David G. Renaker

sure, the class was not easy, but who really pays money to be handed a grade? when the chaos of finals was all over, i had acquired a sincere appreciation for the author, grounded in both the specifics and larger trends of his works. what more can i ask for?! the midterm and final can seem frustrating, but renaker graded on such a generous curve, i have no sympathy for the few who were still marginalized. for a class on nabokov, i recommend him, and encourage you to enjoy the lectures, regardless of how tangental they can become. renaker himself said that coming to class was an afterthought to reading the assignments: seven amazing books and a handful of short stories, all quick-reads.

I had heard Renaker's "Old School" teaching style would be dull. But I was pleasantly surprised at how interesting the class was. Renaker has a photographic memory and can recite entire passages from Milton and other poets. He has a vast knowledge of etymology, which he uses to explain passages from Milton's work.

He does read from notes, but if the class is interested and asks questions, he gets revved up and breaks off from his notes. Renaker is eccentric, but his brillance makes it charming. And he is kind to students when they participate, even if they answer the question wrong he will admire the logic behind their idea.

The only drawback was the class is somewhat early; listening to Milton at nine a.m. is tough. And if you are a student who like to hear yourself talk, then you won't have much time to wow your fellow students. But if you are truly interested in what Renaker is teaching, in this case, Milton, then he's a great teacher.

Poor Professor Poopy Pants, who is incontinent. Does no one notice and not tell him? Ah, the separation of the body from the mind is complete in him. His lectures are tedious displays of private erudtion and frequent asides. Nabakov (Nah-bach-off) is only good in relation to Renaker's upbringing and his formation of knowledge. He read from a paper he had written ages ago then made comments on its failure. Class discussions are punctuated with either "No." or "I've never thought of that." He is eccentric and harmless, but a bit creepy when it comes to discussing sex and its ancillary activities. He's brillant in the way a brickwall is a wonderful mosiac of craftsmanship. It's necessary value is for hanging pictures upon. Dr. Renaker is that brickwall students need to view then move around in their educational career.

While I adore Dr. Renaker's humour (he is very, very funny and very eccentric) and respect his endless knowledge of just about anything, I am still disappointed with him. His final was truly unfair and left the whole class shocked. If you don't care about your grades and only want an unusual (but good!) classroom experience, take him. Otherwise, don't.

I absolutely adore this professor because he is so utterly strange and eccentric, and quite simply, brilliant. He is also an incredibly talented artist (painter/ writer). I realize that many students can't stand him, but that's probably because they are not comfortable with eccentricity and have certain preconcieved notions about the role of professors and require that their expectations be met. However, if one remains open minded and non-judgemental, one soon discovers that Renaker is priceless. How many professors suddenly act as through they are on stage, strike a pose, and begin quoting "Paradise Lost" from memory? or quote entire passages from Chaucer in Middle English? I've taken 3 classes with Renaker and taken the time to get to know him by going to his office hours for a chat, and (outside the classroom) he's actually an incredibly charming man. In the classroom, on the other hand, he's incredibly entertaining. Moreover, if one writes well, it is not at all difficult to get a good grade in his classes. In fact in one of his classes I got an A and didn't even have to write anything -- I just gave a 20 minute presentation on a topic of my choice, pertaining to the class material. To conclude, I love to see Renaker, on rainy days, walking accross the campus wearing his "Paddington Bear" yellow rain hat and fireman's cape. If you're into English Lit., write well, and appriciate a true eccentric (maybe even a genius), this is the professor for you.

Although I was initially a little put-off by Renaker's lecture style (reading directly from pre-written lectures,) I ended up liking him a lot. He has a very dry wit that can be truly funny if you pay close attention to what he is saying. He's incredibly knowledgable, and familiar with almost every great work ever written. His tests seemed a bit random, but I did well on them. Overall, we read some wonderful literature, got a brilliant explanation of all of the works we read, and had the experience of studying with one of the few remaining professors who keep the older academic tradition alive. He is a bit hard to approach, but I don't think its snobbishness. I think he is just a very private man. I'd take his classes again.

There's no doubt about it, Renaker is a character. I took him once for a course on John Donne. Donne seems to be one of Renaker's passions (as well as the oft mentioned Nabakov--imagine Nabakov being referenced at least once a day for a whole semester when the only thing you are studying is poetry from the 1600s...) and it shows. What other people on this list have seen as stuffy backwardness really crumbles when Renaker talks about dear old John. Sure, his lecture notes are older than I am but I wouldn't miss out on his particularly detailed analysis of the imagery of cunnilingus in "A Love's Progress," complete with a stick figure drawn on the chalkboard detailing a woman's anatomy. It was hilarious! His exams are pretty easy, if you're of the memorizing trivia/ Jeopardy type. He ripped apart the one paper I did write for the class with scrawly handwriting suffocating in every margin but gave me an A, anyway..? If you happen to love the subject he's teaching as much as he does, I would recommend this prof just because he's definitely inspired when he wants to be. But for something more general, like Junior Seminar, I would look for someone at little less quirky.

I respect Professor Renaker's knowledge, but am unimpressed with his teaching style. His lectures are nothing more than readings from aged notes. The information obtained from these lectures is valuable, in the context of the course, but the information is to broad. Writer's cramp is not uncommon. When test time roles around, the notes are of little good for studying. Granted my experience is limited to one class, but it would have been nice to be asked one question from the information given in class. What were the tests based upon? Mainly obscure references to the readings. Overall I could have done without the class, except for the segment three fulfillment. I believe students could benefit from this class if it were taught by a more interactive and focused professor.

Professor Renaker is not for those sort of people who are possessed by "contemporary snobbery." Meaning that just because you happen to be the current younger generation, it doesn't justify bringing TV-glared eyes, nor Talk Show rhetoric to his class. If you have a comment to make, it had better be well-founded and some- what thought through. I have had many Professors who did 'talk down to students,' which means they didn't hold students to a high academic standard. Professor Renaker is a Professor that I wish had been a personal tutor when I was in high school receiving a 'survery' of everything courses without much detail or honest academia. He does hold you to a high standard. However, because most of public education does not attain to such a feat because it is cut down by issues of discipline problems or other existential issues that take away from focus on an honest scholarly liberal arts education. Professor Renaker is a Professor that ought to be listened to. Precisely because he has a voice and a point of view that is not saturated in 90's rhetoric, but rather Academia which many people have never experienced, so when they see it, they are frightened of it because it IS intimading; exactly because it asks much of a student. TO THINK. To be able to give a reasonable answer to why you believe what you believe about a text. I will cherish this time of studying under a great Professor.

leaving aside the facts that renaker probably is wound too tight, is a technophobe, and delaminated halfway through the semester, he knows his stuff. he is acerbic, he is old school (he talks, you listen) he reads lecture notes that are 20 years old, but only for the first few weeks. he also has a tremendous love for literature, is able to reel off big chunks of great poems verbatim, and KNOWS HIS STUFF! his class was tough, and boring at times, but he has all this incredible knowledge about literature, and if you want some of it, he's willing to share it

Attention spans peter-pattered on the faux-wood desktops with their drooling drip-drops, wringing their nose-pickers, sipping linctus from curly-Q straws with a micky all faded from the fidgets; and I ignored them. Renaker is not a surrogate for your mother, but passes his time as a surrogate for a thirty-year wild-goose chase, a post that might point out the barren cul-de-sacs and dead-ends of literature where tasty things be breeding clean and clear, or festering cancerous. He's got the goods; just don't expect him to like you for you just being you, nor to like giving his goods to you.

I am only giving Reneker a D to be kind. The guy is wound too tight and I don't want to be too harsh, because it is obvious that life has worn him down. However, avoid his classes. It's not that he doesn't know what he's talking about- he clearly does, but he is completely burned out. His lectures are spoken in a droning monotone and he reads line-for-line from yellowed old papers (one made some analogy between our readings and the "current" Watergate scandal). He pronounces certain words with such a lofty aire- coitus is koEEtus, lolita is LAleeta (because Nabokov in interviews -with his accent- pronounced it that way...well, he wrote it in English and the first page of the text basically tells you what the name sounds like). It's just distracting. He (Reneker) is an anachronism. And his "Ah, a young scholiast!" is so patronizing. Sometimes he can be funny (usually in a snotty way), but generally one gets the feeling he thinks his students are so far beneath him they are not worth his time.