an A-level audience, with first-year tertiary students being its secondary audience
- It provides an interesting survey of the history of English as a discipline (eg: I now know that the study of English literature was pioneered in India... as part of the British govt and East India Company's efforts to civilise and pacify the natives. Whoo), and a nice simple explanation of the failings of a 'traditional' (for the Eaglestone's purposes, 'traditional' means following the practical criticism approach of the Leavises and subsequent scholars) approach to literature.
- Despite being strongly in favour of 'theory' generally and giving a good account of why 'theory' was needed, the book doesn't actually give you much in the way of concrete examples of why 'theory' is useful.
- Its 'Death of the Author' chapter is the kind of thing which turned me *off* the Death of the Author to begin with. It more or less convincingly argues that meaning is created between reader and text... but doesn't give any framework for deciding what's a 'good' reading for critical purposes and what's not. Given this is designed for A-level students, how are they supposed to know what they're being marked on?
- Likewise, while making a nifty distinction between 'intrinsic' and 'extrinsic' approaches to literature, the book seems to work on the aggravating assumption that 'intrinsic' readers (close readers, etc) all take a practical criticism approach and look at the text in isolation; and that 'extrinsic' readers all want to read the text as evidence of historical, cultural or other contemporary phenomena. Eaglestone does hint that some extrinsic or historicist critics use contextual evidence to construct new readings of the text, but then proceeds on to talk about extrinsic readings going out from the text into the context.
- He doesn't try to tie the intrinsic/extrinsic dichotomy into the dead/alive author thing. You can do either brand of criticism with a dead author or an alive one!
- The chapter on metaphor, narrative structure, and closure seems to be fairly basic (and traditional!) but useful.

Conclusion: Probably more useful for high school students than university students (and possibly outdated for A-levels by now?). I can see how this textbook would have been very applicable to the HSC English curriculum, but I can also tell that if you'd given this book to me, age 15 (or indeed, anywhere up until my fourth year of uni) it would not have convinced me that 'theory' is good and practical criticism bad: it would have convinced me that 'theory' was a load of waffle, practical criticism stuffy but comprehensible, and History a better use of my time than English. Which, oh, wait, is what first-year English did for me anyway! So perhaps this would be a perfect complement to first-year courses?

What I will do with this book: I think I may photocopy his chart of intrinsic/extrinsic approaches and save it for classroom use, mostly for the purposes of talking to students about why this is a bollocks dichotomy. I may also recommend it, with caveats, to students who feel they need a really basic primer to literary study. But then I may not, since it doesn't seem to provide any argument for a *point* of literary study.

Not that it was hard, but I mean, I finally got over the thing where I've been panicking whenever I think about going to the library*, and had an enjoyable time when I was there.

And I acquired the Allegory of Love.

BRB, LOLING FOREVER.

I am torn between "why, CS Lewis, why?" and "oh, you poor darling man, everything would've made so much more sense to you if you had some basic gender theory in your life". There's this adorable section where he's trying very hard to articulate concepts about homosociality which Simon Gaunt has got down pat half a century later, and it's both hilarious and endearing.

Possibly my favourite part, though, is where he dismisses the (low-brow) romantic literature of the 20th century as containing nothing but 'sheiks, 'Salvage Men' and marriage by capture', apparently without having noticed that medieval romance contains an awful bloody lot of marriage by capture, and also apparently without noticing that, except for the 'Salvage Men' part (whatever THOSE are) he might as well be describing The Horse and His Boy.

~

* Seriously, it's been horrid. Imagine being scared of LIBRARIES. Especially Fisher. There have been many times in my life when Fisher has been the Last Safe Place In The World, and now the thought of going there makes me panic? WOES.

Today is: Tuesday
On Friday I am: giving a paper about Yvain, Owain and Ewan (ie, the same person)
In front of: various people INCLUDING NORRIS LACY
Total amount of paper written: 300 words
Total amount of Lacy's book read: 1/2 a chapter
Amount of my argument which relies on Lacy's work for methodology, or would, if i had finished reading said work: MUCH

How stupid am I: VERY

Things which are weird: taking notes in English from an article in french
Things which are ugly: direct translations from french rendered in English while taking said notes. Observe: "allegorie is a general category in which are arranged diverse more specific classical tropes" And, hah, I've spelt allegory wrong, and although I've fixed it here, I keep putting the adjectives in the wrong order, and it's generally hideous.
Things which are surprising: how much french I apparently understand! The fact that I can knock out acceptable direct translations at all (have never tried translating before - french classes were all composition and/or reading comprehension, not translation).

