(no subject)

[labellementeuse]

In an effort to get the University to stop sending me invitations to my graduation, and emails warning that my email will be deleted if I don't hurry up and enrol already, I have been sort-of desperately working on enrolling for the year. This has been weirdly difficult because, as indicated by the fact that they're sending me graduation invites, I actually completed a whole degree last year! I'm sort of proud: I hold a BSc in Philosophy, also known as the least sciency BSc ever (My science points come from a lot of, like, maths, linguistics, and logic papers.) Anyway, so, I'm sort of proud, but mainly I just wish they'd stop tempting me with postgraduate work since I still have to spend this year finishing up my BA.

Basically what this means is I have this whole year to bum around taking two 300-level english papers and... any other four papers so long as two of them are at 300 level and two of them are at 200 level. ANY PAPERS. When I worked this out, I was really excited! Like, yay! But it turns out I'll basically be taking a lot of... English and Philosophy, since no-one's going to let me take papers at 300 level unless I've done 200-level papers with them (the fascists.)

So, this is what I'm doing, as of right now:

ENGL313: Cultures of the Supernatural
PHIL239: Political Theory: A History of Political Thought
PHIL310: History of Philosophy (I know, I know: BORING. I KNOW. But I figure I have basically only taken phil courses in Ethics and Logic and I should probably take courses that allow me to know who Hume and Locke are, other than that Locke wrote The Leviathan LOL, no he didn't, it was Hobbes. I don't know ANYTHING about Locke. and Hume didn't like Cartesian skepticism)

ENGL333: the Exotic (This looks cool, but I actually wanted to take the C19th novel paper. But it clashed with the ANTH paper which looks heaps of fun, so.)
ANTH202: The Anthropology of Politics and Power
HIST357: The French Revolution - MAYBE. I really want to take this! But the office lady was all, yeah, they're probably not going to take you in at 300 level without even having done Classics or Ancient History or Maori (Which, BTW, omg.) However, my PHIL and ENGL marks last year were fairly fabulous, so I'm going to speak to the HOD on Monday and basically beg. It will probably include saying stuff like "I did history - in seventh form!"

if they don't let me take that, I will... sigh, I'll probably take another Phil paper. :-/ Or see if Anthropology is nicer than history, and take the ANTH paper at 300 level and the HIST paper at 200 level. That would not be a huge deal.

Comments

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

HIST357: The French Revolution - MAYBE. I really want to take this! But the office lady was all, yeah, they're probably not going to take you in at 300 level without even having done Classics or Ancient History or Maori (Which, BTW, omg.).

Why omg?

I'd suggest pointing to any political philosophy papers you've done in the past. I hope you do get to do it, it's a fascinating subject, one of my favourite historical events actually. A lot of my ideas about nationalism come from the French revolutionary period, in fact. Who's the lecturer?

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Geoff Rice, who apparently EVERYONE says is the bee's knees' big cheese. The problem is that I haven't done any political philosophy papers in the past, although most of my English has been extremely concerned with cultures and ideologies.

OMG because a hell of a lot of MAOR papers are, you know, language papers. And some Classics papers are about vases. I think if learning about vases gets you into history, then learning about the development of nineteenth century environmentalism through literature should get you into history.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

Ah, I never had Geoff, but yes, he is very well regarded. I hope you have good luck selling yourself.

It does sound like a rather strange requirement. As an aside, I've never understood the logic of Classics - how can you lump studying art history, architecture, philosophy, history and literature under one discipline and claim it has any conceptual unity? As far as I can tell 'Classics' means 'Stuff that happened in Ancient Greece and Rome'. But that's probably a debate for another day.

[jo-nzl.livejournal.com]

(classicist on the prowl!)

The point of classics, I think, is that it is the study of entire societies, and to get at the roots of those societies we have to look at all sorts of evidence - archaeological, literary, artistic, epigraphical, linguistic etc etc. By piecing together these bits of evidence, we can form what is likely to be the most accurate picture. So of course it becomes necessary to specialise within the discipline, but whatever one is doing one needs to understand where the ancients might have been coming from. I guess that's where the unity is - these objects were all produced by similar cultures, and testify to those cultures.

One of the most wonderful things about classics is studying a whole range of things over a number of years and watching the way a gradually more complete picture of ancient civilisations builds. And hey, don't historians use all kinds of evidence too? It could well have something to do with the fact that historians of later periods have a lot more "stuff", especially written sources, while we have to take what we can get, which could be anything.

A bit incoherent, but I couldn't resist :P

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

Before I say anything else, would you say that the difference between Classics and History is that Classics covers everything before a certain date, and History everything after it? Because that seems to me to be the argument you're extending here.

[jo-nzl.livejournal.com]

Not necessarily - I certainly think that history of the classical period is still history, but that the particular skewing of the literary evidence from antiquity (more than most other periods we can only hear certain voices, especially those of the elite and those of men) necessitates perhaps a rather broader approach than for later periods - archaeology, for example, and art, can tell us things the literature can't, whereas other periods tend to have more surviving written evidence.

