I'm still an English professor. Shoot.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > I'm still an English professor. Shoot.

PrinceofLowLight: Mar 31, 2006

You said you did consulting for ETS. Not being familiar with it, my understanding is that the writing portion of the GRE is currently pretty worthless, and lots of schools don't even count it.

Does ETS seem to be aware of this? Any measures being taken at the moment? And, what I'm sure will be the most interesting part, what are your thoughts on the writing GRE and how would you change it?

# ¿ May 15, 2009 22:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 2, 2024 21:51

PrinceofLowLight: Mar 31, 2006

Loved that analysis! I take it you'd say Breakfast of Champions and God Bless You, Mr Rosewater are his take on Alger?

# ¿ Jun 22, 2009 17:15

PrinceofLowLight: Mar 31, 2006

I do research on schizophrenia, and just had the thought that that the mentality required to analyze literature is kind of like what a schizophrenic feels all the time. Seeing meaning to everything they notice, creating connections between unrelated objects and generally "magical" thinking. Any thoughts?

# ¿ Jul 1, 2009 00:54

PrinceofLowLight: Mar 31, 2006

Mr. Spooky posted:

Not only are you an idiot, you betray a fundamental misconception about what literary critics do.

You disagree with the idea that fictional characters exist in a world where minor details are usually put there intentionally in order to convey a certain message?

# ¿ Jul 1, 2009 01:46

PrinceofLowLight: Mar 31, 2006

Brainworm posted:

I can see where this comes from, but the big difference is that literary criticism operates according to well-defined rule sets; which rule set you choose of course depends on what kind of critic you are, but there are some constants.

Just for instance, one rule for reading prose is that lineation doesn't matter, so if you find something spelled in an acrostic style it's not interpretively significant (where it might be in poetry). And aside from a few rare and well-defined conventions involving the excavation of details from early texts, the book as an artifact (hardback, softback, font choices, etc.) aren't interpretively significant, either.

So I'd hesitate to call literary criticism "magical" thinking for the same basic reasons I wouldn't call the events of e.g. a football game "random." Both play out inside a set of clearly defined rules, although those rules can give rise to unanticipated complexitites.

Perhaps I expressed this in a jackassed kind of way. What I'm basically saying is that fictional characters exist in a world that actually does operate the way a schizophrenic thinks it does. So, in a way, to understand these self-consistent worlds, you have to develop a similar kind of thinking.

For instance, part of schizophrenia is assigning significance to any event that stands out. Which is the way you kind of have to approach fiction. So, when one of the detectives on Law & Order is questioning Gary Busey, it's pretty easy to jump to the conclusion that he was actually the murderer. The capacity to think that way exists in everyone, I'm just putting forward the idea that literary analysis is a controlled example of it.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2009 22:30

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > I'm still an English professor. Shoot.