In Which Rolanni Flails About
Sunday, October 19th, 2008 06:04 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rolanniThere was at Albacon a panel discussion around the topic of saving SF from academia. I wasn't on it; Steve moderated; it's been blogged elsewhere by another panelist, who is firmly in the "academia is not the enemy" camp. I tried a short rebuttal in her blog, because I'm just as firmly in the "oh, youbetcha academia is the enemy" side of the road. I'm bringing it over here because I don't want to get into a spitting match with this nice lady, but I do want to explore my own thoughts on the matter a little more, because the...strength... of my reaction surprises me.
There are a couple things going on in the deep background behind that question. I'll try to be brief.
Point One
Science Fiction has had an Inferiority Complex almost since its mass market birth, when it was viewed (by academics, my mom, high school English teachers, and other Right Thinking People) as being on the same intellectual level as porn, and was often displayed on the same spinners in the newstands (yes, this was a looooooonnnnnggggg time ago, in a very different world). Since then, it has, as a field, Ached to be Studied. Because Study = Validation. Validation means my Work is Worthy, and writers, as everyone else, need to feel that their work has value.
What seems not to be understood is that academics don't study and write articles in order to Validate the object of their study. Academics study and write articles in order to Validate themselves. As more and more people become academics, they must look further and further afield for subjects, and lo! suddenly Science Fiction isn't genre trash anymore; it's a way to secure tenure.
Still, there will be some folks in the field who lust after that Validation, and who will write in order to be studied. If that's what floats their boat, then they're welcome to it; I'll just sit over here in the corner and write escapist genre novels.
Escapist genre novels.
*Walks around the phrase and admires it from all sides*
Yeah.
Point Two
I write, in the words of the immortal Damon Knight, for people's beer money. My mission is to give you an escape from the mundane world for an hour or three. I do not write deathless, finely crafted prose, my sentences arrayed on the page like rows of cut emeralds. I write space opera, fantasy, and mystery. I write to give people pleasure.
Now, yes, sometimes it's pleasurable to sit down with a book that makes you sweat for every nuance. But that's not the only pleasure to be had from reading. It's perfectly legitimate to read a book because it makes you feel good. This is what genre books are for.
In my humble opinion, college English courses are the main reason that so many people say that they no longer read for pleasure at all. It's this fantastical notion that everything must be analyzed for nuance, scrutinized for detail, examined to discover the Real Story that's hiding under the Apparent Story. The message that many take away from their English teachers is that the only Right Way to read is by the Analysis Method, and yanno? after a long day? Much too fatiguing. Wanna watch a Jackie Chan movie?
Point Three
Some folks want to make the "should we teach SF" question into a discussion of Good Teachers vs. Bad Teachers. This is a Red Herring. The question is not, Should SF be taught badly or well? The question is: Should SF be taught at all? And the answer -- again, from my perspective -- is No.
Teach Shakespeare, teach Tolkien, teach, by all means and with my full support, how to Read Critically. Critical reading is a Necessary Life Skill. But, please, do not teach genre fiction. There's too little fun in the world anymore, and reading is one of life's greatest pleasures.
Sigh.
Well, I don't know that I've solved anything, but I sure feel better.
Edited to Add: Comments have been frozen on this entry as of 4:08 PM EDT Wednesday, October 22, 2008. Pilot's choice.
Son of Edited to Add: Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to disable further commenting on the main post while still allowing the comments that have already been made to remain visible. So, the comments are now invisible, which is a pity, but there you are.
There are a couple things going on in the deep background behind that question. I'll try to be brief.
Point One
Science Fiction has had an Inferiority Complex almost since its mass market birth, when it was viewed (by academics, my mom, high school English teachers, and other Right Thinking People) as being on the same intellectual level as porn, and was often displayed on the same spinners in the newstands (yes, this was a looooooonnnnnggggg time ago, in a very different world). Since then, it has, as a field, Ached to be Studied. Because Study = Validation. Validation means my Work is Worthy, and writers, as everyone else, need to feel that their work has value.
