(I actually took 174C with Huehls, not 174A, but Bruin Walk didn't list it as an option.

Huehls may have been the best professor I've had at UCLA. His lectures were the most fascinating of any class I've taken here. I got excited by the prospect of going to class, as if I was going to voluntarily hear someone talk about a book I read, not to a class to hear a lecture. His analyses were incredibly insightful and interesting. He himself is incredibly intelligent, hilarious, and relatable. It was fortunate that the class material was also interesting within itself, but even when it wasn't, he made it compelling. I would recommend taking any class with him if you get the chance, I think he is one of the best the English department has to offer.

Also with that being said, during the unfortunate incident this June with the murder-suicide, he was one of the professors who responded with efficiency and compassion to the situation. He didn't hesitate to stop his lecture to make sure we were safe, and walked around the class multiple times to make sure if we were all doing ok. Afterwords, he made the final optional and take home because he understood that people were having a difficult time processing the situation and didn't want to return to that room. People talk about how professors at UCLA can be frustrating when they care more about their jobs or subject than actual people, but Huehls is a reminder that there are just as many professors who care about students first and foremost. I just think he should be recognized for that.

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!

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.