Sept. 26, 2007

Elevating the Great Books Anew

In his new book, Anthony T. Kronman argues that the American college curriculum is seriously flawed for not giving students a true grounding in the classics that explore the human condition. Education’s End: Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life (Yale University Press) mixes Kronman’s assessment of the problems in academe with a set of proposed solutions. Kronman, the Sterling Professor of Law at Yale University, responded to questions about the book.

Looking for a job?

See all 158 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 3,421
Administrative: 1,395
Executive: 170
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

A: Those who teach in our colleges and universities are nearly all graduates of Ph.D. programs, in which they learn to measure success in higher education by the standards of the research ideal. From the vantage point of that ideal, the question of life’s meaning — of what I should care about, and why — is too large, too sprawling, too personal to be a subject than any specialized scholar feels comfortable tackling. The research ideal has squeezed this question from the field of respectable topics, especially in the humanities, the disciplines with the oldest and deepest connection to it. The humanities today seek to compete with the natural and social sciences on the ground of the research ideal. But this is a competition they can never win. In the process, they have distanced themselves from the one question which they, of all the disciplines, are best equipped to address.

Q: You note that there are places, like Columbia University, which have maintained requirements based on the “great books” traditions. Are there other programs of this sort that you respect? Would you like to see colleges go as far as St. John’s College?

A: Yes, a number: Reed College has a required year-long humanities course for freshmen, who prepare for their freshman year by reading the Iliad the summer before. Carleton College has a similar program, and the Directed Studies Program at Yale, in which I teach, is another example. Directed Studies is an elective program that takes 120 students each year. They study philosophy, literature, history and politics in a common curriculum that begins with Homer, Herodotus and Plato and ends with T.S. Eliot, Wittgenstein and Hannah Arendt. While I admire St. John’s immensely, and believe that its program serves as an admirable counterweight to the directionlessness that prevails at most colleges and universities, I do not think it necessary to go as far as St. John’s does. My proposal is a modest one: let’s make some space in the curriculum for the organized study of great works of philosophical and literary imagination, recognizing that students (and faculty!) have many other worthwhile things to do as well.

Q: Many say that the era when more people had a common program of great thinkers was also an era when the student body was more homogeneous, wealthier, etc. Would you apply your ideas in different ways at Yale and at an urban, open admissions public university?

A: Even our most elite colleges and universities have become vastly more diverse than they were a half century ago. That is a wonderful thing. But the works of the great thinkers are our common heritage. They belong to us all. It is wonderful to throw open the doors of our colleges and universities — but terribly sad then to deprive those who were excluded in the past of the chance to become friends with Plato and Tolstoy and Jane Austen and Descartes. The great books program at Columbia was instituted in 1919 precisely to insure that the university’s increasingly diverse student body had a shared educational experience, and the opportunity together to explore the perennial questions of life’s meaning. That should be our aim today, not just at places like Yale, but in all our colleges and universities. Indeed, I believe the appetite for such a venture may very well be greater at our country’s less elite schools.

Q: You write critically of the diversity movement. What’s wrong with it?

A: Diversity, per se, is not a bad thing. Indeed, it’s a very good thing. Everyone benefits from the experience of going to school with others unlike themselves. But the idea that one’s experience and values are deeply shaped by gender and race — facts about oneself that can never be changed — encourages the view that our power to reflect critically on our values and to change them is severely limited. And that idea strikes at the heart of the liberating promise of all liberal education. Students who accept this view will not see themselves as standing on the common ground of their humanity, but be inclined, instead, to think that others who do not have the same defining, and unchangeable, characteristics must approach the question of life’s meaning in fundamentally different ways. That undermines the spirit of shared engagement on which any authentic and enlightening approach to the question depends.

Q: If a college president read your book and called you and said, “I’m impressed — what are three things I can do right away?” what would you say?

A: First, consider creating an elective program modeled on the humanities course at Reed, or Yale’s Directed Studies Program. Second, give the faculty who teach in the program special recognition for doing so (perhaps in the form of some additional leave time to insure that they don’t feel torn between research and their commitment to the program). Third, require students to read three books that deal with the question of life’s meaning during the summers before each of their four colleges years. Fourth, make the subject an issue in your own talks, especially your talks to parents, and try, whenever possible, to damp down student and parental anxiety about the need to prepare for a career.