What seems not to be understood is that academics don't study and write articles in order to Validate the object of their study. Academics study and write articles in order to Validate themselves. As more and more people become academics, they must look further and further afield for subjects, and lo! suddenly Science Fiction isn't genre trash anymore; it's a way to secure tenure.
Still, there will be some folks in the field who lust after that Validation, and who will write in order to be studied. If that's what floats their boat, then they're welcome to it; I'll just sit over here in the corner and write escapist genre novels.
Escapist genre novels.
*Walks around the phrase and admires it from all sides*
Yeah.
Point Two
I write, in the words of the immortal Damon Knight, for people's beer money. My mission is to give you an escape from the mundane world for an hour or three. I do not write deathless, finely crafted prose, my sentences arrayed on the page like rows of cut emeralds. I write space opera, fantasy, and mystery. I write to give people pleasure.
Now, yes, sometimes it's pleasurable to sit down with a book that makes you sweat for every nuance. But that's not the only pleasure to be had from reading. It's perfectly legitimate to read a book because it makes you feel good. This is what genre books are for.
In my humble opinion, college English courses are the main reason that so many people say that they no longer read for pleasure at all. It's this fantastical notion that everything must be analyzed for nuance, scrutinized for detail, examined to discover the Real Story that's hiding under the Apparent Story. The message that many take away from their English teachers is that the only Right Way to read is by the Analysis Method, and yanno? after a long day? Much too fatiguing. Wanna watch a Jackie Chan movie?
Point Three
Some folks want to make the "should we teach SF" question into a discussion of Good Teachers vs. Bad Teachers. This is a Red Herring. The question is not, Should SF be taught badly or well? The question is: Should SF be taught at all? And the answer -- again, from my perspective -- is No.
Teach Shakespeare, teach Tolkien, teach, by all means and with my full support, how to Read Critically. Critical reading is a Necessary Life Skill. But, please, do not teach genre fiction. There's too little fun in the world anymore, and reading is one of life's greatest pleasures.
Sigh.
Well, I don't know that I've solved anything, but I sure feel better.
Edited to Add: Comments have been frozen on this entry as of 4:08 PM EDT Wednesday, October 22, 2008. Pilot's choice.
Son of Edited to Add: Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to disable further commenting on the main post while still allowing the comments that have already been made to remain visible. So, the comments are now invisible, which is a pity, but there you are.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2008-10-19 11:52 pm (UTC)(A friend taught SUMMER COUNTRY in a college-level course a few years back. The concept scared me.)
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2008-10-20 12:04 am (UTC)I wonder what Henry Fielding would think about the fact that people are reading his books as "serious literature". Or Laurence Sterne (author of Tristram Shandy). I don't necessarily think any genre should be excluded from critical study. I have to say that one of my favorite classes in college was my freshman seminar on Postmodernism and we studied movies like Blade Runner. It was really fun to analyze that movie.
I'm totally getting off track here, but I wanted to say something.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2008-10-20 12:17 am (UTC)Those books they made us study in English classes? I didn't like a one of 'em. To this day, I won't read Steinbeck. Destroyed him for me, they did.
And while you might not write "deathless, finely crafted prose, (my) sentences arrayed on the page like rows of cut emeralds," when I'm stuck on how to properly turn a phrase while writing my books, your books are the ones I turn to for inspiration.
You're doing it right, believe me.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2008-10-20 12:41 am (UTC)Where I disagree with you is in the separation of these works by genre. I also don't think that the author's motives are always totally relevant. Shakespeare wrote for beer money, but his articulation of common themes has kept generations interested. Tolkien's fantasy, as you said, is worthy of analysis. As are 'Stranger in a Strange Land' (Heinlein) and 'This Alien Shore' (Friedman). In movies, 'Minority Report' could handle a few weeks of study. That was one that I watched for fun, but couldn't help analyzing.
