First Impressions
Well, it's taken me all week to get over my fear of technology and actually submit a blog. I'm definitely stepping out of my comfort zone for this assignment...
But all that aside, what do I think of Anderson's book? My first impression has been one of confusion. I'm having a hard time understanding what it all has do to with the books we will be reading this term. I've been trying to set aside my own religious views in order to understand where Anderson is coming from, but it's been hard. My Christian faith seems to be a much different kind of faith than Anderson's, and yet there are some similarities too.
I do highly appreciate reading about a professor who is honest about his experiences as a Christian in a state university. But despite my admiration of his integration of faith and the university, I still am having a difficult time connecting this to the texts we will be reading this term. I am hoping that things will become more clear as we dive into those texts.
It seems like Anderson's argument takes many levels, but one things that stood out to me is that he seems to value emotional response to literature very highly (maybe even more than a "logical" response or approach). When he writes about his experiences at a state university he describes his emotional and spiritual experiences in reading the BIble and the literature he teaches. While on one level, I admire his approach to work and to literature, on another level it makes me uncomfortable. Emotional experiences are personal and individual, and don't need to be taught necessarily. But reading a text in light of historical context and literary criticism is so worthwhile and informative - I think that valuable emotional response to literature stems from an intelluctual and factual base of study.
Of course, I think that we always have trouble with new ideas and methods. We are often obstinate people, unwilling to be open to new ideas and methods. And so I'll stay open to this class, which is so foreign to me in its structure.
One of my vices is that I tend to stay focused on things I disagree with, rather than also affirming and admitting the things that I do agree with. I will try not to be too negative in this blog. I will make an effort to explain aspects of this course and these texts that I enjoy. But first, I must explain one of the things that I found confusing and perhaps even contradictory in the argument of Anderson's book:
Early on in the book Anderson explains that he values his faith because he can take it off (26). He says that there IS a line in the university - a point after which he cannot and may not share all of his Christian thoughts and experiences. As the book continues, though, I get the impression that he is not taking his faith off at all. And by the end of the book it seems that his argument is that he crosses the Line all the time in his work, and that's okay. Honestly, I agree with him - I think that if something is really important to us, then it should be evident in everything that we do. My question is then: Doesn't value in our faith come from NOT being able to take it off?
So those are my first impressions. In many ways I am disappointed with Anderson's approach to teaching these texts. I thrive on a more structured and contextual approach to literature. But on the other hand I am excited, and I am willing to bet that I may change many of my views by the end of the term.
But all that aside, what do I think of Anderson's book? My first impression has been one of confusion. I'm having a hard time understanding what it all has do to with the books we will be reading this term. I've been trying to set aside my own religious views in order to understand where Anderson is coming from, but it's been hard. My Christian faith seems to be a much different kind of faith than Anderson's, and yet there are some similarities too.
I do highly appreciate reading about a professor who is honest about his experiences as a Christian in a state university. But despite my admiration of his integration of faith and the university, I still am having a difficult time connecting this to the texts we will be reading this term. I am hoping that things will become more clear as we dive into those texts.
It seems like Anderson's argument takes many levels, but one things that stood out to me is that he seems to value emotional response to literature very highly (maybe even more than a "logical" response or approach). When he writes about his experiences at a state university he describes his emotional and spiritual experiences in reading the BIble and the literature he teaches. While on one level, I admire his approach to work and to literature, on another level it makes me uncomfortable. Emotional experiences are personal and individual, and don't need to be taught necessarily. But reading a text in light of historical context and literary criticism is so worthwhile and informative - I think that valuable emotional response to literature stems from an intelluctual and factual base of study.
Of course, I think that we always have trouble with new ideas and methods. We are often obstinate people, unwilling to be open to new ideas and methods. And so I'll stay open to this class, which is so foreign to me in its structure.
One of my vices is that I tend to stay focused on things I disagree with, rather than also affirming and admitting the things that I do agree with. I will try not to be too negative in this blog. I will make an effort to explain aspects of this course and these texts that I enjoy. But first, I must explain one of the things that I found confusing and perhaps even contradictory in the argument of Anderson's book:
Early on in the book Anderson explains that he values his faith because he can take it off (26). He says that there IS a line in the university - a point after which he cannot and may not share all of his Christian thoughts and experiences. As the book continues, though, I get the impression that he is not taking his faith off at all. And by the end of the book it seems that his argument is that he crosses the Line all the time in his work, and that's okay. Honestly, I agree with him - I think that if something is really important to us, then it should be evident in everything that we do. My question is then: Doesn't value in our faith come from NOT being able to take it off?
So those are my first impressions. In many ways I am disappointed with Anderson's approach to teaching these texts. I thrive on a more structured and contextual approach to literature. But on the other hand I am excited, and I am willing to bet that I may change many of my views by the end of the term.
posted by Christine at 10:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home