— Scott Jaschik

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

There seems to be no shortage of well qualified faculty (including people from the sciences, like me) who would be delighted to teach in programs like these; and no shortage of students interested in signing up for them; and no type of program that could more inexpensively let a college or university leapfrog its academic competition. But where are the institutional leaders and benefactors who are ready to take advantage of these opportunities?

R.J. O’Hara, at 5:35 am EDT on September 26, 2007

Great books at BU

We have been teaching an elective curriculum in great books and great ideas for more than a decade here at Boston University in our Core Curriculum. The Core comprises four semesters of humanities, two of social science, and two of science. For details, see www.bu.edu/core/.

Wayne Snyder, Associate Dean for Undergraduate Programs at Boston University, at 6:25 am EDT on September 26, 2007

That is an Elitist Perception

Of course students should have access to shared knowledge and a deeper understanding of humanity, but these ideas only apply to the wealthy.

Teaching Steinbeck, Camus, and Salinger (as I am now) to my students in what has been known as the largest ghetto in the country poses quite a challenge when students need to get jobs to feed their families and I’m not paid enough to feed mine.

Higher education publications are so terribly aloof.

JLE, at 7:45 am EDT on September 26, 2007

At Shimer College in Chicago, the entire curriculum is centered on the study of the Great Books. It is somewhat similar to St. John’s, but there is considerably more scope for electives. For more on Shimer, go to our website: www.shimer.edu.

David Shiner, Dean of the College at Shimer College, at 7:55 am EDT on September 26, 2007

The author made a great point in his first sentence. Doctoral students at large research universities (such as my own) put almost no emphasis on how to teach and instead only care about research productivity. Doing research and advancing your chosen field’s boundaries is wonderful, but it is essential to be able to effectively teach students to become teachers.

Robert, PhD Student, at 8:40 am EDT on September 26, 2007

The question of “the” meaning of life is a dead letter, essentially because there is no one meaning of life. Rather, there are meanings to lives. The clunky phrasing “the meaning of life” may have inspired a sense of profundity in university students in the 1960s and 1970s, but that’s no good reason to continue teaching under a sophomorically misleading title today.

And when one does look beyond that specific label, one will find a great range of humanities courses well-suited to exploring the meanings, values, and aims that lives may have — and the reasons why they often have the ones they do. Through the magic of something I like to call “Google” I easily discover hundreds of college course offerings doing exactly what Professor Kronman says isn’t being done. Indeed I, like virtually all of my colleagues in North American philosophy departments, teach a range of such courses myself. Alas that these courses are not called “Great Books” or “The Meaning of Life", so that they might have showed up on Professor Kronman’s radar!

Perhaps Professor Kronman means only that students are not compelled to take any of the many such courses on offer. That is accurate of most colleges and universities, I suppose. But this doesn’t make much sense of his head-shaking over how “terribly sad” it is “to deprive [students] of the chance to become friends with Plato and Tolstoy and Jane Austen and Descartes.” Unless giving someone a chance somehow equals depriving them of a chance.

For what it’s worth, I suspect that one of the greatest challenges facing universities right now, and Humanities faculties in particular, is the challenge of resisting the proliferation of hell-in-a-handbasket pronouncements about everything that’s wrong with them. Especially when these tend to get widespread exposure unrelated to the level of informedness and intellectual seriousness they demonstrate.

Tim Kenyon, Associate Professor at University of Waterloo, at 8:45 am EDT on September 26, 2007

Old wine in new bottles

Isn’t it amazing that “the common ground of our humanity” extends neither east of Israel nor south of Egypt?

This is the Yale Report of 1828 in modern dress. The problem identified may be real, but the solution proposed will only fill the needs of modern society if it’s extended to embrace other cultures.

Rick Martin, at 8:45 am EDT on September 26, 2007

Great books and summer reading

Professor Kronman may be confusing Carleton College’s common reading for first-year students with the summer reading required for Reed’s humanities seminar. New Carleton students do read a book in common that is discussed extensively during the orientation period, but there is no required analog to the Reed course.

Carol Rutz, Carleton College, at 8:55 am EDT on September 26, 2007

Why?

I will tell you why academia has given up on exploring the meaning of life. I am sad to say that academia is taking its lead from the science curriculum that has been teaching students for 100 years that we are an accident of nature...life has no meaning.