I don't think you reliably can divide pure entertainment from entertainment and analysis strictly by genre, or even by the author's intent. If what you're saying is that we should study individual works that call for it, but not try to bundle the genre as a whole into a curriculum, I totally agree.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2008-10-20 05:06 pm (UTC)I don't think we can discount the author's motives and intent entirely. It's one thing if we're studying the body of work which is our legacy from a Dead Author. However, I think that authors who are still working deserve a certain level of courtesy with regard to their work, their intentions, and their motivations.
Ursula LeGuin expects to be studied. She is an academic from a line of academics, and partakes of the social mores of her tribe. She expects that her work will be scrutinized, discussed, studied. And most of her work does bear the weight of analysis; it's not until you get back to Rocannon's World that you hit something that is perhaps not strong enough to support extended scrutiny. Happily, this is her first novel and so can safely be dismissed as "a young work" while certain of its themes can be seen as precursors for the themes manipulated more deftly by the mature author.
If what you're saying is that we should study individual works that call for it, but not try to bundle the genre as a whole into a curriculum, I totally agree.
I would say that, but then we'd have to agree on what makes a work worthy of study.
More worms! :)
(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) Analize This
Date: 2008-10-20 01:53 am (UTC)After all, this is now the world requiring everyone and every word to be 'PC.'
I agree with your comments, but hopefully there are more like me in the world than teachers looking to obtain tenures.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2008-10-20 02:19 am (UTC)BUT, With the "education system" being as broken as it is, I would not want to trust any of my most beloved pieces of sci-fi to academia as I know it. Like many of your other readers, I am shocked and appalled at the products of the current paradigm in public "education" .
I was introduced gently to sci-fi as a fourth grade non-reader. Madelaine L'Engle and Andre Norton are my heroes to this day! Their books were not discussed in my classes, but they were available and included on the acceptable reading lists for book reports. I read and reported on "A Wind in the Door" and "Moon of Three Rings" that year. I have been hooked ever since. Done correctly, Sci-fi CAN be taught. Will THEY do it correctly? Probably not.
JMO, thanks for bringing this up!
(frozen) Can I Study This Question?
Date: 2008-10-20 03:34 am (UTC)I think the problem isn't if SF should be studied, but the how, when and what that study should be about.
If Shakespeare wasn't already 400 years dead he'd have been been studied to death by now. But he was lucky. He only had to worry about theatre and poetry criticism while he was alive.
Imagine if he'd have had to cope with being studied by academics while he was still writing?
My point is that we are to close to the subject of today's SF for meaningful analysis.
It may not take 400 years before somebody can reasonably teach a course on the Liaden Universe. But I can imagine it being worthy of study some time in the future. Doing it now would be counter productive.
There is plenty that can be reasonably studied and discussed about SF's early days. Just to name three; the roles of women, minorities and the absence of computers or their equivalent.
As for deliberately writing SF for academics to study. The few examples I've seen can't have been much fun to write. They certainly weren't any fun to read.
Agent of change is going to be on peoples book shelves long after those examples of "literature" are just an unpleasant memory.
(frozen) Re: Can I Study This Question?
Date: 2008-10-20 12:29 pm (UTC)What am I trying to say here? Mostly that everything has depths that can be studied. and all the genres are on a spectrum from easy to read, to almost impenetrable: but that there's no one to one correlation between obscurity of meaning and worthiness of study.
(frozen) But, but
Date: 2008-10-20 03:47 am (UTC)Part of it, in a post-modernist sense (I think it's postmodernist I mean although I may be misusing it) genre fiction is in conversation with (reacting to, influenced by, whatever) previous and current genre fiction.
So - the work of Miller and Lee as an evolution and expression of the novel of manners.
Duainfey and how it ties in with your essay about authors and readers.
I don't think the movement toward academia comes just from within the field. It comes from academics saying "oooh shiny!" and wanting to play with it with their toys. And they can come up with some interesting and fun stuff. (Also some utter rubbish.)
