Campusland: a Novel – Scott Johnston

Rating: 0 stars, the worst book I have ever read

Quick note before I start. When I review a book, I usually write down a few pointers and notes that I want to remark on. This time I had about 40. Good or bad? Well, 2 out of 5 stars probably means bad! 

Before anyone criticizes me of having a thin skin, or, as Kirkus Reviews puts it:

“Trigger warning… it [this book] should not be read by those who lack of a sense of humor…”

I mostly fault this book for not being satire. I found this book (and got it subsequently from the library) after finding it on the Amazon list of the top 100 selling satires. The writer may not have been aware of someone marketing it with the wrong genre. Except let’s not kid ourselves. This book is to satire as Alanis Morissette’s Ironic is to irony. As in some satire is there, but it’s definitely not intentional. Most of it “this is supposed to be funny so it’s satire”.

For those of you who don’t know, humor may flow from satire, but satire does not flow from humor. For example, satire would be: a man with whose head is literal poop. “Satire” is: the author calling the man a poop head (and optionally finding that funny). You can guess which of the two the book has. Not to mention multiple “jokes” that other characters find funny.

Before I go on, I want to list some of the good parts of the book. The book is mostly well paced, and the conflict that leads to the conclusion is well constructed even if I don’t like the satire (though the ending comes a bit later than it should). The book flows well (I read a bunch of it out loud to my baby because he likes hearing me talk) except for a few parts (by the way, greatest tip ever. You are either the best writer ever or a negligent one if you don’t do this). Also there is one great line, quoting the back of the book: “But something about the latest winds blowing through campus had a dark edge, as if a subtle transition were going on from the American Revolution to the French.” The problem is the author knows it, and it’s used to even better effect in the first third of the book, and it’s unfortunate that it’s repeated on the back. Someone much smarter than me said something about how a particularly stand-out effect is more noticeable when it’s repeated, even if other things are repeated much more often. The last good thing is when a progressive visits a monarchist (let’s be honest, regressive and probably Fascist but they don’t actively think about it, much like the alt-right) student group. The progressive’s voice (but let’s be honest, the author ‘thinks’ through them every time he changes perspective) notes the old furniture and stale air. That’s some quality satire. I suggest the author read Children of Men because the book has more of it than this one.

Okay, now all the bad things. So this is going to be mostly about the satire thing. The purpose of a book, especially satire, is to say something. What does this book say?

If I understand it correctly, it’s supposedly the South Park take on everything, don’t take anything too seriously. No one does anything sincerely. The progressive group on campus cares only about recognition, not anything tangible. The African American student group just cares about money. The feminists (called the Womyn Collective because apparently takes from the 70s is still a thing that goes on, more on this later x 1) is a bunch of ugly losers who love arguing more than the argument. I’m not kidding there. The only sincere students are described homely. Okay? In effect they’re all straw men. Whatever, the author is making fun of them, I can hear my own straw man saying. But the thing about satire is that we should know what the author is talking about. Unless there’s an obvious person that is being satirized (Stalin in the form of Snowball), they should be sincere because you are making fun of them. If you are satirizing an idea, like the boss guy in 1984 (it’s been awhile, okay?), then they have to be sincere in what they believe. It’s just that their beliefs are worthy of satire. Otherwise, what you’re saying is that no one who believes in progressivism is sincere in their beliefs. Therefore anyone who ever says anything progressive is actually after their own self gain. Not that the ideas are wrong, it’s just that anyone who holds them really just wants some material benefit. Yeah, now you can extend that to rape and sexual assault because that’s what the author does!

A short note before I go on. The leader of the progressive student group is actually super rich and gets money from a trust fund. And he disrespects capitalism! So he’s a hypocrite. Again, this is the same as before, that no one sincerely believes that capitalism is bad. And he’s never worked a day in his life! And he’s guilty of moral turpitude! That gets his granddad, the man who really earned the money, from giving him anymore. It feels like wish fulfillment, but whose? Also he worked at an Amazon warehouse for a summer, as if that also makes him a hypocrite. What? If Jeff Bezos worked there, I would respect him (for that alone). If Bernie Sanders worked there, I would applaud him. Idem with anyone at all! It’s hard work, and you definitely don’t earn as much as you deserve. Amazon may do bad things to small businesses, but that’s a management decision. If you have to work there to get by, then you shouldn’t be criticized. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism, yes, but ethics only apply if you have a choice. Starving to death because you can’t find any other work is not one. I’m reviewing this book on Goodreads and Amazon. Does that make me a hypocrite? Okay, the answer is yes as long as I have a choice. Do I feel like I have one? No. So more yes than no, but more no than if I weren’t trying to make it as a writer.

