Skip to main content

Glossing your brood in genteel shine (27 May 2009)

"But you -- the UBC Arts graduates of 2009 -- are well-equipped for challenges. You've learned to think critically, communicate well, and cooperate with others to achieve common goals. You've acquired a respect for the insights and accomplishment of past generations, so that you stand on the shoulders of giants -- rather than starting at ground level again." (Michael Byers, “Dear Grads, Help Save Us!,” The Tyee, May 27 2009)

Last time I checked, this whole standing on the shoulders of giants thing was under about 50 years of non-stop challenge by people in the Arts, who pretty loudly assessed these giants as amounting to, well, giants -- that is, monsters. Faculty of Arts a bit on the conservative side at UBC? Or is it just tactically smart to feed students' parents what they want to hear (and can be expected to handle), that is, that will gloss their brood in genteel shine?

The speech you delivered was no doubt truthful to your experience and sense of things, but seems dumb and inadequate. The link between Shakespeare, Keats, and Nietzsche, and over-all well-preparedness to handle things like global warming and economic fracturing, requires some extrapolation, some fleshing out. Or at least it ought to require as much: There is some chance that, as Barbara Ehrenreich suggests, the Arts programs can keep on advertising the study of Shakespeare as miraculously ideal for attending to the student's soul AND his/her career needs (who'd a thunk, eh?) AND now our collective need to save society from itself (this is a bit of a new one -- allowing you some room to de-emphasize the ideal career prep bit), and actually serve employers rather well -- they want and need intelligent enough, tractable recruits, in loads of debt and desperately in need of reassurance, to reliably be counted on to think themselves the world's saviors, while dutifully towing the party line.

Link: “Dear Grads, Help Save Us” (The Tyee)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...