(frozen) Re: But, but
Date: 2008-10-20 04:03 am (UTC)I read a LOT of genre fiction and enjoy every minute of it. As a Math Major and Systems Engineer, after a tiring day analysing systems, I am in no mood to analyse anything.
(frozen) Re: But, but
From:(frozen) Re: But, but
From:(frozen) Re: But, but
From:(frozen) Re: But, but
From:(frozen) Re: But, but
From:(frozen) no subject
Date: 2008-10-20 04:47 am (UTC)Cathy
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2008-10-20 06:37 am (UTC)I love that analogy! Very apt.
(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) no subject
Date: 2008-10-20 04:48 am (UTC)Oh yeah, I could not agree more. I finally got my wife, who graduated years ago as an English major in college, reading for pleasure again by pushing some of my books on her. Thank you to John Ringo, David Weber, and you and Steve for making her enjoy books again!
- Jacques
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 06:02 pm (UTC)The same is true of my fondness for Chaucer and my deep love affair with Shakespeare. Neither of these would exist had I not studied them in an academic setting with teachers who knew more about them than I did.
(But then I'm thinking of getting back into education and doing an access course so that I can go and study Eng Lit at Cambridge, so what do I know?)
(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) no subject
Date: 2008-10-20 04:56 am (UTC)If you are creative you like to look at others work and figure out what works and doesn't. If you are not creative then you write tomes in professional journals so you get gold stars. I think for me this is an argument about intent. If I was trying to get students to read, in the "just read a book, any book" sense I would recommend genre fiction. I bring bags of old books (mostly SF but not always) to illustration classes and force them to read and illustrate the book. Most of my students don't read for fun and it may very well be because their English teachers did make it so not fun to read.
I mostly agree with you and "good/bad" teacher is a distraction. Perhaps how and why should be the questions asked.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2008-10-20 05:02 am (UTC)As for academia's take on it, I personally would rather they left it alone. If they won't, I at least hope that anybody who does start teaching/analyzing it actually likes it.
Teresa
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2008-10-20 07:51 pm (UTC)And a lot of it *is* pretty bad, just as in every other genre, and even some well-loved and well-known books aren't very good books.
It is very easy to randomly open genre books and find pretty poor pickings. I get that feeling every time I enter a high street bookstore - yes, there are *some* gems hidden on those shelves, but I am a fan. I know which ones they are, but I haven't bought a book from them in years - I do my shopping by reccommendation.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2008-10-20 05:21 am (UTC)(frozen) Hmm...
Date: 2008-10-20 06:30 am (UTC)When I teach speculative fiction, I do so variously to:
* explore great F&SF literature and what makes it great.
* dig into the underlayers of the writing to see what lies beneath the surface, in the allusions and symbolism and cultural inferences, because that's usually fascinating.
* promote the works of some talented writers who deserve more recognition.
* encourage more people to read F&SF by giving them an incentive of class credit.
* encourage more people to write F&SF by introducing them to some really good stuff.
* make learning fun.
I guess I never bought into the whole validation gimmick. Obviously the literature has value. Obviously so do I. Anyone who can't see that is letting subjective opinion obscure their view of demonstrable technical merits.
(frozen) Re: Hmm...
Date: 2008-10-20 06:47 am (UTC)Irrespective of genre, some work lends itself to analysis. However, it can poison your reading for enjoyment, interfering with your "willing suspension of disbelief," when your brain slips gears and starts dissecting a story you just wanted to escape into.
When I discuss the Liaden universe (or the Vor universe, or the Valentine Michael Smith universe) with someone, we might indulge in some analysis, figuring out exactly why we liked these books, and what the common elements were. But it's not necessary or desired when I'm reading for enjoyment. Your mileage may vary.
(frozen) Re: Hmm...
From:(frozen) Re: Hmm...
From:(frozen) Re: Hmm...
From:(frozen) Re: Hmm...
From:(frozen) Re: Hmm...
