Not as far off-topic as some of the junk that gets posted, as it does
concern teaching of English, but not fully on-topic either, as it's not
about usage.

I'm interested in finding an authoritative source of information about
a controversy at the beginning of the 1970s. As it's been a long time
since I read about it, my memory is doubtless inaccurate in some
respects, but it was something like this.

Atkinson was a junior lecturer (still on probation, I think) in the
English Department at Cambridge. His contract was not renewed because
his colleagues didn't like the way he was using his position to
inculcate structuralism in his students rather than teaching them about
English literature. His supporters claimed that this was a disgraceful
scandal; others thought it was common sense.

Years afterwards, around 1980, I think, David Lodge (a colleague of
mine at the time, though we didn't know each other) wrote about it in a
journal of literary criticism. He described structuralism as the most
important intellectual movement of the post-war period, and lamented
that apart from the Atkinson affair it had passed completely unnoticed
by the British press.

It seemed to me that to call a passing fashion in literary criticism
the most important intellectual movement of its time, a time that had
seen huge advances in physics, medicine, biochemistry, genetics,
evolutionary theory, etc., indicated such a blinkered view of
intellectual life that it could not be taken seriously. Before that I
had already found that although I had enjoyed some of David Lodge's
novels I had found his "serious" writing to be so boring as to be
unreadable. This episode just confirmed that.

Anyway, does anyone remember this episode and, in particular, David
Lodge's assessment of it?

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 5:00:24 AM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> Not as far off-topic as some of the junk that gets posted, as it does
> concern teaching of English, but not fully on-topic either, as it's not
> about usage.
>
> I'm interested in finding an authoritative source of information about
> a controversy at the beginning of the 1970s. As it's been a long time
> since I read about it, my memory is doubtless inaccurate in some
> respects, but it was something like this.
>
> Atkinson was a junior lecturer (still on probation, I think) in the
> English Department at Cambridge. His contract was not renewed because
> his colleagues didn't like the way he was using his position to
> inculcate structuralism in his students rather than teaching them about
> English literature. His supporters claimed that this was a disgraceful
> scandal; others thought it was common sense.
>
> Years afterwards, around 1980, I think, David Lodge (a colleague of
> mine at the time, though we didn't know each other) wrote about it in a
> journal of literary criticism. He described structuralism as the most
> important intellectual movement of the post-war period, and lamented
> that apart from the Atkinson affair it had passed completely unnoticed
> by the British press.
>
> It seemed to me that to call a passing fashion in literary criticism
> the most important intellectual movement of its time, a time that had
> seen huge advances in physics, medicine, biochemistry, genetics,
> evolutionary theory, etc., indicated such a blinkered view of
> intellectual life that it could not be taken seriously. Before that I
> had already found that although I had enjoyed some of David Lodge's
> novels I had found his "serious" writing to be so boring as to be
> unreadable. This episode just confirmed that.
>
> Anyway, does anyone remember this episode and, in particular, David
> Lodge's assessment of it?

I have never heard of it, but your ignorant assessment of the importance
of structuralism in the intellectual world of the 20th century is appalling..
IIRC C. P. Snow was concerned that the intellectual world knew too little
of the hard sciences, but this shows that his coin had two sides.

Check out your own countryman Claude Lévi-Strauss, and Roman
Jakobson.

Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 5:00:24 AM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> Not as far off-topic as some of the junk that gets posted, as it does
>> concern teaching of English, but not fully on-topic either, as it's not
>> about usage.
>>
>> I'm interested in finding an authoritative source of information about
>> a controversy at the beginning of the 1970s. As it's been a long time
>> since I read about it, my memory is doubtless inaccurate in some
>> respects, but it was something like this.
>>
>> Atkinson was a junior lecturer (still on probation, I think) in the
>> English Department at Cambridge. His contract was not renewed because
>> his colleagues didn't like the way he was using his position to
>> inculcate structuralism in his students rather than teaching them about
>> English literature. His supporters claimed that this was a disgraceful
>> scandal; others thought it was common sense.
>>
>> Years afterwards, around 1980, I think, David Lodge (a colleague of
>> mine at the time, though we didn't know each other) wrote about it in a
>> journal of literary criticism. He described structuralism as the most
>> important intellectual movement of the post-war period, and lamented
>> that apart from the Atkinson affair it had passed completely unnoticed
>> by the British press.
>>
>> It seemed to me that to call a passing fashion in literary criticism
>> the most important intellectual movement of its time, a time that had
>> seen huge advances in physics, medicine, biochemistry, genetics,
>> evolutionary theory, etc., indicated such a blinkered view of
>> intellectual life that it could not be taken seriously. Before that I
>> had already found that although I had enjoyed some of David Lodge's
>> novels I had found his "serious" writing to be so boring as to be
>> unreadable. This episode just confirmed that.
>>
>> Anyway, does anyone remember this episode and, in particular, David
>> Lodge's assessment of it?

___________________________(then, PTD comments: )

> I have never heard of it, but your ignorant assessment of the importance
> of structuralism in the intellectual world of the 20th century is appalling..
> IIRC C. P. Snow was concerned that the intellectual world knew too little
> of the hard sciences, but this shows that his coin had two sides.

> Check out your own countryman Claude Lévi-Strauss, and Roman Jakobson.

note to self. ACB knows little about structuralism , Saussure, and such matters.
(is lit crit his weak point?)