wailing and gnashing of teeth

[deborah]

There's a minor kerfuffle going on in both F&SF fandom and media fandom this week about some accusations that academia is the enemy of genre fiction and of fandom, and that SF should never be taught, and that "fans don't teach" (emphasis original). Now, this amused me no end for any number of reasons (not least the assumption that the bloggers' own experiences that literary analysis lessens reading enjoyment is universal; not to mention the assertion that scholarship is "a way to secure tenure" -- excuse me while I look at my own adjunct paycheck and then ROTFLMAO), so I read without comment, and then toddled off to teach my course in F&SF for Children.

And there I realised why, perhaps, fans shouldn't teach. Because the students almost universally disliked a book I think is one of the best books of its year, a book to which I'd have given the Printz. As instructor, I had to tamp down the part of me that was screaming "Fs all around! Why didn't you like this book! Aiyee!" and replace it with the calm, collected discussion leader trying to explore the text's use of language and character development. I think I succeeded, but oh, it hurt.

And the fan in me wants to chant: "Stupid stupidheads."

(They are great students, and smart, and we have great discussions. But I question their taste.)

Comments

[cqs.livejournal.com]

That's not a fan thing. I think all professors in any field have moments of "what the hell why aren't you as in love with this topic as I am".

[diceytillerman.livejournal.com]

scholarship is "a way to secure tenure"

I'd like them to come over here and say that to the woman who will never, ever have the health to be in any tenture-relevant position yet keeps publishing critically.

And there I realised why, perhaps, fans shouldn't teach

That's equally true for "fans" in the older sense, not just the sense of "people in fandom." I'm not in fandom (am I? I get confused sometimes about what that means), but when I love a book or other media, I love it hard. I don't think I love it any less hard than fans in fandom. The situation you were in today would have been be equally painful to me (or to any passionate consumer and teacher of that media, whether or not she were in fandom). Or is there a difference I'm not seeing because I'm not (maybe) in fandom?

To me, crit and theory are joy. I see why some people don't agree, but I don't see why it threatens them. Why does it threaten them?

[deborah]

Yeah, I think in a sense I (and possibly the original Grumpy McGrumperson I'm quoting) meant "fan" in the sense of "fan of this book". Or more, somewhere in between the two. Not so much about participating in fan culture, but about considering oneself a fan of fantasy and science fiction.

I would send you to the original post but seriously, you do not have enough Sanity Watchers points -- from saying that fantasy and science fiction shouldn't be studied but that Tolkien and Le Guin should be; to saying that analysis takes all joy out of a book; to saying that you should never analyze escapist literature; to saying that you have to consider the author's feelings before you do critical analysis -- seriously? You just have to laugh in order not to scream.

[deborah]

Probably true. I haven't come across it yet because, so far, they seem to be really loving the topic, or at least liking it. An advantage of graduate school, I suppose; they are all there because they want to be.

I must be weird

[lsl.livejournal.com]

I am not in fandom
I am not an academic

I find that literary analysis substantially adds to my reading enjoyment (at least in all the cases I have encountered thus far). I can see not wanting to put that effort into everything you read, but that's hardly genre specific.

[sarahf.livejournal.com]

Oh, good, it's not just romance.

[forodwaith.livejournal.com]

I know another writer (of literary fiction & mysteries) who feels the same way as the OP you're talking about, and equally strongly, to the point where her language about academics is frankly insulting. I just don't understand how knowing someone out there *might* be analyzing your text (there's a LOLdemic in there somewhere) is so problematic.

Seems analogous to the perennial "OMG warn for icky stuff"/"click away, nobody's forcing you to read it!" fandom split in a way, doesn't it?

[kumquatmay]

now I'm curious as to what the book you'd have given the Printz to was...

a whole lot of that kerfuffle seems to maybe stem from the idea that teaching the topic/book/etc. invites discussion about it--and discussion can lead to disagreements of opinions, and OMG HOW COULD YOU NOT LOVE THIS THE WAY I LOVE IT!? issues being worked out.

Which, on one hand, is exactly why I don't want to be in academia, because I could not handle that at all. But on the other, some of the most interesting and best discussions I remember from undergrad was when it came out during the discussion that the professor really didn't care for the material.

[ithiliana.livejournal.com]

Very good point! I remember when I taught Scott Momaday's House Made of Dawn, which I love with a passion and the whole class hated. It was two weeks of pure unrelenting hell, and the class and I loathed each other the rest of the term.

It's sometimes iffy to teach something you love, especially when you're fairly new to teaching and assume that others will love it. Of course, that's why I debate with senior colleagues who said their job was to teach the love of literature--I kept asking them how they graded for it? I think it's bogus to say a lit prof's job is to teach students to love something--it's wrong in so many ways.

And I've learned how to sneak books I love in, and where/how, to do it, but yeah, it can be a heartbreaking experience, as I've told a number of grad students in my "how to teach literature" grad course (who btw assume that their students will HATE theory and LOVE literature, ahahahahahahahahahahaha).

Re: I must be weird

[deborah]

I don't think that's weird! I got into academia because I love analysing, not vice versa.

[deborah]

How can you RUIN my COMFORT stories by DISSECTING them like this?

(Today I went to the used bookstore and bought three romances I don't have time to read: Suzanne Brockmann, Julia Quinn, and I forget the last.)

[deborah]

It really does, and I wish I understood it. The model of analysing that's killing and dissecting just makes me so sad. How does it kill a book to understand what it does? And how does my doing it kill the book for you?

[deborah]

Wilce's Flora Segunda, which I LOVE LIKE BURNING.

True, true. I've been noticing I get disgruntled when I read negative reviews of books I love even when I had nothing to do with them in any way. Very odd reaction.

[deborah]

their job was to teach the love of literature--I kept asking them how they graded for it?

Ha! Excellent point. Never thought of that. it's the grownup version of "at least they're reading" which I find equally problematic. I've never understood why we'd rather they read an incredibly stupid book than watched a smart and thought-provoking television show.

[ithiliana.livejournal.com]

*smirks* Feel free to use at any conceivable occasion--although most of the people who based their entire methodology are retired, it's an assumption that still hangs around *alot* (my grad students are always talking about the love of literature that they just know they will instill in their students, and I keep telling them to let me know if it ever happens, esp. in "intro to lit" which in many departments is not a majors requirement).

And there are incredibly passive forms of reading that really mean nothing as well--so "reading" defined as sitting there moving your eyes over the print page is not automatically good.

My program is going for a lot more of a critical literacies approach and building in a lot of new media literacies (on both first year *and* graduate levels. The undergrad majors courses--well, it depends on the faculty involved.)

[in-parentheses.livejournal.com]

The kids I know who are reading stupid books aren't watching smart TV shows, generally. But yes, I see your point.

[in-parentheses.livejournal.com]

...oops, posted that too soon. Meant to add that I do see the value of "at least their reading" -- to a point. I have kids who read nothing but Gossip Girls, and it does get them into the library, which means sometimes I can say, "Have you read X? It's awesome; give it a try." And sometimes it flops, but when it takes off? They're choosing quality, in a way they would never have if they hadn't got in the reading habit in the first place.

Of course, it can be too easy to get in a rut of comfort books. I did that when I was a kid with the Baby-sitters Club, and I see my kids doing it now with stuff they loved in 4th grade. So they have to be reminded to stretch themselves. But I do still say, "at least they're reading!" (Bear in mind that I'm talking about middle schoolers here. The answer is probably somewhat different for older kids.)