Arts subjects as breadth, minus the crap

[VivaTequila]

Hey all,

I'm a 'science student' and I eventually want to be a doctor or a researcher, and it is chemistry that truly interests me. However I did poorly in my sciences (36 Chemistry, 36 Physics, 37 Methods) compared to my English (a lazy 48), and that raised the questions for me of whether or not I should be doing an arts degree instead. Some introspection has led me to believe that I only did well in English (as opposed to doing mediocre in Literature with a 38) because I can write to save my life, but I hate all the history/bullshit that comes with Literature. Because English had really simple ideas to grapple with, while Literature was deeper and complex; filled with discussion about feminist literature, gothic criticisms, and romantic analyses which coalesce into what I deem educated glorified shit-talking, I was able to do much better in English based on writing ability alone.

See, the language of expression, if you will, is what really takes my fancy. When I read a book and I find an interesting bit of metaphoric imagery that really makes me stop and ponder I get a kick out of it. Having this affinity for words and expression helped heaps in English because I could write like a pretentious bastard to distract the examiners from the fact that I wasn’t really in tune with all the substance in the Literature text. Well not completely, because I got a mediocre score, but the discussions in my writing would have been horrible if not for their expression.
I’m not really into much history, and I don’t buy any of the crap when people analyse texts through different lenses which take them way out of proportion, which really made Literature inaccessible to me bar the fact that I can write decently.

Everyone has been telling me I should at least do Arts subjects in my breadth, and I'm all for the idea. I was initially planning on using them to learn my native language, Russian, but I can do that in a Diploma of Languages alongside my bachelor’s degree. Now I'm stuck for what to pick for my Arts subjects; they’re going to be English based subjects, but what the hell do I pick?
For reasons above I don’t want to pick any ‘Literature of the 18th century’-esque subjects. I just want a subject that will embrace my affinity for written and verbal expression, with potential use down the track if I need to write reports/obtain grant money for research/etc.

Tl;dr What are English based 1st year subjects that avoid all of the crap that comes with Literature (i.e. no theoretical analyses of a text through Gothic/Romantic lenses, or any kind of Hermeneutics, when really it’s just meant to be a bloody story and the author didn’t intend any of it)? The more contemporary the better!

Cheers for your insight guys, I really appreciate it.

And yes I am picking my subjects very late lol

[Russ]

Creative Writing. You're welcome.

[binders]

You could do one of the philosophy of science breadth options. you still get exposed to literature and metaphors etc, but lso simple but powerful ideas.
it's ideas, without the bullshit.
eg,
PHIL20001 Science, reason and reality
https://handbook.unimelb.edu.au/view/current/PHIL20001

PHIL30016 Knowledge and the Nature of Reality
https://handbook.unimelb.edu.au/view/current/PHIL30016

etc, from http://philosophy.unimelb.edu.au/students/breadth/

[VivaTequila]

Awesome. Can I take them up in first year, or do I have to do first year breadth subjects first?

[soilisav]

Do criminology with me Baxter!

[EvangelionZeta]

Doing Arts at uni just because you can write well is a really stupid idea.  University Arts faculties value ideas.  You could have the flashiest writing style ever, and you probably could get away with not really saying much for a while, but by second or third year you're screwed, legit. 

Also, your distaste for theory in literature doesn't bode well for Arts study at uni in general as well.  Even disciplines such as Politics and Anthropology rely upon a lot of theoretical positions and (since you mentioned it specifically) ideas concerning hermeneutics.  Philosophy even moreso, considering most of these ideas and theories are created by philosophers...

On a related note, just speaking as both a writer and a literature major, statements like "no theoretical analyses of a text through Gothic/Romantic lenses, or any kind of Hermeneutics, when really it’s just meant to be a bloody story and the author didn’t intend any of it" are really just unfair.  For one, consider that many well known writers themselves are often strongly based in academic studies of literature - perhaps there are times when readings are made which were not intended (but why should this even matter?  refer to Death of the Author), but could somebody really study literature that much and not be conscious of literary criticism whilst composing a piece? 

Better yet, consider what the artists themselves have to say about their own work.  To use a POPULAR writer as an example, Alan Moore himself sets down the words "Artists use lies to tell the truth" in V for Vendetta.  It's not just about storytelling; it's about storytelling as a mode of philosophy, of reaching even higher faculties of understanding.

[simpak]

Hi I'm just going to let you know that in Arts, expression doesn't really count anymore.  Academic writing is about clarity and being succinct, not bullshitting around with pretentious words.  If you really think you're not going to understand much about the substance of the text, then you shouldn't think that you can slide by using big words and pretty phrases alone.

Creative writing is the closest you'll come to that, like Russ said.

[Mech]

Why the buggery is anyone even suggesting philosophy when the OP stated history does not interest him/her?

