Teaching with “For Love and Money,” part 2

Posted in Romance Literature on January 28th, 2012 by Admin
I just sent my students in ENG 383 (Women and Literature: Popular Romance Fiction) a list of paper topics, and as you’ll see in this post and the ones that follow, these topics draw on our initial experiences with Laura’s For Love and Money. The papers will be 6-8 pages long–and once I have them in hand, I’ll have more ideas about how the students have responded so far to the secondary text. My sense so far, based on class discussion, is that For Love and Money not only introduces students to some very useful ideas about the genre, but also models the application of those ideas in the form of good, thoughtful close readings. So far, in short, so good!

The first chapter in For Love and Money treats the five “modes” of literature identified back in the 1950s by Northrop Frye, discussing each of them (myth, ‘romance,’ high mimetic, low mimetic, and irony) with examples of how they show up in and shape one or more HMB romance novels. Since 2006 I’ve opened almost every one of my romance classes with a discussion of these modes, since they give me the opportunity to nudge students away from thinking of low-mimetic literary realism as the “norm” against which to measure other forms of fiction, usually in order to find them wanting in some way. For Love and Money makes teaching these modes and their relationships to one another very, very easy, and it primes students to look for them in the texts they go on to read.

The book then proceeds to discuss how and why romance novels also use “modal counterpoint,” the interplay of contrasting modes in a single novel. This, too, is a topic that I’ve tried to approach in other classes, with mixed success, mostly when I teach Suzanne Brockmann’s novel Unsung Hero. For Love and Money makes the concept very clear, and since modal counterpoint is quite vividly on display throughout The Duke is Mine, this was a godsend. Rather than balk at or get bewildered by the contrasting tones in the novel, students approached them as a deliberate aesthetic feature of the text–which meant that, in discussion, they could discuss the relationship between this feature (multiple modes in one text) and other multiplicities and doublings in the novel.

Here’s the paper topic, then, which I hope will provoke some interesting close reading from the students:

1. The first chapter in Laura Vivanco’s For Love and Money sets out the five “modes” of literature identified by Northrop Frye and shows how attending to the “modal counterpoint” in a romance novel can make sense of its shifting tones, metaphors, and rhetoric. These modes (and modal counterpoint) can be understood from a purely aesthetic standpoint, in terms of the structure and individual character of any given novel, but they may also be looked at from other perspectives: for example, Vivanco argues that the use of hyperbolic metaphors and allusions to “romantic” and high mimetic mythoi might aim to capture something of the experience of “romantic illusion,” which demonstrably forms a part of falling in love, at least for some (see pp. 65-69).
Write an essay on the use of modal counterpoint in The Duke is Mine, using ideas from Vivanco, from class discussion, and from your own insight to understand how James deploys a variety of modes in the novel, playing them off against one another. Your essay can be comprehensive, drawing on scenes and passages from various parts of the novel to illustrate James’s use of various modes, or it can focus on the counterpoint between various modes in a single scene, attending closing to a single chapter or passage. In either case, please keep in mind the guiding principle of our class: you want to make the novel seem as interesting as possible, whether by showing that it is more complexly coherent and artfully constructed than it might seem at first glance or by showing that it is more interestingly self-divided, conflicted, and ambivalent.
We also spent some time on Chapter 2, which focuses on what Frye called mythoi. More on that chapter, and the paper topic that came out of it, in my next post!

Teach Me Tonight

Tags: , , ,

Teaching with “For Love and Money”

Posted in Romance Literature on January 27th, 2012 by Admin



–by Eric Selinger
Six years ago I taught DePaul University’s first course exclusively devoted to popular romance fiction: a gen-ed (or “Liberal Studies”) course that ran from E.M. Hull’s The Sheik (1919) to Bet Me, by Jennifer Crusie (2004). I have since taught about twenty-five courses on the genre, from large undergraduate surveys to senior and graduate seminars. The novels I’ve taught range from Christian inspirational romance to BDSM and LGBT romances, often accompanied by some range of essays and chapters from popular romance scholarship.
This winter, I’m teaching two romance classes, both of which I’m going to start blogging about here at Teach Me Tonight. One of them is built around fresh scholarly resource: Laura’s brand new book, For Love and Money: the Literary Art of the Harlequin Mills & Boon Romance. I suspect I’m the first person to teach with this book, and I want to give anyone out there who might be considering it, either for class or for pleasure reading, a sense of how it’s working in this context.
Let’s start with logistics. When I asked my university bookstore to order hard copies of the book from Lulu, they balked, unused to dealing with an e-published / POD volume. (Our bookstore is a Barnes & Noble, and the fact that For Love and Money was available as a Kindle book, but not a Nook book, may have factored in their decision.) I promptly emailed the students directly, giving them links to download the book or purchase the paperback, and they were utterly unfazed by the prospect. About 2/3, I’d say, bought the paperback; the rest seem to be reading it on netbooks, e-readers, or tablets in class.
Because I wasn’t sure whether they’d all have the book by the first full day of class, however–a worry I won’t have in the future–I assigned some other reading before it. This is an upper-division undergraduate course, and I wanted to get students up to speed on the history of popular romance scholarship, the various debates that have structured it since the 1970s, and so forth. We started with three things:
  • The chapter on “Reading Romantic Fiction” from Joanne Hollows’ book Feminism, Femininity and Popular Culture (2000), which gives an introductory overview of critical debates from the 70s-90s, grounding them in critiques of mass culture that date back to the 19th century;
  • The introduction to New Approaches to Popular Romance Fiction, which covers the same period from a slightly different angle, and which brings things forward to the present, more or less; and
  • My own essay in New Approaches, “How to Read a Romance Novel (and Fall in Love with Popular Romance),” which talks about why it’s been so hard for critics to invest in giving “close readings” of romance fiction–and then offers an example of what such reading might look like, working with Laura Kinsale’s Flowers from the Storm.

