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...)?
The trend for professors to have a more sadistic view towards their jobs is prevalent in modern novels. I agree with the assessment of this particular change because it follows the societal trend of a growing outlook of life. As more and more people become educated, the professors lose some rank in the academic world. In the 60’s, a college education was important, but not as pressured to have. However, now, without a college education, it is very difficult to get a job and succeed in life with just a high school degree alone. Education is simply valued more in contemporary times than ever before. Therefore, the description of the modern day professor is somewhat satiric to show that, although he holds a high position and has a good education, he lacks the sensibility of any ordinary person. The students in these campus novels appear either as bothersome or brilliant, almost like normal students on any college campus. Surprisingly, the students in the novels tend to act the role of the professor, wise and education focused, while the professor acts as if he was a student, very naïve and not focused on his education. The view on the roles of teacher and student have changed over the years where in the past, teachers were (and still) are highly respected and well educated, whereas now, some teachers may not be the best teachers or lack motivation to teach so the students disregard that particular class or encourage the student to have that mindset as well.
ReplyDeleteCatherine Rabalais
I'm sorry, but I don't really understand what you're trying to say there. Specifically, the contradictions in this segment: "As more and more people become educated, the professors lose some rank in the academic world. In the 60’s, a college education was important, but not as pressured to have. However, now, without a college education, it is very difficult to get a job and succeed in life with just a high school degree alone. Education is simply valued more in contemporary times than ever before." You're yo-yo-ing between positions. I'd rethink this post, and redirect your focus to the novel (or similar novels) and refocus your analysis thusly.
ReplyDeleteCraig Naccari
ReplyDeleteRusso casts many of his characters as satirized fools, alcoholics, womanizers, and simpletons, but he spares his protagonist from such a fate. Many of the stereotypes of the campus novel are quite prevalent in Straight Man, but Hank seems from the outset to deviate from their condition. Hank does not have a PhD, yet he is the chair of the English Department. He does not publish or write (anymore) but also refrains from indulging in trendy foolishness like some of his contemporaries (Orshee and his genitalia analysis). Hank also refrains from infidelity, though he considers it playfully (unlike his friend Tony). Hank also seems sensible, with some notable exceptions like strangling a goose, and earns the nickname “lucky Hank” through his avoidance of misfortune.
Hank defies many of the stereotypes of the campus novel to highlight the faults of his peers, who do conform to that generality. Hank is allowed an insider’s look into the bizarre world Russo constructs but retains very normal qualities, allowing vestment in his character. Hank plays the role of the comic and casts the rest of the department as aspiring straight men who, unknown to them, are the butt of the joke. Russo employs the traditional pattern of satire in the academic setting while emphasizing it further through a reference to relative normalcy in his protagonist.
Indeed, Russo’s academic satire displays strong elements of literary parody and the common elements of the typical campus novel. The reader is taken on the voyage of the novel’s characters’ major expeditions for security, lusts, love, tangible possessions, alcoholism, etc. Russo, however, display Hank Devereaux—his protagonist who battles the idea of becoming the aspired young writer he was before becoming a middle-aged academic—in a different light as he shows Hank as being a rather disassociated character who has a general outward indifference towards life and others. Hank’s detachment has allowed him to navigate through the perils of life, especially temptations (particularly infidelity), much better than most of the other characters in Russo’s “Straight Man.”
ReplyDeleteAgreeing with Robert Scott’s assessment that “professorial protagonists in recent campus novels are more often than not depicted as buffoons or intellectual charlatans,” we see a similar type of realistic depiction in Russo’s protagonist. Despite Hank’s suspicions/emotional insecurities of his wife having an affair and perhaps his absurd threats to killing ducks for financial gain of the English department and his inability to take anything seriously, overall, Russo emit a sense of sanity and soundness as a part of Hank’s makeup. We see the protagonist, successfully, managing to fend off the assaults of his frenzied department colleagues who refuse to abide by Hank’s philosophy of keeping matters as simple as possible (Occam’s philosophy).
James Bowie
ReplyDeleteEnglish
Straight man and the contemporary campus novel option #2
In Straight man by Richard Russo Hank’s character plays the generic role of college professor in a campus novel. Hank is a wise crack in his work place always trying to get a laugh out of people. The root of this is Hank is a middle-aged man who finds his life at home and at work being very mundane. Hank feels like there is something missing in his life but he does not quite know what possibly his inability to urinate. Hank’s mind seems to be clustered he has episodes where he zones out and loses track of time. Besides this Hank is a normal person bored trying spice up everyday life with pranks and keeping everybody guessing. Hank’s character is the classic campus novel protagonist. He still has some disciplines that he up holds but he lacks any regard for what people think of him or his actions. In some situations hank is seeing as an inconsiderate and careless person. At the same time Hank is a funny character that you can relate with because everyday life is mundane so why not try to see the humor in everyday situations. In regard to the two different personifications of professors in the 1960’s and 1980’s I feel is an accurate description. Hank does have lack of self-regard and believes his life is average, mundane, and is unhappy most of the time. Even though it seems to me Hank parties pretty hard for a Middle aged married professor getting his picture taken with a topless girl in a hot tub, causing a scene in quiet restaurants and getting a dwi the same night has his drunk buddy who he was just with. Yet Hank depression rooted in his “mundane” life.
I find this depiction extremely accurate. I did not know professors in the 1960’s but I must conclude that the shift in their characterization has to do with the fact that higher education has only recently become a nearly necessary requirement for individuals who wish to compete in the 21st century job market. Naturally, with more people enrolling in universities with the foremost intention of genuinely yearning knowledge, there is also a great majority of students are present simply because they know that they should be. The students who want to be are the ones who ask questions and interact with class lectures. These students fade into the masses as the masses as the students who simply attend classes to be taught. The dynamics of the classroom change. Students who want to learn are replaced by those who want simply to be taught. With less and less interactive students, we get more and more subjective instructors. As passing semesters produce less student feedback, instructors tend become less intuited with their audience.
ReplyDeleteThis conundrum is most clearly evident with elderly instructors who often lose their grasp on how to provide the material in a relevant manner; thus is of upmost importance in motivation an audience to understand a lecture. The reason that this is such a major theme in the subgenre of campus novels is because it is such a widespread occurrence. This seems to be the case because individuals that acquired such prestigious positions as professors have done so through much experience, but in that time lose touch with the younger generation that they are obliged to stimulate. Professors joke that students seem to just not care instead of adapting their own methods to present material relevantly therefore facilitating an interactive classroom.
Nick Filardo
ReplyDeleteI agree with the assessment so far as the stereotypes of the “absent-minded instructor, the wise simpleton, the lucky bumbler, the old goat, and the fuddy-duddy”. Hank has the trait of being absent-minded when it comes to his marriage with Lily because he does not notice what Lily and Julie do, and also in his professional life. He is always forgetting the times for his meetings. Hank also presents the struggle between the administrative authority and the union designed to protect the teachers.
The Straight Man does not embody the “average men and women living unhappy lives”. Hank’s pretty content with living his life the way he does, but certainly his life is not empty with the ridiculous situations he finds himself in constantly. Hank’s ability to get himself into unbelievable circumstances keeps his life from appearing completely stagnant. The shift from the positive outlook of the 60’s probably came from America’s positive feelings towards life and the optimism that everyone felt in that era. The contemporary campus novels of the 80’s also portrayed the average American society’s general attitude which greatly changed from the optimistic view to the more realistic view. It changed when people saw things in a different light and that not everything was so carefree. These depictions are realistic fiction in some ways but exaggerate certain mind-sets and dispositions. It is a satiric send-up in its exaggerations and humor in describing these events.
I agree with John Hedeman’s assessment of modern college professors in fiction as “average men and women with average abilities who live empty, unhappy lives.” This is especially evident in Russo’s novel “Straight Man.” Most of the characters don’t live a fulfilled life concerning either their personal and work lives. They go to work with people they don’t like or get along with, teach uninterested students and then they go home to their mundane husbands or wives whom they aren’t completely satisfied with either. I don’t believe this is a realistic fiction portrayal of actual modern professors. It is obviously a satirical viewpoint of the educational system—none of my professors are this interesting with this much drama (or hint this anyway). Perhaps the change from professors being portrayed as motivational characters in the 1960s to the 80s satirical view is the result of teachers in general being less respected professions in society. This is even more evident in the 21st century, when Russo’s novel was written, with some teachers even losing tenure; More writers aim their satires at universities and professors being an easy target.
ReplyDeleteI do definitely agree with the assessment. So far from everything that we have read in this course has ended up being exactly Scott explained, no matter which example. It’s almost as if the characters all have some problem of their own, that we find in a sense humorous to us. It’s mostly things we would think the least to happen, and that’s why they always end up being funny. Like Ross said, it seemed like in the 1960s novels were more positive, and now they are more contemporary, I completely agree with that. I feel as though these depictions were satiric send ups more than anything, because they were all like spoofs/jokes. We always find things funny when they’re at someone else’s expense. The people in the campus novels always have those two sides and we can see that. Just like having an absent-minded instructor, on one side you’re going to have the curious student, eager to learn on the other end but cannot do so because of the simpleton teacher they have. In these stories things never go just one way, that’s why we find them so humorous and they continue to keep us entertained.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this assessment in the light of Russo’s “The Straight Man.” I believe that this satirical viewpoint is especially easy to make of professors in the English discipline. Taking a postmodern viewpoint of questioning authority, it is easier to question English instructors than those who teach hard sciences. The main reason is professors in the hard sciences can back the theories they profess with concrete evidence; math professors can work out equations, etc. English professors have a tougher time proving their theories of things like analysis of literature. Some works can be so abstract that it can be taken in a hundred different directions. In the postmodern era, where everyone grows up believing that their opinion is right and everyone is a winner, it is easy to question someone who tells you their opinion is weightier than yours but cannot back it with hard evidence. I believe this is where Russo gets the concept of “the absent-minded instructor, the wise simpleton, the lucky bumbler, the old goat, and the fuddy-duddy” come from. Especially in Russo’s work, it makes it easy for the reader to believe that these English professors are empty, self-important people that use a subjective field like English to make themselves feel significant. I believe it is not the professors that have changed over the years, but how the audience that views them and their profession.
ReplyDeleteKathryn Martin
ReplyDeleteThis assessment of campus novels is reasonable because it reflects the changes in the country from the ‘60s to today. In general, the 1960s were a time of political unrest and Americans were questioning not only their government but all authority. However, those who wrote academic novels in the 1960s were likely part of a previous generation, one which trusted the government and held tightly to the status quo. As time progressed it became increasingly acceptable to question the government, even to the point of being encouraged. Now, the world is filled with cynics. Nothing is safe from judgment. This is one reason for the current depiction of college professors. In Straight Man, Russo portrays the English professors as men and women who are undistinguished and ridiculous, including, or especially, the main character William Henry Devereaux, Jr. Hank Devereaux constantly jokes even when he and everyone around him know it is not funny, or inappropriate. He is the most aware of his own absurdity. He is not, however, the only absurd member of his department. One professor only teaches about sitcoms, another, Gracie, still dresses the way she did when she was younger and more attractive. A professor known mostly as “Orshee” is a male feminist. Each one is ridiculous in a different way. In contemporary society, respect is more difficult to earn than it was fifty years ago. Authors feel free to question those who, years ago, would have been esteemed simply because they had a certain title, or an extensive education.
Courtnay Griffith
ReplyDeleteI do agree with assessment and how Richard Russo's Straight Man is a representation of a "campus novel."
The big difference between the depictions of professors in the 1960s an contemporary campus novels is that more recent campus novels evoke a sense of hostility in the relationships and towards their jobs. I believe that this transformation in campus novels derives from the fact that people's view towards education has changed. In the 1960s, people that went to college were there because they had a strong desire to learn. The students' desire to learn also had a direct impact on how professors' viewed their work. When students put forth effort in their school work because they were interested in learning , teachers feed off of it and it creates a better learning environment. Teacher know how to reach out and communicate to their students. However, now , education is more compulsory because it is fundamental to the job industry. More students are in college taking classes that they feel are not relevant to their job choice; which causes people to not be has happy or willing to put forth as much effort. This causes strain with the professors as well because they do not know how to reach out to their students and make them care. It makes the professors feel like they are stuck in a rut.
Students in Straight Man are portrayed as lax. They do not care one way or another about the effort put into their assignments. We can see in Chapter 34 how Hank's students feel about their work in class. Hank tries to get them to think critically and evoke some kind of deep thought from their assignment, but their only responses are empty conclusions that are just said in hopes to appease the professor. The students cannot wrap their minds around what the professor is asking them. I think this portrays Richard Russo's view that a lot of students nowadays aren't really interested in the educations as much as they are interested in getting a degree.
I think Straight Man is both realistic fiction as well as satiric send-ups because it does attempt to portray academia life, but Russo also uses this novel to add a few jabs towards the profession as well.
Good analysis, Kathryn, Courtnay, and Craig (and not just them... a good number of posts had great points).
ReplyDelete