But while I'm proud of the work I've done, it's difficult to get up the enthusiasm to work.
Again, this week, I have heard from fellow grad students and others how they hate Chaucer or hate pre-1800s lit (where my current university makes the distinction; I believe my former uni split it at 1650 or 1700). People tell me they hate what I do -- it's not an honest mistake, they know what I study and what I love. Their comments are not mocking or malicious, but still.
How am I supposed to take them? Do people go to bio majors and say, "Oh, I hate biology"? Maybe.
But it's frustrating to have my own colleagues belittle my work. In so many ways, I am glad I'm moving to history.
3 comments:
I think in English, with the rise of cultural studies, there has been a constant drive for the "new" and it's harder for new scholars to see the "new" in the "old" (myself included). Also, new graduate students, raised in an easy-to-access society, are also more likely to like easy-to-access work, or in the case of weirdos like me, hard-to-access work that was made hard-to-access intentionally.
To summarize: Chaucer = not knew nor intentionally hard to access, so not fun.
It's unfortunate. I do enjoy Chaucer, when I take the time to read him (which has been five years ago and counting).
Yes, I think people approach biology majors and say, "I hate biology." People approach me and say "I hate writing." The question is: do certain biology majors approach other biology majors and state that they hate a certain field of biology? That, I don't know.
I didn't realize you're moving to history. We should talk!
Thanks, Michael; I hadn't quite thought of the situation in those terms. I shouldn't find it so surprising, but it is quite disheartening.
It's not that I'm a huge Chaucer fanatic specifically, I just like old stuff in general. The fourteenth century was a time very similar to our own: never-ending war fought for tenuous reasons, widespread disease/plague, economic uncertainty, conspicuous consumption. Chaucer would feel at home here.
I'm applying for a PhD in history. I've enjoyed my time in English, but. . .it would seem it's not for me. But I look forward to bring what I have learned here to my history work.
In elementary school and high school I much preferred European history to American history - all those kings and queens and castles, very romantic (even when everyone was dying of the plague). American history seemed so dull (colonies, log cabins, mud), no cities. I do like the history of native Americans - anthropology, that's called, right, hmm, why? Maybe the early colonies were not technological enough? My grandfather was a prof of American history but died before I was born. However he did write about the pirates of the Caribbean, which lends a certain cachet I think.
When people say they don't like history, maybe they mean that they don't like learning about it, having to memorize dates? Yet, look how they throng to historical fiction and movies. They go see "300" - The Patriot - Beowulf, anything Arthurian at all is hugely popular, and he's pre Chaucer, right?
Post a Comment