Science Dean, at 8:55 am EDT on September 26, 2007

Everybody’s Great Books

I have a great (books) idea: let’s include influential texts from the roots of all the major modern civilizations. That way, maybe we could understand that they can’t be made to become like us and accept our values at the point of a gun. As a product of a “good old days” education in which I did learn about Plato et al, the only thing I knew about Confucius was the quotes of those Chinese characters in the movies.

Grocheio, Asst VP Planning and Institutional Effectiveness at Shorter College, at 9:10 am EDT on September 26, 2007

What happened to the Middle Ages? I’m presuming Boethius, bits of Dante, and A’s Confessions get to stand in for it, but: sheesh. I’d take Langland over Eliot any day.

Karl Steel, Brooklyn College, at 9:50 am EDT on September 26, 2007

Great Books

I agree with Rick Martin. Our great books, while invaluable to those within this culture, are not representative of those of non-western traditions.

Perhaps courses or discussions of great thinkers from a multicultural perspective would better suit our current needs as a society. Provide a grounding in great literature and theories from around the globe, and not just the western perspective. This then would move us one step closer to understanding one another.

Lauren Payne, at 9:50 am EDT on September 26, 2007

Plenty of meaning; not always enough attention

Science Dean is mistaken; individual human lives can and do have meaning even if we are “accidents of nature.” And, the fact that each of us must work actively to create that meaning throughout our lives makes individual human accomplishments even more, well, meaningful!

It also strengthens the case for more and better teaching in the humanities, which is essentially the case that Kronman is making. Fortunately, there is no shortage of material in both Western and non-Western traditions that provides advice and insight into this most basic of human tasks. But on many campuses, there does often seem to be a shortage of time and resources for engaging these texts with the depth and rigor they deserve.

Nancy Matchett, Assistant Professor at University of Northern Colorado, at 10:10 am EDT on September 26, 2007

Great Conversations

Kronman didn’t look far enough, I agree. St Olaf (just across the river from Carleton) has a Great Conversation program that starts with Greeks and Hebrews and concludes with Eliot and beyond. It has started to include readings from the Koran and other Eastern/Middle Eastern texts as available and appropriate. But StOlaf goes beyond that- not only is there a Great Books curriculum in Great Conversation, but there is now “American Conversation” and even “Asian Conversation.” Professor, I think you need to look further at what’s available out there.

Ole alum, at 10:45 am EDT on September 26, 2007

I’m with Kronman. And make us PhDs take a year of humanities as part of graduate training as a cognate. You could add a semester of non-Western to balance out the canon if you liked. Most younger PhDs have not had broad preparation in the liberal arts.

Henry Vandenburgh, at 10:45 am EDT on September 26, 2007

year-long first-year course in the humanities

Another very solid first-year course (two semesters)in the humanities is taught at Bard College. Critics who reflexively associate great books with a reactionary agenda might ponder this syllabus, which addresses, among other things, the issue of western vs. non-western values. The course includes a diverse list of authors that might be considered essential to turning eighteen-year-olds into cosmopolitan intellectuals and not merely competent technocrats.

Daniel Born, Editor, The Common Review at The Great Books Foundation, at 11:00 am EDT on September 26, 2007

Great books — how about any books...

I don’t agree with the notion that reading “great books,” no matter whose list, is somehow an automatically expresses elitist preconceptions. I once proposed a bachelor in management program that would be built around a “great management books” curriculum. Every area has canons, shoulders to stand on. But I do suspect that there is a 300 pound gorilla in the room — reading any book. The decline in habits and skills of reading and of vocabulary is painfully documented. Before we get into arguments about your list vs my list vs her list, we darn well better start doing something about reading itself. There is little expectation that anyone will ever read in any canon or be an effective, literate citizen if we continue to put supposedly educated graduates out who do not know how to read and choose not to read.

DocA, at 11:00 am EDT on September 26, 2007

The Meaning of Life

Occasional reviewers (and I am one) suffer from a dilemma. There are so many books published that we not only cannot review them all but often cannot review books that begin with a promising thesis and have unpromising parts. We need books like Education’s End, but not that book. Its otherwise promising discussion of what humanities divisions bring to education undermines itself by using such (irresponsible and long-refuted) commentators as Roger Kimball and Dinesh D’Souza to explain our descent into “political correctness.” While I happily entertain criticisms of humanities education—from inside and outside its ranks—I require critics to define the issues cogently. Specifically, there’s little evidence in Education’s End that Kronman understands race and gender and, more importantly for his argument, the ways in which our increased understanding of them enriches the tradition we impart. That’s a loss, since his book suggests that he is otherwise a clear-thinking and committed teacher.

