Your comment is a good illustration of why people are abandoning the humanities. Universities have become utterly politicized. If I enrol in English Lit, that's what I want to learn about - not gender theory, or the class struggle.

Out of curiosity, what do you think people who write in the English language write about? Even if you plan on specializing in children's literature, you'll have a survey of all broad trends somewhere in your college courses.

This is a good example of why we must not abandon the humanities.

It is, in fact, an illustration of Adams' point: that in times of great conflict and injustice, the finer things in life must be put aside to help fight to ensure liberty and justice for all.

As long as people are oppressed because of their social class, gender expression, or any other innate aspect of their identity, it is our duty to, at the very least, try to understand that oppression, and stand up against it where we have the opportunity to do so.

Those who turn a blind eye to it because it's oppression of people they don't think deserve consideration are complicit in that oppression.

I’m sorry. Are you under the impression that literature has been apolitical until fairly recently?

Charles Dickens, a foundational pillar of of English Literature, was writing ceaselessly about class struggle a well over century ago.

Hamlet deals with class struggle.

Jack and the fucking Beanstalk is, along with the vast majority of fables derived from oral history, about class struggle as are vast swaths of the Bible.

The round table of King Arthur's court? Literally all of Robin Hood?

Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? To Kill a Mockingbird?

Someone is politicizing English literature and it ain't university professors.

I don't think you are properly understanding the critique here.

From personal experience I can tell you that English Lit in universities is mostly "deconstructing X" or "Marxist criticism of Y". It's all interpretation in light of contemporary political norms - and of a very narrow range of contemporary political thought at that.

The idea of letting the stories reflect the realities of their times, or speak into our own, is just anathema. Heck, most of those authors have been "canceled" for wrong-think of some form or another (or just for being dead white men).

>It's all interpretation in light of contemporary political norms - and of a very narrow range of contemporary political thought at that.

Unless you are in possession of a time machine, that is the only practical form of interpretation for an undergraduate English literature student.

I did not fear the satanic panic of the 80s, I do not fear the marxist panic of today. I note that the panics seem to emanate from the same kind of person, separated by time.

Also, neither feminists nor transgender folk scare me so discussing them in an academic setting is not likely to warp my delicate little brain.

> Unless you are in possession of a time machine, that is the only practical form of interpretation for an undergraduate English literature student.

That's bullshit. We are influenced by our present politics, but it is perfectly possible to learn to see the world from the perspective of others, including our ancestors.

> I did not fear the satanic panic of the 80s, I do not fear the marxist panic of today. I note that the panics seem to emanate from the same kind of person, separated by time.

Mostly I found the Marxist stuff boring as hell, not to mention riddled with contradictions and intentionally obscure prose.

> Also, neither feminists nor transgender folk scare me so discussing them in an academic setting is not likely to warp my delicate little brain.

What a non-sequitor. You can have discussion about such people without declaring the greats of English literature to be persona non grata.

I'm also not sure why you talk about how "not afraid" you are. It's as if you are implying I somehow am, which would be a gross misreading of the situation.

I have no problem with learning to analyse from that perspective, but if it's the only lens being taught then that's an issue.

Why not learn how CS Lewis would have discussed his favourite works? Why avoid talking about Randian ideas except to criticise them? At this point, it's not education, it's indoctrination.

>Why avoid talking about Randian ideas except to criticise them?

Oh. You're a cultist. Nevermind. Rand is as relevant as Time Cube.

Rand (along with Rose Lane Wilder, and others) was a seminal figure in the development of contemporary libertarian thought.

She's no more of a cult figure than Marx, and yet he is taught uncritically. The contradiction is not lost on the rest of us.

EDIT: also, no one who speaks positively of Rand and Lewis in the same sentence is a Randian cultist, for reasons that I hope are obvious.

"Libertarian thought" is an oxymoron. Please go hawk your NFTs somewhere else.

Timecube makes more literal and actual sense with a firmer foundation of truth beneath it than every libertarian philosopher combined.

Find a new hobby, I beg of you: https://timecube.2enp.com

> "Libertarian thought" is an oxymoron

What a juvenile response. Are we in middle-school now?

> Please go hawk your NFTs somewhere else.

It's clear from comments like this that you aren't actually arguing with me, but with some caricature you have in your mind. When you are ready to actually talk with a real human being that disagrees with you, let me know.

> Also, neither feminists nor transgender folk scare me so discussing them in an academic setting

They scare me in a professional setting.

Many an unsuspecting individual was brought down by mere accusations of misbehavior towards those groups, context and evidence be damned.

It appears that you've taken an ideological stance, and interpreted all of human activity through the lens of your ideology. Hamlet et al are about a lot of things, but most of all, they're about the vast richness of human experience, how to read it, how to respond to it, how to navigate it.

To say that these things are about class struggle is to apply an impoverished, univariate analysis to a complex system; that approach is bound to end in error. And, having read broadly the literature in this field (primary and secondary), I can tell you that the errors are legion.

Don't try the "everything is read through an ideological lens" move, either. That's part of your ideological lens, it's not intrinsic to the system.

When the parent complains of politicization, they might mean that interpreting every stimulus through the lens of some perceived grievance (Marxism, Feminism, etc.) is very much a recent phenomenon, unproductive, divisive, extremely selective about facts, counter to the public good, immature and generally unwelcome.

You're welcome to complain, in private, but if you've read the texts that you complain about you should understand that society moves forward when people set aside their preciousness, show up and do the hard work--the sacrificial work of trying to make things better for anyone, not just their pets--not by tilting at windmills.

Be better.

How do you define "uselessness?"

What's the purpose of life if not striving for joy? When the dust of war has cleared and the labor of humans has been made obsolete, shouldn't we be free to do the things that we enjoy?