EDIT:

Thought I would actually write a response to the OP. Your post itself is verbose and reeks of hubris, which is not always bad; however, when you are asking for advice and have so adamantly dismissed anything with historical or true literary merit, it makes the task difficult. Your writing style is probably very good, but if you are conveying no ideas or presenting no case, nobody is interested. It is all theatrics and lacking the essential substance or flesh. English is very basic and is not really asking for you to do any higher order thinking; it requires you to extricate some very general ideas and embody them in some contexts or to make a meaningful interpretation of a prompt - basically forcing a text to fit into the parameters of the prompt. Literature is more free and is about the discussion of potentials. You are not encouraged to rejig a work so that it fits your personal views, but it is a personal examination that must be justified within the text and be feasible. Some interpretations just will not float, no matter what wonderful embellished terminology you employ.

Philosophy is a literary discipline for the most part. It requires a love of historical ideas and its context. It is not purely about generally stripping away some principle - although this does occur after you have analyzed the context and background. It is about entertaining the ideas of a philosopher, their associated texts, and applying them to a problem or examining the issues raised. You will not get away with your style of writing if you cannot substantiate it; leading a reader down a path of beautifully strung one-liners devoid of all substantiation, will be eviscerated. No astute reader in philosophy will let you get away with colourful prose, and in fact want you to be more prosaic in your persuasion. There is also a known and active dislike for rhetoric/sophism in such a discipline. As stated before, succint and coherent (admittedly, even I have trouble with this at times).

I just want a subject that will embrace my affinity for written and verbal expression, with potential use down the track if I need to write reports/obtain grant money for research/etc.

Nobody will grant you money if you stand up on a stage and talk anything like you just posted. Well, not in a scientific community setting. I believe that UoM even holds sessions with PhD students where they have competitions to convey their ideas simply for the lay community. Your verbosity will not win you research points or funding. Economical elegance is what I wish to work towards, although I know this post - and many others of mine on here - are not examples of such.

(Really, I wish you just loved history and literary works!)

[binders]

From what was said by the OP, he intends to do a science degree, and use his breadth for arts.
Well i think you could do worse than take some philosophy of science to complement the main science in the course. There's plenty of philosophy out there with 'true literary merit', and many of the greatest ideas in philosophy are quite simple (not that that makes them easy to understand).

And as for needing history to do philosophy, It looks as though the kind of history he's not into is history as a kind of lit crit. Think Theory vs. theory, or realia vs. reception studies.

That seems to be a valid preference, given that only studying in depth what some later writer said about an earlier one might help you understand the former better, but can leave you feeling you're being removed from the source. eg. studying Ransom to examine class relations in the Iliad.
   
If the OP was going to do a pure arts degree, his attitude would be a worry. but just some arts tracks? I don't think he needs to embrace all the different critical stances you'd need if you were doing an english major. Isn't uni english is more like vce lit anyway? he might not be aware of that. Examining Oedipus Rex through freud or Moby Dick through feminism isn't everyone's cup of tea.

You could even argue that it's a good thing to be skeptical about the received wisdom presented to you at uni. so long as you approach it critically and not with simple hostility.

[Russ]

your verbosity will not win you research points or funding.

Well actually...

[ninwa]

Why not take another language?

[EvangelionZeta]

From what was said by the OP, he intends to do a science degree, and use his breadth for arts.
Well i think you could do worse than take some philosophy of science to complement the main science in the course. There's plenty of philosophy out there with 'true literary merit', and many of the greatest ideas in philosophy are quite simple (not that that makes them easy to understand).

And as for needing history to do philosophy, It looks as though the kind of history he's not into is history as a kind of lit crit. Think Theory vs. theory, or realia vs. reception studies.

That seems to be a valid preference, given that only studying in depth what some later writer said about an earlier one might help you understand the former better, but can leave you feeling you're being removed from the source. eg. studying Ransom to examine class relations in the Iliad.
   
If the OP was going to do a pure arts degree, his attitude would be a worry. but just some arts tracks? I don't think he needs to embrace all the different critical stances you'd need if you were doing an english major. Isn't uni english is more like vce lit anyway? he might not be aware of that. Examining Oedipus Rex through freud or Moby Dick through feminism isn't everyone's cup of tea.

You could even argue that it's a good thing to be skeptical about the received wisdom presented to you at uni. so long as you approach it critically and not with simple hostility.

The main problem is he's wondering which humanities subjects work well at uni with a VCE approach.  You can do the 'bs to get high marks thing' to an extent in 1st year, but even the most narratively-concerned history courses aren't going to give you marks for being able to gush about something well.

Also, is examining Ransom through the scope of class relations REALLY that far from the source?  I mean, the story is literally just Book 24 of the Iliad retold with a lower-class character being given focus alongside Priam.  :p

[paulsterio]

Why not take another language?

That's so random! LOL!

[Aurelian]

Why not take another language?

That's so random! LOL!

Why is that random? Given all the OP's reservations about humanities subjects, and considering the usefulness of languages in general, this seems like a pretty good idea even if it wasn't outlined explicitly by the OP...

[paulsterio]

Because he's already doing a language, Russian, so it seems that he wants to do something else that's not a language as his breadth.

And, idk, it seems to me that he was looking at more writing/English-type stuff than a language. But no, I didn't mean that doing a language was random, I was saying that Ninwa's suggestion was completely out of the blue as to the trend of the conversation before