This is an archived page. Images and links on this page may not work. Please visit the main page for the latest updates.

 
 
 
Read my book, TEACHING BEAUTY IN DeLILLO, WOOLF, AND MERRILL (Palgrave Macmillan; forthcoming), co-authored with Jennifer Green-Lewis. VISIT MY BRANCH CAMPUS AT INSIDE HIGHER ED





UD is...
"Salty." (Scott McLemee)
"Unvarnished." (Phi Beta Cons)
"Splendidly splenetic." (Culture Industry)
"Except for University Diaries, most academic blogs are tedious."
(Rate Your Students)
"I think of Soltan as the Maureen Dowd of the blogosphere,
except that Maureen Dowd is kind of a wrecking ball of a writer,
and Soltan isn't. For the life of me, I can't figure out her
politics, but she's pretty fabulous, so who gives a damn?"
(Tenured Radical)

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

A Second Look at Third

Wendy Wasserstein’s new play about academia, Third, gets a negative but sympathetic review in today’s New York Times. (UD mentioned this play earlier, here.) Though I’ve not yet seen it, and given this review probably won’t, the play sounds as though it’s trying to express important ideas about the culture of universities in America today.

Like Doris Lessing’s novel, The Golden Notebook, Third seems most interested in the process by which committed people of the left become disillusioned, or realize the limitations of their worldview. The play, writes Ben Brantley, “dares to wonder if liberals now require a few lessons in tolerance… Ms. Wasserstein is politely asking audiences who have grown older with her to acknowledge… the possibility that they might be wrong on subjects they were once sure about.”



In particular, Wasserstein goes after the clueless moral strutting of humanities professors. Her main character’s a self-satisfied and superficial woman who announces to her Shakespeare seminar, “Rest assured this classroom is a hegemonic-free zone,” and who says to someone of a shared colleague: “How could you have a problem with Rena? She’s a Guggenheim poet.”

Confronted with a conservative male student who writes a strikingly good paper about King Lear for her, the professor wrongly accuses him of plagiarism, since she assumes such a person could never produce sensitive and intelligent literary criticism. (The professor's own written work is gender studies crappacino.)



A play like this, though not destined for immortality, ought to be part of the self-examination liberals have lately undertaken, as in the recent, much-discussed paper co-written by Elaine Kamarck and William Galston.