The English department, long one of our more reactionary departments, is currently going through some changes. With the retirement of Professor Gordon a committee of faculty has begun considering changes both in the range of courses available and in the structure of prerequisites and corequisites for an English major.

No Contact with Students

While at no stage have they made direct contact with students for ideas about these matters that affect them, a body of English students has tried to open a dialogue with the Department. A staff/student meeting has been held, and many encouraging noises have been exchanged about mutual consideration, further investigation etc. etc. Fine. But soon the decisions are to be made. In order that the department gets evidence of what student feeling is about the future direction of English courses a petition will shortly be circulated around classes. The ideas in the petition are not anyone's ego trip, just a few suggestions that have come from the meetings. They're offered for your consideration, to agree, disagree, amend or replace with your own ideas as you will. And the petition will not be presented to the department in any spirit of antagonism. As yet, we have no reason to doubt the department when it says it will heed student opinion.

The changes are about two things.

So far, the only insights that the department has given into its reason for teaching what it does has been to say that it has "certain resources at its disposal" and "certain ideas about its duty to English literature". It hasn't elaborated on the nature of either, the resources or the ideas. In other words, its saying "we can offer only these courses but that's okay because these are the courses we should offer." End of discussion. But lets look at the structure and contents of these courses to try and work out the reasoning behind it, and sec whether suitable alternatives can be suggested.

No Choice

In order to do an English major you must pass: at Stage I the Renaissance paper, at Stage II credit language requirement. In sum then, to do an English major you must do 56 credits of English subjects. This is 20 more mandatory credits than the requirement of any other arts faculty at this university.

Not only this, but within those 56 credits choice appears at only one point; during stage three when you choose between 20th Century prose, literature or drama. In response to complaints that some students had other areas they wished to explore instead of the subjects that the Department is enforcing upon them, a department member stated that such students could easily take extra papers. And so make an already ludicrously topheavy degree even more so. Surely an arts degree is supposed to fulfil a general educative function; how can this occur in a situation where one department claims over half the units in that degree? And remember there is to be next to no choice in the completion of this requirement. It should also be remembered that this projected scheme also is not a relic of past administrations, but is an attempt to "liberalise" English studies. It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry.

Like Napoleon at Moscow

A second effect of the planned outline will be to create a real bottleneck at Course 204, the Augustans. This course, comprising people like Fielding, Richardson, Swift and Peope, is a prerequisite for Stage three and occurs during the first half of the second year. So if at the middle of your second year you find that you have failed 204, then you're stuck, like Napoleon at Moscow. For another year, there are no alternatives. When this was pointed out at the meeting Mr Bollinger replied "this sort of thing occurs in other departments too, you know". He did however concede that this should be investigated, but it would perhaps help the process of decision making along a bit if students pressed for the elimination of this deadend.

As it stands this Augustan course is the main impediment to widening access to Stage II and III courses. While this is still uncertain, it seems possible that as long as 204 is passed at stage II, the other stage II and III courses can be taken in any order. This makes it even more puzzling why the Department sets such great importance on this one paper. Why are the Augustans treated as more important say, than Shakespeare? And why is such a vital paper placed at the time of the year when it can cause real havoc with a student's major?

Waiting for the 20th Century

A third point is that one has to wait till stage III before it is possible to do a course in 20th Century literature. But first let's look at those courses at stage III of 20 writers cited, only two were born in the 20th Century, almost all reached their peak before 1925, and one, Ibsen, had stopped writing ten years before the 20th Century ever started. The main issue is that even considering the way in which it is presently taught, there is no sign of the 20th Century at stage I or II; except for one extra course in New Zealand literature. Why? Now the department has said it has a duty to the canon of English literature, and obviously in its version of that canon the 20th Century does not rate very highly. So it has to make some choices, fine, it can't do, maybe it shouldn't do everything but there should be some explanation for the emphases it does make, if only because it keeps changing its mind about this "canon". This year to be a literate, well rounded etc etc you Had to have Jacobean and Elizabethan drama. From now on, you don't. Why? What have they found out about Kit Marlowe in the meantime?

Moreover, since you must have a pass say, in the Victorians and not in 20th Century prose, it follows that the department deels that Thackery is more important than Joyce. In similar fashion Coleridge beats out Eliot, Dickens outweighs Beckett, Tennyson rates over Lowell, Farquhar above Shaw, and Jane Austen above, D.H. Lawrence beneath. Why should the body of English literature be treated like this?