Not much discussion that day, I’m sorry to say–I think I over-prepped, as I sometimes do when nervous. Instead, I talked my class through the critical history outlined in these three readings, so that they’d have a sense of the charges against and defenses of popular romance fiction in the contexts of 1) critiques of mass culture more generally (many of which are highly gendered, as Hollows shows); 2) feminist debates about the genre, including over whether it should be thought about as “pornography for women”; 3) the response of romance authors to these debates, primarily as gathered in the Dangerous Men, Adventurous Women anthology; and 4) the “new wave” of romance criticism that begins somewhere in the late 1990s, and picks up in the early 2000s, and includes Laura’s book.

For the second day of class, I’d assigned the Introduction and first chapter (“Mimetic Modes”) of Laura’s book. Our conversation began, though, with an extended discussion of her dedication: “To every Harlequin Mills & Boon author who has ever been asked, ‘When are you going to write a real novel?’” I had students brainstorm lists of the characteristics of the “real novel” and the “Harlequin Mills & Boon novel,” drawing on the previous day’s reading and on their own gut sense, as English majors, of what these differences might be.
This turned out to be a fabulous way to organize our thoughts, both in terms of the texts themselves and in terms of the ways they’re written, published, marketed, and consumed, per student assumptions and as these get discussed in classes at our university. I kicked myself that I hadn’t asked these students to read anything from Mark McGurl’s The Novel Art: Elevations of American Fiction After Henry James, which has a wonderful discussion of how the high-art novel emerges (quite anxiously) from the sea of popular fiction during the later 19th century, but their exposure to a bit of that history via the Hollows chapter proved helpful in clarifying just how deeply they’ve been indoctrinated in some old, quite sketchy ideas about the distinction between “real” art (which is deliberate, and evidently created in pursuit of craft, social commentary, or inward spiritual necessity) as opposed to popular culture (filthy lucre!).
The key terms in Laura’s title and subtitle, Love and Money and Literary Art, provided us with a useful frame of reference here, as did her introductory discussion of popular romance being “literature’s Other” (thus Curthoys and Docker, qtd. 12) or being seen as the “degenerate” form of an older, more artistic genre. (This as opposed to the evolutionary metaphors commonly used for detective and science fiction, which is said to start as pulp fiction and then rise to the status of literature, at least in the hands of this or that author.) We talked about the denigration of HMB and of popular romance more generally—what had they seen, heard, etc. here at DePaul–and ended with Laura’s comparison between HMB fiction and 15th century cancionero love poetry, which really struck a chord with several students.

By the end of class, they were ready to talk about reading romance novels as “real novels,” which laid the foundation for our next go-round. I’ll blog about that later this week, and then, at the end of the week, about our first attempts to read a particular romance novel, The Duke is Mine by Eloisa James, with Laura’s study in mind. I chose the novel because it so prominently features a “mythos,” in Northrop Frye’s terms–in this case, the story of the Princess and the Pea–and Laura’s second chapter is all about the ways that HMB romances deploy and revise and comment on recurring stories, or “mythoi.” As it turns out, however, the first chapter of For Love and Money, about various fictional “modes” and the aesthetics of “modal counterpoint,” also turned out to be quite helpful. Stay tuned!

Teach Me Tonight

Tags: , ,

Teaching Romance

Posted in Romance Literature on November 16th, 2011 by Admin
Laura Vivanco

The Popular Romance in the New Millennium conference is taking place at McDaniel College from November 10-11 as a direct result of the Nora Roberts Foundation’s decision to give

McDaniel College a 0,000 grant to help advance research and study of romance literature, establish an academic minor in the genre fiction and launch an online creative writing course in romance fiction.

It had been stated that “Pedagogy, the teaching of romance, will be an important focus of the conference” but all the same, when reading the abstracts of the papers to be presented, I was struck by how many are about the teaching of romance fiction and left feeling very hopeful about the future of popular romance studies.

