Thursday, 14 April 2005

The CFP Follies! The New Revue!

I intended to change course this week and write about the CFPs evidencing intelligence and scholarship, but then I saw this:

Taking Modernity from Behind

Panel Proposal for 2005 GEMCS: Crossing Borders

Abstract Deadline: July 15, 2005

In Negotiations, Giles Deleuze famously characterizes his history of philosophy as "a sort of buggery," the practice of "taking an author from behind and giving him a child that would be his own offspring, yet monstrous." Using this description as an organizing impetus, we invite submissions for a proposed 2005 GEMCS (Group for Early Modern Cultural Studies) panel on approaching theories of modernity from behind - i.e. from texts retroactively designated as "early modern." What kinds of "offspring" does such an analysis generate? And to whom would they be "monstrous"?

Papers may address a variety of modernisms, including Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis, Deleuze and Guattari's schizoanalysis, Marxism, the Frankfurt school, fascism, various avant-gardes, and other theories of anthropology, politics, sociology, psychology, and science. Papers should stage a conversation between modernity and early modernity in order to demonstrate not simply the utility of using modern theories to analyze early modern texts, but to demonstrate how a sodomitical reading practice de-familiarizes, hybridizes, and perhaps eroticizes both modernisms and early modernisms. Of course, we also welcome papers that query the very terms of Deleuze's description of sodomitical analysis and its implications for historiography.

I confess: That's damn funny.  More to the point, I think it's meant to be.  Of course, I'm not sure whether it qualifies as "intelligent" or "scholarship," but it is damn funny.  From the unintentionally funny department:

Burn French Theory Conference

The Burn French Studies Conference in Scotland invites papers to be presented at the 2005 annual conference in November...

Love the title.  Not thrilled with the follow-through.

Apr 14, 2005 8:06:20 PM | Academia, Literature

2 Comments

Some Guy

"Query the terms of sodomitical analysis." Now I get it! So that's what it means to interrogate something -- to make it gay. How nice that my job is to go around "querying" everyone and everything I meet with. I'm a natural! It's about time my innate capacity for indiscriminate sodomizing was recognized as the gift to my profession that it is.

Posted by: Some Guy | Thursday, 14 April 2005 at 09:38 PM

David

That is RDF, SG. RDF indeed. I salute you even as I edge away.

Posted by: David | Friday, 15 April 2005 at 02:28 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Check, Check, Grammar Check? From Sandeep Krishnamurthy, a paragraph Microsoft Word's grammar check thinks wonderful: Marketing Bad Marketing are bad for brand big and small. You Know What I am Saying? It is no wondering that advertisings are bad for company in America Chicago and Germany. Updating of brand image is bad for processes in one company and many companies. McDonalds is good brand. McDonald’s is good brand. McDonald’s are good brand. McDonalds’ are good brand. McDonald’s and Coca Cola are good brand. McDonald’s and Coca Cola is good brand. MCDONALD’S AND COCA COLA IS GOOD BRAND. Finance good for marketing. Show me money! 4P’s are marketing mix. Four P’s is marketing mix. 4Ps is marketing mix. Manager use marketing mixes for good marketing. You Know What I Mean? Internets do good job in company name Amazon. Internets help marketing big company like Boeing. Internets make good brand best like Coca Cola. Gates do good marketing job in Microsoft. Gates do good marketing jobs out Microsoft. Gates build the big brand in Microsoft. The Gates is leader of big company in Washington. Warren buffet do awesome job in marketing. Buffets eat buffets in city and town in country. The serious point? The grammar checker prevents students from improving their writing skills because it convinces them that sentences like "Gates do good marketing job in Microsoft" are kosher.
PREVIOUS POST
Coerced Congeniality Selections from the email I sent out to my intelligent but shy Introduction to Literary Journalism class this quarter. My answers are in italics: For the better part of three years I've enviously eyed the conversational flow of the upper-division writing seminars. Today I realized the reason for the ease with which students in these seminars speak is entirely due to a simple fact: they know each other. They've taken at least four or five classes and/or workshops together, so they're comfortable talking to and before each other. So I thought long and hard about how to artificially recreate that environment in Intro. to LJ, and the best I could come up with is a questionnaire that y'all will fill out. Over the listserv. Is it awkward? Yes. Uncomfortable? Of course. But it'll help you to understand the people with whom you'll be sharing your thoughts and work over the next eight weeks. So when you reply, make sure you reply to the entire class, and when you speak in class, make sure you say your name so your classmates can begin to associate your face with your name. As a show of good faith, I'll answer first. 2. What would your mascot be? What would it look like? A robot monkey made of wood. 3. How do you feel about competitive eating? What competitive eating contest would you enter if you were forced to do so? Moral qualms notwithstanding--more than half the world's starving as I write--I have don't have strong feelings about competitive eating one way or another. On the one hand, half the world starving; on the other hand, they eat a lot of hot dogs and I'm a vegetarian...and the fewer hot dogs in the world, even if they are World Famous Nathan's Footlong Hot Dogs, the better. 5. Name four websites you check almost every time you go online. www.baseballprospectus.com: For the sabermetrically inclined baseball fan. Don't know what I'm talking about? Read Michael Lewis' Moneyball. Want to read it for this class? You can! Just ask. www.thevalve.org: A collection of literary critics I respect who have their own blog. They're connected to both www.littleprofessor.typepad.com and www.crookedtimber.org. Both excellent sites. www.aldaily.com: So I can learn what important cultural and political figures have died and why their deaths are as important as those of the important people who died last week. Also, the best source for information about upcoming books and essay collections. www.nytimes.com : Because I'm too lazy to watch television. 6. What do you think'll kill you? What steps are you taking to thwart it? The way people drive in Southern California, I'd have to say I'll probably die in an accident on the way to Albertson's. I'll thwart it by never leaving my apartment. By week four, this'll be a correspondence course; week eight, I'll stop answering email; week ten, you won't even remember you're in Intro. to LJ. You'll wonder why you have that nagging feeling every Monday, Wednesday and Friday morning...

Scott Eric Kaufman

The Typepad Team

Search

Become a Fan

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments