Welcome to The Valve

Valve Links

The Front Page
Statement of Purpose

John Holbo - Editor
Scott Eric Kaufman - Editor
Aaron Bady
Adam Roberts
Amardeep Singh
Andrew Seal
Bill Benzon
Daniel Green
Jonathan Goodwin
Joseph Kugelmass
Lawrence LaRiviere White
Marc Bousquet
Matt Greenfield
Miriam Burstein
Ray Davis
Rohan Maitzen
Sean McCann
Guest Authors

Laura Carroll
Mark Bauerlein
Miriam Jones

Past Valve Book Events

cover of the book Theory's Empire

Event Archive

cover of the book The Literary Wittgenstein

Event Archive

cover of the book Graphs, Maps, Trees

Event Archive

cover of the book How Novels Think

Event Archive

cover of the book The Trouble With Diversity

Event Archive

cover of the book What's Liberal About the Liberal Arts?

Event Archive

cover of the book The Novel of Purpose

Event Archive

The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Happy Trails to You

What’s an Encyclopedia These Days?

Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Intimate Enemies: What’s Opera, Doc?

Alphonso Lingis talks of various things, cameras and photos among them

Feynmann, John von Neumann, and Mental Models

Support Michael Sporn’s Film about Edgar Allen Poe

Philosophy, Ontics or Toothpaste for the Mind

Nazi Rules for Regulating Funk ‘n Freedom

The Early History of Modern Computing: A Brief Chronology

Computing Encounters Being, an Addendum

On the Origin of Objects (towards a philosophy of computation)

Symposium on Graeber’s Debt

The Nightmare of Digital Film Preservation

Richard Petti on Occupy Wall Street: America HAS a Ruling Class

Bill Benzon on Whatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhat?

Nick J. on The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Bill Benzon on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Norma on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Bill Benzon on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

john balwit on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on That Shakespeare Thing

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

JoseAngel on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Bill Benzon on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Advanced Search

RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom


Powered by Expression Engine
Logo by John Holbo

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.



About Last Night
Academic Splat
Amardeep Singh
Bemsha Swing
Bitch. Ph.D.
Blogging the Renaissance
Butterflies & Wheels
Cahiers de Corey
Category D
Charlotte Street
Cheeky Prof
Chekhov’s Mistress
Chrononautic Log
Cogito, ergo Zoom
Collected Miscellany
Completely Futile
Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind
Conversational Reading
Critical Mass
Crooked Timber
Culture Cat
Culture Industry
Early Modern Notes
Easily Distracted
fait accompi
Ferule & Fescue
Ghost in the Wire
Giornale Nuovo
God of the Machine
Golden Rule Jones
Grumpy Old Bookman
Ideas of Imperfection
In Favor of Thinking
In Medias Res
Inside Higher Ed
jane dark’s sugarhigh!
John & Belle Have A Blog
John Crowley
Jonathan Goodwin
Kathryn Cramer
Languor Management
Light Reading
Like Anna Karina’s Sweater
Lime Tree
Limited Inc.
Long Pauses
Long Story, Short Pier
Long Sunday
Making Light
Maud Newton
Michael Berube
Motime Like the Present
Narrow Shore
Neil Gaiman
Old Hag
Open University
Pas au-delà
Planned Obsolescence
Quick Study
Rake’s Progress
Reader of depressing books
Reading Room
Reassigned Time
Reeling and Writhing
Return of the Reluctant
Say Something Wonderful
Shaken & Stirred
Silliman’s Blog
Slaves of Academe
Sorrow at Sills Bend
Sounds & Fury
Stochastic Bookmark
Tenured Radical
the Diaries of Franz Kafka
The Elegant Variation
The Home and the World
The Intersection
The Litblog Co-Op
The Literary Saloon
The Literary Thug
The Little Professor
The Midnight Bell
The Mumpsimus
The Pinocchio Theory
The Reading Experience
The Salt-Box
The Weblog
This Public Address
This Space: The Fire’s Blog
Thoughts, Arguments & Rants
Tingle Alley
University Diaries
Unqualified Offerings
What Now?
William Gibson

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Blogging MLA 2005; or, It Is Too An Event

Posted by Scott Eric Kaufman on 12/28/05 at 02:36 AM

Clancy beat me to the punch, but I’ll have the last word.  Or the lengthiest.  (I have no shame.  I’ll settle for quantity over quality.) I’ve already posted my first not-so-MLA-related prelude.  Tomorrow I’ll work up my notes on the first three panels I attended in ways I promise will entertain and edify even the most jaded of readers.  (Of which, I learned tonight, we have legion.) So for those of you I met today who expected your names up in virtual lights, well, sleep before celebrity, my mother used to say.  But tonight Holbo and I were mocked by name by a name, and I stayed out until 3 a.m. drinking with people infinitely more intelligent than I.  And I didn’t even have to use my AK.

I gotta say it was a good day.



MORE MINOR UPDATES: “I Don’t Know That Guy“ & “The Random Example.”