The first half of the conflict is the progressive students accuse Ephraim (the first POV character) (who I’m pretty sure is not Jewish even though he has a very Jewish name. Maybe biblical names are popular in Alabama?) of having a racist reading list for his 19th century literature class. The first book is The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and anyone who’s read it or heard about it, know what this is about. So the author is trying to pretend the conflict was about getting the work banned and not about the teacher not dealing with the use of the N-word. Anyway, the main conflict is that Ephraim refuses to put more African American authors on the syllabus. He says it’s because there weren’t any until later. So it’s about facts why this is happening. Facts, guys! Except a really cursory google search had Huckleberry Finn coming out in 1885… and there were a handful of African American writers by that late in the 19th century? If the author had used an antebellum example or something. Then the professor can’t do it because it’s about Romantics vs. Realists. Uh, okay? Later on the book, another teacher comments that teaching is easy because you teach a semester once, you teach the same thing every year (more on that later x 1). If you’re teaching elementary languages or something, I can understand that (though the teachers should be updating their textbooks and teaching methods at least every now and then), but that’s the definition of a stodgy old teacher, and the reason why making compromises means doing the hard thing and actually having to give a crap about your job.

This argument basically boils down onto “the people asking for progressive policies are asking for us to change things! We have to make decisions, but it’s a fact that the classics of literature are that for a reason.” There are two primary faults with this conversation. If a school is deciding to change, then it has to make sacrifices. Some of those will be painful, and so a part of making changes and accepting diversity is accepting that you don’t know everything, and what you value most is not what others value most. The second point is that it’s not a fact about what are classics. Okay, so I should say I didn’t do literature, at least not in English. I did some Italian literature, but from what I’ve seen about the ‘classics’ of literature, it’s a lot of people’s opinion over time. Good literature was a response to older stuff, and so on and so forth. It’s a bit simple and easy when Kant argued about universals, but there is no literature that is universal! It’s like Chomsky arguing about universal grammar. It’s pretty useful and convenient for western languages and culture, but it’s not true everywhere! Any decent teacher would take what their students say seriously and ponder it. They wouldn’t just throw it out because a student says it. Ephraim really should’ve thought about African American authors and said “hey, let’s include a few.” In fact, on page 98, the author Elizabeth Keckley is suggested, and Ephraim (and his African American girlfriend, more on this later x 2) are like ‘who?’ What a bad teacher! Why is he up for tenure if he isn’t willing to learn something new? Even though American Literature is Arts and Sciences, the scientific method applies! Teachers learn new things all the time!

The second main conflict comes from Lulu Harris (the second POV) falsely accuses Ephraim of sexual assault. She does it as a way of getting out of trouble for stealing. And she starts doing an elaborate walk around campus with a chain attached to her ankle. She’s just doing it to get Twitter followers, but everyone rallies around her as a victim. What is the message of this? Well, another character says it makes it harder for real victims to come forward. Well, if you’re familiar with anyone who says they were sexually assaulted, this is literally the defense of the accusers every time. It came up when women were accusing Kavanaugh and Trump, but… according this logic, the accusations are never correct. Because no one’s ever sincere in what they believe! #Metoo is use about destroying good men who lose their jobs over false accusation, apparently.

Then the teacher’s accusations goes to the Title IX committee, who don’t care about the truth. They just want to bring down a teacher because there must be sexual assault on campus, whether any actually happened. And people are trying to justify their jobs and high paychecks. Finally, in the last third we get to the heart of the author’s argument (especially because the author has a page About Campusland that says that this book is supposed to be funny… except the Title IX committees, which are really a thing and so unfair! In the book, Eph complains that it’s not fair, and he deserves to confront his accusers and have representation. Well, guess what? This is the exact same crap that people bring up about impeachment. Guess what? Only the Judicial branch of the government goes through that! Military Tribunals and education isn’t subject to those regulations. However, if Eph had tenure. So, yes, it isn’t very fair. However, the argument should really be against the tenure system which only gives an opportunity to defend themselves to teachers who have it. Associate professors and adjuncts are screwed. Why isn’t that touched on? I suspect it’s because the author doesn’t actually know what tenure means.

Okay, now I’m going to get political/state my opinion.

The first thing I want to talk about is one of the big themes of this book. Eph (who you should obviously recognize as the voice of the author) says ‘I’m progressive, but this is crazy! This isn’t real racism when a bunch of stuffy white people teach the same things forever and never have to change! It only happens when people say the N-word! Women can’t be at danger or feel endangered at the school because they constitute over 50% of the student body (hmm, I wonder if the peasantry of France before their revolution thought they were represented because they were over 50% of the population).’ Saying ‘I’m X but…’ is usually an indication that you’re not X. Anyone who is seriously progressive realizes that it’s an ongoing struggle. Gay marriage isn’t a step too far because we already have interracial marriage, for example. An idea that the author mocks (that the struggle must be ongoing) is fairly simple and well-accepted by anyone who fundamentally cares about these concepts.

