Wednesday, March 03, 2004

Eccentric Professors? I Resemble That Remark!

For the time being, I cannot write the account of the final rape of Neil Sapper at Amarillo College; after May 17, I will be separated from Amarillo College for all time. In the meantime, Thomas Benton has written in praise of eccentric professors. I am one of that breed. For 32 years, I have been out of step with the Amarillo College norm. As Groucho Marx marvelously observed, "I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member." I really am ashamed that I stayed at Amarillo College for 32 years. If this is (fair & balanced) remorse, so be it.



[x Chronicle of Higher Education]
In Praise of Eccentric Professors
With their bizarre behavior and magnificent obsessions, oddball academics are a glue that holds together the culture of an institution
By THOMAS H. BENTON

"Is he dead?" someone shouted. "No," I said, "he lives." And I helped Jeremy, my co-teacher, to his feet. He bowed, only slightly embarrassed. Applause and half-ironic cheers skittered around the large lecture hall.

The electric shock hadn't hurt Jeremy very much, but he had bumped his head on a metal leg of the auditorium seats which he fell into. I had told him to ham it up when I applied the electrode of my violet-ray machine to his outstretched hand, but this was much more than I expected.

I was using the machine in a lecture on Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. (Many of the Romantics thought of themselves as "natural philosophers" and employed such devices to experiment with electricity, which they thought had rejuvenating powers.) I was so flustered by Jeremy's feigned collapse (and twitching) that for another five minutes into my lecture, I forgot to remove my black rubber gloves.

But I'll bet that was one of a handful of lectures those students will remember for a long time; maybe they'll even retain an intuitive appreciation for the complementary relationship of science and literature. And the necessity of multiple perspectives.

Somehow, I think, the experience of teaching large audiences of first- and second-year college students is turning me into one of those professors who used to be called, politely, "eccentric."

And maybe that's not a bad thing.

Small liberal-arts colleges can be incubators for academic eccentrics, who often have a tough time fitting into the cultures of big research universities. Eccentrics are given to undisciplined enthusiasms; their work doesn't always fit into established categories. Their contributions are hard to quantify, and, as a result, their achievements are often unrecognized by everyone except their undergraduates.

Most graduates of doctoral programs are trained to think of themselves as potential university professors. Nevertheless, among those who eventually find jobs, the majority are destined to teach undergraduates, most of whom will never consider graduate school or even read a book published by a university press.

A recent Ph.D. recipient who lands in a teaching-oriented institution is usually ill equipped to reach the average undergraduate. Even to the seasoned faculty members, new assistant professors often sound like refugees from a fanatical cult. For all their frequent claims of "speaking from the margins" and "shaking the paradigms," new doctorates usually seem as identical (and interesting) as a bucket load of ball bearings.

If you want to understand academic eccentricity, the best people to consider are the older, tenured college professors. Fortunately for me, there are a good number of them available locally.

Just down the hall resides our local expert on Dante and the cult of medievalism. She has a penchant for Gothic furniture, mysterious bric-a-brac, and enormous eyeglasses. Her office is piled high with ancient papers, any of which, selected at random, is of great historical significance. Sitting in her office, flecked by the colors of stained glass, students imbibe the lingering culture of monastic scholarship.

Another of my senior colleagues asks his students to produce art works related to literature, and his office is packed with paintings, papier-mâché sculptures, carvings, collages, and mobiles. He curates an unofficial museum of the changing aesthetic and intellectual sensibilities of students he's nurtured for nearly four decades.

Our director of women's studies is a warrior of '70s feminism who dresses in denim, macramé, and beads, radiates universal love, and has persuaded generations of students -- male and female -- toward a vision of gender equality based on shared values instead of antagonism.

Perhaps most eccentric of all, a professor in our math department taught his dog the essentials of calculus. The dog, named Elvis, has become world famous. And the professor's undergraduates can't complain that calculus is too hard for them to learn. It must also prove that there is no one whom he cannot teach.

When I reflect on the teachers who made me want to study literature and history, they were almost all eccentrics.

I remember one undergraduate professor who loved to recite, in a booming voice, the soliloquies of Captain Ahab while swaying back and forth on a creaking, rickety rocking chair: "He tasks me; he heaps me; I see in him outrageous strength, with an inscrutable malice sinewing it. The inscrutable thing is chiefly what I hate; and be the white whale agent, or be the white whale principal, I will wreak that hate upon him."

He said the chair mimicked the rolling of the Pequod's deck, but in my memory it has become a metaphor for the ability of great literature (and great teachers) to ride out wave after wave of intellectual fashion and snobbery. Even though my grad-school superego might mock his antics, this eccentric represented a big part of what I wanted to be when I became a professor.

What do eccentric professors have in common?

Eccentrics are never "professional" types, the sort who demand theoretical rigor, narrow specialization, or political orthodoxy. Eccentrics do research and teach because they are fascinated, even obsessed, with something they want to know everything about. Eccentric professors say, "Look at how amazingly interesting this is" instead of "my choices are the only ethical ones."

If their behavior sometimes seems bizarre, their obsessions are often magnificent. Eccentrics represent an approach to knowledge that is not disciplined, or even interdisciplinary. It is based on pleasure, love, wisdom, and other humane qualities that don't translate easily into productivity charts or black-and-white parables of good and evil, progressive and conservative.

The eccentric professor is sometimes sneered at by more "professional" colleagues. He or she will seldom get tenure at a research university, or be lionized by the Modern Language Association. But you will often see him or her walking with a cluster of students, who are not seeking patronage, but who actually enjoy being around their professor.

