[ENGL W3267] Foundations of American Literature I

Great, great class. Try to get Delbanco's section; I did not, and should have, although my TA was excellent. Delbanco is one of the best professors as a person at Columbia. He's a very straight shooter who does not deal in bullshit whatsoever. He challenges people to not be lazy thinkers, and challenges assumptions without being intimidating.

The class is very good. A few of the early texts are somewhat dry but you can get a lot out of them if you do the readings, weekly assignments, and the lecture. A lot of the stuff later on is really fun. Lectures are easy to listen to and always valuable. Class deals with literature (including early sermons and pamphlets) in the context of its time and in later contexts; a lot is about how the text has been reinterpret and recontextualized, by critics, the public, and other authors. It is like Lit Hum in some ways but much more interesting, and challenging.

Criticism: Delbanco gets a little bit too into close-reading Melville to the point where he doesn't get into as much background as with other authors and even devotes a lecture to a book you don't read in class (Moby Dick) but Melville is what he really lvoes so at least the lectures are passionate.

There's a lot of reasons that people wouldn't want to take the class, but most of those reasons have to do with the person in question being a tool, so you should probably take this class if you're not a tool.

This is a high school class with a high school reading list and a high school professor. Remember reading the Scarlet Letter in 9th grade? Don't expect this time around to be much more enlightening. Remember reading Billy Budd and Bartleby in 10th grade? The lectures now aren't much different. Thoreau, Dickinson, the list goes on, and all he really talks about is the theme of "individualism," which you can get just from reading the texts. Delbanco spends the first class on each book dancing around the issues, kind of talking about the writer, kind of talking about whatever he wants to talk about on that given day. Then when he actually gets to the book, he talks a little bit about plot, a little bit about the characters, and then he tells some cute personal anecdotes; however he never gets into anything interesting. He does place the works historically (especially the early Puritan stuff) which makes them more bearable, but that's about the extent of it. Don't get me wrong, he's a really sweet guy and I want to be his friend or something, but if you want to look at these texts on any level deeper than the obvious christ imagery and the "individualism" theme, don't take this class. Oh yeah, and he dedicates 2 entire class periods to lecturing on Moby Dick, even though its not on the reading list and is never assigned (not even parts of it). If you want a really enlightening professor, look into Bruce Robbins.

Professor Delbanco is an incredible and dynamic speaker. Much of the class is historically-based, and Delbanco takes great care in drawing the class into the time period during which each text was written and explains the progression of literature from the Puritans to novelists of the 19th Century (particuluarly Melville, Delbanco's love). Some of the reading can be a bit dry, but Delbanco's lectures and the mandatory discussion sections led by TAs make them worthwhile--Delbanco shows that there is always something valuable in even the driest texts, if not in the writing itself, in the history behind it.

Though I felt Roosevelt to be a kind, good-natured person, I disagree with the other reviews. I felt that his discussions were limited and that he lacked the ability to really delve into the literature. His knowledge of history on subjects such as transcedentalism was extensive, but during our discussions on the works themselves, he would agree with everything the students said and provide no specific, definite literary insight for himself. We never really tapped into the importance of these great American writings as works of literature. Also, his grading (especially on the midterm) seemed to be a bit arbitrary. I would not say avoid Roosevelt; however, I would not seek him out either.

Take any course this man teaches. His analysis of texts is unparallelled. The syllabus has changed somewhat since last year; we did read the Scarlet Letter this year, though we didn't read Moby Dick, and we didn't have to read all 500 pages of Uncle Tom's Cabin, thank god (just excerpts). The Puritan stuff was sort of dry, but Delbanco's ability to relate them to everything else in the course and in contemporary life was really impressive; by the end of the semester I had totally bought his thesis that the Puritans had and continue to have a big effect on American culture. Every one of Delbanco's lectures was spectacular. Bravo.

Professor Delbanco is hands down the most inspirational professor I've had here. During the course of your education at Columbia, it won't be a hard feat to come across a great professor, but to come across an inspirational one, now that's rare. Professor Delbanco's lectures were intelligent, thought-provoking, coherent, and raised a number of tough questions which had no easy answers and definitely left you thinking well after class was over. The Puritan material at the beginning of the semester was a little slow, but the later material was really enjoyable. Yeah, there was a great deal of reading and yeah, the mandatory discussion sections were boring and yeah, I was disappointed he didn't grade student work (TAs got that fun job), but overall, I had an excellent experience and recommend this class and Professor Delbanco with the utmost enthusiasm.

If you are looking for an illuminating literary experience, take Prof. Delbanco's Foundations of American Literature I.