The second is a bunch of people really care about grammar in casual conversation (like someone caring that Title IX is used as a verb). If anyone in a non-academic setting gives someone else a hassle about that sort of thing, everyone would stop talking to them. Plus, I’m pretty sure stuff like that has come up in a few of the academic conferences I’ve gone to. Besides that, I’m pretty sure literature taught these days in English is much less normative. I can see it happening in foreign language classes, but even those weren’t sticklers about it unless it was in a paper. Italian universities were, but that’s not in America. I guess this is one advantage of doing Linguistics, where everyone cared much more about intended meaning than perfection.

A side note here. Lulu makes fun of the jocks for having poor diction when she herself, at this point of the book, barely attends class and doesn’t care about her education. Also, she makes a joke about gay stereotypes. Dude, that does not fly anymore!

The third, that should’ve been apparent by now (and , was the attitudes the author had about things. The back of the book says he went to college in the 80s. Examples are words like ‘correctamundo’, ‘total nob’, explaining what EDM means and what beer pong is, and going on and on about how fraternities are awesome and fun and constantly partying. During down time, the fraternity members were spitting loogies on the ceiling and seeing how long it took for them to fall back down. Uhh… do they not have smart phones? Like, I get it. I never was in a fraternity, and I graduated in 2015 (okay 2014 from a school that had fraternities), but c’mon. Along this line, the author complains about the drinking age being raised to 21 and explains its impact on college campuses. Holy moly! Who does not know that the drinking age is 21? And that college students drink a lot? And that the people who are over 21 help those that are under? Also, they refer to their beer as Natural Lite and not Natty Lite. I have never, ever heard someone in person call it Natural Lite. You should ask if they’re an alien. Also, wouldn’t they be drinking PBR (or as the author would call them, Pabst Blue Ribbon)? Maybe I’m dating myself here. Anyway, the book is set somewhere between 2017 and 2019, but it doesn’t feel like that other than some lip service about how progressive values are ruining campus life! Again, myself, but when I went to college (one for my undergrad, one for my Masters), it was a bastion of centrists. Teachers, events, everything. I wish it was this crazy place that the book says college is like, but it sure wasn’t that.

Okay, little annoyances I had:

Lulu’s mom flat out asks her if the accusations are real. And Lulu’s ignores it until later than is like ‘yeah, I made it up.’ If anyone, especially someone you trust, is accusing you of making false accusations, don’t talk to them. Even if it’s true, that’s not a relationship. If they’re right, they know you’re a liar, and so no trust can be had there. If they’re wrong, there’s no trust, and obviously this person is saying they’re not your friend or think you’re family.

Also Lulu’s dad signs an NDA that says that he can’t reveal that he had a daughter with a famous movie actress. Does this character, a high powered lawyer, not know that NDAs can’t cover this sort of thing? Consult a lawyer about two things: NDAs that don’t have to do with keeping an industry secret under wraps and really unfair prenups.

So the more on this later comments:

First: The other teacher complains about ‘students these days’, how physical violence and name calling is good, how teachers shouldn’t have to change their syllabus ever (because it’s an easy job even though he just mocked students for being too lazy). It’s all given unironically with no comment. Where’s the satire here? What’s the author saying?

Second: Ephraim constantly refers to his girlfriend as ebony. Ebony skin, Ebony and Ivory, etc. Seriously, was that alright in the 80s? Cus it definitely wouldn’t have flown when I was in school.

I want to leave you with some of the most ridiculous quotes from the book:

“He [Red, leader of PSA] swore sometimes women should come equipped with user manuals” – P 221

My response: who says this still? Again, 80s talk.

“…later identified as a ‘comfort animal’…” – P. 82

Who calls an Emotional Support Animal a comfort animal? Like, I get that it’s one of those ‘those darn kids’ things, but c’mon.

“[Some character said,] ‘Was it Beria who said, “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime”?’ Eph recalled that Beria was Stalin’s secret-police chief – P. 101

Okay, whatever, accusations of popular opinion, but the target audience of this book knows who Beria is. And if they don’t, they can google it. Don’t explain it here!

“So digger is wasted and hooks up with this chick, right?… [the next morning] this chick says, ‘you don’t remember my name, do you?’… She starts throwing shit at him…” – P. 128

Okay, so I cut a lot out of that paragraph, but you get the point. First off, who expects a loving and committed relationship from a frat boy? This book is full of dated tropes, and it makes me so annoyed that the author even thought he consulted someone on making his book up to date. I guess they should’ve said to just gut half of it. Or set it in the 80s!

“Most of his time, though was spent grading term papers. Forty students times twenty pages meant eight hundred pages of reading, plus critiques.” – P. 134

Okay, so the author has no idea about workloads and stuff for teachers. I had a few friends that were TAs or taught classes, and that might be their workload. A teacher? Much more since they’re not just teaching 2 classes. Also, that’s the only term paper. Anyway, the book ends with Eph skipping out on tenure at Devon University so he can work as an adjunct at Samford. I don’t think the author knows what it’s like to teach as an adjunct with the promise of maybe one day being full time. That sort of thing is only for people that are already rich, not normal associate professors.

There’s some other stuff, but I’ve spent like two hours on this. So bye.