Thursday, October 06, 2005

Class Participation

I went to meet with my professor a few days ago. He teaches this class I'm taking about Faulkner, which is a good class and all. Anyway, we talked about a few things in our little meeting. The two main things we discussed were class participation and graduate studies. During the discussion of the former, he kept saying how I must understand the need for class participation as an education major, and we were talking about how awkward it is when nobody volunteers and silence ensues. And then, while talking about the difference in requirements for undergraduate and graduate students, he kept saying how I should really take this opportunity to delve into the issues that really interest me in Faulkner's works and to create a comprehensive work on some key issue. While the idea of this makes me want to barf/die, I obviously act like this is the greatest opportunity EVER and we talk about how I am really excited about reading and discovering and analyzing Faulkner. It's a complete shit show for about fifteen minutes, I'm sorry to say.

Anyhow, the next day, we're in class, and we're discussing this horrific novel of Faulkner's, called Sanctuary. The lead character basically ends up getting kidnapped, molested, and everyone around her turns out to be horrible. Everyone is basically terrible to each other. It's bad. So the professor starts asking for people's opinions on the book, and a few people give some responses like, "Temple is a frustrating character because she has the power to run away, but does not, thus in a way choosing her fate, however horrible," and "Faulkner's need to tell such a story is disturbing, but it echoes themes that were starting to come to light in other works" and "This reminds me of Proust [plus a lot of other stuff I didn't understand]." So the conversation goes for a few minutes, and then it dies.

The professor asks, "Who else has an opinion on the novel?" And he gets silence.

So then I have the old "Should I say something to break this awkward silence?" debate in my head. I try to decide about that while simultaneously thinking of something decent slash brilliant to offer. He looks at me for a split second, and I feel my hand go up. He calls on me.

"Umm, you know that movie that just came out? The Aristocrats?"

(Most of the class nods - including the professor.)

"Well, anyway, for those of you who, umm, didn't, it's basically these comedians telling this horrible joke 100 times, where the point is to make it as gross and horrific and disgusting and degrading as humanly possible. "

(Pause.)

"So I pretty much think that this is a 300 page version of the joke."

(Well, the silence is still there.)

"Like, an unfunny version, obviously."

"Interesting," said the professor.

(Yup, still pretty much silent.)

"So, I mean, the point of the movie is the competition between comedians... and I feel like Faulkner blew them out of the water, about seventy years ago, even. I mean, it doesn't make the novel funny, but it's what I was thinking as I read it."

"Interesting," he said again. "Anyone else have any other thoughts?"

Yeah, not much he can do with that. I mean, what, can you ask whether the story is most similar to which comedian's version of the joke? Talk about who's better at grossing people out, Bob Saget, George Carlin, or William Faulkner? Or, is it a better use of class time to talk about why Faulkner chooses to explore such degrading topics as a way to portray human beings and their relationships? Tough one.

For the record, I'm one of two graduate students in the class. The other student was the one who referred to Proust in her response.