Difference between revisions of "2007-08 BM1: Session 2"
From Angl-Am
Olaf Simons (Talk | contribs) |
Olaf Simons (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
*Our present histories of literature show '''different and competing periodisations''', two conflicting positions towards periods should be reflected: | *Our present histories of literature show '''different and competing periodisations''', two conflicting positions towards periods should be reflected: | ||
:*Periods exist with each era producing its characteristic literature. The great works of a period help us - consequently - to better understand the frame of mind of each age. | :*Periods exist with each era producing its characteristic literature. The great works of a period help us - consequently - to better understand the frame of mind of each age. | ||
| − | :*We produce ever changing periodisations to "prove" historical developments we want to claim as our cultural heritage. We base our notions of these developments on a canon of literary works which we select and interpret | + | :*We produce ever changing periodisations to "prove" historical developments we want to claim as our cultural heritage. We base our notions of these developments on a canon of literary works which we select and interpret accordingly. |
*History and the past have played entirely different roles over the centuries. The discussion of historical and future developments are relatively new fields of the cultural debate. | *History and the past have played entirely different roles over the centuries. The discussion of historical and future developments are relatively new fields of the cultural debate. | ||
*If you do written work on the university level | *If you do written work on the university level | ||
:*Do not enrich your seminar papers with explanations of the period - which you feel your reader might need to understand the work in question (your reader can be expected to inform himself on such trivia). | :*Do not enrich your seminar papers with explanations of the period - which you feel your reader might need to understand the work in question (your reader can be expected to inform himself on such trivia). | ||
:*You may '''critically discuss common or less common notions about periods''' (as to be found in ''Wikipedia'', the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' or in specific scientific works) - if you feel these notions distorted our view on materials you want to examine closer. | :*You may '''critically discuss common or less common notions about periods''' (as to be found in ''Wikipedia'', the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' or in specific scientific works) - if you feel these notions distorted our view on materials you want to examine closer. | ||
Revision as of 12:16, 4 September 2007
Back to 2007-08 BM1 Introduction to the Critical and Scholarly Discussion of Literature, Part 1
Argument 1: Our historical periodisations are arbitrary
- Our present histories of literature show different and competing periodisations, two conflicting positions towards periods should be reflected:
- Periods exist with each era producing its characteristic literature. The great works of a period help us - consequently - to better understand the frame of mind of each age.
- We produce ever changing periodisations to "prove" historical developments we want to claim as our cultural heritage. We base our notions of these developments on a canon of literary works which we select and interpret accordingly.
- History and the past have played entirely different roles over the centuries. The discussion of historical and future developments are relatively new fields of the cultural debate.
- If you do written work on the university level
- Do not enrich your seminar papers with explanations of the period - which you feel your reader might need to understand the work in question (your reader can be expected to inform himself on such trivia).
- You may critically discuss common or less common notions about periods (as to be found in Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia Britannica or in specific scientific works) - if you feel these notions distorted our view on materials you want to examine closer.
