Wednesday, 22 August 2007

No "Coloreds" in Our Classrooms: On Segregating Media Via Warren Ellis, I learn of this request, made three years ago: I'm going to be teaching a short course at my college next winter called "Comic Book Politics." The idea is to have the students read the best comics published since the mid 1980s which raise—either directly or indirectly—challenging political issues. I define this pretty broadly—anything from The Authority as a way of discussing the ethics of intervention to Maus as a route for discussing the Holocaust. I can't do things not collected into trades—just too hard to get enough copies to 15-20 students otherwise. So here's the problem: I only got back into comics over the last year after not reading them for a decade or so. I've been doing my best to catch up, but I'm sure that there are great authors, series, or TPB's that I've missed or else haven't fully appreciated. Here's a tentative list of what I want to include: Cerebus , Transmetropolitan , Watchmen, V for Vendetta, Dark Knight Returns, Palestine, [&c.]. Comics blogosphere: tell me what you think I should include in the syllabus, and why. That sounds like a fine list, but the sales pitch bothers me. It suggests that funny pages, as a medium, have something particularly important to say about politics. I don't think they do. The ideology behind this course seems to be: comic books shouldn't stand alongside the real political novels on a syllabus, because people remember reading them as children. (Plus, they have pictures.) That I remember reading Moby Dick as a child is irrelevant. (As is the fact that it has pictures.) Any medium with such a low barrier of entry must be inherently inferior and separated from the rest of the books. We teach "words only" courses. We won't stand for having any of them "coloreds" in our classrooms. That some of those "coloreds" rival the fine words printed on those pristine white pages is immaterial. This is the way we've always taught courses, all the way back to the days of my great-great-great-grandfather's advisor. We can't allow these "coloreds" in our classrooms. They're the last refuge of the most honorable printed word. We need to honor that tradition. It's ours. The only one we've got. If that means segregating the "coloreds," then it means segregating the "coloreds." Let them have their own course on the political novel. Separate but equal's a sound policy. Only a fool would resist it. Offensive parallels aside, it seems to me that Timothy Burke's "Department of Everything Studies" offers a better model of how to treat literary phenomenon which aren't (or never were) limited to traditional literary media. Consider the example of "noir." In order to present an accurate account of noir as a cultural phenomenon, you might begin with the novels of Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammett , but you'd be remiss if you ignored film noir, as it was not merely a contemporary phenomenon, but a complementary one. (Many of the early films being adaptations of...
No, No, You've Heard Wrong. No Mere Plagiarist Could Leave Them ROTFLMBAO (Be sure to read the the update.) Onika is the MAYOR OF SEXYTOWN! She is hilariously funny too![*] Reviews don't lie! nefarious jackson as stix (think sparkle) writes: u crazy sun. & eye think this is whi we luvs yah! TLBG aka L.Blogsy is RIKI TIKI TAVI only fiercer agrees: LMAO Super Princess concurs: This was wonderfully written and throughly entertaining but damn those steps sound painfull as hell. There has to be a better way babygirl! There has to be. Ok but now that I know you are okay I am ROTFLMBAO! Kermit the Blog...formerly Big Perm loves the details Onika is the MAYOR OF SEXYTOWN! includes: suet, ghee, tallow or smaltz...oh my are so beautiful to me. I'm weak over here...and needed a laugh. HI, MY NAME IS MANNY MANN AND I'M A BLOGAHOLIC loves the diagrams Onika is the MAYOR OF SEXYTOWN! uses and thinks she is "the bestest!": You reading this to me was great, but it's even better with the diagrams, LOL. My cheeks still ache from laughing. Maybe I should've caught onto this bit of plagiarism because she linked to my images in her post, but I don't check the site stats often enough. That said, I think I've found a brand new way to blog. Below the fold, you'll find this thing I just now wrote like tonight. It is so funny and I am so original! Please find some way to give me kudos for my brilliantly hilarious post which I wrote myself because I am so original and funny! MY AWESOME ANALYSIS OF SMACKING HAHAHA LOL! In scholarly usage, things that "smack" are always avoided, but they are avoided not in themselves, but for the sake of that of which they smack. In the formula "anything that smacks of X," the ultimate object of avoidance is X; the "anything" is avoided insofar as it participates in the essence of X. Not only is the smacker indifferent ("anything"), but the very nature of the smacking relationship is never specified. Thus, for instance, to nearly any statement, one could respond, "But my good sir, that smacks of fascism!" And indeed, to state that something can be smacked of instantly implies that the smackee is something negative: one could imagine saying, with whithering scorn, "That smacks of kittens and happiness," and thereafter reenvisioning the normally well-regarded objects ("kittens and happiness") as an insidious poison creeping through society. If one can envision the smackee as a normally positive object, however, one cannot maintain that, qua smacked-of, it is desirable. It is linguistically impossible that one would "embrace anything that smacked of X," even if, as in the above example, X were "kittens and happiness." Or to use the fascism example, one would not even be able to say that, for instance, "Hitler embraced anything that smacked of fascism" (i.e., positing an embracer who would regard as positive something that is generally regarded as negative). Smacking casts a cloud of suspicion on the object X...

Become a Fan

Recent Comments