Literary Kinds 2012

    I must admit that yesterday’s discussion regarding science fiction left me somewhat puzzled because I know very little about science fiction. I would not mind reading something in this genre, I could understand it better if read something and draw conclusions or come up with definitions of what science-fiction is on my own. As mentioned previously, some of our discussions could be based on audiobooks; some people can understand texts better when they simply listen to them versus just reading them.  

I have never read any of the selections mentioned in class but after some research I suggest the following:

1-"The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks"

2-Octavia Butler’s “Kindred”

    Going from one genre to another would work best if we discuss one text per week so that we can post our thoughts over the weekend, the discussion can always continue online if some additional thoughts come up throughout the week. We can always take a few minutes every couple of days to see if there have been additions to our previous discussion.

This is one of the most exciting and challenging assignments I’ve ever received. Laying out a syllabus that uses science fiction to exemplify how and why genre borders blur is daunting. I’ve done the best with what I know, while striving to keep away from works I’ve already read. After all, if we are all going to read together, we might as well all start from A.

Anyway, we have 9 classes so I’ve chosen three books. I think it’s fair, and not too slow to explore one book for three classes. I’ve tried to choose books based on author, summary, theme, and recommendation. However, being that there are so many science fiction novels, I’ve also offered a supplement to try and feed everyone’s “English” hunger.

1st BOOK: 2001: A Space Odyssey by Arthur C. Clarke.

                I thought it would be best to start with a classic, and read a book that is “obviously” science fiction, just so we can all get our footing before being knocked over. This novel has also been made into a movie and has resulted in many adaptations on tv etc. This can provide us with a multi-media view if we want to go there.

2nd BOOK: Jay’s Journal by Beatrice Sparks.

I am very much enjoying the conversations in class, and I think that I have learned from my classmates' comments and perspectives.  For me, I like to think about the underlying questions that we are pondering in the context of assigned readings.  So far, I think about questions such as "If everyone supported this concept, what would that look like," "How do we learn differently from different genres, and how do writers manipulate that learning by choosing a certain genre," "What are the presumptions or prejudices about genre and forms of writing," "If we expect the writing world to promote the evolution of a certain genre how does this impact structure and does that matter," "What does the evolution of a genre mean, anyway," and finally, "What is the message of this class?"  So as we listened to our BMC guest speakers about their digital projects, I was wondering not so much about how they accomplished it or what they expected from it, but rather I thought about the purpose of having a piece of writing so accessible.  When we read Satrapi's graphic novel, I thought about the reason she wrote it and the reason she chose to write it in a graphic novel.  When we read "Mad at school," I thought about the breakdown of structures that we know if everyone were to promote the evolution of this type of education.  There are more examples that are too numerous to write in this small jaded space.  

Reflecting on our experience thus far in exploring literary genres, I have come to value the open space that is created for our learning. The seminar “genre” of the classroom allows for multi-way discussions with our professor Anne Dalke, peers, and visitors. The peer-to-peer activities and group blackboard brainstorming channel a collective group effort in breaking down the understanding of the literary genre and provide an open platform for shared ideas. In some sense, the classroom has grown to be a “gift economy” of mutual learning.  Also, the digital platform provided by the Serendip course website is a great way to extend our class discussion outside the three hours of weekly classroom time.  The weekly online reflection has been a useful exercise to participate in  the digital writing movement and to reflect on the past week’s class discussion and readings.

This weekend, please post as a comment here your proposal for the remainder  of our semester's work together. Begin with a paragraph or two of a mid-semester evaluation of how we're doing in learning together:
what's working? What needs working on? What should we keep, of our shared practices? What might we change up?

Turn then from questions of "form" to those of "content": What evolving genres would you choose to explore, if the remainder of the class were an independent study? What do you recommend our exploring together? Why? (i.e. how do your selections expand/extend/challenge what we have already done?)

I have two more weeks of material planned for after break (wiggle room, to order new books, do some course planning), but we will select material together for NINE [AS YET UNPLANNED] CLASSES.

When I was writing this post, I was trying to come up with some universal key motives that authors have for writing a story.  I suppose I wanted to say that authors write a story to relay a message, specifically in a certain environment that they construct in their minds.  (If anyone thinks that this is not the case, I'm curious to debate whether or not that is true).  So it is the author's job to use words and context in order to give the reader an essence of the story and the environment.  Still, there is a level of uncertainty that is unavoidable - whether this is the author's intent or not.  In class we debated which type of writing allowed more freedom of interpretation - comics or the traditional novel.  The discussion seemed to rely on the glories of being able to have that freedom as a reader as opposed to the narrow view of a story.  On the board, I wrote that when comics are pushed to their limits, they turn into movies.  Movies are a certain visual interpretation of a story, certainly with a narrow view of what the characters look like and how they react to certain events throughout the story.  Often, readers are disappointed by movie interpretations of their favorite books because it is not what they had pictured, the movie was forced to leave out important events, or the movie altered the storyline.  We, as readers, cannot accept the alternate story when film directors change the plot.

In Chapter One of Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud writes of his youthful assumptions about comics; he "knew exactly what comics were.  Comics were those bright, colorful magazines filled with bad art, stupid stories and guys in tights.  [He] read real books, naturally" (pages 1-2, emphasis omitted).  This genre snobbery -- the idea of "real books" and other, lesser forms of reading material struck me, and it came to mind during part of our discussion in class on Tuesday.

Romance novels popped up in this discussion when Anne mentioned Jeffrey Eugenides' The Marriage Plot and whether, in fact, this literary genre/storyline is still relevant today.  I said that I think it is; after all, romance novels are one of the best-selling genres out there.  Anne agreed that romance feeds a certain emotional requisite for some people.  A few minutes later, she mentioned that romance novels may "fulfill emotional needs for someone who has just been divorced or can't find a partner."

Aha!  I thought, writing it down in my notes.  That's a stereotype.  (And, I should add, one very widely-held, though untrue.)

I just wanted to highlight my newfound respect for comics as a result of Satrapi's Persepolis. I was fully engrossed in the narrative and I found Satrapi's story extremely compelling. I read the entire thing from cover to cover in one sitting. But I can't help wonder why this was so different from my experience with Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics.

I believe that this was because McCloud, though extremely casual and "chatty", writes non-fiction. Satrapi, on the other hand, is telling a story. This made me realize that the genre of the "comic" or "graphic narrative" is a lot more complex that we imagine. What interests me, however, is why the "comic" genre is separate from other genres.

Think about what we define as "genre" in literature. There's "drama", "thriller", "romance" etc. They're characterized by their content, not by the way they are layed out on the page. So why are we creating this label of "comic" when really, the comics themselves have content that lends itself to (sometimes multiple) genres? And in reverse, why do we characterize in terms of content if the content can also lend itself to genres by the ways that pages are laid out? So what does genre actually mean and how are we defining it?