Arts subjects as breadth, minus the crap

[Planck's constant]

As a 1st year Arts Breadth option, you can't go past :

EVZE10001 : A compilation of EvangelionZeta's AN posts

[Aurelian]

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.

Mmmm on that, Viva, you should probably look more into how DipLangs work. I'm pretty sure that if you're going to do any language, Russian or otherwise, you need to cross-credit your two breadth subjects first year (even if you intend to accelerate) so you wont have any non-language breadths anyway.

[ninwa]

Well, considering languages are probably the only non-humanities arts subjects that fit his requirements, I don't see why that was such an unreasonable suggestion.

[paulsterio]

Well, considering languages are probably the only non-humanities arts subjects that fit his requirements, I don't see why that was such an unreasonable suggestion.

I never said it was unreasonable! I said it was random =.=
Random doesn't mean bad, it just means that it was...out of the blue

[Mech]

your verbosity will not win you research points or funding.

Well actually...

Really? I remember my biochemistry family friend telling me his applications had to be very succinct and bland; maybe it depends on the university or body you are applying to? I know that UoM does a lot about training researches to speak to the lay community, which I assume most corporate people are about specifics of some things.

I could be wrong, but this is based on what my family friend has told me. 

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.

I am agreeing it would be more worrying if the OP wished to do a pure Arts degree. I am sort of just not keen on the idea of sticking someone in a course where they are stuck with readers and texts that will absolutely bore them to tears - and then be told they need to find some principles and apply them, analyzing semantics and what not (depending on the philosopher/s in question). If s/he was very selective about the choice, and found a subject that offered theory with little flesh - historical or literary influences minimal -, it is possible philosophy could be great and work (although s/he may need to be more prosaic as I mentioned earlier; lots of people have that trouble, myself included).

So, I tip my hat to you, Binders, you make valid points. I kept thinking of OP as myself - who is doing an Arts degree with on major in philosophy - and removing the passion for the historical context and literary criticism, which is incorrect of me. Science student wanting a complementary course with minimal aforementioned qualities - if very selective with philosophy units.

I think another language is a good idea though. Or creative writing (I was tempted to pick that up myself). Although, you may have to be aware of literary criticisms and such to excel at it.

[binders]

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

no, not that far away, if ransom is what you're looking at. but i meant examining class relations in the Iliad by only reading Ransom in depth, without a deep study of the Iliad itself. It's a different text, with hundreds of years of literary baggage more than the Iliad versions in greek or translations closer in time to the context of composition.

Yeah, it's closer to the Iliad than say Dragonball is to Journey to the West, which is why i chose it as an example. It's an interesting but difficult question when you start looking at reception and criticism as part of the 'afterlife' (nachleben?) of a text.  But there's still room within Arts to just study the text in context isn't there?

[EvangelionZeta]

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

no, not that far away, if ransom is what you're looking at. but i meant examining class relations in the Iliad by only reading Ransom in depth, without a deep study of the Iliad itself. It's a different text, with hundreds of years of literary baggage more than the Iliad versions in greek or translations closer in time to the context of composition.

Yeah, it's closer to the Iliad than say Dragonball is to Journey to the West, which is why i chose it as an example. It's an interesting but difficult question when you start looking at reception and criticism as part of the 'afterlife' (nachleben?) of a text.  But there's still room within Arts to just study the text in context isn't there?

Whoops, my bad.  No, I completely agree then, but that's also something most Lit scholars would probably find rather absurd (or at least I would, and I'm pretty far out there). 

And yeah, there's definitely room within Arts to just study the text in context.  The thing is though, things like psychoanalytic analyses of Hamlet ARE pretty well contained within the context of the original text, as are feminist readings (hell, the feminist readings of things are applicable to pretty much ANYTHING, by sheer virtue of some form of patriarchy existing in pretty much every written narrative).  For that reason, most university literature classes utilise a lot of theoretical positions, but for the most part they're actually reasonably relevant.

[VivaTequila]

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!)