From:(frozen) Re: Hmm...
From:(frozen) Re: Hmm...
From:(frozen) Re: Hmm...
From:(frozen) SF
Date: 2008-10-20 10:23 am (UTC)(frozen) no subject
Date: 2008-10-20 04:13 pm (UTC)*Walks around the phrase and admires it from all sides*
Yeah.
Amen, sister.
(frozen) SF
Date: 2008-10-20 05:41 pm (UTC)(frozen) no subject
Date: 2008-10-20 05:46 pm (UTC)So to honor George Orwell, we were going to be reading nothing but Distopian novels, starting with 1984. That is not what I go to SF for when I read. If I want to be depressed, I will read a newspaper or watch the evening news.
I ended up dropping the class.
Maybe there should be a distinction between "GREAT LITERATURE" and "good books". "GREAT LITERATURE" would be fair game for dissection and the 'good books' of any genre would be left alone. The very finest examples of reading will stand up to being run through a grinder, and still allow the reader to come back and just enjoy the story at a later date.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 01:32 am (UTC)*headdesk*
(frozen) *headdesk*
From:(frozen) Re: *headdesk*
From:(frozen) no subject
Date: 2008-10-20 07:45 pm (UTC)I would make a much stronger distinction between academia - 'should people analyse these books and think about them and discuss them in public' and "should SF be taught."
On balance, I would rather see good books that happen to be SF get the same treatment as books that happen to be soemthing else, than a strict genre ghetto. You get bad books, brilliant books, and anything inbetween.
Do I think that literary criticism often goes over the top and sometimes misses the point entirely? Yes, of course. But, y'know, a lot of speculative fiction deals with ideas - what if this happens? What kind of society would we get under those circumstances? And those are _precisely_ the kind of questions I want kids to think about.
Last but not least, yes, teaching can suck the pleasure out of any book, but when I read a good book with a bad teacher, I at least had a good book in my hand. When I read bad books with bad teachers, all I had was something dreadful.
(frozen) I'm in college!
Date: 2008-10-20 08:23 pm (UTC)At the same time, though, I never entirely turn my brain off while reading. The reason I like your books is because the Liaden Universe is awesome, and the reason the Liaden Universe is awesome is that it is a really intelligent, interesting, well-crafted universe. (I also like your books because you just write really pretty sentences, and I am an admirer of really pretty sentences.)
And whether you like it or not, you do tend to inspire some rather interesting ponders. (Don't worry, I'm a science major; if I end up in academia, I'll be writing papers on protein function or something.) For instance, this summer, after being forced to write a 6 page academic paper in French, it occurred to me how truly differently one thinks when thinking in a different language. And then I got to thinking about how odd it must be for Liadens, with their ridiculous multi-layered language, to speak Terran. How weird to have no modes, and how strange to a Liaden must be the ruthlessly direct Terran culture.
I personally feel like "teaching" a book, any book, is a horrible thing to do to an innocent book. Talking about a book with a whole bunch of other people who've also read said book and have interesting things to say about it can be good, even if it happens to be in a classroom. Such is the nature of reading.
The encroachment of academics into the sphere of just good fun may be inevitable. I know of somebody (undergrad) who wrote a linguistics paper on lolcats, which paper was reportedly well-received by the professor. So if you can do it to lolcats, no one and nothing is safe. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure the lolcat community has been unaffected, so who really cares what some guy in an ivory tower decides to write about?
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 03:28 am (UTC)I think there's plenty of sci fi (and fantasy) that is ripe for academic scrutiny, but I'm also not worried that all authors equally are likely to make it on the list-of-books-to-be-studied. Some books ARE obviously just for pleasure, and I don't think that makes them of lesser value in any way, it's just for a different intent. But there are plenty of sci fi and fantasy novels that are written as social or political commentary that beg to be part of academic discourse. I don't see any point in cutting them out of the field, and as someone who has taken courses with sci fi and fantasy novels as part of the curriculum, I remain of that opinion.