Jung Choi – “‘The Romance’ at Harvard”

Jung Choi “is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations and a teaching fellow in the Department of Women’s Studies at Harvard University”:

As a graduate teaching fellow at Harvard, I have taught sections of a course called “The Romance,” which examines women’s genre fiction such as the Harlequin and “chick lit,” along with works by Austen, the Brontë sisters, and DuMaurier. Based on my teaching experiences, I would like to explore why teaching romance fiction matters; what we can learn from students’ responses; and how we can address the issues of women, gender, and sexuality while studying the romance.

William Gleason – “Teaching Romance in the Popular American Literature Survey”

Bill Gleason “is Professor of English and Acting Director of American Studies at Princeton University [...], he was also co–convener, with Eric Murphy Selinger, of Love as the Practice of Freedom? Romance Fiction and American Culture, a two–day interdisciplinary conference on romance fiction held at Princeton in April 2009″:

I have been teaching “American Best Sellers,” an upper–level undergraduate survey course on American popular writing, since the mid–1990s. Moving from the colonial period to the present, the course examines roughly one text and historical period per week while simultaneously introducing students to a broad range of genres, including the tale of seduction, the sentimental novel, children’s fiction, the western, the detective novel, the adventure series, and (with increasing emphasis in recent syllabi) contemporary romance fiction. In this talk I will discuss the challenges of (and opportunities for) teaching romance as one among many genres in the popular lit survey.

Glinda F. Hall – “Teaching Romance/Teaching Sex: Classroom Challenges and Pedagogical Pursuits”

Glinda Hall “has returned to Arkansas State University as an Instructor in First Year Studies after holding an assistant professor position at the University of Arkansas–Fort Smith”:

In spring 2010, I taught a senior–level English course titled “Beyond Heaving Bosoms: Women’s Popular Romance Fiction.” My plan was to focus on the history and heritage of popular romance fiction, with particular attention paid to gender dynamics and power structures at work in both the content and the reception of this genre of popular fiction. However, I soon learned that another topic was inescapable, and apparently more relevant to my students: sex. It then became clear that a significant portion of the course needed to address issues of sexuality, especially our culture’s view of women’s sexuality and how these are related to other issues: gender representation, power dynamics, political contexts, and economic realities for our contemporary society. In this presentation, I will discuss the practical exigencies of “teaching sex” in the context of popular romance fiction, as well as the intellectual questions that such pedagogy raises about how we teach and study literature.

Jayashree Kamble – “Romancing the Canon: Teaching ‘Literary’ Texts with Romance”

Jayashree Kamble “earned her Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota’s English department”:

Classic literature and genre fiction intersect more often than literary critics and students might realize. Therefore, even though popular romance is unarguably a distinct genre with its own parameters, it can also be taught alongside canonical texts. While courses that focus exclusively on romance fiction can subject the genre to a scrutiny that it both merits and can withstand, courses that combine romance and high literature make a different case for including the genre in the field of literary studies. For instance, pairing Conrad’s Heart of Darkness with Linda Howard’s Heart of Fire creates room to discuss issues of exoticism in both, while also affording a chance to examine the aesthetics of the Victorian novella and popular romance. Similarly, a course that contains Henry James’s The Turn of the Screw and Jennifer Crusie’s adaptation of it in Maybe This Time, allows for a discussion on authorial style as well as the signifiers of the horror and romance genres.

Antonia Losano – “Sneaking it in at the end: Introducing Popular Romance into the Small College Classroom”

Antonio Losano “teaches literature and gender studies at Middlebury College in Vermont”:

Mounting innovative new courses on popular culture is always challenging, but the endeavor has particular tensions in a small English department at a small Liberal Arts college. If I were to offer a course solely on popular romance, either one of the gateway courses, or a seminal survey, or the Victorian literature course wouldn’t get taught that year (and if English majors can’t get the courses they need to graduate, parents who are spending over ,000 a year on this education start complaining). My contention, however, is that this constraint can be intensely productive for the study and teaching of popular romance, which need not be lost–it must simply be incorporated.

Instead of being taught in a stand–alone course, romances can and should, I argue, be folded into the fabric of the academic canon. A course just on popular romance runs the risk of isolating and marginalizing the popular romance–as if we were trying to keep it from infecting the Beowulf to Virginia Woolf survey, for example. It has been my strategy to include at least one popular romance novel into the syllabus of each course I teach, encouraging students to realize that the boundaries between romance fiction and “canonical” fiction are more permeable than critics of the former would like. In this conference paper I hope to offer suggestions on ways to engage with the popular romance in academic courses within the context of literary history.

Eric Selinger – “You Teach a Whole Course on Popular Romance? Who? How? Why? Now What?”

Eric Murphy Selinger “is Associate Professor of English at DePaul University”:

In the fall of 2005 I taught DePaul University’s first course exclusively devoted to popular romance fiction: a gen–ed survey that ran from E.M. Hull’s The Sheik to the then–new Bet Me by Jennifer Crusie. I have since taught over 25 popular romance courses, from undergraduate surveys to graduate seminars, including a 10–week class on Laura Kinsale’s Flowers from the Storm; the novels range from inspirational to LGBTQ and erotic romances, and include both category and single–title texts. My talk will discuss the practicalities of classes devoted exclusively to popular romance fiction (course design, assignments and helpful secondary readings, issues in classroom dynamics), as well as the aesthetic and literary–historical questions raised by introducing such courses into a fairly conservative English department, one in which popular romance remains the abjected Other of “literature.”

More details about the presenters, and abstracts of the other papers being presented at the conference, can be found here.

Teach Me Tonight

Tags: ,

Teaching Romanticism in a…Library?

Posted in Romance Literature on September 30th, 2011 by Admin

This past August I was hired by Emory University as a Mellon Fellow for their Digital Scholarship Commons (DiSC). The Commons is funded by a grant, and is charged with increasing the opportunities for digital scholarship on campus. We also help develop two large-scale digital projects per semester. This semester, for example, we are involved in “Lynching in Georgia 1875-1930″ (a project chronicling the many lynchings that took place in the state of Georgia) and “Commonwealth” (an update to the Postcolonial Theory website maintained by Emory University).

All of these developments are extremely exciting for me, and yet I have wrestled with the problem of what it means to teach Romanticism in my current position. My role as a Fellow doesn’t cancel out my identity as a Romanticist. As one of my colleagues says “I’m a historian, who just happens to work in a library.” Well, I am a Romanticist who just happens to work in a library. I don’t teach formally, but I also feel that what it means to “teach” is being questioned in a University that simply hasn’t recognized how radically social media has already changed education.

One of the things I mentioned in the job talk for my current position is that the role of the librarian has to change as well. The library is often seen as a place where knowledge is held, where professionals help students and academics find the knowledge they need. It’s an important space, but a space nonetheless. What would it mean, I asked my audience, to think of the librarian as an advocate for digital scholarship? as someone who sits on dissertation committees or tenure and review boards? as someone who teaches?

I’m not someone who thinks that disciplinarity is over, yet I also feel that the future will force many of us to think of disciplinarity in novel ways. And I also feel that something dramatic happened in 2006 when Dan Cohen and Roy Rosenzweig can created H-Bot, a computer that can answer basic history questions with Google. H-Bot, they claimed, makes multiple-choice tests obsolete.

So I write this post for two reasons. First, a provocation: what sort of role do teachers, and specifically teachers of Romanticism, take when many answers are available to students anytime and anywhere? Second, a reflection on my current delimma: what does it mean that I, a digital humanist and Romanticist working at the library, participate in the teaching of Romanticism? I hope to use the next series of blog posts, with conversations sparked along the way, to help answer that question.

Teaching Romanticism: An RC Pedagogies Blog

Tags: , ,

CFP: Teaching, Women’s Writing, Travelling Women

Posted in Romance Literature on September 26th, 2011 by Admin
Laura Vivanco

The following three calls for papers were announced in the latest email digest from The Middlebrow Network.

TeachingTainted Lit: Popular American Fiction and the Perils and Pleasures of theClassroom

Essay contributions are sought for a volume entitled Teaching Tainted Lit: Popular American Fiction and the Perils and Pleasures of the Classroom, to be edited by Janet G. Casey. Taking as its premise the idea that popular fiction has secured a solid position in higher education classrooms, this collection seeks to explore its pedagogical implications. Possible topics may include:

  • unusual or insightful uses of the popular in the context of college English
  • historical or contemporary struggles over the teaching of popular texts
  • the politics and intersections of popularity and canonicity as they pertain to the classroom
  • anxieties andpleasures (on the parts of students and/or teachers) located in reading the popular
  • differences in attitudes about studying historical and contemporary popular texts
  • relations between teaching the popular and the perceived crisis in the humanities
  • teaching the American popular outside the U.S.
  • issues of publication and dissemination that affect teaching (e.g., working with magazines; problems associated with out-of-print materials).

Essays that focus on a particular text and its pedagogical ramifications are also welcome, especially if they put broader questions into play. Personal/anecdotal postures invited.  Please send a 300-word abstract and cv to jcasey@skidmore.edu by 15 Jan. 2012.  Invited essays will be due in late 2012.

Postgraduate Conference: The Popular and The Middlebrow: Women’sWriting 1880–1940
12 April 2012, Newcastle University.

Keynote Speaker:Professor Nicola Humble (Roehampton)

This event aims to bring together postgraduate researchers from across the UK and beyond to discuss the growing interest in and importance of the categories of the middlebrow and the popular as ways of engaging with women’s writing in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Both of these terms have become crucial ways of exploring the work of more marginalised female writers who were not directly involved in larger intellectual discourses such as Modernism or social realism, but who enjoyed a great deal of success during their own time. From the regency romances of Georgette Heyer to the crime fiction of Agatha Christie, from the muted socialist politics of Winifred Holtby to the witty asides of Molly Keane, the conference reasserts the importance of these women’s writing as part of a wider literary tradition. It encourages papers which both work with and interrogate the terms ‘popular’ and ‘middlebrow’ as well as those which choose to apply them to the work of a specific woman or group of women in order to challenge or consolidate their usage. It asks: do the terms still contain inherent value judgements? Are they problematic when applied to women’s literature? Or do they engender a challenge to preconceptions about women and literary history, allowing for a reconceptualization of notions of canonicity?

