Ok, kids. Which one of these things is not like the other?
REQUIRED TEXTS:
Stephen K. George, Editor, Ethics, Literature, & Theory: An Introductory Reader
Leo Tolstoy , The Death of Ivan Ilych
Jean-Paul Sartre, No Exit
Hermann Hesse, Steppenwolf
Patricia Gaffney, To Have and To Hold (this is an out of print paperback. You will need to buy it online, using a site like Addall.com. I will also place three copies on library reserve).
*All other readings are available on e-reserve
If you chose the genre fiction … you’re right!
I have been teaching some version of ethics and literature for about 10 years, every 2-3 years. The course basically interrogates the relationship between fiction and ethics, both everyday ethics and ethical theory. I start with a simplistic idea that fiction contains moral lessons which are imparted to passive hearers. Then we mine fiction for more complex ethical lessons. By about the time we are reading Sartre, we are starting to wonder why someone chooses to express an ethical idea in fiction rather than prose, and vice versa. We question our assumptions about what it is to “do ethics”, or what “ethical theory proper” looks like. We start to question to rigid boundary between the poets and the philosophers with Nietzsche, and by the time we hit Borges we have lost it totally (I used to teach Plato’s Pharmacy by Derrida but didn’t have time this semester.).
My approach to ethics in fiction is heavily influenced by the ethical criticism movement, associated with Martha Nussbaum, Wayne Booth and others. But it wasn’t until I started reading and blogging about romance that I even noticed that when they talk about the importance of fiction to ethics they are always talking about Proust or James or Woolf. So I added the last section of the course — which basically asks the question whether literature is superior to genre fiction, per se, and whether it is better in particular for doing the kinds of things Booth, Nussbaum and their ilk believe it can do, specifically, ask “what is the good life for human beings?”. It also allows me to introduce questions about the ways in which gender is associated with popular culture in general and genre fiction (not just romance) in particular, and the ways in which gender influences our distinctions between high and low art.
I had hoped to write many more blog posts on these topics as they relate to romance, and to the debates in Romanceland. That has not happened (yet). But I do plan to blog my “lecture” on the Gaffney, which I plan to use to ask whether genre fiction can do the things ethical critics think literature can do, and to ask whether this is an example of a kind of book that Posner talks about, a book which has literary, but lacks ethical value, and may not only lack ethical value, but may contribute to a significant problem in our culture, sexual violence against women (although Posner would never in a million years say a romance had literary values, either!).
Here’s the syllabus in case you’re interested:
ORDER OF READINGS:
Aesop’s Fables (browse) http://aesopfables.com/aesopsel.html
Three Billy Goats Gruff (first version only) http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/type0122e.html
The Little Red Hen http://www.bres.boothbay.k12.me.us/wq/nnash/WebQuest/little_red_hen.htm
The Rainbow Fish http://www.eurotales.eril.net/fish2uk.htm
Darcia Narvaez, “Does Reading Moral Stories Build Character?”*
Marianne Jennings, “The Absence of Stories: Filling the Void in Ethics” (George)
Nina Rosenstand, “Stories and Morals” (George)
Ursula Leguin, “The Ones Who Walked Away From Omelas”*
Cunningham, “Reading For Life” (George)
Tobias Wolff, “The Chain”, “The Night In Question”*
Sartre, “The Wall” *
Nussbaum, “The ‘Ancient Quarrel’: Literature and Moral Philosophy” (George)
Plato, Republic (360 B.C.E.) (selections) PDF
Leo Tolstoy, “What is Art?” (1896)
Tolstoy, The Death of Ivan Ilyich (1886)
Jean-Paul Sartre, “Why Write?” from What is Literature? (1947)*
Sartre, “Existentialism is a Humanism”*
Sartre, “No Exit”
Oscar Wilde, Preface, The Picture of Dorian Gray, preface*
John Gardner, “Premises on Art and Morality” (George)
Yoko Ogawa, “Pregnancy Diary”*
Abraham B. Yehoshua, “The Moral Connections of Literary Texts” (George)
Wayne Booth, “Why Ethical Criticism Can Never Be Simple” (George)
Richard A. Posner, “Against Ethical Criticism”
Borowski, “This Way for the Gas, Ladies and Gentlemen”*
Wayne C. Booth, “Who Is Responsible In Ethical Criticism?” (George)
Joyce Carol Oates, “Art and Ethics?” (George)
Claudia Mills, “Appropriating Others’ Stories: Some Questions about the Ethics of Writing Fiction”*
Nietzsche, Birth of Tragedy (selections)*
Hermann Hesse, Steppenwolf
Richard Rorty, “Philosophy As a Kind of Writing”*
Jorge Luis Borges, “Pierre Menard”, “Lottery in Babylon”, “Borges and I”*
HERE’S THE SECTION THAT’S TOTALLY NEW. I BLAME YOU ALL IF IT FLOPS:


“Is High Art Superior?”, Ch. 2 of What Good are the Arts? By John Carey*
“Reading Romance Fiction”, Ch. 4 of Feminism, Femininity and Popular Culture, by Joanne Hollows*
Patricia Gaffney, To Have and To Hold
Jack Harrell, “What Violence in Literature Must Teach Us” (George)
Orson Scott Card, “The Problem of Evil in Fiction” (George)
Margaret Atwood, “Happy Endings”*
So far it’s a great class, with wonderful students. It’s mostly men, so it will be interesting to see how the Gaffney plays. I welcome any comments on this post, but I should warn you that I won’t get into the Gaffney or the question of rape in romance, because not only have I blogged about both already, but I plan to do posts on Gaffeny in a couple of weeks.