Nancy D'Inzillo
http://www.mightypenediting.com
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 10:01 am (UTC)I'm very glad to hear this, because I've heard the opposite so often it's frightening. What do you read for pleasure?
Some books ARE obviously just for pleasure, and I don't think that makes them of lesser value in any way, it's just for a different intent. But there are plenty of sci fi and fantasy novels that are written as social or political commentary that beg to be part of academic discourse. I don't see any point in cutting them out of the field, and as someone who has taken courses with sci fi and fantasy novels as part of the curriculum, I remain of that opinion.
You sort of make my point for me -- that some books are written for pleasure, and so ought to be read with the internal Analysis Program turned off -- but then we wander off into worrisome territory again with this talk of "worthy." I don't think I've said anywhere that some books are more worthy than others, nor have I said that the ability to read critically is a Bad Thing. If that's somehow crept into a subtext somewhere, I apologize.
What worries me is that the folks I've talked to who no longer read for pleasure think that the only way to read is in Analysis Mode. Or, another way: It has somehow not been made clear to them that reading for pleasure is OK. And so they stop reading.
As a professional writer, this concerns me.
(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 04:29 am (UTC)Full disclosure: I'm an academic, and I've taught genre fiction. So I have to say that I'm disheartened to hear that I'm an "enemy" just because I think it's worthwhile to teach people how to figure out what makes a text enjoyable. I've taught syllabi focusing on sci fi, fantasy, and fairy tales (respectively), and if my students find this a soul-crushing experience, their behavior in class and their evaluations (which I don't see until after grades have been turned in) haven't indicated so.
Admittedly, I don't choose emptily escapist genre fiction to teach my class because, well, emptily escapist books don't interest me. But good escapist fiction still has great plots and/or memorable characters -- and those are things that are certainly worth studying. For example, a book like The Lies of Locke Lamora is hugely fun, but it also inverts genre conventions in a way that would be really fun to discuss in a class on fantasy lit. And the book is more enjoyable when you know the tropes that it's working with and against. So I don't understand how teaching students to analyze those conventions is robbing them of joy when it actually enables them to get a lot of the jokes. By the end of the term, if I've done my job well, my students have learned to articulate more clearly *why* they like the books they do. And why wouldn't an author want more readers who appreciate the work that the author has put into a book?
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 10:38 am (UTC)Welcome.
So I have to say that I'm disheartened to hear that I'm an "enemy" just because I think it's worthwhile to teach people how to figure out what makes a text enjoyable.
By your leave, I did not say this. Granted, I find it fantastical that people need to be taught how to enjoy a good story, but that's just me.
Admittedly, I don't choose emptily escapist genre fiction to teach my class because, well, emptily escapist books don't interest me.
...how to say this gently? Do you bring this value judgment with you to the classroom? Is this part of the unspoken portion of your lecture which might nonetheless convey itself to your class? As I said to the young lady above, if you're telling your students that some books are more worthy than others, you're contributing to the problem.
For those of us who have lost track of the problem (God, She knows, I had to back-thread) -- it is that I am told with scary frequency by college-educated people that they no longer read for pleasure, often accompanied by the rider that it's "too much work." Someone, therefore, is failing to get the message that it's OK for grownups to read for pleasure, or they are taking away from somewhere the notion that the only valid reading protocol is Analysis Reading.
This is, in my opinion as a writer of escapist fiction, a Bad Thing.
In the interests of civility and with your agreement, we will not enter into a discussion here regarding what constitutes "empty escapist fiction."
For example, a book like The Lies of Locke Lamora is hugely fun, but it also inverts genre conventions in a way that would be really fun to discuss in a class on fantasy lit. And the book is more enjoyable when you know the tropes that it's working with and against.
Yes, the book can be read with perfect enjoyment without a in-depth analysis. It can be read with a different kind of enjoyment by those who know the tropes and giggle at seeing them standing on their heads.
