Journal #5

In the dicussion of being "fully educated", one controverisial issue has been the coverage model suggests that sudents, need to demonstrate familiraity with the whole spectrum of literature, from the major periods to the three genres to certain influential authors. On the one hand, Bates argues that "inliterature, you confine your area, to begin with, to one author, a group of authors, or one aspect or genre of a period of a half a century. And you ask only certain kinds of questions-those you have been hearing baout or those most capable of systematization, leaving aside the larger difficlties and uncertanties of the subject"(201). Which means that specialists in certain areas, periods, or genre practivce their discipline differently from other specialists, even though it is all considered literary studies. Every specialist puts their own twist on the material. On the other hand, Easton contends that ' as of the late twentieth century, there is little place for the generalist" (23). Which means that one cannot just know the fine points of the subject, they need the basics and more to rise to the occasion and stand out in a debate, or competion. My own view is that students do need to demonstrate familiraity with the major periods and influential authors, but their is no need to be in basic composition learning to write prose like Shakespere when you don't even understand the dialect of that time period. One should be taught the technqiues and the signifigance of Shakespeare's work, but not scrutinized because they themselves cannot produce such poetry. Instead, we then have the literary world divided into sub-fields like Shakespearean Culture and you can major in that and wear tights all day.

This is an issue that Bate and Easton care about, because we need to know the basics, the foundations of literaturem before we can expand and truely produce our own creative and intellectual ideas. Students not knowing enough about liturature to be able to hold their own conversation in various fields.