In Which Rolanni Flails About

[rolanni]

There 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.

Comments

(frozen)

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Yay!

(A friend taught SUMMER COUNTRY in a college-level course a few years back. The concept scared me.)

(frozen)

[jelazakazone.livejournal.com]

My first thought is something like how I always hold up your books as examples of well-written SF books when people start to rag on genre lit.

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)

[mardott.livejournal.com]

Well now, you're prob'ly right. And well said, by the way! But keep in mind that the people who choose to take a course in science fiction will be SF fans. So hopefully, no one will injured in the study of SF. Although it should only be studied in a pub.

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)

[grassrose.livejournal.com]

I read the other nice lady's blog, and I see where she's coming from, but I mostly agree with you. There are books that I read when I'm in the mood to think and analyze. Some of them are scifi; some are fantasy; heck, some are romance. Most of the time, however, I'm not engaged in anything so strenuous. I just want to suspend disbelief and go tubing in gentle waters.

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) Analize This

[ingrid44.livejournal.com]

As a reader of SciFi, Mystery, Adventures, Romances, History etc (get my drift), I read for your reason..escape, enjoyment, stretching my mind, etc. We Americans still have the Puritan's guilt with "enjoyment" Pure enjoyment is still seen as a "sin" even if sub-consciously. Hence the need to explain, disect,analize every written and spoken word.

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)

[baggette.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure about what level of education we are talking about here, as I do not read the other nice lady's blog.
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?

[bookmobiler.livejournal.com]

One of your other commentators points out that Shakespeare wrote for beer money. Actually, that was probably for ale money, but I digress.

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) But, but

[romsfuulynn.livejournal.com]

I just see academia as an aspect of fandom, where they actually get paid and can earn a living reading and talking about the stuff they love. That's one of the things fans do anyway. I can think of half a dozen things I'd love to do in terms of looking at your work in relation to other work as well as on its own terms.

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

[(Anonymous)]

Yeaah!

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)

[(Anonymous)]

Does your real-life experience with academics play a part in your thinking? I hate tearing a book to little bits to see what makes it tick (like Terry Pratchett's Auditors trying to see why people like paintings by analysing specks of the pigment).

Cathy

(frozen)

[jestermac.livejournal.com]

"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. "

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)

[cailleuch.livejournal.com]

As an academic (animation professor) I cannot talk about teaching about books but I do understand the critical thinking part of this that interests us academics. I show people animation, we talk about what makes it work and what doesn't. The point is to neither glorify or vilify but to have students think about what they are seeing and apply this to what they are doing. They will at least talk about the animation in a video game because they played it or in a movie because they watched it. Talking about design principles in the abstract, not so much. Using popular culture to capture interest is sometimes the only way you get their attention.

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)

[(Anonymous)]

It's so unfortunately true that scifi was, and to some extent still is, regarded as trash. The snobbery I've had to put up with from people who have never opened the cover of anything to do with fantasy or scifi is infuriating. I think it says a lot about their lack of imagination.
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)

[elektra.livejournal.com]

Some of these "academics" need a short sojourn to Delgado to see where they are headed . . .

(frozen) Hmm...

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

You seem to have a different perspective on academic study than I do. For background purposes, I have a bachelor's degree in Rhetoric; I write for the Internet Review of Science Fiction; I teach and organize the curriculum in an online school; I've done other teaching and writing.

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)

[grassrose.livejournal.com]

"...like Terry Pratchett's Auditors trying to see why people like paintings by analysing specks of the pigment"

I love that analogy! Very apt.

(frozen) Re: Hmm...

[grassrose.livejournal.com]

Nobody's arguing that critical thinking and analysis lack merit (at least, I don't think they are). The problem is, when you start dissecting a work that was written as escapist entertainment, you're switching mental gears from idle to first or second. This defeats the purpose of "escapist" :-)

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...

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

Not all speculative fiction is written as escapist entertainment. I've read a few books that were, and wouldn't stand up to analysis.

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...

[grassrose.livejournal.com]

I see what you're saying, and a lot of the stuff I read for enjoyment would probably also stand up to analysis. But analysis isn't fun for everyone, and those who do enjoy it may not want to do it all the time, with every book or movie.

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) SF

[(Anonymous)]

I agree 100% go for it girl and keep writing

(frozen) Re: Can I Study This Question?

[queenmaggie.livejournal.com]

Nah, beer was invented a generation before (the extra hops meant that it was sturdy enough to keep around for longer. It formed one of the bases of trade in Elizabethan England, along with wool) That was around the time that brewing became a trade and moved away from being a home based activity. (just to mention the women's studies aspects)

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) Re: But, but

[liadan-m.livejournal.com]

Being an academic who loves SF and having had classes on SF in undergrad, I agree.

In my class we studied Foundation, Children of the Mind and Martian Chronicles, all of which *do* stand up well to fine analysis. The prof was certainly one who looked at SF as an "ooh, shiny! I can get my dept to let me teach my favorite thing!" and critical analysis of all three taught me things that all my other crit classes didn't, mostly because I knew the pieces beforehand and could look at them in the light of modern SF and the rest of the author's body of work.

Hell, my first lit crit paper was on the Greek concepts of love and Stranger in a Strange Land.

Now I deal with escapist fantasy of a different era - Beowulf, Sir Gawain, Arthur, Chanson d'Roland, trouveres and minnesingeren. And when you get a bunch of medievalists into the same room, you find out that we're just as big geeks into old escapist fantasy as we are into new escapist fantasy (See examples; Theresa Nielsen Hayden, Debra Doyle, Heather Rose Jones, and others).

Academics write papers to validate our jobs to our depts. However, most of the time, our topics and fields are chosen because we have a deep love of what we study. If we didn't have to publish or perish, I bet there would be a lot less dreck out there, because we really do love what we do.

(frozen)

[fatbaldguy60.livejournal.com]

"Escapist genre novels.

*Walks around the phrase and admires it from all sides*

Yeah.

Amen, sister.

(frozen) Re: But, but

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

I just see academia as an aspect of fandom, where they actually get paid and can earn a living reading and talking about the stuff they love.

I'd agree with this, but. Fans don't teach. If academics limited themselves to pubbing their ish and sharing the Shiny with like-minded folk, then, cool; little harm done.

What troubles me is the folks who love the Shiny and want to spread the word; they can teach, so they do. Even if they are wise and sagacious teachers, and choose only those novels that can bear the weight of academic analysis, this still reinforces the notion that the Only Valid Reading Protocol is Analytical.

I would like to keep genre books over here with ice cream and beer and bowling and Jackie Chan movies and all the other treats that you give yourself after you've done the day's heavy lifting.

(frozen)

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

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.

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! :)