At least, this is just a theory. I suspect the real reason classics covers so much may be partly that anything the Greeks and Romans did was seen as automatically superior and therefore worthy of separate study. There's a whole lot of ideology tied up in classics, from the name "classics" down. But the broadness of the discipline seems not to muddle it in my experience - the same themes run through everything, I think.

I haven't actually thought about this before, so I'm improvising a lot.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

I suspect the real reason classics covers so much may be partly that anything the Greeks and Romans did was seen as automatically superior and therefore worthy of separate study.

That's always been my theory.

[jo-nzl.livejournal.com]

Haha, fair enough.

Though it must be said, there are lots of scholars these days doing progressive stuff, challenging all that bullshit, and it's not easy to strip away the layers and make the discipline seem fresh again. And I maintain that different areas inform each other - for my recent essay on an ancient mystery cult, I couldn't have had anything vaguely resembling coherence unless I had included both archaeological and literary sources.

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

I think the idea is that the style of Classics essays (and the type of research) prepares you for History papers better. And the requisite MAOR papers, IIRC, are cross-coded with history/anthropology/sociology. So there is some logic there.

That said, the merger is still a stupid idea. *grumble*

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

While I vaguely appreciate this, I... *reiterates what I said to Jen* I feel like there's an arbitrary distinction being made. Here's X person who investigates primary texts like Shelley's Frankenstein, and Charles Dodgson's letters to the editor about vivisection, and examines the vivisection debates of that period, and reads The Voyage of the Beagle and reads what scientists were saying about it and how people of the time were thinking about Darwin, and looks at the social context in terms of the Empire and colonization (esp. in the antipodes), and takes all that, and looks at The Hunting of the Snark (Carroll, Dodgson's nom de plume) and says: what can The Hunting of the Snark, this fragmentary nonsense poem, illuminate for us in terms of what Dodgson was thinking, and how does he reflect what his contemporaries were thinking, and their values.

And then on the other hand there's Y person, who reads - OK, I don't know enough about Classics to work up a really full comparison here, OK? So Jen can come along and laugh at me. But Y Classicist who researches the period (and there is some difference in the practicalities of research, but most undergrads are not exactly digging up pottery shards) and Y reads Sappho's poetry and goes through contemporary histories (as much as is possible) and reads up on Greek mythology and so forth and then looks at artwork on pottery found in the bedroom of some Ancient girlie girl and says, what can we learn about the girl, and what does that teach us about girls like her, and what does that teach us about the art - and so on.

And X and Y person, some of the ways they're doing things are different, but what they're trying to do is basically the same. IMO.

[jo-nzl.livejournal.com]

*grumble grumble* You see, the thing is, you can't study vases without studying history. At least, not properly. Greek pottery is an incredibly detailed record of many, many aspects of Greek life, and if you haven't studied the social context properly, you just won't get what the pot is trying to do - you'll import modern conceptions (something which, incidentally, still mars interpretation of pottery to this day, especially where sexual subjects are concerned), or just otherwise thoroughly misinterpret the scene. The meanings that painted, figured pottery can convey are incredibly rich (and incredibly up for debate and close analysis), and can't be divorced from the study of the society in which they were produced.

I mean, just look at the word "vase" itself that we commonly use to describe the pieces. That implies something of value, whereas there's plenty of evidence that painted pottery was not a luxury good in the ancient world. And the debates only mushroom from there. So I guess studying Greek pottery is far more about studying Greeks than it is about studying pots. Certainly more recent commentary tends to regard them more as social documents (albeit of a difficult kind) than merely things-to-be-admired.

Haha sorry, just practicing the great skill of "defending the relevance of classics"...

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

you can't study vases without studying history. At least, not properly.

I absolutely agree (although my opinion is not what you'd call informed) and your comment is a lovely and passionate defence of the subject. the thing is, I would say the same about what I do. Now, admittedly when I'm studying Madame Doubtfire the amount of work I need to do to distance myself from contemporary concerns is greatly reduced as c.f. the amount of work you need to do when you're studying Sappho. You said that vases (etc) "can't be divorced from the study of the society in which they were produced", and this is one of my main interests in my English: cultural contexts and the way they produce the work they do. Investigating literature from two hundred years ago, from ten years ago, from yesterday provides us with tools to understand ourselves, one of the most rewarding things you can do with a text. I just feel that the distinction that's being made here is kind of arbitrary - 2000 years? Sure. 200 years? Nah.

Basically I'm resentful because I know I could do the work and I'm worried I'm not going to get the chance.

[jo-nzl.livejournal.com]

Oh, I actually totally agree with you - studying the products of anyone else, really, regardless of time period, culture, whatever, often necessitates a whole lot of historical/contextual work. The same thing holds with English texts as I said about vases - if you don't understand the context, you're bound to misinterpret things. The kind of training and analysis is, as you say, pretty similar.

