In applying to graduate school, I had written a statement of purpose declaring that I wanted to pursue a Ph.D. because I believed that "studying literature was fun." One of my professors crossed out that line with the comment, "STUDYING LITERATURE IS NOT FUN!!"At the time I took that to mean that I needed to come across as a serious and potentially professional academic critic rather than a wide-eyed enthusiast. After getting to grad school I came to regard the remark as a warning: not only of the myriad ways in which being in a Ph.D. program is no fun at all, but also of the systematic refusal of aesthetic pleasure within academic literary studies. Looking back, I see the two motives as aligned: Disavowing aesthetic pleasure is precisely how academics have sought to signal their professionalism and affirm the joblike nature of the work.
Well, why the hell would you take up a profession that didn't afford you any pleasure? To be a professional grump? I got into what I ended up making my living at precisely because I enjoyed reading. That is the reason a good part of my day is still spent reading. The best job is a fun job that pays reasonably well.
We're supposed to worry about what GQ thinks about literature? Guess I'll have to subscribe to PMLA to find out how to firm up my abs and choose my ties.
ReplyDelete