Related posts:
- How Not to Teach A Romance Novel As regular readers know, I decided to teach a romance novel as part of my ethics and fiction class. This...
- Interview With A Croatian Feminist, Anarchist, Speculative Fiction Writer, and Avid Genre Fiction Reader Milena Benini, a regular reader of this blog, won my last contest. When I realized I had to send her...
- Alert: Immediate Change in This Blog’s Focus and Pace I’ve just looked at my calendar and had a small heart attack. My blog, and your blogs, and Twitter, have...
- Sexual Ethics in Romance I’m over at Romancing the Blog today, attempting to commit virtual suicide by tackling the above topic in 500 words...
- Notes on an Aesthetics of Junk Fiction (Part 2 of 3) Reading notes on Thomas J. Roberts’ An Aesthetics of Junk Fiction (Athens, GA; University of Georgia Press), 1990. Part 1...
- Monday Morning Stepback: Is There a Paradox of “Junk” Fiction? 1. Links: a. I can’t do a Links of Interest section since I nuked my Google reader, but I will...

#1 by Sherry Thomas on November 11, 2009 - 2:42 pm
Quote
It is an unforgettable story. For my money, probably the most thought-provoking SFF short story ever.
Now on a more frivolous note, have you noticed LeGuin’s great fondness for parades? Every time I read something by her, she always describes a parade.
#2 by dh on November 11, 2009 - 3:49 pm
Quote
Said’s critique of the West as posed in Orientalism and Culture and Imperialism has also rested on the discourse of “elite” culture – albeit through the works of Flaubert, Verdi, Conrad, and, I hate to say it, Austen.
#3 by Janine on November 11, 2009 - 4:00 pm
Quote
I read it and have mostly forgotten the details, though I remember the moral question at its center. Perhaps because I felt it was trying too hard to make its point, or perhaps I had been asking myself questions like that long before I read it, it didn’t speak to me. On the other hand I love love love The Left Hand of Darkness.
What does “The Moral Connections of Literary Texts?” say, Jessica?
Abraham B. Yehoshua is the author of one of my favorite novellas, the brilliant “Three Days and a Child.” In Hebrew it is *the* awesome, but unfortunately, the English translation sucks so bad. However if by any chance anyone here can read or even just comprehend spoken Hebrew, I urge you to read this novella or get it on CD.
Can’t wait for the posts on the Gaffney lectures.
#4 by Jessica on November 11, 2009 - 4:08 pm
Quote
@Janine: A quick answer to your Leguin point, Janine: yes, it is nearly didactic, which is why we read it early in the semester. Although, I have read and taught it for so long that I have found much more nuance than I once did, still, it is at its heart a moralistic story.
@dh: Hello dear. Why aren’t you home yet?
@Sherry Thomas: Never saw the parade connection – but you’re right!
#5 by SonomaLass on November 11, 2009 - 7:15 pm
Quote
I love everything by Ursula LeGuin. Her work is always insightful, with interesting moral and ethical issues. Perhaps the only SF/F author who comes close for me is Sheri Tepper — again, not always subtle, but always worthwhile.
I haven’t read the Gaffney in question. I’m obviously going to have to do so, after the discussions recently!
I love the idea of this class. It reminds me of a class I had in grad school on political theatre, which began with an essay by the playwright Tom Stoppard, who wrote, “The plain truth is that if you are angered or disgusted by a particular injustice or immorality, and you want to do something about it, now, at once, then you can hardly do worse than write a play about it.” It was a great class.
Now off to look through my LeGuins for parades!
#6 by Heloise on November 11, 2009 - 8:07 pm
Quote
BTW, PaperBackSwap.com has at least one copy of Gaffney’s To Have and To Hold. Different edition, if that matters? If one of your students is already a member…
#7 by RfP on November 11, 2009 - 9:56 pm
Quote
Nice choices. I use this passage from The Wall as a touchstone for “why someone chooses to express an ethical idea in fiction”:
In the terms bandied about romancelandia, nonfiction would try to tell about it. Fiction can show it.
