Getting Heated over Holquist

As an undergraduate at UCR, I never really caught on to the distinction between “English” and “Comparative Literature”. The first time I sought out Professor Cohen for an advising appointment regarding a final paper on Melville, I spent the majority of the appointment pacing the English department’s hallways; until I finally figured out that he was in fact part of this other department – comp. lit., which was in a completely separate building. Until I read Holquist’s essay defining Comparative Literature, I assumed that Dr. Cohen had taken his metaphor for English majors (something to the effect of hiding in a basement) to a more literal level by isolating himself from the rest of his colleagues. Of course, now I know that Professor Cohen is part of the Comparative Literature department, which explains why he is so obsessed with chaos theory, as well as a favorite professor of mine.
As I’ve mentioned in previous blogs, I’ve never been a fan of structure within the arts, and the fact that Holquist begins his essay by defining the ambiguity of Comparative Literature within a contradictory set of rules once again demonstrates our compulsive need to bring order to chaos. Holquist’s dwells on the “identity problem” within Comparative Literature as if it were some infectious growth expectorating itself, and the only way to save the structure of English is to cut Comp. lit. off and form its own separate department. It makes English seem so insular. Sometimes I feel that scholars’ effort to structure literature is to achieve scientific validation within the humanities - that everything that encompasses the beauty of being human must be whittled down to a definitive term.

The word “canon” keeps coming up in not just Holquist’s essay, but throughout the writings in ISMLL; “Western canon,” “fresh canon,” “literary canon,” “fiction canon” – all sorts of cannons. Oddly enough, I took the time to look up the word in the OED. Although I am not inclined to type out all seventeen definitions, I will list the first three:

1. a. A rule, law, or decree of the Church; esp. a rule laid down by an ecclesiastical Council. the canon (collectively) = canon law: see b
b. canon law (formerly law canon: cf. F. droit canon): ecclesiastical law, as laid down in decrees of the pope and statutes of councils.

2. gen. a. A law, rule, edict (other than ecclesiastical). b. A general rule, fundamental principle, aphorism, or axiom governing the systematic or scientific treatment of a subject; e.g. canons of descent or inheritance; a logical, grammatical, or metrical canon; canons of criticism, taste, art, etc.
c. A standard of judgement or authority; a test, criterion, means of discrimination.

3. Math. A general rule, formula, table; esp. a table of sines, tangents, etc. Obs.

Although I was hoping to find a prehistoric spelling of the contemporary gun or fire-arm, I suppose “decree of the Church” will make an adequate comparison. (pun intended)

I don’t mean to sound cruel towards this separatist movement between English and Comparative Literature. But with all the ambiguity that embodies Comparative Literature, I believe it’s safe for me to say that I still don’t know what to do with my B.A. in English.