Yeah the unreasonable detesting of the literary lifeblood was just to make the message clear that I want to really avert essentially everything that has to do with an Art's degree and just be highly selective. Verbosity got me a 48 in English, despite all my mentors arguments that my language was too convoluted.

But that's the thing, I want to learn to write flawlessly like you and EZ do. I'm halfway there by VCE standards and I just want to continue that without delving into the historical/theological elements (and all that jazz) which work in tandem with beautiful English expression to create an Arts degree.

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'sanyone'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.

Firstly this this is exactly what I'm wanting to avoid - analysing texts in ways which I think are pointless and don't achieve anything. Analysing texts in general just isn't appealing to me. I don't like history, to put it simply, and it's never taken my fancy. Except for maybe a bit of mild interest in 20th century and postmodernism, but even then it's never been more than a few hours trawling through wikipedia articles that are largely inaccessible to me anyway having not studied anything surrounding it.

And to the second comment, that's very true. I don't necessarily agree with everything I wrote in the OP, but I definitely find such study tedious and boring and at times I'm sceptical of whether an authors intended everything in this way and that. Actually, scratch that - make that all the time. I just don't like analysing texts; and when I couple that with an ignorance of Historical, Romantic, Gothic, and other facets of Arts subjects tend to weasel their way into the mix, the text drowns in farce.... It's all a bit airy and chimerical, and essentially if you repeated 90% of it to someone who wasn't doing an Art's degree, they'd gawp at you and ask why you're bothering to waste your time talking complete shit. But then again, that can be said for a lot of things. I just happen to belong to the other demographic who doesn't see any value in it, and I guess that just means I'm unlucky.

Random NB: the thing that killed lit for me and made my mind up that it was just blowing a simple story with some simple morals way out of proportion was when our teacher shoved the 'Sublime' down our throats as we were reading Frankenstein. this is not some powerful deity that strikes fear into the hearts of man - whoever decided that was a crazy old crackpot, and shame on him for it manifested into the banality of my VCE lit classes, when I realised that lit wasn't for me.

Why not take another language?

I am, read the OP

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...

 

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.

Mmmm on that, Viva, you should probably look more into how DipLangs work. I'm pretty sure that if you're going to do any language, Russian or otherwise, you need to cross-credit your two breadth subjects first year (even if you intend to accelerate) so you wont have any non-language breadths anyway.

Oh fck me, I will look into that. I was initially planning to cross credit my first two years of russian and then cheat my way into a Diploma of Languages at the start of third year getting cross credited for the whole 50 points initially, but then people reccomended me to continue on with my English studies. If you're right, then that sucks ass for me. I'll find out tomorrow. Thanks for the heads up, man.

[taiga]

You sound like me. Calling bullshit on all text analysis, yet did well in VCE English.

I'd probably suggest you don't go and pursue whatever it is you think VCE English will help you in via the arts faculty.

When it comes down to it. these are the two subjects you are looking for, and they're not from the arts :
-Marketing
-Management

If you wan't to do something from the arts faculty, do a language as Nina said, it'll help you.

[ninwa]

I know you're already planning on taking a language, hence I said *another* language

My attitude towards artsy subjects is similar to yours - that's why I dropped my originally planned international studies minor after doing two units and replaced it with double majors in German and French.

I can guarantee that apart from creative writing as Russ suggested and languages, there is nothing else in the arts faculty for you.

[paulsterio]

What's creative writing like? (For people who have done it)

[Eriny]

OP - I don't think it is a good idea to do arts subjects with the attitude that it is all bullshit. It will only lead to heartache all around. It is a pity because such subjects would develop your writing skills, if only you could find them interesting.

[Mech]

Yeah the unreasonable detesting of the literary lifeblood was just to make the message clear that I want to really avert essentially everything that has to do with an Art's degree and just be highly selective. Verbosity got me a 48 in English, despite all my mentors arguments that my language was too convoluted.

But that's the thing, I want to learn to write flawlessly like you and EZ do. I'm halfway there by VCE standards and I just want to continue that without delving into the historical/theological elements (and all that jazz) which work in tandem with beautiful English expression to create an Arts degree.