Larry Shillock, Asst. Dean, Associate Professor of English, at 11:20 am EDT on September 26, 2007

Chicago

HiYou can require year-long courses in both Western Civilization and Non-Western Civilization. Those two were among my favorite courses at the University of Chicago (which I attended in the early 1980s), along with the year-long common core sequence in the social sciences.

While I was there, Chicago was a little tardy in recognizing the new scholarship coming out of the women’s movement and black studies, but I understand its been able to integrate it since then (I’d be interested to hear from those who know better than I if that’s true).

Great Books doesn’t have to be Eurocentric.

Abby Scher, at 11:20 am EDT on September 26, 2007

While multiculturalism in the curriculum is certainly an admirable cause, I’m not sure that it makes for a coherent education if it’s executed in a “shotgun” fashion. Yes, we want our students to be familiar with Confucius; however, it’s not so easy for an 18-year-old with a poor understanding of Asian culture to absorb Confucius alongside Plato and Kant.

“Western” culture (the phrase itself misleadingly implies a monoculture) can be taught as a relatively coherent, interconnected, somewhat linear dialogue taking place over the course of several thousand years. A typical student can understand the progress of thought from Classisism to Postmodernism, provided that the arguments are laid out sequentially and proper relationships are drawn between them; this point-counterpoint is the essence of philosophical thought as we know it. But the relationships are muddied when professors feel compelled (by curriculum or by personal conviction) to include sources representative of other cultures, for the mere sake of maintaining a multicultural perspective. I would very strongly question whether a student who receives small doses of Confucius, Lao Zi, Socrates, Siddhartha Gautama, Al-Ghazali, Descartes, Hume, and Heidegger would be nearly as capable of actually constructing and defending a philosophical argument as one who simply studies Plato in detail.

Don’t get me wrong; this is not a rant against multiculturalism. Certainly, there is plenty of room in our universities for the study of different perspectives; this is especially true if a college is committed to laying out an intense three- or four-year curriculum for undergraduate majors, in which case a class in Asian or Persian philosophy can be worked into the course of study. However, I take issue with the assumption that multiculturalism is a “vital” element of a rigorous liberal education. If anything, the living record seems to show that high degrees of diversity seem to come at the sacrifice of intensity and attention to detail — which are fundamental to any well-trained mind.

Tom, at 11:45 am EDT on September 26, 2007

Research and Life

Kronman also misses the point of teaching undergraduates research skills — it’s not so much to “advance the field,” though it may also do that. It’s to give them the ability to sort good claims from bad, accumulate evidence for one position or another, find themselves in a tradition of thought (they are often surprised to discover some “original insight” they came up with as a 19-year old has been discussed, tested, refuted, and revived over the last 800 years), and, ultimately, to ascertain that any “truths” that one may find meaningful reflect the world as it is, not just as one wishes it to be.

Dash, Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Religion at Truman State University, at 11:45 am EDT on September 26, 2007

Research and Death of Liberal Education

Research money drives rankings. Rankings drive reputation, and reputation drives bragging rights.

Critical thinking (as derived from a liberal education) just doesn’t inspire the prestige it once did, mostly because rankings are based on quantitative analyses.

I took a stroll through my own university book store just a few days ago, looking for a faculty publication, and one thing struck me above all: The material is so “hit and miss", based mostly on faculty preference and bias. What we are calling the “great books” were largely absent, and that’s troublesome.

Jon L. Albee, Graduate Student at Rice University, at 12:05 pm EDT on September 26, 2007

Post Graduate Liberal Arts Programs

The very first comment in this thread makes an excellent point, and I have a partial answer. Take research money completely out of the equation and consider many of the post-graduate MLA, MA, MALS, and CAGS programs for adults. Most of these programs are essentially open, and they attract curious adults who understand that they missed someting as undergraduates. I took one of these courses, and it was a truly profound and rewarding experience. More university presidents and donors should consider supporting these programs.

It is perhaps ironic that one of the best of these programs is at Johns Hopkins University, an institution critically dependent on federal research grants.

Jon L. Albee, Graduate Student at Rice University, at 12:15 pm EDT on September 26, 2007

mysticism

Tim Kenyon’s comment is right on: this guy sounds like just another off-the-rack Bloom. When will presses get tired of this kind of trolling, I wonder?