Now, if you're teaching Lies to a class of savvy fantasy readers who really want to roll their sleeves up, dig in and unearth every nuance, I'd say that I have no quarrel with you.
If, on the other hand, you're teaching a class of literate, but not necessarily fantasy-savvy students, that THE valid way to read this book (and by extension any other book, because students do extrapolate from the specific to the general) is by deep analysis, then we have bone to pick.
And why wouldn't an author want more readers who appreciate the work that the author has put into a book?
Because, unless you are the author, you have no idea what the author (or, OK, the gremlins in the backbrain) has put into her book. You can analyze the words, but you may not -- and probably won't -- be right. Though this probably isn't the place for a discussion of how we-as-readers can never, really, read the same book, because of the personal baggage we all bring to the table.
(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-10-21 05:14 pm (UTC) - Expand(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-10-21 06:37 pm (UTC) - Expand(frozen) Thinking?
From:(frozen) Re: Thinking?
From:(frozen) Re: Thinking?
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-10-21 11:27 pm (UTC) - Expand(frozen) Re: Thinking?
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) Explaining a joke
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-10-21 10:53 am (UTC) - Expand(frozen) Re: Explaining a joke
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 03:42 pm (UTC)As for genre fiction, I read for pleasure these days, so that (genre fiction) is what I read. I certainly know how to do in depth analysis, but it isn't where I spend my time. My analysis of genre fiction generally looks like this: do I like the characters? does their life interest me? do I want to keep reading the story? (most of this is pretty unconscious, btw). I should also note that I have read some of the SF works that are considered "worthy" of analysis and found many of them boring. I realize it is probably some sort of SF heresy to say it, but I don't like Ursula LeGuin, Harlan Ellison, or many of the others listed as appropriate for critical analysis.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 04:17 pm (UTC)Your statement could start by recognising that academics work in many different areas. I happen to be a historian. So are rather a lot of sf *writers*.
If I wanted validation I would have stuck to being a historian of American Religious history.
(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 07:13 pm (UTC)In my case sometimes I read for escapism, sometimes to be inspired, provoked or otherwise stimulated. Often these are not incompatible. Sometimes I read reviews and academic articles, again for different reasons on different days.
As you say, reading is one of life's greatest pleasures, and the reason for that is that it can, nay it does, provide a multitude of pleasures simultaneously. Why would you seek to deny the validity of a part of that pleasure? What anti-intellectual urge drives the desire to restrict all books to a single meaning?
no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 07:54 pm (UTC)Also "anti-intellectual" is something science fiction writers hear a lot; it's rather lost its sting.
Thank you :o)
From:(frozen) Analysis in the forums
Date: 2008-10-22 12:58 am (UTC)Well, sorry for that minirant - obviouly I am still incensed, 37 years later. What I started to remark on is the amount of analysis written, purely for the fun of it, by the participants in Baen's Bar and the Theo Waitely conference. I have been reading the Bar for four or five years now, and sprinkled around among the snippets, food fights, etc., is a remarkable body of extremely thoughtful book discussion, on virtually every book in the Baen catalog, not to mention other genres that get pulled in (Miles to Go has several long threads discussing various romance authors, and if ever there was a genre with less serious recognition than SF, that is surely it.)
If you aren't interested in analysis of a book, it's easy to skip any such threads. But if you are, they are there for your enjoyment.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-22 02:55 am (UTC)Yes, this is why I--a person who loves reading and writing--HATED being an English major so very much. Analysis like that just hurts my soul. Now, I understand that for some people it's a thing of joy, but I don't get that.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-22 04:18 am (UTC)As I said earlier, I believe that it's a matter of different approaches or responses to the texts. I don't think one is *better* than the other.
But I don't really understand your aversion to analysis any more than you understand my affinity for it.
But for the record, I'd reject that "Real Story that's hiding under the Apparent Story" part. Subtext can be taken waaaay too far.
(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-10-22 03:31 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From: