200-400 words. Due: Tuesday March 13th by 11:59pm.
In Robert F. Scott’s “It’s a Small World After All: Assessing
the Contemporary Campus Novel” (MMLA
Vol. 37, no. 1, Spring 2004), the following assessment of the subgenre of
“Campus Novel” is made:
In terms of their prevailing formal qualities and stylistic
tendencies, campus novels are essentially comedies of manners. And, because
these works tend to dwell upon the frustrations that accompany academic
existence, they often call attention to the antagonistic relationships that
exist between mind and flesh, private and public needs, and duty and desire. As
a result, despite their comic tone, most campus novels simmer with barely
concealed feelings of anger and even despair as protagonists frequently find
themselves caught between administrative indifference on one side and student
hostility on the other. Thus, even when campus novels are lightly satirical in
tone, they nonetheless exhibit a seemingly irresistible tendency to trivialize
academic life and to depict academia as a world that is both highly ritualized
and deeply fragmented. (83)
Further:
At the heart of most campus novels stands the much-maligned
figure of the college professor. Indeed, although there are notable (though
few) exceptions, the professorial protagonists in recent campus novels are more
often than not depicted as buffoons or intellectual charlatans. Among the
well-established stereotypes, for example, are the absent-minded instructor,
the wise simpleton, the lucky bumbler, the old goat, and the fuddy-duddy. Far
removed from the inspiring figures of the kindly Mr. Chips or the dedicated
seeker of knowledge, fictional academics—males in particular—are more likely to
emerge as burnt out lechers with a penchant for preying on their students or
their colleagues’ spouses. In his analysis of the images of higher education in
academic novels of the 1980s, John Hedeman convincingly contrasts the generally
positive images of professors prevalent in academic novels of the 1960s, those
figures “who wanted to make a difference in the world beyond their cloistered
campus,” with the protagonists in the 1980s who “have given up caring even
about their own disciplines.” Maintaining that “[s]elf-doubt, self-absorption,
and self-hate” characterize most recent fictional depictions of professors,
Hedeman soberingly describes these protagonists as “average men and women with
average abilities who live empty, unhappy lives” (152). (qtd. in Scott 83)
Do you agree with this assessment? Why the shift from the
“positive” depictions of professors of the 60s to the more contemporary campus
novels? Are these depictions realistic fiction, satiric send-ups, or is there something
else at work here? Further, what of the depictions of students in campus novels
(no winners there...)?
To begin, the students that have so far been depicted in the campus novels we have covered have been students that are quite pretentious. Potentially depicting the outcome of what happens when children are raised believing they are great, and can become anything they choose. With half believing that they piss excellence, and the other half being overly esteemed by the fact their daddy has acquired quite a bit of money; there truly are no winners I have come by.
ReplyDeleteThe assessment itself does seem true to the mark for the majority of campus novels, but when there is a formula that has been tried and true; I see few reasons to risk originality. It is hard to argue against a competent and capable writer following a formula, and creating something enjoyable.
The shift from the positive depiction to the negative depiction could be that of times. It is hard to answer the question, seeing how I will never know how teachers truly were in either decade, but it may be because it was how teachers were, and became. The sixties were a time where people felt there was a difference to be made (I think),and they wanted to be one to make it; being armed with a large arsenal of easily influenced students, the temptation to be the cause of change proved too much to resist. Whereas the depiction of the eighties professor (I think) is the result of what happens when a large group get caught up in their own ideologies, try to incite change, and fail. Obviously there is to be repercussions from such failure, and I believe the eighties depiction does offer insight into said repercussions.
While the depictions of most professors I deem to be embellished for interest, the old saying, “No smoke without fire,” comes into mind. This makes me inclined to believe that these works are a realistic fiction, but with certain embellishments to add flavor. Of course, satire is also heavily used in order to make a mockery of the “fragmented system”; further deepening and expanding the cracks the embellishments created.
Personally I enjoy the type of humor that has to be taken with a grain of salt, so the campus novels are okay by me.
First off the best scene so far in the book that illustrates the tensions between the "mind and flesh, private and public needs, and duty and desire" is the scene where he's holding the goose, Finny, by the neck on camera. In this scene he completely abandons his normal character in the book yet brings out his inner personality. Who he was in that moment with his silly glasses on showed the person he really was, not who he pretends to be with the rest of the world. He is aggravated with all the talks about budget cuts and the rumors but deals with it quite comically. He is hiding his anger through this ridiculous display.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the shift from the positive to negative, this is most likely just a change due to the times. Books tend to reflect the type of society it was written in, so as society evolves so will the types of characters in books. Tony is the character in this book who sleeps with his students and Teddy is the one who fantasizes of being with his colleague's (Hank's) spouse, Lily. Oddly enough Hank fantasizes of being with multiple people including colleagues and daughters of colleagues but also imagines his wife being with his colleagues. Hank is quite odd to say the least.
As far as students are concerned in these campus novels, I believe they represent the modern view on 20-something year old adults. Julie thinks she is entitled to everything, Meg is depicted as sort-of a drunk whore, and Leo is the kid who thinks he can do anything he dreams of because that's how children of this generation have been raised. These kids are illustrations of the different ways our society views our generation.
Although it seems as the book may allude to these profound ways society has changed I don't think it should be taken too seriously. I think it is mainly meant to be funny and entertaining.
Edwin “Buddy” Trauth IV
ReplyDeleteThe drastic change in the way scholars are depicted when comparing campus novel of the 1960’s to similar novels starting in the 1980’s is directly correlated to the obvious changes in western culture during this time. Life as we know it today is radically different then it was 50 years ago as a result of technology advancements, our fascination with media, and increased selfish ways.
With such technologies as smart phones and computers we are able to access information much more quickly than in the 1960’s. More importantly the overwhelming volume of information that is so readily available to us, unfortunately has seemingly reduced the perceived importance of scholarly careers. We feel that there is no need to learn the scholarly disciplines because with only a few clicks we are able to access whatever information we desire.
Secondly, I believe that over the past decades we have become more obsessed with media. Rather than learn about Ancient Rome, we have welcome distractions like being able to watch videos on demand or follow our favorite celebrities on twitter. We have essentially found activities like these to fill the free time created by our “ I can just Google it” theory described above.
Lastly, our selfish ways have increased. We live in a world of “what have you done for me lately,” a world in which we rarely do something purely for the sense of accomplishment, without expecting some payment in return. Thoughts like: “Why become an expert in geology when I could become a petroleum engineer, go to school for half the time, and make double the money” consume our sense of logic. Therefore there are less and less people are in pure research even though it is what continues our development. This pure research is essentially what most professors do everyday. Therefore nobody is better qualified to comment on or satirize it than the men and women that live it everyday, in the case of Straight Man it is Russo.
I agree with this assessment in that my past experience with campus novels (both knowingly with the works assigned in this class and unintentionally) can be described as such. The mark of a good contemporary campus novel is the use of absurd manners to create comedy while depicting both petty and significant woes with the life of the academic. The caricature of figures in university life-- like the lecher professors, the characters picked out from the emotional powder keg of the student body, and the navel-gazers-- leaves us with a sense of the unexpected absurdity of the whole enterprise. While the case for satire can clearly be made, there is definitely some truth in this assessment. Professors from the 1960s may have been genuinely more positive about their contribution to the lives of their students because of the lessened pressure upon them to produce and impress their higher-ups. This development in the academic world has only gotten worse over the years; the changes in the depiction of the attitudes of professors corresponds with the rise in expectations for those whose duties previously emphasized the impact on students at a smaller level, instead of the effect on academia as a whole. Then again, as shown in Russo’s Straight Man, professors in earlier times could reach these elevated goals—that is, there was not an absence of educational big shots being paid exorbitant amounts of money to publish under the wing of prestigious universities, like William Henry Devereaux, Sr. Perhaps the feeling that such accomplishment was out-of-reach to them led the later generation of professors to become disillusioned with their field.
ReplyDeleteThe students in campus novels are sometimes depicted as hostile and in opposition of the administration, true. The change in attitudes of the teaching staff has affected the characterization of the student body because the members of the staff are less focused on the needs of the students than their own. However, I think that the student body’s role in books of this nature is to play that opposite the professors. While one group is being ridiculous, the other is playing the straight man, and vice versa. In this way, the dynamic between the students and the professors is exaggerated for satirical purposes.
Becca Indest
ReplyDeleteThe shift in campus novels occurs for a couple reasons. One reason could be the change in today’s culture. People today view college different than they did say, forty years ago. While some people believe college is a great way to further one’s knowledge and prepare to get a job in the real world, other people view college as a joke with pretentious professors who believe they know everything yet nothing at the same time. The evolution of the campus novel is directly related to the evolution of the world in which these novels are written.
Also, nowadays campus novels tend to be written as satires. A campus novel that was written before might not have had the intention of being nearly as satirical as most campus novels are now. The satirical approach author’s take when writing a campus novel would lead to professor’s being depicted in very pretentious ways, or even as people who know they are failures yet still teach students (practically about something they don’t even fully understand). While the professor is often depicted as a person who knows nothing, the student is often depicted as someone who thinks they know more than they do, or someone who does not care at all. Each of these extremes are used to satirize the different types of students in a classroom. Often times, people who write campus novels are professors in real life and could be writing to make fun of colleagues or students they have come across during their years in the classroom, which is something authors may not have done in years past.
It’s likely that the transition from positive depictions to negative depictions of professors in campus novels is a result of the times that the novels were written. The 1960s were a time of revolution and change. There was war, civil rights movements, and monumental changes occurring in the United States. Professors at the time were not necessarily more passionate about making a difference to their students; it is just likely that the difference they were trying to make was on a larger and more noticeable scale. For this reason campus novels written in later decades, like the 80s, focus less on the image of an active and radical professor and more on a burnt out and self-involved professor. Richard Russo was a professor himself so it is likely that the pictures he paints of the campus life is somewhat based on his on personal experiences.
ReplyDeleteIn Straight Man the negative image of campus life is portrayed. William Henry Devereaux, Jr is a middle-aged, tenured professor, yet he lives an empty and unhappy existence. He is the chairman of his department and is faced with budget cuts from the university. This uses the indifference of the administration to highlight the frustrations of academics. Devereaux imagines him wife cheating on him and later finds himself attracted to the young daughters of his colleagues. These types of conflicts in the novel fit the mold of the self-loathing and frustrations of the life of a middle aged, college professor. He tries to live a simple life and keep himself removed from conflict, but he demonstrates time and time again that he cannot. The students show the hostile relationship between professors and students that is often an element of the campus novel. His students are mediocre, uninterested group, some of them even quite creepy. This shows the change in campus novels. Students used to be portrayed as eager and actively involved in their studies. They are seen here as indifferent and lacking in a real desire to further their education.
The term straight man comes from comedy. It is the man who the joke is on, the bud of the joke. By giving this novel the title Straight Man it makes me think that the professor is the victim in campus life satires.
I do agree with Robert F. Scott’s assessment of campus novels. A quick analysis of Straight Man is sufficient evidence for his argument. Scott claims that “[campus novels] exhibit a seemingly irresistible tendency to trivialize academic life and to depict academia as a world that is both highly ritualized and deeply fragmented. The life of our protagonist, Hank, is overwhelming the product of the interactions of his coworkers. However these interactions appear to be personal and not professional, meaning they do not have roots in the pursuit of practicing their academic profession. They are the result of the character’s repressed sexual desires, (insert name) hostility based on unwillingness to sell ones land, and biased opinions based on Hank’s own ego, among other things. The most interesting relationship in this novel in the context of “analyzing a campus novel” is between Hank and his father. Examining this relationship truly peels back the surface of Hanks motivations in the academic world and gives the reader insight for his opinions toward academics.
ReplyDeleteBriefly on the topic of the change in campus novels from the 60s to the 80s: I believe these changes are inspired by a Hollywood effect on the views of university and academia. This effect was caused by “college” movies such as National Lampoon’s Animal House and Revenge of the Nerds. In these films, the professors are portrayed in a negative light; they are boring, emotionless, and often the antagonist. These characteristics clearly carry over to campus novels.
I agree with the assessment that the depictions of professors has changed drastically from the 1960s up to today. I would say that this is due to the changes our society has gone through during this time. Students today have access to a multitude of resources of information that those in the past did not. This, I believe, is a reason professors were viewed much more positively in the earlier years. In order for the students to learn about a subject, they had to listen to the instruction of their professor. They could not simply look Google things as we do today. Since students today have such easy access to vast amounts of information, it can cause them to have a sense of confidence that they do not need to listen and learn from their professors when they can simply acquire the knowledge themselves. I also think that the portrayal of professors in campus novels had declined due to society’s changing view of the job of a teacher. Today, there is much more pressure to pursue a more “practical” job field like those of medicine and law. People today seem to have a lack of appreciation for teachers and professors alike, and have forgotten that people can still thrive and do well without being a doctor or lawyer. I think this is why many of the modern protagonist professors are portrayed as having “empty, unhappy lives”. I think the students in modern day campus novels are portrayed as what society think of the average college student. I think this is shown best through Meg, who is portrayed as sort of a slut who flirts with a number of professors.
ReplyDeleteI believe that depictions of professors in campus novels are not realistic. Sure, they probably have a great deal of truth surrounding the professors characters but I think it is just to make the novel humorous. Also the protagonist of the story is telling about his life in a very comedic way, so his view of people in the novel is to be expected. If someone else were telling his story, and the story was not a satire, I don't think that the other professors would be absurd or silly. His narration of the story is what makes the professors comical and degraded. Since most campus novels are usually satires, it makes sense to poke fun at the other professors.
