Ok, 270,000. I thought I said that I'd require four times what I needed in
93. And I am dubious even about that as I check on the price of a condo on
the Big Island. So I'd want $360,000 per annum.
On 11/1/07, joe green <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Oh, if you are teaching English Literature I think (as I said above) a
> salary $360,000 a year should be adequate compensation. I know that even in
> our finest universities this is not offered. Above are my reflections when
> trying to choose a period in which to specialize. In 93 or so. I felt that
> the mental anguish of simply choosing and then having to actually teach
> would mean I would require a salary of $90,000 a year. It's terrible, of
> course, that teachers of English Literature are so underpaid. So here were
> my thoughts when trying to choose! I was working at Cray Supercomputer then
> and spent hours worrying about what period to specialize in. I then
> considered my hourly rate and added dollars for mental anguish (I had some
> acquaintance with English departments) and came up with this base rate.
>
> On 11/1/07, Anny Ballardini <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > Who told you that I do not teach literature. What are you talking about.
> > What is your job?
> >
> > On 11/1/07, joe green <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, but you are not teaching English Literature. Perhaps the above
> > is
> > > enough for teaching Creative Writing but it doesn't even begin to
> > cover
> > > the
> > > mental anguish of teaching English Liteature -- which begins with
> > deciding
> > > what period in which to specialize. Here's a glimpse into my thoughts
> >
> > > years
> > > agone when I had to choose.
> > >
> > > English Literature:
> > >
> > > 1. Have the lesser poems of Anglo-Saxon bards been appreciated
> > enough?
> > > Do enough young people know the word "kenning?" Would it be
> > > nice to curl up by the fire in the long winter evenings we have
> > > here and study Old Icelandic? Should I choose Anglo-Saxon?
> > > Perhaps with enough work I could write a pleasant little
> > > fairy story as I clench my pipe between tobacco-stained
> > > teeth and chafe in my tweeds. Choice 1: Anglo-Saxon Literature
> > >
> > > 2. Ok. So I stare at Durer prints long and long and ever since
> > > graduating high school have been prepared for life in the
> > > 12th (the greatest of all) centuries. I know it was really
> > > St. Don Bosco who invented basketball and can timor mortis
> > > conturbat me with the best of them. Choice 2: Medieval Literature
> > >
> > > 3. The Renais... Hard to spell but good sex at last. (Medieval sex
> > > is too much like what happened in the cloakroom of St. Cecilia's
> > > in 1962). Marlowe's mighty line (What's your sign?), probably
> > > worlds of sonnet sequences not yet completely explained. The
> > > chance to entertain students with "jug, jug, jug, tereau tereau"
> > > or a birthday bash for Thomas Nashe. Shakespeare and the chance
> > > to know where all those book titles came from. I also suspect that
> > > Shakepeare specialists are deferred to in courts of law and
> > > gatherings of high school teachers taking a class for the summer.
> > > A chance for a dotage a bit more dashing than that expected of
> > > medievalists. Expansive explanations of bawdy and the significance
> > > of nothing in Hamlet. "The wild dog shall flesh his tooth in every
> > > innocent" and a glance at a widow now and then. Choice
> > 3: Renais...
> > > Literature.
> > >
> > > 4. The (as they say) 17th century. Donne undone with Mary. The
> > necessity
> > > of Eliot. The laying on of sensibility. Wit. Perhaps I could
> > > specialize in Herrick and dream of cream and strawberries and
> > > niplets and Old Ben and a parsonage among the daffodils. Or --
> > > the great tone poems of Sir Thomas Browne.
> > >
> > > 5. The 18th century -- Age of Pope or Age of Johnson. A chance of an
> > > invite to the White House or of, at least, entertaining Canadian
> > > ladies on trains. Belindas &c. If Pope, a chance to dress
> > > in a periwig and spit vituperation in heroic couplets with the
> > > other fellows in the room hilariously dubbed "Gin Alley" at
> > > the 18th century scholars conference. Automatic justification
> > > for plotting against the radical dismals in the MLA. I am not
> > > stout enough to carry off a Johnson speciality but are we
> > > really satisfied that we know how many times Boswell had the
> > > clap and don't we need yet another fellow recounting the story
> > > of Johnson and the ghostly bishop by kicking the rock? Also
> > > I am very good on Tom Jones and at sipping coffee and chatting
> > > about the great bubble and have a quite new exegesis of Robinson
> > > Crusoe ready. Might have to read Clarissa. Ah, my dear God.
> > >
> > > 6. The Romantics (we'll include Blake as is customary) What was the
> > > sheath to which Byron refers? Expertise on Thomas Lovell Beddoes
> > > already quite remarkable. But... suicide a possibility, of
> > > course after mooning about the Protestant Cemetery in Rome
> > > after being betrayed by my mistress. Also, am disturbed that
> > > Keats apparently wanted to eat everything. Byron's letters
> > > etc very appealing but will have to deal with the awful Germans
> > > including Goethe whose last words "Give me your little paw" very
> > > off putting. The Brontes -- must be dealt with and, in general,
> > > except (as I now concede) for the sensibilty of Thomas Love Peacock
> > > and a few others the period is like being stuck in a room
> > > full of Barrymores forever. Good if confused sex, good if confused
> > > talk, overseen by nautical gentlemen.
> > >
> > > 7. The Victorians. The Kraken is sexy but except for Dickens the
> > > novels are wretched.
> > >
> > > 8. Modernism -- I understand that there is a center for the study
> > > of Modernism. Let them do it.
> > >
> > > 9. More or less recent stuff. Very poor show in Poetry. Prose
> > > somewhat better but I don't understand why reading most of it
> > > is not conceived as similar to reading the novels of John
> > > O'Hara when your adenoids are misbehaving.
> > > So I wanted a salary of 90,000 a year -- at least. This was in
> > 93. I'd
> > > require at least 3 times that now.
> > >
> > > On 10/29/07, Anny Ballardini <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am also a teacher, Kenneth. And I can consider myself lucky
> > because I
> > > > can
> > > > do translations and teach evening adult courses to round the meager
> > > > budget.
> > > > I don't think I fit any prototype, and my colleagues are very
> > different.
> > > > It
> > > > is a job but I like it, and that is why I still do it.
> > > >
> > > > On 10/29/07, Kenneth Wolman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > M. Borges Accardi wrote:
> > > > > > Pardon my posting here, but just saw this job announcement for
> > > > creative
> > > > > writing at Pueblo Col.? They're paying $25,000 for TWO semesters
> > of
> > > > teaching
> > > > > and committee work?? Are they delusional? 12 units of teaching per
> > > > semester
> > > > > at $12,000 a semester??? I am aghast.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you. I am now cured:-).
> > > > >
> > > > > ken
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------
> > > > > Kenneth Wolman rainermaria.typepad.com
> > > > >
> > > > > "I agree with the Chekhov character who, when in a crisis, he is
> > > > > reminded that 'this, too, shall pass,' responds 'Nothing
> > > > > passes.'"--Philip Roth
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
|