  • Possible topics include:
  • Women writers and the popular
  • Women writers and the middlebrow
  • Domesticity and the home
  • Place and landscape
  • War and politics
  • Queer fictions
  • Marginalised women writers
  • Violence
  • Women writing romance
  • Women and historical fictions
  • Women writers and science fiction

Proposals of no more than 300 words should be emailed to middlebrow-conf@ncl.ac.uk by 30 November 2011.

The conference has a website.

Moving Dangerously: Women and Travel, 1850-1950
13-14 April 2012, Newcastle University.

Keynote Speakers:Alexandra Peat (University of Toronto)and Avril Maddrell (University of the West of England)

The period between 1850 and 1950 is widely acknowledged to have been one of dramatic societal and cultural change, not least in terms of women’s experience of and relationship to travel. The rapid expansion of the travel networks both nationally and internationally towards the end of the nineteenth century coincided with the impact of first wave feminism, as the suffragette movement gathered momentum and the figure of the New Woman appeared. By 1950, new forms of technology and transport, and their widespread availability, had substantially altered women’s perception of and ability to travel.

This two-day international and interdisciplinary conference invites papers that explore the changing relationship of women and travel across key moments in modernity, such the First World War and its effects on women’s independence, the developments in British Imperial activity, and the boom in rail, air and sea travel. The conference aims to stimulate academic discussion on a range of topics relating to women and travel in the period ranging from 1850-1950. These topics include representations of women and travel in fiction and film, non-fictional portrayals and documentations, as well as archival work on first-hand accounts of women travellers. As such, we welcome papers from those working in the fields of Literature, History, Geography, Film and Media, Modern Languages, Gender/Women’s Studies, and Politics.

Potential paper topics might include considerations of: both published and unpublished travel-writings by women of the period; fictional accounts of travel written by women throughout the period; representations of women travellers in contemporary biography; representations of women and travel during the period in fiction and film, and the benefits of archival research into women and travel on contemporary understandings of women’s role in modernity.

Please send abstracts of 250 words for 20 minute papers to: moving@ncl.ac.uk by 30 November 2011.

The conference has a website.

Teach Me Tonight

Tags: , , , ,

Teaching Romance: Labeling the Genre

Posted in Romance Literature on February 9th, 2011 by Admin

Jonathan A. Allan

Over the past year, I have been teaching various culture and literature courses and for the first time I have managed to incorporate some of the materials that I research into my teaching. Though this should, in theory, be what always happens: a symbiotic relationship between teaching and research, this is not, as we know, what always happens. Regardless, I have managed to “sneak” romance into these courses. When I teach a nineteenth-century romance novel, no one really complains about it being a romance – they will complain about the language, or the antiquated quality, or that they cannot relate; but, when I teach a contemporary romance, almost immediately, I will have to deal with a series of defensive rehearsals about the genre, the formula, the contents, and so on.

I will remind students that Northrop Frye – and note that he was one of Canada’s most important literary critics – believed that:

Popular literature has been the object of a constant bombardment of social anxieties for over two thousand years, and nearly the whole of the established critical tradition has stood out against it. The greater part of the reading and listening public has ignored the critics and censors for exactly the same length of time. (23, CW XVIII:19)

All of these rehearsals that work to defend the genre are fine and good. Yes, the romance is read by a large number of people; yes, it generates significant sales; yes, yes, yes; but is it any good? Isn’t it just pornography for women? will be the inevitable question that arises.

Well, again, Northrop Frye writes:

The central element of romance is a love story, and the exciting adventures are normally foreplay leading up to sexual union. Hence romance appears to be designed mainly to encourage irregular or excessive sexual activity. This may be masturbation, which is the usual model in the minds of those who speak with contempt of ‘escape’ reading, or it may be a form of voyeurism. Most denunciations of popular romance on such grounds, we notice, assume that the pornographic and the erotic are the same thing: this overlooks the important principle that it is the function of pornography to stun and numb the reader, and the function of erotic writing to wake him up. (24, CW XVIII:20)

There is no denying that Frye as a critic is passé or in the words of Terry Eagleton: “Who now reads Frye?” but it seems to me that Frye is so often on the money, he so often gets it right. (Incidentally, leading Frye expert, Robert D. Denham, has written a paper called “Pity the Northrop Frye Scholar?” that may be of interest to those wondering about Frye’s place in the academy.) There is a fundamental difference between the pornographic and the erotic and to dismiss romance as pornography, at least following Frye, would demonstrate that the person making the critique knows nothing about romance, or knows nothing about the pornographic. In her essay, “Uses of the Erotic: The Erotic as Power,” Audre Lorde writes:

The very word ‘erotic’ comes from the Greek word eros, the personification of love in all its aspects – born of Chaos, and personifying creative power and harmony. When I speak of the erotic, then, I speak of it as an assertion of lifeforce of women; of that creative energy empowered, the knowledge and use of which we are now reclaiming in our language, our history, our dancing, our loving, our work, our lives.

