The Ark and The Dove

"Among Other Things"

Drudge has linked to an article about the Vatican hosting a conference on astrobiology--the somewhat speculative field of science concerned with the possibility of extraterrestial life and, perhaps more significantly, the possibility that life arose on Earth as a result of being "seeded" by space rock. In the course of the AP article, a reference is made to Giordano Bruno who "was burned at the stake as a heretic in 1600 for speculating, among other ideas, that other worlds could be inhabited."

According to Wikipedia (I know, I know...but it's late at night, and I have homework to do...) the "other things" he was accused of include:

• Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic Faith and speaking against it and its ministers.
• Holding erroneous opinions about the Trinity, about Christ's divinity and Incarnation.
• Holding erroneous opinions about Christ.
• Holding erroneous opinions about Transubstantiation and Mass.
• Believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes.
• Dealing in magics and divination.
• Denying the Virginity of Mary.

Just sayin'.

Teaching Shakespeare as a Foreign Language

Isabel and I are always tossing justification for our profession back and forth.
These kinds of conversations obviously pick up around this time of year -- job hunting season.
Why are we doing what we are doing? What's the point? Is it worth it?

From a practical standpoint, these questions take a secondary importance to me since my more immediate vocation (as I see it) is to provide for my wife and future kids. Ideology aside, I'm willing to teach this stuff so long as the pay is good. One must eat.

Still, one must question the means by which one eats. If I were to conclude someday that there was something sinister afoot in my profession, I would have a moral responsibility to subvert or leave it.
I don't think we're quite there yet.

Typically, people justify teaching English with arguments such as

it teaches critical thinking skills useful for the workplace

it makes people better writers in the workplace
it makes people better able to express themselves
it makes people better citizens by showing them points of view different from their own (usually the point of view of the disenfranchised lower classes)
it "humanizes" students (whatever that means anymore)
it makes like more livable

These are all well and good, but I can't confess that any of them seem sufficient reasons to pursue a career in this field...and none of them seem valid reasons to encourage a student to major in the stuff.

But watching my students struggle so painfully with merely comprehending the centuries-old forms of English that we read makes me think that there is perhaps another reason worth pursuing this field.

One of Chesterton's pithy sayings considers how the truly democratic mind considers not only the opinions of those alive but those dead as well, that the wisdom of those gone before us ought to be consulted alongside the opinions of today. I'm not suggesting that we read literature as part of this trans-temporal democracy, although that certainly seems one way to do it.

Rather, what I'm attracted to is the idea that I'm teaching students how to comprehend and understand a foreign, alien, different cultural artifact.

To what end?

Many who lived and wrote in the Renaissance would argue that the purpose of the exercise should be, ultimately, to learn virture -- to perfect nature through art -- to be led by entertainment towards a nobility of soul.

I find that last part to be tricky in this modern, secular age. I don't know that I trust myself, or my colleagues, to shape students' morality.

In which case, it seems as though my job points towards teaching students how to read literature in order that they might enjoy literature. It's really the job of the literature to nudge them one way or the other morally. You can't enjoy it, if you can't understand it...which leaves me in the awkward position of the man who is constantly trying to make people laugh not by telling jokes but by explaining them.

But Will it be a Movie Worth Protesting?

Ain't It Cool News...a cool geek culture website whose grammatical syntax I often find very difficult to parse...has a blog post on The Vatican Tapes.

It looks like this is supposed to be some kind of Blair Witch Project meets Paranormal Activity meets Dan Brown. The premise seems to be that the film pretends to be leaked footage of a botched exorcism (because, you know, exorcists video tape these things all the time so they can watch highlight reels later).

More Thoughts on Potter

Anti-Semitism rampant at Hogwarts:
I don't want to classify this as anti-semitism on Rowling's part, because it might just be the perception of her characters. Nevertheless, some anti-semitic character descriptions still seem to bubble up. In particular, this seems to be the case with Prof. Snape. Harry is convinced that Snape is a conniving, ambitious villain. Rowling describes him as "hook-nosed." He is seen as essentially engaging in nepotism regarding Slitherin House, and accused of trying to poison other professors. The latter is, I am sure, going to be debunked in the story, but the fact of the matter is that the kids see this guy and cast him as the typical medieval stage-Jew.

Anti-Catholicism at Hogwarts?:
On page 101 of Azkaban, a knight in a painting wanders off into another painting containing an image of "some sinister-looking monks." Now, she doesn't identify what kinds of monks these are. They could be pagan Druidic monks or Tibetan monks. However, one would think she would specify either of these two categories since they are probably not what the average person thinks of when they imagine a monk. At the very least, I think it's safe to say that Catholic readers are going to see the word monk, and imagine a Franciscan or Dominican...and be very put off with the description of them being sinister. I was.

Genetic Superiority:
On page 103, Prof. Trelawney asserts that only those with the Sight will be able to succeed in her class. The others will simply not be able to do it at all. Again, I'm completely sympathetic to the view that some people are naturally more talented and gifted than others...but I'd like to know from where Rowling thinks "the Sight" originates in her fantasy world.
That being said, this issue actually brings up the first interesting conflict in the novel so far. Hermione and another professor have been dismissing the Divination class as hogwash. This suggests that, finally, there is some place for rational skepticism in this world. Unfortunately, it becomes clear very quickly that Hermione's skepticism is derived from an immature jealousy, since she seems to lack "the Sight" and therefore will not be able to succeed in this class as she has in all her others. This renders skepticism a somewhat bogus ideological standpoint, although I suspect Rowling will redeem her text by falling somewhere in the middle. My suspicion is that Trelawney's premonition about Harry Potter is essentially accurate but that she has misinterpreted the signs. Thus, while skepticism of "the Sight" is unwarranted, one must still be skeptical of the interpretation of signs. This dismantles skepticism as a scientific tool, but preserves skepticism as deployed in the humanities. I predict (so to speak) that psychic phenomena occurs is not to be questioned in the novel but that the meaning of psychic visions is still subject to deconstruction.

Three other quick points:
1) Is Lycanthropy a stand-in for AIDS? (And, for that matter, is Lupin a werewolf because his name means "wolf," or is his name Lupin because he is a werewolf? And if you were a werewolf and didn't want anyone to know about your disease, and your name was Lupin, wouldn't you change your name? Or at least ask everyone to call you by a nickname? Or am I assuming too much...My guess is that the potions Snape is giving him to drink are supposed to suppress his AIDS...er...lycanthropy. And when Snape fills in for Lupin and teaches the course on protection against werewolves, is this some kind of AIDS prevention lecture?)

2) Do kids see this book as a commentary on school violence? The Dementors at every door become like surveillance cameras or metal-detectors. When the Fat Lady painting is attacked, Hogwarts essentially goes on lockdown. I wonder if this book was influenced by recent attacks on schools...

3) I want to start modelling my pedagogy after Snape's. I should start dividing my classes into houses and give them "points."