Ok ok internet! I am having to make PLANS! And, uh, typically, I've left these PLANS until the day before I have to meet with my supervisor to discuss said PLANS.

ANYWAY. It occurs to me that although my thesis is not *due* until December 2011, it would probably be a good idea to be aware of when the application deadlines are for universities overseas. Because maybe I could submit this one a bit early, esp. if I were going to England (the Bocera tells me I could probably get into an English uni just on the strength of my honours marks), and go *straight* into the next degree, thus avoiding a pesky funding gap.

PEOPLE AT UK UNIVERSITIES: when does one apply? Does one have to start at the beginning of the academic year, and when is that exactly?

PEOPLE AT US AND/OR CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES: ditto?

So USyd has co-branded its student cards with ANZ BANK, of all things, this year. Your student card is now a pre-paid credit card! So you can use it to buy things! Which, y'know, you could do with your ACTUAL VISA OR MASTERCARD DEBIT CARD GIVEN TO YOU BY YOUR ACTUAL BANK WHICH ALL BANKS DO NOW AND ALSO NOT ALL OF THEM CHARGE YOU *UTTERLY RIDICULOUS FEES* which is what ANZ do if you top up your pre-paid student card thing anywhere off campus or use it to buy things in foreign currency.

Result: student cards are now printed by ANZ. So you don't get them when you enrol. You get them "7-10 days later" (am currently up to thirteen days and counting).

You can get a non-branded student card, but not until you've had your ANZ one delivered, presumably so that our coporate overlords aren't disadvantaged by anyone demonstrating efficiency or anything.

OH AND I NEED A STUDENT CARD IN ORDER TO GET MY SCHOLARSHIP PAID.

Thanks for fuckery, USyd.

YOU GUYS YOU GUYS I HAVE A *PLAN*. A wobbly baby fledgling of a plan, but one which doesn't rely on such things as my chances of getting a government job in Sydney, or me just slogging away at my job for another couple of years until I can comfortably up and leave it.

Firstly, note that, although I want to keep up with the medievalism, I keep coming back to the idea of doing *something* on Evelyn Dickinson and/or Louisa MacDonald. 19th century / early 20th century lesbian-like relationships are GROSSLY under-studied. [Says my mother: "don't you think that's for a reason? Says I: "yes. Systematic homophobia."] Evelyn's novels, so far as I can tell, are... odd. I will need to track down the rest of them and read them *properly* but they're odd. On the basis of the one I read, her depiction of romance and sexuality was *odd*. Her lead female characters had little to no personal investment therein. Plus there was the political side - a novel about a upper middle class british girl investigating NSW labor politics? That's just weird.

K tracked me down a reference: Evelyn wrote a review in a Sydney literary journal, of My Brilliant Career. If she wrote one, she may have written others. If she reviewed Miles Franklin's work, did she ever meet Miles? Did she know Miles was female? If Louisa MacDonald never met Louisa Lawson, but Evelyn was known to be more forthright, more masculine, and (from what I gather) maybe more hardline in her politics, and Evelyn was a writer... did Evelyn know the Lawsons? I'm starting to get a sense of a loose network of female Australian authors and feminist activists, and I want to know where and how Evelyn fits in with them.

I saw Awesome on Monday, and she pointed out that if I did an MPhil in Aus. lit and a PHD in medieval, I'd have two completely different streams of literature for my research fields. This might not give me an advantage at one of the big Sydney unis, but it sure would if I were applying for jobs in one of the regional unis. Oh hai, I can teach English literature up to 1500 and also I work on turn-of-the-twentieth-century Australian women's literature. Two fields in one academic!

This is sound advice.

TODAY, it occurred to me that I wouldn't need to go to Sydney to do an MPhil in Aus lit. I could do it here! I wouldn't need to be taking huge chunks of time off for research trips - just a week here or there in the NSW State Archives. I reckon I could do this part-time while working. It might send me crackers - part-time thesis on top of full time work???? - but it might also give me SOMETHING TO DO WITH MY GODDAMN BRAIN.

ZE PLAN IS TO READ AS MUCH OF EVELYN'S STUFF AS I CAN GET HOLD OF WITHOUT INTER-LIBRARY LOANS. Wait and see what happens with the current recruitment at work, find out where I'm going to be next year. Start looking for a supervisor in whichever city that is. Start mid-year next year, if I can.

OMG A PLAN.