----------
> From: Michael Marc Levy <levymm@UWEC.EDU>
> To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
> Subject: Re: critical reading and island breezes
> Date: 15 April 1997 04:13
>
> 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
Hiya all.
Well I gotta say I impressed with all the feedback on what I said about
critcal reading although in not so fancy a string of words.
My first answer is to say that I agree with most peoples arguments. Like
the one about doing reviews on a subject that one does not like. To me if
one likes SF and Fantasy then one is in a position to review a book in that
genre but on the other hand if one likes more of a spy thriller stay away
from the reviews for SF or fantasy. Also reading should be fun or atleast
one should try to think that the book that one is going to write a review
or an essay about is 'fun' because then the analysis is not biased and
thought out. I am always or atleast always try to be positive because it
makes things easier.
My insurance lecture was fond of quotes and gave us one that went something
like:
If one tries something, one might be given the power to do it.
That just says it all for me. I also agree that one should not just always
read for pleasure, but when someone reads a SF or fantasy novel you can't
always be critical of it, I mean then you are moaning about someone's
imagination. That to me is ludicrous. A SF should be enjoyed and read into
but not so deeply that you lose the story altogether in the observations
Recently I read a review on David Eddings's books. It was quite clear that
the person hated fantasy and didn't enjoy reading it. Immediately the
person has wasted their time (how many people waste time on things they
don't like unless they absolutely have to?) and energy, not only that
putting a bad light on the review thereby spoiling it for others
Jay
"May the mother of all dragons keep you all from harm within the shelter of
her wings" Melanie Rawn....
Dragonheart.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:02 PDT