ReplyDeleteAs to the shift from viewing professors positively in the 60s, to viewing professors as bafoons, I agree with Edwin when he says that professors information is not regarded as highly as it used to be. People were unable to simply search the web when they had a question. They had to actually work for an answer they wanted and so they valued the people who had the answers, much more than we do today. Because people became less reliant on teachers for knowledge they became cockier and began to put more faith in their own knowledge. This self absurdness of themselves, caused people to question just how intelligent their professors really were and thus professors began to be satirized. Also as I said before, campus novels are intended to be humorous, so of course the professors will be made fun of.
All the students in the novel are very self assured and cocky. This goes hand-in-hand with the way that professors are viewed today, as discussed in the previous paragraph. For instance, his daughter Julie buys a house when she can't afford it. Even though this is obviously a stupid plan, she does it anyway because she is cocky and thinks she deserves it. Hank's student Lee, thinks he's amazing writer, when in actuality he sucks.
I think the way the novel depicts professors shouldn't be taken too seriously. The book is intended to be a satire and what better way is there to make something humorous than by making it absurd?
Alex Devillier
ReplyDeleteI agree from what I know of campus novels that there has been a movement in the idea of the professor, from a man of high praise to a more human and flawed state. The shift away from the “60s professor” is most likely due to a change in the minds of society. I believe it can be partly attributed to two things, time and the availability of information. Over time most everything sacred is broken down into joke. Things held in high regards just 20 years ago probably have numerous jokes about them now, and so on. A college professor holds an important place in our culture to try to pass on upper level knowledge to the next generation, but even a job such as this has been dragged down by the clutches of time. Society changes over time, their mindset changes as their morals are changed by several factors. Information and quicker access to it promoted a change in the minds of the people. What was triggered is hard to say. Perhaps people had been able to read about the pedestal professors of the 1960s and compare them to their own, quickly realizing there was quite a gap between the old stories’ depictions and the currently employed ones. Professors, though professionals and experts in their respective fields, were now viewed as people. Regular people like the rest of us. So when the people of the 1980s, most likely professors of the time, wrote their campus novels, it was with that realization taken a step further to poke fun of the image of the old professor while more accurately representing the professors of today.
The depiction of students in campus novels seems as dismal as a professor from the 60s finding out his pedestal is getting taken away. They too are shown as humans with just as many flaws as the teachers, though with more grammatical errors.
Robert F. Scott describes novels with college settings as “comedies of manner.” They call “attention the antagonistic relationship of between flesh and mind.” His reviews of these novels are not too far from the truth. In “straight Man” Richard Russo constantly had a sexual undertone in every chapter. The main character will honestly give his feelings about whether or not he would like to have sex with another character. But he remains faithful to his wife. Although he doesn’t deny the fact that he could in fact bed all these women that he finds attractive.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Scott says that the main character usually has trouble concealing his anger. This isn’t so in “Straight Man,” where William never seems angry even after he has his nose mutilated by his coworker. This doesn’t make Scott wrong though. It just wasn’t right in this one instance.
Personally, these novels and stories seem very realistic to me. As for the depiction of students, I can’t say for sure if it is believable or not. People vary from person to person with the most character and people that are downright boring. So I don’t have a good opinion on such details.
I feel that this is a very good assessment of the “modern” campus novels. Where older novels such as Dead Poet’s society show an almost God-like teacher who can turn his students into great scholars, these newer modern novels show lackadaisical professors who, in most cases, are there for the salary or have failed at becoming a great author so they teach classes to live out the rest of their “miserable” lives (according to the novels). I feel that the reason for this shift from the glorified professor to the absent minded instructor is because the people that are writing these campus novels are usually actual professors in college. They are writing about what they see, and so most of them are actually observing their colleagues who fit the role of the “fuddy-duddy”, “lucky bumbler” etc. They pick up these characters in real life, and then, generally, satirize them even more to make them fit into the category of mindless professor. The roles of students portrayed in older and modern campus novels has changed greatly as well. The students in the older novels have a thirst for knowledge and are, usually, easily taught. However, in the “modern” campus novel, the students are just as absent minded as the teachers. Again, this is most likely due to the fact that these professors that are writing the modern campus novels can observe their classes and see just how apathetic the students are in real life; taking these characters, and again dramatizing them to make them seem even more apathetic.
ReplyDelete