For more on the circumstances of Prof. Dixon’s situation: www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty...

The first thing they said about the article was “It was weird” 😂 but they ended by saying “He had some good points” …in freshman speak that is a slam dunk.

The discussions about narrator v. author and about imagination (it’s “about” the urn but he’s more interested in imaginative scenes beyond the urn) were the portions they lingered on the most.

But even that proved fruitful for discussion: can sexual desire be compatible with admiration? Why do we assume that the speaker is intrinsically noble or good? Can we say that the speaker is rapey without saying that Keats is? Perhaps Keats’ desires are not transparent to Keats himself…

It was a really interesting conversation. Consistent with other classes I’ve taught (maybe because of geography? Age? Covid generation?), they are ~so~ scandalized by reading sexuality in the poem—they seemed to view this as cheapening the beauty and admiration that the speaker expresses

So excited to read this! I was truly delighted perusing others’ essays for the issue!

Mind you, this also comes back to my central contention that the best job market advice in the hellscape is that there is absolutely no way you can meet the eternally moving goalposts, so you should do what you want to do and be happy with it instead.

YES. I absolutely love that!