Well, if you want to be highly selective, look carefully at the philosophy subjects offered at UoM and see if you can find a few that are not as texted focused as most. If not, I would really suggest trying some creative writing because you seem to have knack for such. Although, as I added before, you may need to check that you do not need a large bank of history or have to read a lot of texts for the purpose of analysing style (as that is not what you want). And I know what it feels like to be told your writing is too verbose and convoluted; my teachers did the same when I was in Year 11, and I kind of took control of the reigns in Year 12. I am still very self-indulgent and verbose with my writing (I wish I could find a quotation from Stephen Fry about his love of language and being self-indulgent with it), but I keep in mind clarity nowadays - I can write very simply when necessary. Also, I am far from flawless in my writing! I am flattered you think so. I am myself very fond of EZ's writing from what I have seen. Do not stop having a passion for words - and new words -, but realise academically at university it is different to high school. VCE English is not a good indicator, methinks. You did very well and should be commended, but keep in mind you are competing with kids who are generally not as enthused by language as yourself - they just want to get their quotations, segues and points across and not dance around (some people love to dance with language, which I completely understand). Unfortunately, not many people in university appear to like dancing either. 

OP - I don't think it is a good idea to do arts subjects with the attitude that it is all bullshit. It will only lead to heartache all around. It is a pity because such subjects would develop your writing skills, if only you could find them interesting.

This.

[EvangelionZeta]

OP - I don't think it is a good idea to do arts subjects with the attitude that it is all bullshit. It will only lead to heartache all around. It is a pity because such subjects would develop your writing skills, if only you could find them interesting.

This.

Third'd.

I don't blame people for finding Arts subjects totally frustrating and pointless - I can empathise with the antithesis, in that I find most science subjects (except some areas of maths) boring and irrelevant to what I desire in life.  I guess the moral is just always keep an open mind.

Also, I'm really sorry to keep nitpicking, but:

Random NB: the thing that killed lit for me and made my mind up that it was just blowing a simple story with some simple morals way out of proportion was when our teacher shoved the 'Sublime' down our throats as we were reading Frankenstein.  this is not some powerful deity that strikes fear into the hearts of man - whoever decided that was a crazy old crackpot, and shame on him for it manifested into the banality of my VCE lit classes, when I realised that lit wasn't for me.

Consider that Mary Shelley was married to Percy Shelley and was friends with Lord Byron (and also Keats, I believe?); these people were all amongst the most idealistic writers/poets of the era, and all were fascinated by the depth of human emotion, and by extension, the sublime.   Also, given that the context of Shelley's writing was Romanticism, a direct reaction to the scientific rationalism of the enlightenment, it makes sense that Shelley is using a story about scientific destruction as a parable for how technological innovation is the new god (I mean the freaking subtitle of the work is "The Modern Prometheus"!).  I know this all refers back to history (which you admitted to detesting), but really, it's not that much of a stretch to believe from all this that Mary Shelley really did mean half of the stuff that is taught in literature classrooms today.  Also consider the potency of Shelley's description and imagery; from a Romantic period writer, it's poetry in full force, and not just a simple story.

Again, just take a step back, and keep an open mind before you make too many strong claims about areas which you detest.  Arts academics probably live on a different planet from you (and a lot of the general population), but they're smart; they've had to rationalise and justify what they're talking about.  It's probably more a shame that some high school literature teachers can't fully express the depth of their discipline - just the way that so many science teachers don't really engage with what science is really about.

[Russ]

Really? I remember my biochemistry family friend telling me his applications had to be very succinct and bland; maybe it depends on the university or body you are applying to? I know that UoM does a lot about training researches to speak to the lay community, which I assume most corporate people are about specifics of some things.

I could be wrong, but this is based on what my family friend has told me. 

Unnecessary bullshit is one thing, but a well written and articulate etc. grant request is always going to be more favourable than a very simplistic one.

And the PhD in 3 minute speeches aren't about grants, they're about teaching scientists to not confuse the lay community