This book reeks of the 20th century, and nothing can undo the fact that since it was published in 2003 (c), the world, politics, and consequently educational practice has changed... Or should. What strikes me as I read through Showalter's opening chapters in which she discusses the question "why teach literature" is that that precise question is what politicians and governmental agencies are asking now, with a much more derisive tone and a brutal axe behind their backs aimed at cutting budgets. Cliches such as "teaching the human", "teaching students to think critically", and "questioning the role of language in culture, etc" seem impossibly trite in the face of dwindling budgets for the humanities, and are easily manipulated into the accusations of the Right about the specter of an "intellectual elite" (heaven forbid we should *think*, that's so un-American).

Showalter's argument about teaching literature was compelling before the economic collapse. Now it sounds hopelessly idealistic, something our society no longer prizes. As a professor of literature this book did the opposite of inspiring me. Rather it made me think harder about the very real issue of the survival of the humanities in higher education. A case for the teaching of literature and the humanities desperately needs to be written, a manifesto of sorts: in the form of a twitter feed or a Facebook feed, something that actually has an audience.

The "digital humanities" are doing much to address this issue, but change isn't emerging fast enough to stem the tide of anti-intellectualism. The humanities need to find an argument that the economists, policy-makers, and even donors and philanthropists will understand and accept. This is not to depreciate the power of the humanities to transform the individual (though I think said transformation is what is most feared), rather it is a call to do some strategizing about our survival as a discipline. ( )

This book reeks of the 20th century, and nothing can undo the fact that since it was published in 2003 (c), the world, politics, and consequently educational practice has changed... Or should. What strikes me as I read through Showalter's opening chapters in which she discusses the question "why teach literature" is that that precise question is what politicians and governmental agencies are asking now, with a much more derisive tone and a brutal axe behind their backs aimed at cutting budgets. Cliches such as "teaching the human", "teaching students to think critically", and "questioning the role of language in culture, etc" seem impossibly trite in the face of dwindling budgets for the humanities, and are easily manipulated into the accusations of the Right about the specter of an "intellectual elite" (heaven forbid we should *think*, that's so un-American).

Showalter's argument about teaching literature was compelling before the economic collapse. Now it sounds hopelessly idealistic, something our society no longer prizes. As a professor of literature this book did the opposite of inspiring me. Rather it made me think harder about the very real issue of the survival of the humanities in higher education. A case for the teaching of literature and the humanities desperately needs to be written, a manifesto of sorts: in the form of a twitter feed or a Facebook feed, something that actually has an audience.

The "digital humanities" are doing much to address this issue, but change isn't emerging fast enough to stem the tide of anti-intellectualism. The humanities need to find an argument that the economists, policy-makers, and even donors and philanthropists will understand and accept. This is not to depreciate the power of the humanities to transform the individual (though I think said transformation is what is most feared), rather it is a call to do some strategizing about our survival as a discipline. ( )