Personally, I think studying English lit may well give you a better background for a French Revolution paper than classics! And you can tell the HOD a classics student said so :P

[ihatyou.livejournal.com]

I'm being pedantic here (because I think they really should let you into history, I agree) but that's not true about MAOR, at least not anymore. The language papers were recoded as TREO at the start of last year, so Maori studies and te reo Maori are now separate subjects.

Geoff Rice's lecture style really didn't work for me, but given that everyone else in my history class loved the guy there is probably something wrong me. He is certainly very passionate about history and about passing that passion on to students.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

I'm being pedantic here (because I think they really should let you into history, I agree) but that's not true about MAOR, at least not anymore. The language papers were recoded as TREO at the start of last year, so Maori studies and te reo Maori are now separate subjects.

I was too lazy to look that up, but that actually makes a tonne more sense. I retract comments about language papers!

[karenhealey.livejournal.com]

Straight language papers shouldn't count as pre-reqs, but a lot of the non-language MAOR papers involve bunches of historical and cultural analysis, as do the CLAS courses - it's not just "look at these vases!", it's "And here is how this form reflects the changing society of the day."

I learned most of my late Republic/early Empire history through studying Roman art, and I'm fairly solid on it, so I do know whereof I speak!

[karenhealey.livejournal.com]

Um, but yes, I agree, English papers = also totally learning history. Because I learned all my Restoration history from that course, and I'm also pretty solid on *that*!

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Right, exactly! I'm not trying to say Classics papers shouldn't get you in, just that they should let me in, too, granted that my areas of interest in English are basically the cultural studies kinds.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

Almost makes you wonder why anybody studies History by itself, doesn't it?

[karenhealey.livejournal.com]

I don't think anyone studies history "by itself", if by that you mean a flat recitation of dates and events. Even my high school history courses had plenty of "And now we look at this recruitment poster" or "Let us inspect the speeches of Martin Luther King Jr". There's a difference in emphasis, but it all works just fine.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

By studying history itself I mean studying History as an academic topic.

[bad-mushroom.livejournal.com]

Cultures of the Supernatural? Guh. When can I move to NZ and go to your school? Soon, please.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

I get to study Francesca Lia Block and Coraline and Tithe !!!!!!!!!!

*excited*

[bad-mushroom.livejournal.com]

*is jealous like whoa*

[kheha.livejournal.com]

IAWTC!! Most wholeheartedly.

I took a lot of "X and Politics" and "Power and X" classes, and they were always incredibly interesting too -- your schedule looks abnormally cool.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

I'm really looking forward to the politics classes - I desperately wanted to take a paper that's basically the ethics of political systems (is it right to take from the rich to feed the poor, etc) but it clashes with supernatural :( But the ones I've picked look really good anyway!

[eavanmoore.livejournal.com]

Anth of Politics and Power sounds rather... massive. But heaps of fun!!

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Well, I doubt it, since it's only 200 level. But it looks like a tonne of fun!

[lady-larla.livejournal.com]

Uni is going to get a very rude email from me on monday somewhere along the lines of "enrolled, paid fees , have paperwork saying so wtf are you telling me im not enrolled for damn you"

Yay I gets you in two papers *hugs* Can we be a double act and drive the teachers nuts plz plz ?

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

They'd be getting a rude phonecall from me!

Sure thing. :( but I'm sad I don't get to take the C19th lit paper! it clashes with the ANTH paper.

[lady-larla.livejournal.com]

Aww... hmm if i had a number for them id call them up... have a lot of choice things to say, going in on monday anyway will go by registry and have a real holler at them.

[aworldinside.livejournal.com]

Is that the French Revolution paper at Canterbury? If so, I highly recommend it. I did a Dr.Rice paper in all three years of my History degree and I really enjoyed them all. You do write a lot, unless he's changed his lecture style, but it's an awesome course. The best history course I did at Canterbury, and he's also a lovely guy.

[aworldinside.livejournal.com]

Also, History of Philosophy, History of Political Thought and the Anthropology of Politics and Power all look cool too! (My other major was Political Science).

I kinda miss University now. ;)

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's the paper, and I'm taking it on the rec. of a couple of friends and everything I hear about him makes me think it'll be great, so. Luckily, I like to write and I'm pretty good at it, although I do expect a change in style.

I have to say, I'm not looking forward to History of Philosophy that much, but who knows, maybe it'll be great!

[kitsunerei88]

Oooo, Anthropology. Forensic anthropology?

I wish my university would let me take their forensic course in the anthropology department, but I'm being shuttled between departments inquiring about course overlaps. ^^''

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Everything I know about forensic anthropology I learned from Bones! So I actually have no idea if we offer any. But Dr. Brennan sure does make it look good.

[kitsunerei88]

Bones is the best show ever. I am horribly, horribly addicted, and have a slight crush on Zack Addy. ZOMG. And I was inspired enough to go look in my massive course calendar for courses in forensics, and I managed to find a second year anthropology course on it.

It's ALMOST like the time I got inspired to switch my minor into Applied Math, all because of Numb3rs. I'm still doing that, though.