I did my undergradute work at Harvard, where (thankfully) we had no such “great books” demand. In between my physics classes, I studied in the humanities, and the most influential and provocative courses — the ones that provided, and continue to provide, “meaning” in my life — were totally uncorrelated with whether or not they drew from someone’s shortlist of “the canon".

There will always be a demand for the cultural capital that you get from having the great books. I remember a class on the Renaissance that was chock full of students during “shopping period” — we all wanted to read Dante & co. Turned out the professor was a terrible teacher. I ended up in a class on Carnap and Quine instead, and it changed my life. It isn’t what you study, but how.

God forbid that students have to take some glorified “Western Lit-Hist” class. I learned a huge amount from a detailed study of the Reformation with a terrific teacher, Steve Ozment, but such in-depth study is impossible when folks like Kronman demand that I go from 2000 BC to 2000 AD in two years’ worth of classes.

Simon DeDeo, Researcher at University of Chicago, at 1:50 pm EDT on September 26, 2007

don’t need a program or a god to have a meaning

First, I have to admit it: I’m a straight, white, middle-class male, and an atheist. With regard to what Science Dean points out, there can be plenty of meaning to a life even if we are merely accidents of nature or some such thing. I, and I would argue, one, doesn’t need some sense of religion or religiosity to have meaning in their life. My family, my work, my passions, my sense of right and wrong are among what provides my life meaning. Heck, just riding my bicycle to work, enjoying the world around me, watching red tail hawks or osprey hunt their prey gives my life meaning. Students learning gives my life meaning. Enjoying a good read gives my life meaning. I have more meaning than I know what to do with. With luck and perseverance, I can impart some of that to my students.

As for not needing a program, I regularly pull books from the St. John’s list to use as core readings in my first year writing classes. Last year it was Locke’s Second Treatise and A Letter Concerning Toleration. The year before it was Democracy in America. Next year or later this year, I’m not sure yet, but it will be something canonical. Maybe a great work of fiction, maybe some treatise, something that has meaning beyond me, them and the text itself. Students do need exposure to the works of western thought, if only to use them as a point of departure or comparison to non-western thought. I don’t have the background to work much with non-western thought, but many of my and our colleagues do, and I have no doubt they impart what they know with students. I’m merely one piece in a large puzzle and I have to keep my eye on that, doing what I can do and doing it well and trusting that along the way students will have “gaps” filled by like-minded, but differently thinking, teachers.

bradley bleck, instructor at Spokane Falls CC, at 1:50 pm EDT on September 26, 2007

College as trade school

We could debate for weeks/months/years about the CONTENT of a “great books” curriculum, but the problem is more fundamental then that.

Undergraduate education has become a trade schools. Students come in expecting to learn what they need to get a higher paying job. Unless you can explain to them directly how knowing Plato or Descartes will help them in their career, they aren’t interested.

The idea of a liberal undergraduate education is going the way of the dodo in most schools, and we are partially culpable due to our preoccupation with the content over the existence of the program. I applaud any school who has managed to hold on to aspects of this kind of broader education.

Caitlin, at 1:55 pm EDT on September 26, 2007

Setting the Stage—-And Freeing GBs From Elites

While it is right to ask whether higher education has abdicated on questions about the meaning of life, it is wrong to assume that the great books alone will necessarily point one towards the deepest lines of questioning. Great books can be read as passively as we read the newspaper. While the great books are fine objects of study, a great teacher can help one examine the meaning of life with a good newspaper. The nice thing, however, about the great books—-deriving from, or written in, any tradition—-is that they have the ability to inspire critical readers. If a college-level great books curriculum is prefaced with a remedial critical reading class and put in place with solid teachers, well the sky is the limit. In the meantime, simply inserting great books into higher education won’t cut it.

On a final note, to create a common tradition one must make the desired object of study common to all students. While many great books programs do currently exist across the nation, most are set in the context of honors programs for achiever students. While the canon has been increasingly populated by a more diverse population in recent times (i.e. Chinua Achebe, Toni Morrison), the great books curriculum itself still needs to be freed from “elite” students who have nice numbers (i.e. gpa, ACT, and SAT scores). Columbia’s John Erskine complained from the very beginning, in 1919, about being required to confine the great books to an honors rubric. This is where organizations like Dan Born’s Great Books Foundation do adults a great service: the Foundation helps free energetic learners from their received, collegiate notions about “elite” great books. — TL

Tim Lacy, at 7:25 pm EDT on September 26, 2007

Here we go again

Yes, this is warmed-over E. D. Hirsch and Bloom (not, alas, Harold). Been there, read it, debated it, decades ago. What goes around goes around. As Archie Bunker used to say, Stifle!

