On Sun, 13 Apr 1997 22:16:58 -0500 lissa bloomer wrote:
>
> a couple of years ago, one of my students (in my sci-fi class)(taught
> during summer school) blurted out, "why can't we just read this stuff for
> fun???!!!"
>
> i had to keep my cool, and restrain fantastical thoughts of a
> mac10convertedsemiautomaticmachinegun.
>
> i wanted to ask this person why the hell was she in college?
I am going to be very rude.....What appalling arrogance! Whilst I understand that
critical analysis can be interesting and beneficial, most *good* fiction was written
to be *fun* (using a very broad definition of that word) to read. One of the reasons I
have little tolerance for much critical work in sf (I am a history lecturer) is the
priviliging of boring but intellectually complex texts over fascinating and fun but not
terribly well written ones. (This seriously skews sf syallabi away from any fan
consensus of the *best*). I have heard English literature professors suggesting
that critics should concetrate on the texts they do not like, rather than the one's that
they do, and outside of sf, the most common assumption thrown at sf is that it
cannot be good because it *is* fun.
The starting point of all critical thought is usually either enjoyment or hostility. If we
do not want to mistake cynicism for critical ability the more we stress the *fun* side
of the material we read the better. I feel very strongly that the best entry into
material is to enjoy it. Whilst I accept the latter part of lissa's argument that there
are depths beyond fun worth plumbing, I still retain more sympathy for the student
than for lissa. Reading should be fun.
Farah.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:01 PDT