Rob Tomei:

1. Rob Tomei: A week or so ago I asked Dr. Strickland to tell us what our departments ranking was in comparison to all of the other English Departments across the land. Throughout my experience in this department I firmly expected to here a fairly decent number, at least in the top 50. I was astounded to here his answer, "Somewhere in the 90's" he said. In her section entitled "The Historical, Sociological, and Political Turns" starting on page 45 Klein discusses expectations and acceptability in academia pertaining to blending of multi-cultural societal rules and norms. The part that I found particularly interesting was when she began discussing new developments and its critics saying that it is too far "grounded in ideology". The counter-argument to this of course was that the "traditional claims of disinterestedness carried unacknowledged ideologies" (Klein 47). In other words, sticking to tradition has its roots in certain ideologies of what literature should be perceived as, taught as and understood as. Switching this tradition to more contemporary moods of thought, such as what our English Department has done so successfully, rooted in the ideologies of literature and theory should not be chastised. So many instances in our society we are trained to fault those who are different blaming them for falling short when they have done nothing but set a higher standard. I believe if I had gone through a "traditional" English department in accordance to what is expected to stand high among the prestigious universities of this nation in rankings I would have missed out on so much. I am grateful to be apart of such a pioneering department. I only wish we would receive the appreciation and acclamation we so deeply deserve.

2. Literature’s Extra-literariness: John Laker One passage that stood out to me in the Klein text reads "R. S. Crane of the Chicago Critics warned against treating literature as psychology, history, sociology, ethics, or autobiography" (84-5). It's hard to imagine what's left of literature without those subjects. I'm still a neophyte when it comes to theory, but perhaps opening the those channels to the study of literature contradicts the New Criticist view of the text as self-evidently great. One of the main reasons why I decided to pursue English Studies as a major is because of its blending of disciplines. When reading a text, it is important to understand its historical context. The importance of Dickens' writing is realized with an understanding of the Industrial Revolution, for example. Psychology crops up in literature when understanding the character's motives, like Raskolnikov's justification in axing the old pawn broker lady to death. Even if a particular text utilizes "bad" psychology, arguing why it's flawed is still connecting psychology with literature. Without psychology, history, sociology, or ethics involved in literature, it ceases to be literature at all, but rather a collection of events and thoughts that are restricted from referencing aspects of human life.