Also: see the latest issue of Harper’s. There’s a nice selection of interviews under the title Huis claws, by Jean Paul Sartre and John Gerassi.
#8 by heidenkind on November 12, 2009 - 12:52 am
Quote
I’m interested in how the Gaffney plays with the men folk, too.
Sounds like a great class!
#9 by Liz on November 12, 2009 - 3:45 pm
Quote
I am a bad student. I haven’t done most of your reading and am behind as usual, but I still feel free to comment (at way too much sophomoric length)!
I am generally dubious about high/low or literary/genre distinctions (one reason I love blogs like yours is that the discussions of romance here move so freely across these borders). I think people like Booth and Said make their arguments on the backs of the Usual Suspects not because they could not make them about popular/genre fiction, but because they want to be taken seriously as they try to expand the range of questions asked in their disciplines.
Looking at your reading list (and it looks like a fascinating class) I wondered if that concern had also influenced you: you have rounded up some Usual Suspects here (though also some new faces) and you frame your inclusion of Gaffney as if you are uncertain about it. Does that partly have to do with Phil. as a field? I don’t think twice about including some genre/popular texts in my reading lists. I wondered if, in the way you frame your questions about Gaffney, you are making it easy to pick her out of the lineup as the villain. Given all I’ve read about the book in Romancelandia and the debates it has engendered, I’m not sure I’d say it has no ethical value.
That said, I firmly believe some books are–ethically and aesthetically–better than others and I would not hesitate to set a match to a pile of all the extant copies of Rainbow Fish (ugh! fails on both counts). Good thing I’m not a philosopher, as I’m so self-contradictory.
I wonder if part of the issue with genre fiction is that because it is largely governed by conventions, it has a more “closed” moral system than most (contemporary, anyway) literary fiction. By that I mean, we expect an HEA from romance, and I think we also expect a book whose basic ethical view is that love has saving power; I’m not the first to point that out, of course. It reinforces beliefs we may already have, or at least beliefs we expect it to have.
I was thinking of this when reading your discussion of Black Ice, about some people’s discomfort with romantic suspense and the amoral hero. The “problem” with such books, perhaps, is that you have clashing moral codes: the “female” ethic of love, care, relationship and the “male” ethic of justice or a warrior’s code of some kind. Opposites can attract, but they can also fit together quite awkwardly. In gendering the genres that way I’m following difference feminists like Carol Gilligan (don’t love In A Different Voice but it makes some sense here).
Thanks for a blog post that kept me up pondering. I should shut up, or just get my own blog. Sorry.
#10 by Zoe Archer on November 15, 2009 - 12:31 am
Quote
Have there been more recent, i.e. within the past 5 years, literary theory texts that address genre romance? Waaay back in the day, when I was writing my master’s thesis, there was Radaway and also the anthology Dangerous Men & Adventurous Women. I see that the Hollows on your syllabus is from 2000, but there have been significant evolutions in genre romance since then, and I’m wondering what the academic and critical texts would have to say about the genre now. As a writer who approaches the genre with a very specific and manifest agenda, I am quite curious to know the academy’s stance on popular romance.
#11 by Jessica on November 15, 2009 - 9:58 am
Quote
Hi Zoe,
I am not a romance scholar but I have read enough to know that the representation Hollows provides of the genre is not hopelessly outdated. It also works for me pedagogically, because this is an undergraduate class, and Hollows’s text provides an introductory overview. Also Hollows’s chapter situates romance within popular culture studies and women’s studies, rather than literary criticism, and that was what I needed for this unit.
As for “the academy’s stance on popular romance”, I don’t think there is one, or rather, I think we can speak of that only in a superficial way. We may be able to point to greater acceptance of popular culture and popular literature as worthy objects of academic attention, and the romance genre in the 20th century as having benefited from that. But as you can see from Eric Selinger’s review of recent romance scholarship Laura Vivanco’s summary here, different folks are working on pretty specific topics and questions. That’s a sign, in my opinion, of the growing acceptability of romance as a topic of academic attention, that people no longer have to defend study of the genre as a whole, but can launch directly in to study of particular texts and themes.
I don’t know whether such scholarship can get published in traditional literature journals, as opposed to, say, pop culture journals. The IASPR folks would know that. The launch of a new journal dedicated to popular romance studies suggests the existing climate is wanting in some way. I think the situation in philosophy of literature is probably about 10 years behind the literature and pop culture segments of academia.
There is a RomanceWiki which is a great resource. Also Teach Me Tonight.
#12 by Zoe Archer on November 15, 2009 - 12:40 pm
Quote
Thanks for all that info, Jessica! I realize that there is no monolithic academy with only one viewpoint, but I wasn’t certain if, on the whole, there were general trends in the field of scholarship vis-à-vis popular romance. I will definitely look at the sources you’ve provided.