DE, prof emeritus at USC, at 4:00 am EDT on September 27, 2007

DE is so right

Dr. “DE” is right on. This is an old debate. And the solution, well... is our great diversity of colleges and universities. If you want a liberal education, you can still get it, but you have to want it. Few institutions require it.

Jon L. Albee, Graduate Student at Rice University, at 11:50 am EDT on September 27, 2007

Rosy view of the “Meaning of Life"?

There is not enough Socrates or Eliot in the world to console you for the rude shock of having to come down off the mountain and get a job after 4 or more years of “Great Books".

The “Meaning of Life"?

“We are the hollow men We are the stuffed men Leaning togetherHeadpiece filled with straw. Alas!”

“...and no one knows whether death, which men in their fear apprehend to be the greatest evil, may not be the greatest good. ...”

or, from someone not often studied as part of the “Great Books” curriculum:

“Life is suffering".

G. Shin

Gary Shin, at 1:35 pm EDT on September 27, 2007

From what I know, universities focus on PhDs and research because they are essentially research institutions. That is why they have well-funded libraries and laboratories, funding for research, and PhD requirements for their faculty.

A liberal education, a core curriculum, and “Great Books” education, on the other hand, do not require these facilities. At the very least, basic laboratories, instructors who have general knowledge of the things taught, copies of the required works, and probably multimedia materials and equipment will be needed.

I think these programs should be taught in secondary school or junior, liberal, or preparatory colleges, where students can receive them at lower tuition. Universities should focus on research.

Ralfy, at 5:20 am EDT on September 29, 2007

Some of the other problems raised include not having enough of Western canonical literature and not having enough of works from other cultures. Unfortunately, there is only limited time available in schools to teach many of these works; in general, if a work is included another will have to be removed from the reading list.

I think the only solution to these problems is to encourage funding for cultural instutitions and continuing education. These include more museum exhibits that depict other cultures, activities by public libraries working with book stores, local theater and art film exhibitions, local societies and groups, and financial support from the private sector to encourage these; in short, various community activities outside schooling, involving students on vacation or people who graduated from school some time ago, that foster an intellectual lifestyle.

Ralfy, at 5:20 am EDT on September 29, 2007

Among the many, many silly things said here, I’d like to draw attention to the notion of making humanities PhDs spend (another) year of their lives learning “humanities studies” (or whatever). Anything else you’d like us to learn? I’d certainly be all in favor of pushing our programs into the ten-to-fifteen year completion range. How about web development information, sensitivity training, first aid, and dressage? Fencing?

The demand for books decrying the state of the Great Books seems to be timeless. My own private theory is that reading these books works as a surrogate for actually reading the works in question: the “Inferno” is long and difficult, but “The Western Canon"—to someone who presumably agrees before reading it that the great books are great—is the intellectual equivalent of smooth jazz. Don’t you people—the great books people, that is—get tired of the same argument repeated over and over again? A lazy columnist needing to fill 500 words, or yet another late-career academic lamenting that things aren’t being done the way they were at Yale in the 1920s, seems endlessly able to get a rise out of the same grumbly percentage of the population. How about posting a fresh reading of “Paradise Lost” to a blog or somesuch?

The nasty little secret of Greatness qua greatness is that it is kind of boring to talk about. Harold Bloom used to write actual critical books about, say, Romantic poetry; he used a relatively dense jargon, followed current intellectual trends, and generally acted like a (very gifted) academic. Now he writes books like “Hamlet: Poet Unlimited,” whose basic premise is that “Hamlet” is awesome. (How awesome? Totally awesome.)

And, Graduate Student at Rice University, shame on you for calling the entire institution’s faculty’s academic output “hit and miss” (or whatever). Isn’t the commencement of one’s academic career traditionally a time to try to find the value in things, rather than already deciding that everything is crap?

This particular topic is such a locus of boring, warmed-over arguments that it makes me wonder if something else, at a deep, tectonic level, is actually being addressed. I vote for the rise of China; others may furnish their own suggestions.

Koko Monkey, at 2:10 pm EDT on October 13, 2007