Module review for EN1101E/GEK1000: Introduction to Literary Studies

Taken AY2014/2015 Semester 1


EN1101E/GEK1000: Introduction to Literary Studies

I felt that this module could have been done much better. As someone who loves Lit, I felt that this module really emphasised a lot on the more technical aspects during the lectures, which took away the joy of Lit. Of course, I understand the necessity of understanding literary technique, and I’m all for the terminology, but I think the way that it was taught was rather dry and unfocused for the most part. I suppose it has something to do with the fact that I wasn’t used to the idea of spending only 2 weeks on each Lit text, and focusing so much on poetry for the first five weeks or so. For a person who enjoys novels and plays much more than poetry, this came as a discomfort and a disappointment. My familiarity of the texts were also lacking, and I only read most of them (A Raisin in the Sun and Northanger Abbey) twice, Volpone once and Breakfast at Tiffany’s thrice (if only because I did my assignment on this book).

I think the saving grace of the module were the books – I grew to love Breakfast at Tiffany’s over time, even though I disliked it during my first reading. As for A Raisin in the Sun and Northanger Abbey, I have absolutely no objections regarding them; they are pleasant reads. Northanger is a bit long though, and I read it quite slowly because I was unaccustomed to Austen’s way of writing. I have never been a fan of Austen, but Northanger was alright and I didn’t mind it much. Volpone, however, was another story altogether. I really hated reading it, because it was written in Shakespearean style (more or less, I’m not very specific about the timeline), but the language had much less grace and elegance, and was crude when it was intended to be funny. I had difficulty understanding what was going on, and what’s worse, wasn’t very motivated to understand either. As with all books, though, everyone will definitely have their own opinions regarding a text, and each person responds to a text differently, and forms different kinds of attachments. I know someone who found Volpone rather humorous, and while I failed to see the humour, I trust her ability and taste, so each to their own.

Assessment: There is a midterm test (20%), an essay assignment (25%), tutorial participation (15%) and finals (40%). My tutor was very strict in her marking, and decimated the whole class; I did slightly above average, but not particularly outstandingly well or anything like that. The midterm test is on poetry, and I think that it would be good practice to use more poetic devices in your analysis, because that was the comment across the board given to us – that we used too little of them. (Unfortunately, having used a few, I’m not sure how much more I could have found in the poem to be analysed.) Finals is based on four sections, and you have to do three – that leaves you with only 40 min for each section, which is really terrible if you had to change your question at the last minute, like I did. There is “no repeat of material” allowed, and so you must choose your questions carefully. While it is not a must for you to study all four texts in great detail, perhaps it would be wise to at least scan through the fourth book. I didn’t do Volpone (gee, what a surprise) and I managed to escape doing it during the finals itself.

Workload: The workload is generally light. Apart from reading the texts over and over again, and reading through the lecture notes and the occasional reading, I would say that the workload is really much more comfortable than any of the other modules. However, I would caution against the mindset that taking A Level Lit is a straight guarantee for an A, because I don’t think that’s true. The cohort is generally quite good, being made up of A Level Lit students, and it may be difficult to stand out among all the good students. Still, I would definitely take this mod again, if only for the fact that I did enjoy three out of the four texts, even if it was mostly self-study.

Source