Eccentric professors are genuinely loved, and they are a glue that holds together the culture of an institution over time. They are not highly paid, transient "superstars"; but they are the professors to whom former students send their own college-age children.

Academic eccentrics are not yet dead as a species, but they require freedom and security. The ruthlessness of the current academic job system tends to enforce conformity. And, even if closet eccentrics are hired on the tenure track, it probably takes 20 years to develop their hidden talents. Good eccentrics need administrators who recognize that not all contributions can be quantified over the short term, if at all. Perhaps most of all, eccentrics need genuinely tolerant colleagues, who can see beyond the shifting tides of their home disciplines.

The last few years I've been assembling a collection of unusual artifacts of my own. My office is slowly becoming a cabinet of curiosities. In addition to a violet-ray machine, I now have an 18th-century lap desk, a bronze bust of Walt Whitman, a stereotype plate and compositor's tray, and a stone from the banks of Walden Pond. Last fall, I acquired a phrenological head that helps my students assess their "lobe of ideality," considered an essential faculty by romantic poets such as Edgar Allan Poe.

And, beginning today, I am on the lookout for an old rocking chair.

Thomas H. Benton is the pseudonym of an assistant professor of English. He writes regularly on faculty culture and welcomes reader mail directed to his attention at careers@chronicle.com. You can find an archive of his previous columns here.

Copyright © 2004 by The Chronicle of Higher Education



Hollywood History

Annie Applebaum (another wise woman) takes on Hollywood and history by examining 3 films:

  1. (a film I don't plan to see) Gibson's "Passion"
  2. (a film I have seen) Spielberg's "Private Ryan"
  3. (and a film I haven't seen, but want to) Apted's "Enigma."

Applebaum—unlike the cheesy Sander Van Ocur on the History Channel's "Movies In Time"—provides some sound insight into the failings of historical films. Her analysis makes sense to me. If this is (fair & balanced) film criticism, so be it.



[x Washington Post]
Pseudo-History Sells
By Anne Applebaum

Why has "The Passion of the Christ," a film that has already set box office records, caused so much fuss in this country? By the standards of Hollywood, the film should have sparked no reaction at all. For all the talk about anti-Semitism and the evangelical market and the sinister nature of Mel Gibson's father, "The Passion of the Christ" in fact belongs squarely within a well-established Hollywood genre. It is pure pseudo-history: a movie that purports to depict real events but that actually twists them ever so slightly, distorting the facts for dramatic effect.

There have been many, many such movies in recent years. Look, for example, at Steven Spielberg's Academy Award-winning World War II epic, "Saving Private Ryan," which was hailed as a great historical achievement, was produced in consultation with historian Stephen Ambrose, and was accompanied by a historical Web site where fans could check out the documents and "true stories" upon which the film was based. That was in the United States. In Britain the film was denounced because it left out any reference to the substantial British participation in the Normandy invasion, making D-Day appear to be a wholly American affair. A retired Royal Navy officer who had transported American troops across the channel -- including the U.S. Army unit that inspired Spielberg's film -- was quoted saying that "an apology would be expected and acceptable." But of course none was received.

The appearance of the film "Enigma" -- a half-true historical account of the breaking of the Nazi wartime cipher -- led to similar outrage, this time in Poland. Furious Polish historians pointed out that the film not only failed to mention the key contribution that Polish code-breakers made to the project, but that its plot revolved around a fictional Polish traitor who was giving information to the Germans. Various Polish and Polish American groups wrote angry letters -- to the film's producer, to the Motion Picture Association of America, to newspapers -- all arguing that "Enigma" "deliberately and invidiously misrepresents historical facts and implies that they are true."

Mel Gibson's historical epic fits beautifully into that tradition. He has made it very clear that the bloody scenes of beating and crucifixion are intended not merely to inspire devotion but to evoke a sense of reality, which is why the actors speak in street Latin and Aramaic, and why the makeup artists used so much fake blood. This may work cinematically, but it is also what has gotten Gibson into trouble. For it is precisely the film's purported authenticity that has led so many New Testament scholars to publish lists of the various distortions and to pronounce upon what their significance might be. Gibson behaves as if the attacks on him are all anti-Catholic; in fact, they are anti-bad-history, no different from the British or Polish reactions to Hollywood's distortions of their history.

But there is a larger context too. Distorted history, after all, matters only if no one realizes that the distortions exist. New Testament scholars may well know, for example, that none of the Gospels describe Caiaphas, the high priest who tried Jesus, taunting Him on the cross, but most of those watching the film don't know it. Historians of World War II will also know that D-Day was not a unilateral American excursion and that the Poles fought on the side of the Allies. But most American audiences won't know those basic facts either.

We have so lost the habit in this country of reading history and teaching it to our children that we simply have no context in which to place the "realistic" epics of Gibson or Spielberg. They are dangerous not because they dramatize or alter historical events -- something great novelists have been doing for centuries -- but because there isn't anything else. In this sense, Gibson's film is actually less worrisome than others. Most of the people who go to see "The Passion of the Christ" will at least have a pretty good idea of the plot. Most of the people who saw "Saving Private Ryan," by contrast, knew very little about D-Day, aside from what they saw on the screen.

Which is hardly surprising: There are many states that don't require children to study American history, let alone European history, before graduating from high school. Fundamental though it is to any real understanding of Western culture, the subject of New Testament history would utterly terrify most public schools, which long ago sacrificed history to "social studies." Unless and until that changes, Mel Gibson's interpretation will indeed matter, and will indeed require public debate. Hollywood's power does not lie merely in its ability to distort. Hollywood's power lies in the fact that it distorts in a vacuum.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company