Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Instructor's "Thanks!"

I say a grateful "thanks" to all of you for an exceptional course: I didn't have a bad moment this term and have countless wonderful memories. Most importantly, I understand the fiction much better than I did as a consequence of our congenial dialectic, week-in-week-out.
You each deserve credit for vigourously engaging -- in turns no-holds-barred or with delicate sensibility -- any topic on the representation of and relationship between the sexes that happened to arise (none were off limits) and yet without any of the dogmatism,didacticism, or domineering that (one hears) can happen ... out there!
It was your credit that the spirit of delightful schoalrship is alive and well -- in AD 2005 and here at Simon Fraser University.
I'll return to this post after I've submitted the grades so send your comments here then, when grades are no longer an issue!


sandeep_manhas said...

I would like to thank you for your interesting lectures and the amount of research that you put into the course. It is refreshing to see teachers still try to expand on the material and subject and make it relevant to todays society instead of keeping the same outline, books, notes and lectures year after year. I know that I dont talk to much in class or at all if that but this is just my nature, so I dont want you to take it as though I was not listening. Kudos on the success of the course and I hope to take more courses with you.

Sandeep Manhas

Esther said...

Regardless of a bad grade, so-so grade or great grade, I want to thank you for your generousity in bringing and exposing us to unknown delights. Furthermore, my experience with your enthusiasm in engaging with the text and your non-disparaging teaching style will be something that I will remember and hope to find again in my undergraduate career.

Kristen said...

Thanks to you, too! I think I speak for all the students when I say: You Rock! Your lectures are fab, the amount of thinking and research you do is totally evident, your enthusiasm for the course materials is passed on to the students, and your genuine respect for us lowly undergrads is refreshing and empowering. Thanks for an excellent course!

Maggie said...

Please add my name to the above comments. It was great.
If we think that Chicklit is a new genre, could it be a parasite? Now I know the term "parasite" has negative connotations, but some people love orchids, and they are parasites. So are some exquisite alpine flower, and perhaps other plants I don't know.
For those who enjoyed (Bridge) Bridget Jones' Diary, would you be willing to say it's an orchid?

Howard makes nice said...

I'm putting the finishing touches on my paper right now, i know i'm late, but that's not the point. Thanks for a great class with interesting material and a very very interesting course thesis. The amount of work you put into every lecture was totally evident and it all paid off. I'll never look at what the general population considers light reading the same way again.

maggie said...

I've been wondering whether we could see Bridget Jones' Diary as a tribute to Princess Diane. Could it be saying, "Princess Di, we love you just the way you are, bing and diet eating disorder an all?

maggie said...

I felt that we were focusing on readership--more than on writership--in Engl 369.
If that is correct, and if we were juxtaposing 19th C. Chick/Lad lit. to 20th C. Chick/Lad lit. Walter Ong's observation may throw some light on our endeavours. Talking about reader-response in 'Orality and Literacy' he says: "Readers whose norms and expectancies for normal discourse are governed by a residually oral mindset relate to a text quite differently from readers whose sense of style is radically textual. The nineteenth-century novellists' nervous apostrophes to the 'dear reader'...suggest that the typical reader was felt by the writer to be closer to the old-style listener than most readers commonly are felt to be today" (171).

What would be the significance, if any, of this observation for our enquiry?
The 19th C. reader would be more spontaneous, less analytical than we are to-day? And if so, does this tell us anything about the distinction between Chick and Lad lit to 19th C. readers, to 20th C. readers?