02 March 2009

I've been delinquent.

But no one is reading, so it's cool, guys. Don't worry about it.

I wanted to write a blog post about the trauma I endured in last Monday's Literary Theory class. We had to make a canon. We made a list, and then each person got to cut two authors. One girl made us put Thoreau on the list, and then cut Proust. Dumb. Talking about a literary canon is so weird. I don't like the exercise. I don't really know that there can be a canon, because the parameters for inclusion are so arbitrary. At the same time, there is something about Shakespeare that is not about Stephenie Meyer. Why Macbeth and not Twilight? I don't know that I could give you good criteria that weren't entirely arbitrary, except that you kind of just know.

Why do we still read Shakespeare anyways?

Today is the first day of Lent. I have very little to say on the matter that has not already been said. I am very happy for the start of Lent, partly for non-spiritual reasons. This is my favorite time of year. And I was gone last year, so it'll be really awesome to experience real spring, not drizzly, milquetoast, never-gets-above-45 spring.

Kierkegaard. I'm reading him. It doesn't make any sense.

2 comments:

B. Thomas James said...

Thoreau and not Proust is usually grounds for expulsion. Or at least being booted back to freshman year.

Unless, of course, someone decides on Twilight over Proust.

That calls for death by firing squad.

Emily said...

I read.
I check nearly every day.
: )

I agree with you about the arbitrariness (I just looked that up to make sure it was a real word, and it makes to so very happy that it is) of literary canons. Have you seen the meme going around FB about the BBC's list of 100 Books? Super random collection.