On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, farah mendlesohn wrote:
> 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.
>
I don't believe that Lissa ever said that reading shouldn't be fun, or
that fun wasn't important in reading, did she? Essentially, as I
interpreted her e-mail (not to put words in her mouth), she just said
that you should think about and understand what you read. For most educated
people this adds to the fun.
I've been an academic most of my adult life and I've published hundreds
of articles, book reviews, and other pieces of non-fiction. With the
exception of a dozen or so reviews of books that I was assigned by various
editors, however, I don't think I've ever published anything about a book I
didn't like.(I take that back--I did once write a nasty piece about John
Norman). Writing, even academic writing, is not only time consuming but
involves an enormous emotional commitment to the texts you're working on.
Forcing yourself to devote hours to a book, story, or poem you dislike would
be sheer hell.
In fact book reviewers are much more likely to write negatively about
texts than academics are. Most academic writing assumes the quality of
the text being discussed. If the scholar didn't think the story was good
s/he generally wouldn't have devoted any time to it. My assumption
concerning the academics who you mention as "privileging boring but
intellectually complex texts" is that you find those texts boring but that
the academics involved did not. I'm sure that the students in my SF and
gender class thought I was "privileging boring but intellectually
complex texts" when I assigned The Female Man and The Door into Ocean,
two books I love, when they'd rather have been reading easier stories.
Whoever that professor was who you heard recommend to people that they
should write about works that they don't like, s/he was an idiot (on this
one topic, at least) and certainly doesn't represent the normal run of
academics, scholars, and critics.
Mike Levy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:01 PDT