A Positive Suggestion

A positive suggestion that could respect literature, conserve resources and maximise student freedom would be to abolish all requisites above the 100 level. Presumably some basic skills are necessary to do English. These skills, namely how to read, how to analyse can be built into a general stage I course. After that the course could be structured up to a total 36 credits in any way at all. This would respect that fact that it is impossible to defend assertions that the Victorians are essential but the 20th Century isn't, and so on. And it would also get rid of that language requirement. After all, does a pass in Indonesian I really make it that much easier to understand Charles Dickens?

Why Not

More fairly, let us grant that studying a foreign language can give you useful knowledge about the structure of grammar. But is this more important than a knowledge of the classics? Why not a requirement in Greek or Roman literature? And why not sociology so that we can pick out the social themes? Or history? Or anthropology to get over ethnocentric attitudes to our own and other literature? Lots of things would enrich an English major. But why not leave it up to the students to decide how he enhances it? It could also be hoped that this precedent of abolishing requisites would encourage other departments to streamline their course structures in the same way. The division between stage II and III courses itself is often an artificial progression, the order in which these courses are taken could so often be reversed with nothing lost.

The Historical Perspective

At the meeting. Dr Tyre did explain the lack of substantial courses in modern literature. According to him its difficult to analyse modern literature because there hasn't yet been time to assess the modern writers place in the body of literature. This brought complaints from the floor that the department need not always use an historical perspective in its teaching. Another department member hastened to reply that the department has never claimed that the historical approach has greater merit than any other.

But even if we ignore Dr Tyre's comments, anyone who has had any experience of English courses can recognise the emphasis given to this mode of analysis, which describes the characteristics of a genre, and then traces their historical evolution. There is, for example, almost no attempt to analyse in terms of themes. Themes are treated as secondary to genre and history, and emerge only, if you're lucky, at the end of the analysis.

In many areas they should be the starting point. But Dr Tye feels you can't analyse modern novels because you can't judge their historical worth. Well, Jesus Freaks aside, no-one's yet passed the final word cither on the 20th Century itself. Yet we have to live with it. And so too do we have to live with modern literature. And to do this fully we have to understand it, and if this can't yet be done in terms of historical categories, it can surely be done in terms of themes like "Alienation and the Modern Novel" or "Existcntical Themes in 20th Century prose."

The Plot Congeals

What is involved here is a method of teaching. A historical approach can easily degenerate into a mere summary of the plot, a potted biography of the writer and a recitation of some of his major influences. This does happen, sometimes inevitably. Like in Jacobean drama, which "analyses" 30 plays and 17 playwrights in one four credit course. But "only" 15 plays need be "known" for finals. A thematic approach deals with meanings before style. Having established what the play is about, you then study how this is communicated, the works are used more as examples, which makes comparison a lot easier and more natural. Instead of making an epoch or a genre the focus of analysis the lecturer and his class would begin with a meaning at least recognisable by all concerned.

Need I repeat that the English department offers no courses that use this method of teaching? It probably has its reasons for stressing historical trends, but there are areas where it could experiment with different methods. Especially, if this is the reason for its somewhat shabby treatment of modern writing. There are reasons for working up to the modern day.

It could also be argued that first year students could best apply their skills to literature that is more familiar to them and then work back to the startling discovery that these situations, themes and characters are not just modern inventions but reflect timeless human concerns. You can go in either direction, and again, it would be interesting to know why the department has decided it must, and we must, tackle modern writing by starting at the Renaissance.

Petition

Finally, in a few days a petition about these matters will be coming round your class. A copy of the petition is included on this page and there'll be lots of space for any additional comments. Its pretty important to act now because there is still some time to influence the decisions that the department will shortly have to make. In order to help with our understanding of its position it would be a friendly gesture from the department if it chose to reply to some of the points raised here. But its not compulsory. All that can be promised is a space in the next issue for a department spokesman. Experienced English Department watchers will be interested to see who it might be, since no clear primus inter pares has emerged from the current reshuffle. Will it be Bollinger over Tye? Docs McKenzie rate higher than Johnsen? Watch this space for clues.

(proceeding)