Hey, there's a future in poo. I'm telling you, scrotal theory is the next big thing.
If you don't mind, I'd like to indulge in a little rant. Most of you know I tilt less to the left than many in academia; nevertheless I get irked at many attempts from the right to disparage academic eccentricity.
So I glanced at the article linked in the blog post, and thought that while it does a good job of describing what's wrong about Kalamazoo, it says little about what's right.
I have mixed feelings about Kalamazoo. I find much of it absurd. When you get 3,000 medievalists in a single location on a single weekend, things are bound to get a little weird. But to dismiss it as a second-rank conference actively avoided by the big names in medieval academia is snotty, elitist, and just plain wrong. Kalamazoo is no more absurd than the MLA (which usually is the focus of its own 'look what those crazy college professors are up to now' story this time of year).
That said, there is much to lament in today's academy. There is, for example, the silly tendency of many (post) modern academics to bracket their tit(les) for dubious effect. I find that those who over-indulge in the practice tend to be earnest, dare I say (cock)sure, graduate students. It ought to be avoided by all those of sound judgment.
As for fecopoetics, there is a place for the study of scatology; although some who have gone around the postmodern bend tend to take it too far.
Those too enamored of the supposed tension between center and periphery can go a little overboard when describing marginal notes as resistance to the hegemony of the center text. There was a medieval art historian, for example, who equated marginalia with rape (the pen plows furrows through the parchment 'flesh').
Post structuralism can offer exciting ways to read texts; unlike the writer of the Weekly Standard article, I think reader response critism is a valid way to approach texts. Unfortunately, a lot of post structuralism looks like game playing to those outside the field, and to many inside it as well.
Long ago, when I was the photo editor at my college newspaper, I got it into my head that I would do a series on roadkill. Why? Maybe I had half convinced myself that it had artistic value, but mostly because I had a warped sense of humor.
It's fun to play games with texts (as I believe M.H. Abrams put it), but the games, like my roadkill series, often seem motivated more by a juvenile desire to shock than by real academic inquiry.
In the end, if we spend all our effort devaluing the object of our study, it's only a matter of time before non-literary people (the ones we hope will fund our lifestyle) begin to wonder what the point is. And then the whole edifice will come crashing down under the weight of its own pretensions.
1. That article was a funny read, but that author did go a tad overboard (what would Freud say about this author's obvious aversion to feces?).
2. Mike, its perfectly OK if you want to go to Kalamazoo and discuss feces, etc. with fellow academics. You certainly don't have to justify yourself to us.
3. Press on with the road kill idea. Perhaps one day you'll return to Kalamazoo to present on "The Carrionpoetics of the Medieval Iberian Roadside" or some similar matter.
What do you think of the fecopoetics of roadkill scrota? I am looking for a good title for my paper. On a more serious note, I came across that post while googling "Kalamazoo." I think Mike is right when he says that most of the word games are played by ambitious graduate students hoping to impress their professors. I think academicians run into a ditch when they forget that we are all eccentrics to varying degrees. That fact has never been an obstacle to doing serious scholarship. I think Thomas Benton wrote an article to that extent in the Chronicle. I'll look it up.
Any room for a Cervantist on the "Fecopoetics of roadkill scrota" panel? If I can't come up with a paper topic, then I know of several colleagues who already have written on similar topics who would surely be able to join in at the last minute.
Good point about all of us academics being eccentric in our own way. I'd like to see that article.
10 comments:
Hey, there's a future in poo. I'm telling you, scrotal theory is the next big thing.
If you don't mind, I'd like to indulge in a little rant. Most of you know I tilt less to the left than many in academia; nevertheless I get irked at many attempts from the right to disparage academic eccentricity.
So I glanced at the article linked in the blog post, and thought that while it does a good job of describing what's wrong about Kalamazoo, it says little about what's right.
I have mixed feelings about Kalamazoo. I find much of it absurd. When you get 3,000 medievalists in a single location on a single weekend, things are bound to get a little weird. But to dismiss it as a second-rank conference actively avoided by the big names in medieval academia is snotty, elitist, and just plain wrong. Kalamazoo is no more absurd than the MLA (which usually is the focus of its own 'look what those crazy college professors are up to now' story this time of year).
That said, there is much to lament in today's academy. There is, for example, the silly tendency of many (post) modern academics to bracket their tit(les) for dubious effect. I find that those who over-indulge in the practice tend to be earnest, dare I say (cock)sure, graduate students. It ought to be avoided by all those of sound judgment.
As for fecopoetics, there is a place for the study of scatology; although some who have gone around the postmodern bend tend to take it too far.
Those too enamored of the supposed tension between center and periphery can go a little overboard when describing marginal notes as resistance to the hegemony of the center text. There was a medieval art historian, for example, who equated marginalia with rape (the pen plows furrows through the parchment 'flesh').
Post structuralism can offer exciting ways to read texts; unlike the writer of the Weekly Standard article, I think reader response critism is a valid way to approach texts. Unfortunately, a lot of post structuralism looks like game playing to those outside the field, and to many inside it as well.
Long ago, when I was the photo editor at my college newspaper, I got it into my head that I would do a series on roadkill. Why? Maybe I had half convinced myself that it had artistic value, but mostly because I had a warped sense of humor.
It's fun to play games with texts (as I believe M.H. Abrams put it), but the games, like my roadkill series, often seem motivated more by a juvenile desire to shock than by real academic inquiry.
In the end, if we spend all our effort devaluing the object of our study, it's only a matter of time before non-literary people (the ones we hope will fund our lifestyle) begin to wonder what the point is. And then the whole edifice will come crashing down under the weight of its own pretensions.
Sorry, it's late. Rant over.
A few things:
1. That article was a funny read, but that author did go a tad overboard (what would Freud say about this author's obvious aversion to feces?).
2. Mike, its perfectly OK if you want to go to Kalamazoo and discuss feces, etc. with fellow academics. You certainly don't have to justify yourself to us.
3. Press on with the road kill idea. Perhaps one day you'll return to Kalamazoo to present on "The Carrionpoetics of the Medieval Iberian Roadside" or some similar matter.
What do you think of the fecopoetics of roadkill scrota? I am looking for a good title for my paper.
On a more serious note, I came across that post while googling "Kalamazoo." I think Mike is right when he says that most of the word games are played by ambitious graduate students hoping to impress their professors. I think academicians run into a ditch when they forget that we are all eccentrics to varying degrees. That fact has never been an obstacle to doing serious scholarship. I think Thomas Benton wrote an article to that extent in the Chronicle. I'll look it up.
Fecopoetics of roadkill scrota sounds like a great title for a conference panel.
Any room for a Cervantist on the "Fecopoetics of roadkill scrota" panel? If I can't come up with a paper topic, then I know of several colleagues who already have written on similar topics who would surely be able to join in at the last minute.
Good point about all of us academics being eccentric in our own way. I'd like to see that article.
Here's the article, as promised:
http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2004/03/2004030101c.htm
Word games played by professors who still write and behave like graduate students is even scarier.
Enjoyed the article. Do any of you guys have a rocking chair or a violet-ray machine in your office yet?
I would love a rocking chair.
Post a Comment