I have a book here, the Poole & Shepherd
IMPACT Teachers' Book, published 1967, and it was lent to me by my English teacher. The basic premise of the book is to dictate how to teach students the 'manners of writing'. The preface to this book has a section that caught my eye:
"As English teachers what we wish to avoid at all costs in pupils' writing is diluted experience. To put the pupil in such situations is to throw him upon his own resources of language. He must
, as it were, describe the spit in his own mouth. There is no falling back here upon Dr Who [sic]
or The Man from U.N.C.L.E.
"Though we want our pupils to write imaginatively, we shan't, upon the whole, encourage them to take fantasy trips to the moon."Which, I have to say, makes little sense to me. While I can grasp that one's own experiences are valuable, the opportunities made apparent through such shows and popular culture can enrich and feed a student's imagination to new heights. So with a sense of defiance, I set out to seek ways in which I have used the imagination and the pure experience gained from these shows to further my education and my understanding of my education.
If I were to rewind to my early days of fandom, I can distinctly remember the first time I integrated Man from UNCLE and Doctor Who into my school work--albeit, accidentally. I was 14-15, and I had stumbled across the two shows a either a year and a half, or a few months before. It was in my geography exam (quite stressed), and the question was to name some peace-keeping forces and their roles. While I don't remember writing it down, when I got the paper back, sure enough, listed there was 'United Nations Intelligence Taskforce' and 'United Network Command for Law and Enforcement'. The marking teacher's response? I can't rightly say, but both fictional forces were double-ticked.
The second time was on purpose, I was 16 and it was analysing a piece of MFU fan-fiction (Utopian Trunk's Three Minutes to Midnight). I used it because it was beautiful, because it fit with what I was arguing, and because a part of me just wanted to rebel with an unrecognised text-type. And why can't we use fan-fiction? Is it not beautiful, or is it because of the red-encased copyright issues? I didn't
mention it was or wasn't fanfiction, but labelled it ambiguously as 'fiction'. Once again, the teacher didn't pick anything up, but loved my analysis so much I got full marks-- the first student to do so in years.
In fact, the whole basis of Fan Fiction rebels against what
IMPACT discourages. A whole original work dependant on the lives of fictional characters-- or is this merely escapism and not to be taken seriously as a valid text?
Nowadays, we are told--no,
forced-- to include literary, cultural and/or contextual references within our responses and original fictions. As such, for our Cold War module this year I'm using
The Project Strigas Affair as a supplementary text. And using it
good. They are just as valid as Brahms'
Dracula and Shakespeare's
Hamlet to study, analyse and adopt. So,
IMPACT circa 1967, it looks like the curriculum has acknowledged the advantages of the so-called 'diluted experiences'. Indeed, are not most of our experiences, whether it's learning about Hatshepsut or watching the evening news, 'diluted'?
But is it a good idea to create original fiction using influences from our 'diluted experience'? I certainly think it opens up a broader outlook and a range of possibilities. Whether it's homage or adaptation, fan fiction is part of
my life. What about you, my friends, do you think it is a good idea to include 'diluted experience', or should such things be wielded either with caution or not at all? Have you ever fallen back on fandom to help you in your creative, intellectual or visionary pursuits?
Well, till next time,
Toodle-pip.
charismaz
sick
contemplative
tired
sleepy
melancholy
nervous
chipper
hot