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) 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...
Date: 2008-10-20 06:51 am (UTC)That was, ultimately, disappointing. I like something I don't hit the bottom of as soon as I start digging. For me, the analysis is fun. It's like playing with a puzzle is for someone with kinetic skill.
(frozen) Re: Hmm...
Date: 2008-10-20 07:22 am (UTC)I love 'Finding Nemo' and 'Monsters, Inc'. I'll probably never write an essay on the elements that make them worth watching. I just drop the disks into the player and relax into happy fascination.
I once had to translate a few paragraphs of a very good, very complex novel as part of a language class. It took me days to get through a few pages, finding the phrasing that would best reflect the author's beautiful prose. Once I was done, all I could think was, "Wow. This is truly, truly awesome." But my brain was exhausted. Even knowing that it was worth the effort, I never did finish the book. It's not exactly the same thing, but it's close. A little bit of that kind of concentration goes a long way.
That being said, I did put enough analysis into the Lee & Miller, Bujold and Weber books to figure out that it was a particular sub-genre, space opera, that most appealed to me (Friedman might not qualify as space opera, but I think there's some overlap). I also noted that the dialogue, humor and characterization were common elements that I enjoyed. But these observations came after reading the books, not while reading them, and they're admittedly not very deep :o)
(frozen) Re: Hmm...
Date: 2008-10-22 05:22 pm (UTC)Absolutely. On top of that, I read as a writer, not just as a reader/litcritter, so I want to be surprised. I've just finished a (short) novel that would have been better off as a novella - within the first few pages I knew what was going to happen and how it would end. While there was a great deal of interesting supernatural stuff going on, I recognised the function of each piece immediately, and felt somewhat disappointed.
That's a level of analysis that I cannot turn off. It's there, I've learnt the skills, I cannot put them aside - for me to enjoy a book, it has to be of a certain quality.
On the other hand, part of my enjoyment comes from admiring the writer's skills, so I don't feel I am losing out at all.
(frozen) Re: Hmm...
Date: 2008-10-22 03:44 am (UTC)I think most students--& professors--are pretty flexible, able to read different books in different ways. I definitely read the same book in different ways.
In fact, now that I'm writing about his fiction, I read each new novel by Peter Straub at least three times: the first time, as a thrill ride, occasionally noticing great writing; the second time, as a puzzle, matching up clues earlier in the book to what happens later; and the third for what I might observe that could be original and worth pointing out to others. Yet, if I turn to the same book a fourth time, I can choose to read for enjoyment or analysis.
There's so much false-either/or in this entry and comment thread. Embrace the power of "and"!
(frozen) Re: Hmm...
Date: 2008-10-22 04:42 am (UTC)It might have started with storytelling... like Spider Robinson's mother, "just as we had reached the point where the Lone Ranger was hanging by his fingertips from the cliff, buffalo stampede approaching, angry native peoples below... Mom would suddenly remember that she had to go sew the dishes, or vacuum the cat, or whatever - and leave me alone with the comic book." (Robinson, 1990)
I learned to appreciate and actually like subtle poetry through analysis in class, but I still don't read it to relax. Some people do.
We can embrace the power of "and," but I think rolanni worries that some folks' introduction to genre fiction will be by way of the scalpel and microscope... and that if they're taught that the only way to approach the work is with a scalpel, they won't learn how to ESCAPE into escapist literature. They need both skills.
(frozen) Re: Hmm...
Date: 2008-10-22 04:33 pm (UTC)Your reply makes the problem seem even less likely, because it brings up age. While sf YA novels may be taught in school (especially The Giver), academic analytical skills aren't enforced until late high-school or early college.
Don't you think that's a bit late to spoil or cultivate a love of reading JFF?*
It seems to me that by that age, people do read for entertainment or they don't, mostly. And my experience is that even one literature class per semester can't outweigh years and years of enjoyment of JFF reading; students learn how to do both, usually, choosing which.
Being turned off to a particular genre or author is a lot more possible, and yes, I've seen that happen, though as I say in another comment, I've had students say they were turned on to authors and genres, too.
Frankly, mostly I've heard the "turned off" bit about authors whose work that particular person would never have liked under any circumstances. If the book does have a good story, great characters, or some other JFF lure, that seems to come through no matter what.
After all, the student is supposed to have read the book on hir own, before it is discussed in class! During a recent short-story class for high-schoolers, I always started out with what the students liked and didn't like (often surprising), then went on to analysis.
*Just For Fun--idiosyncratic, but I prefer it, because it refers more to a way of reading than to what is read. Not only "escapist" literature can be read JFF, as you say.
(frozen) Re: Hmm...
Date: 2008-10-22 05:18 pm (UTC)Probably because of conversations she's had with those so affected, and posts like some of those in this thread. We've got a multitude of personalities in the discussion. Some have been turned off by analysis; some thrive on it.
When you consider that this population is a filtered sample of those who have found rolanni's livejournal and who, presumably, still read for pleasure (be it analytical or not), you've got to wonder what percentage of non-readers are unrepresented. Some of the comments have referred to "my girlfriend" or some other friend or relative who has been permanently (?) turned off of reading for pleasure, by excess analysis.
"While sf YA novels may be taught in school (especially The Giver), academic analytical skills aren't enforced until late high-school or early college."
Not exactly true anymore. Check out what some of the grade schools are doing. A friend of mine (avid reader) who is trying to foster a love of reading in her third grader has been disgusted by the mandatory summer reading/reporting programs. They're trying to force the kids to read from an "approved, age appropriate" list. That doesn't mean they can't read more advanced material; it means they can't read the more juvenile stuff.
In other words, if I want to read and report on Harry Potter, well, that's probably not age-appropriate for a 45-year-old, so I won't get credit for it, and I'll STILL have to read three books off THEIR list. By the time I'm done reading and reporting on that, I'll probably be too frustrated and angry to want to go back to Harry Potter - especially if I'm just a beginning reader. Not to mention that the summer will probably be just about over.
"Frankly, mostly I've heard the "turned off" bit about authors whose work that particular person would never have liked under any circumstances. If the book does have a good story, great characters, or some other JFF lure, that seems to come through no matter what."
I see your point. I also think rolanni might be fighting a losing battle. Many avid readers go into academia. The more they value escapist genres (or individual works in those genres), the more likely they are to want to help others appreciate what they value. That means blogs, papers, and... adding it to the curriculum. They justifiably want to bring others into their community. Given the wide variety of personalities and learning styles, this will occasionally backfire. Loudly.
However, I don't think it's going to be possible to set aside a refuge, with a sign saying "Here there be dragons - no scientists allowed!"
(frozen) Re: Hmm...
Date: 2008-10-22 06:59 pm (UTC)If opinion about the effects of teaching literature are so split, maybe the question of good vs. bad teachers is not a red herring after all.
As far as summer reading assignments, I know my view is affected by the fact that I teach at a Korean-American academy: my students are in regular school all day, meet with me individually as a tutor during evenings and on Sunday, and attend class at the academy all day Saturday. Over the summer, they are in class four to six days a week, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., working on the sciences, math, test-prep, and English. So three books in 2 1/2 months does not seem very onerous to me, even for a slow reader, if there is no other summer school!
I'd propose, at most, that maybe English should only be required two years each out of high school and college, for non-majors--as long as other classes, including science, took up the slack in teaching writing. That way, if people don't want to analyze literature, after getting a taste of the basic skills, they can do other things. As was the case with me and math.