It completely breaks my heart that I probably wont be having him again. Here's the thing guys, this is one of those scenarios where you would totally befriend the person, but just not deal with them on a professional basis. I'm going to be real with you for a second, this class is a lot of work and pretty impossible if you're a procrastinator, but if you're a smartypants organized kid you can probably get a B or maybe, maybe an A (the material itself is extremely difficult but he does a swell job of explaining). To be fair, he does warn you that he grades hard (at the beginning of class) but I didn't know if you actually had to actually take the class or not so I did just to be safe. He's brilliant, he explains things in the way a normal human being would and he's super hilarious. It truly hurts me to miss a lecture and even though he conveniently podcasts them it's far better if you go (so you can ask questions and what not). I don't know what those other folks were talking about, him being a douchelord basically with the lectures, I actually think he's extremely kind and patient; I know I've heard some kids ask some pretty idiotic questions and have even stumbled upon one myself and not once does he make you feel stupid for it, he's that sort. He's like, the cool uncle type who you can tell was the poor sarcastic nerd back in the day but has build up a badass persona because of it. Yeah, he's a cool dude. But don't take his class if you plan on not working hard. Oh, one more thing, he does have this crazy three parter paper that's sort of the "Insanity Workout" of papers and yeah, it's crazy hard but he does give you all of quarter to do it and come now, If I can get this done, surely you can dear reader. God, he's just, such a nice person. Like he gives you multiple examples of A level papers and shit. This shit is crazy, but it's also the best I've had thus far. Damn. Maybe I should start working hard.

I took Literary Theory and Criticism with Huehls over this past summer (2008) and would recommend him highly for this course. Even during the truncated summer session, he was able to tackle an interesting line of critical inquiry, ranging from Plato to Derrida, in a clear and understandable format. Granted, our small enrollment numbers made our class a seminar when it should have been a lecture, so every one of us got every question answered. However, I imagine that a lecture setting would still produce the same clarity of concepts that a seminar did. Professor Huehls has a special talent for communicating complicated abstract ideas to a group of students totally green behind the ears. As an English major, you will walk away from his class with your mind stretched to its limits and a new basis of understanding approaches to literature which will inform yours.

Huehls is super brainy and knowledgeable but can still explain all the abstract theoretical concepts you'll read in his class. I could not do the reading and still totally understand the theorist because he was so good at lecturing about it. He makes the lecture bearable with his sweet anecdotes about his son and genuinely cares about his students, treating them fairly. He's always willing to answer your questions and help you brainstorm ideas for the paper. Even when people asked dumb questions he was extremely patient and considered their perspective. The midterm and final are both very fair and he finds challenging but useful ways to evaluate you on his exams. This class will expand your mind infinitely and give you a good sense of theoretical history from Plato to Post-Colonialism. It's difficult but definitely worth it.

Professor Huehls is simply AMAZING! Take this class. You will never read a book the same way again. If you are an English major or minor or simply interested in thinking critically, take this class. It is difficult! Very difficult, but the material is so interesting and professor Huehls does a phenomenal job of breaking it down for you. He even podcasts his lectures! You will begin to think like a professor, reading with a Post-Structuralist lens or Psychoanalytically, etc. It's amazing all the things you learn in 10 weeks in this class. I thoroughly enjoyed the material as well as the professor. He is a funny witty guy and very, very intelligent. He's only 34! You will be impressed. If you do decide to take this class, be prepared to do a lot of reading and re-reading and maybe even listening in on some podcasts on top of going to every class and reading. But it's worth it! If you're willing to work hard, you're going to love this class and professor Huehls. I am sad that I cannot take any more classes with him. But he's so amiable and helpful, I definitely plan on staying in touch. Good luck and enjoy!

I was very frustrated by how Huehls approached literature. I completely agree with the review above of 174a ( I took 174b but this could not be selected from menu). He imposes his personal semantic or historicizing arguments and refuses to provide close readings. The way he reads long passages in class without any look toward language or analysis is very frustrating. His lectures on Toni Morrison's the Bluest Eye were EXTREMELY painful as attempted to force the novel subversive narrative bending awe of this book into an argument about essentialism and antiessentialism. Huehls excited himself with pretentious chiasmata and I often walked away from lecture feeling like there was little substance, just shuffling of ungrounded terminology.
I have heard again and again he is great for theory, so enjoy those classes with him but definitely definitely definitely avoid for fiction.

I took Profess Huehls' English 174B and was extremely underwhelmed. Professor Huehls historicizes and politicizes literature in a way unpalatable to a true English major. He analyzes literature by imposing political/philosophical/historical assumptions to the books instead of drawing them from the actual text. His lectures were delivered in the same way that I write bad papers. He makes many broad overarching statements and throws evidence in when it favors his point but generally avoids the actual text. Lectures were circuitous and his self proclaimed "abstractness" was very much exaggerated. None of the concepts he taught were as complicated as he implied. Nonetheless, he made the class almost impossible to fail with quizzes that gave you credit just for showing up and had questions that were easy to answer if you just do the assigned readings. He gives students the liberty to write what they want to write and the final was extremely fair. He gives information and holds you responsible for nothing outside of that. In short: Professor Huehls is not a good professor, but he is a fair professor.

Ah, where do I begin? So this was my first quarter here and I decided to take this class because I was tired of reading books by people who are dead! Prof. Huehls did an amazing job of incorporating the atmosphere of the era studying that particular week. He puts a lot of effort into making organized and elaborate (one can a learn a thing or two about design from this man) powerpoint lectures. He even begins by putting a contemporary song that invokes a sense of the era we are studying before the actual lecture! That was something I always looked forward to. He even stated at the beginning that his job is merely to entertain his students because at this day and age, people are being replaced by computers, anyways. He has an absurd sense of humor that really appealed to us who are in our 20s. He really brings a youthful energy to the class. Now, with all that said, I must say that the material was very abstract. Think about the "untruth of truth" and the "politics of aesthetics" or the "aesthetics in politics". It barely makes sense until the end of the quarter when he interprets these concepts within the themes of each novel we read. If you think you can handle metafiction and writing an essay about anything in The Crying of Lot 49 (my favorite book from the class because I still don't understand it) then take this class with him. If anything, you at least get an understanding of the atmosphere and the uncertainty/ paranoia/ race issues/ intelligence systems in literature today.

This class is pretty difficult because the material that Huehls is trying to convey is, as many have previously stated, often convoluted and abstract, such as trying to see invisibility and seeing the truth it has to offer. Yes, this class is well-suited for the magicians at heart. I think he did a splendid job with Invisible Man. The novels we read were decently interesting, but also fairly complicated. The great majority seemed to hate reading Armies of the Night and The Crying of Lot 49. The majority loved The Bell Jar and The Bluest Eye. I liked Lot 49 and surprisingly enough disliked The Bell Jar. But this are just different people's preferences. I was often as perplexed as my classmates, but there is a positive light in this perplexity and feeling of ambiguity and confusion. We experience the atmosphere of American Fiction since 1945. Huehls comes to class with his own interpretations, as do most of UCLA profs. When choosing a class ask yourself whether you like hearing prof's interpretations, or whether you prefer an environment more open to discussion in which the professor allows students to share and direct the class and novels interpretations. As a transfer student, I am more inclined to discussions, but I also like interesting and well-supported interpretations. My best advice for this class is that after going to lecture one should listen to the recording of the lecture, which he provides on the class website. This will really help and do miracles to help you understand, since you can always pause and rewrite your notes (He talks very fast and there is plenty to write). There are quizzes once a week for the novel assigned that specific week, which are very simple. If you are completely lost and feel trapped in this Funhouse, the best thing to do is to realize that you are not alone, and that you can always hear the lecture again and ask the prof or TA for help. The reason I took this class was because the books attracted my interest. I learned a lot, aside from being confused most of the time.

I don't even know where to begin with this class but I will keep it simple. Overall Professor Huehls is very interested about what he instructs and tries to convey that to his class. However, his fiction was very difficult for me to understand. Often times Huehls tries to push these ideas and concepts about the novels on you and they DO NOT MAKE SENSE. If you ask questions he tends to twist your words so in the end he makes you more confused. As much as I tried to understand his thinking and analysis, I just couldn't because the concepts were so far reaching and abstract. He tries to pack a lot of information into every lecture and it really all becomes far to theoretical. Also, I did have a TA for this course in discussion who was no help either. It didn't seem like she quite understood what he had to say either. In the end the class is bearable (at most) and I would most likely have taken another class instead of this one. If you are planning on taking this class don't expect to understand anything he says because none of his theories about the novels make sense!

Not a big fan. His day one,"take this class seriously/I'm going to grade tough, etc." lecture left a bad taste in my mouth. He was often condescending-to the class in general, not individuals-which made the class hard to sit through because his lectures are of the audience validation variety, cracking jokes that would be funnier coming from a less insulting professor. Aside from that, his lectures were good, but delivered at break-neck speed, and the reading list was not too bad.