In many regards, I think that this is very much in line with what Frye is saying about the difference between the pornographic and the erotic. These are not the same thing – despite the thoughts of some – and that we must recognise and understand this difference; however subtle it may seem. Of course, another option might be to simply embrace that pornographic label and to develop it to its own critical ends in romance scholarship. But is romance pornographic? It seems to me that, at least in my discussions with non-romance readers, that these two labels – pornographic and erotic – are thrown around and attached to the romance, and yet I am often forced to ask how the erotic and the pornographic (two different words) can and are attached to the same thing.

Teach Me Tonight

Tags: , , ,

Teaching Collaboration around Romantic Individualism

Posted in Romance Literature on November 14th, 2009 by Admin

As a scholar and a teacher, I enjoy experimenting with both individual and collaborative projects. I tend to feel that the humanities are unique in their ambivalence about collaboration. On the one hand, the web is offering humanities scholars many opportunities for collaboration; on the other hand, I always find myself wondering how much a collaborative article, project, or book will “count” when it comes to hiring or tenure.

The topic is especially interesting for someone who teaches the Romantic period, since Romanticism is often associated with individualism. And yet, Romantic authors also expressed collectivist sentiments. As Beth Lau points out, even famously individualistic male Romantic writers struggled with individualism:

In a number of poems, Wordsworth describes his initial penchant for solitary nature worship giving way to love of other human beings. [...] Coleridge’s Rime of the Ancient Mariner is one of the most powerful works ever written on the horrors of solitude and the problems inherent in overwheening individualism, and Shelley’s Alastor is also a cautionary tale about the dangers of solopsism. John Keats increasingly wished to do ‘some good in this world’ instead of merely writing lush, escapist poetry. Even Byron, whose early poems featured such gloomy, misanthropic, solitary heroes as Childe Harold, the Giaour, and Manfred, ended his career with the comic satire Don Juan, which is very much concerned with people in society. (224)

I feel that a similar argument could be made about William Blake. While he frequently celebrated his individual vision and the originality of his work, Blake also stressed the importance of “self-annihilation,” elaborating in his poem Milton that “We are not Individuals but States: Combinations of Individuals” (32.10; E131). And we must not forget the frequent, though often unmentioned, participation of Catherine Blake in the production of William Blake’s illuminated books.

The problem with emphasizing collaboration and collectivity in Romantic courses is not only the historical association of Romanticism with individualism, but also the institutional makeup of the humanities. Most humanities courses still overwhelmingly favor individual success and failure. As David Parry recently noted on the blog AcademHack, collaborative projects are extremely difficult to assess but enormously important to teach. “I want to encourage and evaluate students for who they are,” Parry explains, “but on the other hand I see as part of my job to teach students how to work in groups.”

Parry’s proposed solution to this delimma is to give each group the ability to fire one of their members. The rejected member is then required to complete the group assignment alone. While I feel that Parry’s plan could work quite well for his course, I would like to move in a different direction that I feel is more conducive to the ambivalence many writers had with individualism during the Romantic period.

I’d like to use this blog to plan a course around digital culture and Romantic Individualism. My central focus in this course will be William Blake, since I am primarily interested in the artists and critics who have transmitted Blake’s work from the Romantic period to the present and their impact on the image of Blake as an individualist writer. I would also like to use the course to experiment with collective subjectivities: in the content of the course, in the course’s exploration of the William Blake’s subjectivity, and in the makeup of the assignments and their assessment. Future posts will chart possible assignments, readings, ideas for discussion and class projects. I would also like to hear suggestions and criticisms from teachers, scholars, or anyone who visits this site. What are your thoughts about the usefulness of collaborative projects? Do you have any successes or failures to share?

Reference
Lau, Beth. “Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice.” A Companion to Romanticism. Ed. Duncan Wu. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998. 219-26.

Teaching Romanticism: An RC Pedagogies Blog

Tags: , , , ,

Teaching non-majors

Posted in Romance Literature on August 9th, 2009 by Admin

As a full-time graduate student and part-time instructor, I typically teach lower-division survey courses with nebulous titles like “Masterpieces of British Literature” and “Introduction to Women’s Literature.”  My sections are populated by students with majors such as psychology, integrated physiology, molecular and cellular developmental biology, etc.  Since the majority of my students will never take another English course, I feel a great deal of pressure to inspire them with a lasting passion for poetry, drama, and novels–or, perhaps more realistically in the Hippocratic spirit of first do no harm, to make it so that they don’t hate Shakespeare or Austen or Tennyson.  Accomplishing these worthy objectives requires me to play a variety of roles in the classroom.  At times I am a salesman.  I need to convince them that their precious time would be better served by struggling through Hamlet than watching “The Jersey Shore”–though ideally one would be able to do both.  Several recent Business Management books have emphasized the superiority of internal motivation over external motivation.  I think that it’s incredibly valuable to tell students why I think that the work is important–why I put this work on the syllabus rather than something else.  Whether those reasons call attentions to the work’s aesthetic, technical, innovative, or controversial elements, even the most skeptical non-majors will give the work a fair hearing.