QUASI-SIGNIFICANT UPDATE: “I Can’t Believe I’m Telling You This!

[Note: If people would prefer I post the significant updates here I will.]


I don’t even count that post as an actual “Blogging MLA” post. If that kind of post counts, then John Holbo wins.

I’m intrigued by this “mocked by a name” occurrence.

By Clancy on 12/28/05 at 07:50 AM | Permanent link to this comment

Walter Benn Michaels singled John and I out (Sean, being on the panel, wasn’t in his line of sight) as two people with an unhealthy interest in the theory/Theory distinction.  When John asked a question, Walter said “Wait, you’re John Holbo.  You didn’t say nothing, but what you did said was dead wrong.” Or something to that effect.  He made amends by buying us a round of drinks after the panel.  But I’ll discuss that in more detail later.  I’m barely halfway through my account of the first panel.  Reconstructing these arguments in something approximating real-time is an interesting experience.  I would be further along, but these walls are paper-thin and the couple in the room to my left are alternating between loud, dry recitations “What Theorist X said” and extremely loud arguments about how one or the other has confused Theorist Y with Z again for the fifth fucking time in a hour almost like you don’t even want this job we paid $1,000 for the privilege of being interviewed for.  I have a feeling I’m going to be somewhere between hilarious, delirious and asleep today.

By Scott Eric Kaufman on 12/28/05 at 08:33 AM | Permanent link to this comment

How I envy you.

I’ll be standing outside the castle with my pitchfork and torch, a raging mob of one. It’s a pain having to carry both of them myself, but the other member of my organization went off formed his own group.

By on 12/28/05 at 10:33 AM | Permanent link to this comment

Let’s make a deal, John E.: I’ll insult you publicly today if you’ll insult me publicly today. (The buying drinks part may be tough, though.)

By Ray Davis on 12/28/05 at 10:55 AM | Permanent link to this comment

I did publish my sage advice just now at Kotsko.

By John Emerson on 12/28/05 at 12:02 PM | Permanent link to this comment

What the hell, I’ll post it here. It’s not too long, and self-promotion is a good thing.

People I know are trooping off to the dread MLA convention,
so I thought I’d give them some wise (albeit unsolicited) counsel.

1. Literary works and scholarly works can have a political-ethical intention or not. Either way is OK. If there is a political-ethical intent, often the real effect of the work conflicts with the intent—all human action is like that. But closing off options is bad.

2. Any work can be analyzed either as autonomous object, or in relation to a larger whole of which it is part, or in terms of the components comprising it. Everything is potentially related to everything else.

3. All scholars have agendas. These need not be explicit. Having an agenda, even quite an odd one, is in no way disqualifying, but no one needs to take anyone else’s agenda seriously. (An inexplicit agenda is not a “hidden agenda” except in rare cases where nefarious intent can be shown).

4. All scholarship is caveat emptor. Scholars should be aware that readers have the right to mock or ignore them. Readers should be aware that scholars might be just plain silly.

5. Criticism is a worthwhile activity but not really a very important or authoritative one. But among the ways people have of enjoying life, reading literature is one of the finest. It’s good to enjoy life.

6. Because criticism is not important or authoritative, even though it has its value, pluralism is fine. It’s not like medicine, where a non-standard treatment might kill people.

7. Attempts to define criticism by limitation, and to make these definitions authoritative, usually can be traced to old-boy networks trying to guarantee jobs for their students. Since literary scholarship has been defined as a productive job, and since high-level scholars get paid real money, it couldn’t be any other way. Within the bureaucratized university, putatively objective criteria have to be given for hiring, firing, and promotion, so methodologization and paradigmatization were inevitable.

8. What is inevitable is not necessarily good, and the methodologization, etc., of literary studies is really the shitty colonization of an ultimate value or form of play by instrumental, productive, positivist, and bureaucratic forms of organization.

9. Deal with it, sucker.

By John Emerson on 12/28/05 at 12:11 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Once a convention comes to Minneapolis or Portland, it’s a deal.

By John Emerson on 12/28/05 at 12:12 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Because criticism is not important or authoritative, even though it has its value, pluralism is fine.

Pluralism is fine, but not at the expense of communicability. I went to several panels yesterday where people were using jargon I couldn’t understand (an old complaint, yes, but I’m an insider...). Two different panels I attended even used the same word, “ideality,” in radically different ways. In one case, it was clear what the word was intended to mean (a species of idealism, though why that word is insufficient remains unclear to me). In the other place, I had no idea what the term was intended to mean.

Another panelist referred constantly to “aesthetic information,” (almost an oxymoron) without ever bothering to explain/defend.


By Amardeep on 12/29/05 at 09:29 AM | Permanent link to this comment

Point four covers those guys, Amerdeep. Mock or ignore those guys.

See, my theory is robust.

By John Emerson on 12/29/05 at 09:45 AM | Permanent link to this comment

Add a comment:



Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: