Red-Light Cameras Not So Special?
Cubs Combat Casino
PHOTOS: Peaches And Amanda Blank At Metro
The Return of The Chicagoist Reader Meet-Up
County Sales Tax Rollback Vetoed - Here We Go Again
We know when our kids grow up and go to college, we would be absolutely thrilled to pay over $600 a credit hour to have them study 5th grade level literature. So hopefully they'll make our dreams come true and go to Columbia College, where they can sign up for Columbia's Harry Potter course, sure to become the blow off class du jour.
Students spend their time picking through Rowling's text, trying to find hidden meanings and intricacies in even the smallest details like street names:
"Number four, Privet Drive -- what's a privet?" The students rack their brains, silently. "A privet is a hedge, a bush that you use like a fence, to separate your property from everybody else's. In France, it's pronounced pree-VAY, which means 'private.' Remember that Rowling is a French scholar. How could these meanings apply?"Lara Magyar has a thought. "It reminds me of 'privy,' like a bathroom," she volunteers. "An awful place to be."
Sounds a bit Bible Code-esque to us, but we're sure the students don't care as long as it fulfills an English requirement. [S-T]
Photo by bluemarla
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Coming next to Columbia College, a course that looks for hidden meanings in Chicagoist articles.
Taught by Professor Spook.
Lots of thinly veiled criticisms in that piece there. Methinks someone has an axe to grind...
Given that I am:
a) A graduate of Columbia College,
b) Mystified by the Harry Potter phenomenon amongst adults, and
c) An atheist,
I would say that's an accurate observation. But if you can explain the merit for providing such tripe at an institute of higher learning I'm all ears.
This doesn't seem terribly off-the-wall to me. Many college literature and english departments offer classes in children's and young adult literature, examining its historical/cultural context, the role such literature plays in childhood development, how such literature reflects the time period it was written in.
Maybe this is my useless education in the humanities talking, but considering the economic impact of the books on the publishing industry and its impact on global pop culture I could see such a class possibly being quite interesting, depending on the context and who is teaching it. It could also be a bullshit Mickey Mouse class, too, but I don't want to judge.
this is the best piece on chicagoist in a little while
Wow. I just don't get it. Of all the fantastic literature out there--and there is a Columbia College class on Harry Potter? And we wonder why our education is going to hell.
Call me elitist, call me what you will, but there is way too much good literature out there for me to be wasting my time on Harry Potter.
I would rather read the Left Behind series than disdain to pick up a Harry Potter book.
I don't consider Harry Potter a waste of time- I consider it a waste of *academic* time. People like to spend their free time in any variety of mindless pursuits, whether it's watching sports, obsessing over Playstation, dissecting movies, or reading Harry Potter. If it helps people relax and maybe even makes them happy or gives them something to be excited about, it seems like a decent use of time, actually. It just doesn't make it worthy of college-level study. Dissecting these books, as enthralling and fun as they may be, on a college level, is beyond stupid.
Oh, and Keidra, I agree, but you're talking about a sociological/historical approach to the phenomenon (which is undeniably huge and probably interesting to study), not the books themselves. This is an English class, studying the text. It's really different, IMO.
As someone who took has taken a certified assload of lit classes, I'm pretty surprised that a PhD professor would consider teaching these with the same rigor as Melville, Orwell, or even Paul Auster. I enjoy them, but I agree with Julia that it's not really fitting for academia.
I am with Keidra. I was a lit major in my undergrad and am getting my masters degree in library science, and I have read a lot of books written for kids and young adults as part of my studies.
I have not read the Harry Potter books. They could be brilliant or they could be rubbish - I don't know. What I do know is that millions of kids and adults love these books. Maybe that in and of itself is reason enough to study them. Studying the text is one way to understand why the books have resonated so much with people.
Also, lit classes are expanding way beyond the traditional canon. In my lit theory class, we studied Anne Rice. We also studied Foucault. Although you or I may not want to study Harry Potter, there are other people who do.
In my opinion if you are interested in studying a subject, it isn't a waste of time, academic or otherwise. When I hear someone say that an area of study is a waste of time, it reminds me of a parent who wants their kid to be a doctor and tells the kid that taking an art class is a waste of time.
Yeah, why would a college want to study a world-wide phenomena such as Harry Potter? Because NOTHING students study in college should have a world wide impact!
But of course, Prescott, it would be OK to study Harry Potter the movies or any other number of cinema experiences, right? Since movies are so much more of a culturaly artistic expression of the elite world of liberal ideology, right?
I was surprised by this as well.
My son was around 7 or 8 when the first HP book came out, so he grew up with Harry. I always thought that was kind of neat.
The first couple of books I read aloud to him at bedtime and I do have to say, that in my opinion, although the story is great, the writing was not.
If he were in college now and took this class at Columbia I think I'd kill him for wasting that money (and time) but on the other hand, it's certainly going to be an easy A for the ton of HP fans out there who are entering college in the next couple of years and who are going to go to Columbia :)
You guys should have mentioned in your Sex in the City post that there's a course on it as well at MIT.
Oh and Mepps,
Isn't HP part of some liberal plot to indoctrinate kids in magik and satanism? That's what a lot of religious conservatives seem to think.
As a graduate of an English program, I feel that so many of the classes were a waste of time anyway that it doesn't matter if you're studying Harry Potter or counting the number of references to door imagery--I am not joking--in Dickens.
Also, I would rather read this any day than Updike, Roth or Atwood...the so-called "classics" of our tme...thanks to the academic anschluss of fiction that's taken place over the last 30 years.
Is this a read harry potter class, or a literary discussion revolving around harry potter? I am really not seeing how this is any different from any one of the 100's of other modern literature studies courses offered at every single college. The sheer success of this massive volume of work, whether aimed only at kids or not, would deem it appropriate for further study.
I guess all of you must have take an extensive course history in objective philisophical liberal ideology of Michael Foucault, and I'm reading the posts of a bunch of traditional cannon only academia elitist windbags- but I would never guess that by reading these writings.
Navin- maybe you misread my post, it has nothing to do with religion, nor liberal v conservatives.
it's certainly going to be an easy A for the ton of HP fans out there who are entering college in the next couple of years and who are going to go to Columbia
I love how people assume that because the book is an easy read, the class is an easy A. My children's literature class was every bit as work intensive as my Renaissance lit class.
Mary, are you serious?
It would be an easy A for someone like my son, who is just like almost every other HP fan out there who has read each book at least a dozen times. His books are so dog eared from reading and re-reading that you wouldn't even be able to GIVE them away. (We even have the British versions! Yes, there are British versions, because the publishers think that we Americans are too dull to understand the vernacular from across the pond.)
He has complete passages memorized. These kids have read the books over and over, seen the movies over and over. Not to mention that it's a lot easier to do well in a class when you really like the subject.
My son had to read a couple of Dickens books in 8th & 9th grade. OMG. He HATED them. He wouldn't take another class on Dickens if you threatened him with his life and if forced to, would probably not do too well in the class. I myself love Dickens, but I could not sway him :) I can assure you, however, that no matter how much work was involved in an HP class, he would sale through it.
And I stand by my original point that I think her 'story' is good, but her writing style is not. I would much rather have him take classes in the 'classics' where he would be learning, at the very least, a lot more vocabulary words that he would normally not come across. I mean, in the HP books, most of the new vocab are her made-up words.
Ingrid- your not making sense.
So since your son would sail through a harry potter class, he should not take one; on the other hand he hates Dickens and you don't think you should force him to read it- YET you don't agree with having a harry potter course, so what would your son take?
And, it seems that you think that since it is an easy read, and her writing style sucks, it is not worthy of study. You could say the exact same thing about a lot of things; how many anthropologists, sociologists, or even philosophers are really great writers??
You say it's a lot easier to do well in a class where you like the subject material- that may be true, but I wonder why you would major in and study something you didn't like and were not intersted in?? So, then you would have to say that students in biology class have it easy because they like biology- or, students who like biology should not be biologists because its' too easy for them.
Doesn't even make sense.
I think you are missing the entire point of a course of study. It is NOT to just read the book, but discuss and analyze the bigger issues- what does all this have to do with our world? what are implications...etc. Hence why Mary said 'work intensive'- a course can be challenging even though you have read the course material!
This is the whole point of what I am saying; so since HP is an easy read and a kids book we shouldn't concern ourselves with it.- What the hell kind of higher education standard is that?
He is going to be reading John Updike and Philip Roth novels about the existential dillemas of English professors having extramarital affairs.
Remembering having to read those books makes me want to hang myself even today.
I also find it amusing that Prescott finds literary analysis so mystifying. Of course an author pieces together references carefully. Why not make every allusion contribute? English language authors have been doing this since Melville and Joyce (and probably before).
I guess all of you must have take an extensive course history in objective philisophical liberal ideology of Michael Foucault
Mepps, this makes no sense, but way to name drop!
It would be an easy A for someone like my son, who is just like almost every other HP fan out there who has read each book at least a dozen times.
Ingrid: If the term paper is one in which he has to write an analysis of, say, Harry as a benficiary of a system of inherited privilege as opposed to operating in a pure meritocracy, his little head might explode at the idea of questioning the structure of this fantasy world. Sounds fairly challenging to me.
That was meant as a "props to you mepps", not a sarcastic thing.
Thanks Mepps. Haven't checked back for awhile and you replied perfectly for me. :)
Ingrid, I won't repeat what Mepps already said, but your attitude about "classics" is ridiculous. That's the kind of argument that keep parents/teachers from letting their children read comic books--because they're not "good enough." Guess what? If someone (adult or child) reads and enjoys it, I count that as a win. I would rather see a classroom filled with people reading, discussing, and enjoying Harry Potter than a silent classroom filled with bored, miserable people reading Dickens any day.
Perhaps someone would find it applicable, if they wanted to pursue a career in popular children novel writing, of which I think this would probably be a great topic of study in finding a format and formula that works. Or, someone studying to be a teacher?
I went to Indiana University, and I took Yoga, Billiards, Ballroom Dancing, Coaching Track and Field, and The History of Rock and Roll. I figured, hey, I had paid for 18 credit hours a semster, better use them then lose them. Taking these courses was fun and a great way to relax and take time to study something you probably would never get the chance to do again.
If Columbia had full time students pay the way they pay at most universities, they would pay a certain amount each semster, and someone had the interest and the spare credit hours. . why wouldn't it be a cool class to take?
Every university has classes that won't provide the most value to all. . Purdue has Wine Tasting, some schools have beer brewing courses. . .really, most people won't make careers out of it, but they are fun, interesting and build multi-facited people.
Dickens! Dickens is like a gift from heaven compared to a lot of the crap you have to read as an English major.
Joyce Carol Oates' owlish visage, with that affected blank stare, induces nausea in me to this day.
Also, since Dickens has been brought up. . .
The Harry Potter books are like modern day Dickens installments as they were both widely popular during their times.
A Tale of Two Cities is one of my favorite books, but I find Dicken's writing can be overbearing, since there is a lot of repetition (based on the books actually being released in a series of installments and not one pressing at the time).
When we started the deeper analysis of Dickens (Dickens as a post modern feminist, etc) is where it became highly interesting. I suspect this class would be the same way, and would encourage the students to look at popular children's fiction novels in a different and more meaningful light.
Building on what Mary Sunshine said: if a college student is reluctant to or is challenged by studying literature and a Harry Potter class can get them interested or break down a barrier, it is absolutely a valuable class. By using familiar friendly material, it can help make studying literature more accessible.
When I was doing my undergrad, the physics class I took was designed for those of us who did not excel in physics or who were not planning to pursue a science degree. It was a great and interesting class, and I probably learned more than I would have if I had been forced into a "tougher" physics class.
Mepps, I see what you're saying, but there are lots of other authors out there besides Dickens for him to sink his chops into. Which he has been doing the past couple of years taking AP & Honors English.
So, it's not that he wasn't up for Dickens, he just found it incredibly boring, as did the whole class he was in. I would say that you'd be hard pressed to find a teenaged boy who would relish Dickens. I'm sure they're out there, and I would give them my props, but they'd be few and far between.
But I do have to say that I think the teacher has a lot to do with how her class takes a book/author. I think that there are teachers out there who could present Dickens in a way that
teens today could relate to.
I would just prefer that he not take a college class about HP (with the way that college costs are now)...and although I did enjoy her story lines, I think Rowling's writing is plebeian.
The last two HP books, I didn't even bother to read the whole book...I just skipped to the last couple of chapters to see the endings. I really do not enjoy her prose, I just want to get to the end. I don't like reading a book when all I want to do is get to the end. I like books where I enjoy the process.
So, to me, because of this, I don't find much merit in
giving her a whole college level class.
Dickens is not everyone's cup of tea, and I guess we all have our opinions because I saw Joyce Carol Oates' name mentioned above (in a not so positive light) and she is one of my all time favorite contemporary writers. I know she gets criticized for being so prolific and even I have not read everything she
has written, but I do really enjoy her writing. I am re-reading
'them' right now. I think this is only the second time in my life where I've re-read a book!
Meh.
I really don't care for Joyce Carol Oates' work, but as you know, she's not everyone's cup of tea. Regardless, I think a wide breadth of literature would include it in the cannon, and should.
I'm not saying you are, but when people say they don't think something with such a far reaching influence and impact as the HP machine should not be studied because they didn't like it and it is childish, drives me nuts. It itself sound egocentric and elitist.
I'm mostly opposed to this because the books are pretty lazily written.
To be a better writer, you have to read a ton. And the stuff you read the most tends to inform your writing. So I look forward to Generation Y's future novels of predictable plot points, lazy character building, and the reliance of deus ex machinas ("It was magic!") to resolve conflicts.
I'm signed up for that class for this coming semester, and I hope I haven't gotten my expectations too high. It's part of the humanities literature requirement along with a Tolkein as another option. Columbia has some classes which most people find different. Many think we go there to finger-paint. While the school and administration itself has some problems I believe that the classes are the real reason to go. And everyone says that The Simpsons class for television majors is one of the most difficult in the program.
I was in this class and was infact one of the people interviewed and observed for this article. While it's not completely faulty, some things were of course published out of context and Mr. Nance could not attend every class so not everything he saw was the class at its academic best.
Last semester being my last at Columbia I thought that it would be a good idea to wrap things up with some fun classes that I would at least be able to feign a passing interest in while fighting senioritis. I took both The Simpsons class and the Harry Potter class. Can you believe they actually had the gaul to mock the Harry Potter class in The Simpsons class? I understand that from an outsider both classes may seem like a joke but from the indside they were interesting and challenging. Granted the Simpsons class was a little harder as I loathe reading Judith Butler (oh that's right, we don't just sit around wathcing The Simpsons), but over all I felt that neither one was a waste of my time or money.
As far as the quality of the HP books go, I while neither defend nor criticize them. I have found that either battle is hopeless because for some reason people keep opinions about these books about as strongly as they keep their opinions about religion and polititcs. No matter what side your fighting, you will never win.