At other times I am a tour guide.  From Samuel Johnson’s trademark antithesis to Austen’s irony to Byron’s digressions, I have found that many students enjoy discovering the distinctive stylistic features of the various texts and authors that we encounter.  This can also serve as a great launching point for more creative class activities in the spirit of what Rob Pope calls “textual interventions.”  I have asked students to adopt the narrator’s voice from Northanger Abbey by writing a paragraph that introduces themselves.  Hearing a few of these read aloud while discussing the recurring features allows us to move to examining Austen’s famous character introductions.  Although some traditionalists may dismiss these sort of exercises as frivolous time wasters, I would argue that the interpretive skills needed to produce a parody or to mimic another’s style reveals a deep level of engagement and understanding.

Teaching non-majors also requires the skills of a translator.  Even the most basic tools of our discipline–like “close reading,” for example–can seem rather alien to the non-major.  Like my previous example, I find that the most learning occurs when a student is asked to perform a task without being fully aware of all of the implications of the skill that is being practiced.  In the case of close reading, I have tried to get the students to do close reading without realizing that that’s what they’re doing.  Call it a bottom-up rather than top-down approach.  Beginning with a more familiar context–the #1 selling song on iTunes, which for the Fall semester was Katy Perry’s “Teenage Dream”–allows the students to jump right into the activity without having to address the impediments that come with 200+ year-old texts.  I had typed up the lyrics and asked the students to circle everything they felt was “poetic” about the song.  People had circled examples of metaphor, synecdoche, alliteration, anaphora and were performing “readings” of the song that could be called psychoanalytic, ideological, new historical, and structuralist.  As they realized that whatever it was that they were doing was some form of “close reading,” it was much easier to then apply those same practices to an unfamiliar context, in this case Shakespeare’s sonnets.  I feel that the movement from the familiar to the unfamiliar provides an excellent way to organize class discussion, writing assignments, journal topics, and other key aspects of the non-major English class.

Teaching Romanticism: An RC Pedagogies Blog

Tags: ,

Teaching Playfulness in Romanticism

Posted in Romance Literature on May 9th, 2009 by Admin

These posts on Teaching Romanticism have been intriguing and thoughtful. Thank you for putting this together!

I always find that Romanticism and textual studies are good segue into Digital Humanities for teaching and research.  I began teaching at San Jose State University 5 years ago and opened with a very traditional Romantic-era survey of Romanticism.  We followed the timeline, began with Blake and ended with Mary Shelley. We ranged over the slavery issue and working class poets, though there were very few of those poets being printed.  The Mellor & Matlak anthology was my guide because it offered thematic arrangement of materials while still including the women poets who, I felt, were integral to the understanding of collaborative creative moments among our canonical Big 6.  But, the course wasn’t satisfying. The only assignment where students actually engaged with the material at some depth was the recitation, and even then they were fearful instead of fearless and playful.  Considering who I have become as a researcher and how involved I am in Digital Humanities work, I wanted to bring a sense of passion and engagement to my teaching.  Textual studies and Digital Humanities seems to do that for me, allowing me time to play with the material, see patterns, extrapolate theses that haven’t been otherwise contemplated in the field.  In constructing this type of course, I had to first determine what would be considered playful by my students.

In Digital Humanities circles, we often talk about collaboration between disciplines, among scholars, and with technologists. While progress in the field is nurtured certainly by this type of research, what of our students? How are we shepherding Digital Humanities to those undergraduates who could most benefit from exposure to collaborative tools or humanities computing strategies? Happily, HASTAC has been addressing pedagogy, most specifically with Cathy Davidson’s post “Research is Teaching” and the wildly successful forum “Teaching with Technology and Curiosity.”

Collaboration, shared knowledge, open access, extra-disciplinarity. These are the major tenets of Digital Humanities. However, what is missing in this list is something required of all digital projects: play. Roger Caillois qualifies this type of unstructured activity as “an occasion of pure waste: waste of time, energy, ingenuity, skill” (Man, Play and Games 2001; 6). This lack of structure, leads to exploration, discovery, and production of knowledge in ways that were only imagined twenty years ago. Typically though we don’t allow our students this sense of play in their traditional studies. Especially in literary studies, we supply students with the end-product but don’t expose them to the theories and the methodologies always.  We separate those kinds of issues into other courses (e.g., Introduction to Literary Criticism or Introduction to Research Methods). When faculty bring a particular perspective, for example textual studies or feminist theory, to a classroom setting, the methods for exploring and discovering aren’t exposed to students. Instead, we’re offering them the one big major tool, close reading, for their arsenal.  Students then live with some anxiety that there’s one way to read a text and, more often, ask “how does the professor want me to read this?”  It becomes a guessing “game” instead of an exploration and discovery of the literature. In the final essay, we expect students to offer a discovery, a research paper, or an analysis.  But, if we haven’t exposed them to the methodology and the theory, how can they adequately achieve a true exploration of the literature? In this way, the course becomes a game with an outcome, consequences, and rigid rules. Using Digital Humanities strategies, I want to instill a sense, even if it’s artificial, that literary studies are a “free and voluntary activity, a source of joy and amusement” as Caillois defines “play” (6).

