Michael Seidel

Great man, warm and very approachable, though it is true what the other reviews say here that taking a class with him is really more like taking a class in Seidel Studies. He has his own personal lens through which he would like the works interpreted and as long as you remember that and remember that new ideas are appreciated but only if they don't stray too far from the approved of reading done in class, you should be fine. He is a generous grader, the classes are a pleasure to attend, the work is very manageable and he does do his best to make the material as interesting as possible. He genuinely cares if you understand the reading and he is not the type to demand impossible feats of memorization or in-depth textual analysis. However, again to emphasize, he doesn't structure the course very well, so you will end up with highlights of Joyce, passages he finds interesting in some way, but you won't necessarily know why they are important to Joyce or why Joyce wrote the way he did, so definitely a mixed bag if you are really looking to get something out of the class. Not a GPA killer, not a change-your-life type of class, but somewhere in between. Seidel can be very funny and his anecdotes are always great.

in my opinion, a wonderful, knowledgeable professor and person. the positive - seidel was a great professor who brought up so many salient points in each work during class. discussions mostly revolved around his speaking (this is good for you sleepers), with some student contribution. if you want to contribute to the discussion, you are always welcome; if not, he will continue to provide the class with ideas and keep the discussion going. he's a humorous man, and made the class a fun 2 hours. he also gives you a 5 minute break (!!) which is totally needed for such a long class. i personally was inspired by seidel to read more literature. as a science major, i never thought these classics could be so fascinating and also applicable to today's world. the negative - weird when it comes to grading. structure is greatly accentuated, while content is just an extra. his writing prompts are extemely vague and open - just a sentence at times. some people like this, while others do not. he does not really encourage you to think of new ideas - they'll often be shot down with a low grade. however, if you regurgitate ideas discussed in class, you're looking at an A as long as you write well. you have to pray that he likes your style - if you use the words, "however" "therefore" or "thus" you're starting out at an A-. i often sat in front of my computer minutes before an essay was due tryin…

A lovely man, but not the most inspiring of teachers. Prof. Seidel has seemingly limitless enthusiasm for his syllabus (as he pointed out, nearly all English syllabi are more or less books the professor loves), which is certainly important. The problem with that approach, unfortunately, is that class time basically devolved into pointing out why each book was so awesome. This works for really great novels like Pale Fire or Between the Acts, but when the class wasn't into the book for the week the two hours became torturous. I still haven't figured out how I feel about the class - our discussions were a bit scattered and superficial, but on the other hand it's nice to have at least one non-stressful class. In the end I found the class pleasant enough (and occasionally agonizing) and pretty easy. You can zone out most of the time and Seidel will never notice, but if you want to really engage substantively with the texts prepare to be disappointed. Discussions often brought up great points, but I never left the class feeling as though I had gotten a comprehensive view into each novel, which was disappointing but not annoying. Take it for what it is - a mostly great syllabus, an ok class, and, hopefully, a benefit to your GPA.

I had Prof. Seidel the first and last time he taught this class, and it was about as good as CC can be, considering the reading list is what it is. He basically came into the class saying that he had never taught this stuff before and we had never learned it so we were all going to be in this together. It was a very reassuring thing to hear at the beginning and he carried it through. Very intelligent and very funny but also maintains a casual air in the class. When we were discussing Aquinas, he basically came into class and told us he didn't understand what the hell was being said so if we didn't either, it'd be cool and we could just ramble off some ideas that we had. He rewards students he gets partial to, but it's very easy to get on his good side. Great professor and a great guy

Don't ask how come I or anyone else bothered to take this class. You couldn't pick a duller time in British history--nothing happened. Really. People were happy with the monarchy and didn't do much. Speaking of not doing much, neither did Seidel. Except for his brief display of adoration for Daniel Dafoe, the class was pretty darn boring (which may explain why it is no longer offered). Majority of the reading involved the heroic couplets of Alexander Pope (snooze). The rest included a couple of short plays, as well as two novels. Grading was a joke, since nearly everyone received A's and reading was relatively unnecessary. Take Seidel in the spring semester. He's an avid Yankee buff (wrote a book on them, too) and usually zones out whenever they enter the fall classic--which, as of late, is virtually guaranteed.

midterm (total joke), journal entries (write freely) and final (also pretty damn easy). You should slap yourself if you don't get an A from Seidel.

I'm extremely mixed about this class. Seidel is a great lecturer and clearly has a lot of enthusiasm for the subject. His class was very enjoyable, though he jumped around a lot in various texts and spoiled a lot of things for the class; by the end of the semester he was just pointing out passages that he liked and not bothering to engage with the class except for one or two favored students. However, he did manage to keep me awake, which is a feat unto itself. When it came down to assignments and exams, this class was like a retread of middle school English. I haven't had assignments like his (find a moment in the text that stuns you and why, convince the smartest person you know to read something by Joyce, etc.) since I was 13. He asked for a double-spaced page each, except for one that was 3-4 pages - how much depth can one bring to a single page, especially on a topic that's incredibly vague? A sample paper would have been nice, since he didn't really explain what he wanted and the topics and length only lend themselves to basic surface analysis - for which he will downgrade you massively. You can get a high A on the midterm and final if you have a passing familiarity with the points that he consistently touches on in class (translation: pay a minimum of attention and read Sparknotes); it doesn't require much engagement with the texts at all. As a 3000-level English class,…

All I can say is, boy -- Professor Seidel seems like a love- him-or-hate-him kinda guy. I, however, thoroughly enjoyed my first semester of LitHum and am incredibly sad to see him go. The entire class dynamic was wonderful and Seidel was an engaging, passionate, inventive professor. I think this was the only class I truly looked forward to all semester. As is to be expected of an informal, round-table-esque setting, the atmosphere was pleasantly informal. Once the students got to know each other and Professor Seidel well enough, we'd spend class joking and throwing ideas back and forth. However, Seidel -- unlike some Professors here that I've had -- understands that we're _freshmen_, and therefore comparatively stupid. No sad attempts to drag stunning revelations out of us that just may not be there. He guides our conversation when we do have things to say, and takes over when we don't. Spectacular class. I plan on taking his James Joyce class next fall.

A hit-or-miss syllabus (usually hit), consisting of Mann, Gide, Kafka, Beckett, Woolf, Robbe-Grillet, Rhys, and Nabokov. One page response papers due every class (you can miss two), two of which get expanded at the end of the semester to a total of 8 pgs. Pretty easy, and Seidel is a very generous grader.

Mr. Seidel possesses a weak imagination that tends to think in categories. Among the English faculty (a faculty not noted by my taste for their imagination or liberty), Seidel does not strike me as particularly bad, but neither does he overcome the limitations so many professors here constantly display. His readings of Dubliners, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, Exiles, and Ulysses all focus on concepts of Joyce's, Seidel's, or other critics' creations. Once he has named and defined these thematic concepts, the rest of the course falls into place: a mechanical playing out and representing of these ideas in Joyce's works. Three main concepts, simony, paralysis, gnomon, which Joyce names on the first page of Dubliners will be the filtration units that Seidel uses to interpret that work, along with Portrait and Exiles. This reading subsides upon reaching Ulysses, only to be replaced by concepts like the epic hero, replete with passages read as language as the epic hero; water as the epic hero; common man as the epic hero; and so on. Or there's the biographical interpretation that links Joyce's father to Simon Dedalus and Nora Barnacle to Molly Bloom. This would be fine, if Seidel ever explained what Nora Barnacle or Simon Dedalus were like beyond the usual, uneducated lively girl from Galway or roisterer, general roustabout gentleman that can be gleaned from the most gene…