To this end, I combined textual editing with technology in my Romantic Literature Survey course. We had the use of a spectacular room, filled with hardware and software everywhere:

TechnoRomanticism: We created our own digital edition of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Along the way, we created a collaborative timeline using MIT’s SIMILE & Timeline script. We didn’t even begin to create a website until some of the preliminary assignments are done — assignments that look at the construction of this novel, both linguistically and bibliographically. Every 2 weeks, we held a workshop on some digital assignment and acquired 1 new skill, not even necessarily a new tool, but a skill. We practiced radial and ergodic reading by taking on only 2 chapters of Frankenstein each week.  However, we read other literature into the novel.  For instance, at one point “… Tintern Abbey” is quoted in the novel, but if students haven’t had a chance to read or study this particular poem, they would have a difficult time understanding its interruption of the narrative.  So, we studied the poem as we were studying that very chapter. By not overloading undergraduate students with readings, we were really able to spend an entire class meeting on both the poem and the novel’s page.

That strategy gave way to self-interruptions in constructing their digital editions — what did it mean to provide a hyperlink in the middle of a paragraph? How does it interrupt the musings on Nature, the soul and science?  All of it, all of it went back to Romanticism’s major ideas.

Is anyone else performing these kinds of interruptions and collaborations in their own courses?

Teaching Romanticism: An RC Pedagogies Blog

Tags: , ,

Teaching the Romance Genre: Eric Selinger

Posted in Romance Literature on May 9th, 2009 by Admin
Laura Vivanco

Issue 35 of the French-language romance webzine Les Romantiques is now out (in a Flip/Flash version and as a pdf) and it includes an article on various men who read romance novels. One of them is Teach Me Tonight’s Eric Selinger. If you want to find out more about how Eric became a romance reader, or the various categories into which he places critics of the genre, you’ll have to read the original article. But for those who prefer to read in English, here’s an English version of what Eric told them about the courses on the romance genre which he’s taught at DePaul University.
——

Eric M. Selinger

As of this fall, I’ve taught about twenty courses on the genre, at both the undergraduate and graduate levels—everything from historical surveys (usually starting with E. M. Hull’s The Sheik) to courses on romance since the 1990s to single-author seminars. (I’m teaching a 10-week interdisciplinary seminar right now on Laura Kinsale’s brilliant novel Flowers from the Storm.) Every one of these courses has gotten a wonderful reception both from students (who fill them up whenever they’re offered) and from my colleagues, who seem interested and spread the word to their own students as well. I’m sure there are schools out there where a course like mine would be resisted by faculty or by the administration, but DePaul has been very supportive.

Now, it may well be that I get this response because I’m a man teaching the course, or because I already had a good track record teaching more traditional courses (modern poetry, etc.). But I don’t think so. I know that romance novelist Lauren Willig recently taught an undergraduate seminar on historical romance at Yale, and it was very well received. My hunch is that the times have changed, and the impact of cultural studies on the American academy has opened this door quite wide—it’s just a matter now of having faculty walk through it.

Most of the students in my courses have been women. At first I’d have no men at all, or only one or two. Slowly, though, that’s begun to change. Last spring I had eleven men in my senior seminar on romance, which was almost 1/3 of the class. None of them had read romance before, but a few really came to enjoy it, and would shoot me emails during the term to ask for recommendations. (I had one gay student who wanted me to suggest some m/m paranormal romances, which I found very amusing—he was delighted to discover how many subgenres there were, and to realize that if he wanted to read something, it was probably out there!)

As a rule, my students love the course, and have very positive reactions to it. Many go on to be regular romance readers, and many find this course an opportunity to connect with female relatives—mothers, aunts, grandmothers—who are already readers. Even the ones who don’t go on to be readers have a newfound respect for the genre, and they begin to notice how often it’s made fun of in the media or by other professors. (I have one colleague who’s had to change his usual pitch about how much better literary fiction is than genre fiction, because my students started objecting and telling him, “That’s not what Prof. Selinger says.”)

The authors I teach will vary from course to course, and a lot of authors I’ve only taught one or two times, but the most frequent ones recently would be:

E. M. Hull (The Sheik)
Georgette Heyer
Victoria Holt
Kathleen Woodiwiss
Nora Roberts
Laura Kinsale
Loretta Chase
Jennifer Crusie
Susan Elizabeth Phillips
Beverly Jenkins
Suzanne Brockmann
J. R. Ward
Alex Beecroft (author of the wonderful m/m romance False Colors)
Ann Herendeen (Phyllida and the Brotherhood of Philander)
Victoria Dahl

Teach Me Tonight

Tags: , , , ,