Monday, 02 May 2005

How to Open an Academic Essay, Part IV: The Self-Aggrandizing Personal Anecdote

The majority of Americans laugh at the Academy.  "You think you're so important," they say once they can catch their breath.

To counter this and similar withering denunciations, many academics fluff up their introductions with the Self-Aggrandizing Personal Anecdote (SAPA).  Since the SAPA frequently involves the dropping of names known to no one outside the academy, institutions often bear the load.  For instance, in an essay entitled "Mao II and the War on Terrorism," one SAP (Self-Aggrandizing Person) informs general and academic readers alike of his important contributions to the New York Times' coverage of September 11th:

Shortly after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon and the crash of hijacked United Airlines Flight 93 on September 11, 2001, I received a call from a reporter at the New York Times. Emily Eakin was working on a story about modern literature's response to earlier forms of terror, in particular the fictional representations of Russian revolutionaries in Fyodor Dostoevsky's The Possessed (1871–72) and European anarchists in Henry James's The Princess Casamassima (1886) and Joseph Conrad's The Secret Agent (1907). Eakin reasonably assumed that great literature offers us means of coping with crises like September 11 and that this specific event was not historically unique. We talked by phone and e-mail about the national agendas of early modern revolutionary movements and the global terrorist aims of the Islamic fundamentalist Al-Qaeda, including the aesthetic means required to represent these different political cultures and historical periods. Call Don DeLillo, I urged Eakin, and read Mao II, his literary analysis of postmodern terrorism. Then call Jody McAuliffe and Frank Lentricchia at Duke, who are producing a dramatization of the novel in the spring of 2002. Eakin phoned none of the above and certainly did not read Mao II for her story. Reporters have deadlines; her story appeared eleven days after September 11.

In a single introductory paragraph, this SAP earns his name.  Through a personal anecdote readers learn that his name and number grace a card in one of the 4,397 rolodexes owned by people affiliated with New York Times; that he not only knows everything a person ought to know about forms of terrorism historical and contemporary; that he knows big shots like Frank Lentricchia and possesses inside information about upcoming theatrical performances of mediocre works of contemporary American literature; and finally, the reader learns how much better this SAP is than the one who called him for information on a topical news story because she didn't fulfill what this SAP, in the first sentence of the second paragraph, calls "the luxury and responsibility" of the scholar. 

Reading this SAP's introduction one would think Eakin didn't take any of his advice.  (One would also think this SAP consulted because of his expertise about "the aesthetic means required to represent these different political cultures and historical periods."  In her article, however, it's clear that Eakins consulted this SAP because, in her words, he's "a James scholar."  I'm sure our SAP meant to imply that instead of what he actually implied; then again, one of the virtues of being a SAP is never having to apologize for being a SAP.)  If you read Eakins' article, however, it becomes clear that not only did she not take his advice, she had the nerve to write the story she'd been assigned to write instead of the one he suggested.  She lacked the requisite luxury and sense of responsibility and so instead of following this SAP's advice, she wrote an article about "the literary preoccupation with terrorism" that goes back "to at least the 1870's." 

In other words, the SAPA enables the run-of-the-mill SAP to appear extraordinary because the SAPA need not bear any relation to the SAP's actual achievements.  Drawbacks to the SAPA include 1) the easy availability of newspaper archives that discredit the SAP's aggrandizing claims, 2) the potential for readers to grasp with theretofore unknown profundity the disconnect between the SAP's evaluation of him or herself and the forum in which the SAP publishes, and 3) the jealous stares of friends and colleagues who can't build themselves up with such effortless regularity.

May 2, 2005 6:33:54 PM | Academia, How to Open an Academic Essay, Literature

6 Comments

Mr. Canoe Head

A dramatized version of Mao II? The very idea makes me shudder. Especially since all of DeLillo's dialogue sounds exactly the ^$^%#^##$ same.

Posted by: Mr. Canoe Head | Monday, 02 May 2005 at 07:11 PM

Some Hyper Guy

Gah!!!

Posted by: Some Hyper Guy | Monday, 02 May 2005 at 08:38 PM

A. Cephalous

The Real Eric Strand,

A little Laxatone should help you pass that hairball.

Posted by: A. Cephalous | Monday, 02 May 2005 at 09:33 PM

A. Cephalous

P.S. All "The Real" people don't seem to understand "the anonymous."

Posted by: A. Cephalous | Monday, 02 May 2005 at 09:47 PM

David

Does the P stand for Person or Pissant, Jew? Be honest, now.

Best,
The other Jew

P.S.:
DAL 9000 v2: Should I feel guilty for never having seen Citizen Kane?
MadCow Dragon: Meh
MadCow Dragon: Synopsis
MadCow Dragon: No
MadCow Dragon: Reaction
MadCow Dragon: IT'S A FUCKING SLED. JESUS.

Posted by: David | Tuesday, 03 May 2005 at 01:38 AM

David

How would you categorize /Nate's/ introduction there? BTW, I later drew him out on the subject and he elaborated thusly:

MadCow Dragon: Well seriously.
MadCow Dragon: Here's a guy that runs a newspaper
MadCow Dragon: Has buried countless politicans
MadCow Dragon: Has more money then God
MadCow Dragon: And all he cares about is a sled?
MadCow Dragon: HE COULD BUY A FUCKING SLED FACTORY AND FUCKING SLED DOWN A PILE OF BODIES OF PEOPLE HE COULD HAVE KILLED BEACUSE HE'S FUCKING RICH!
MadCow Dragon: HE COULD FUCKING RIDE THE FACTORY THAT PRODUCES SLEDS DOWN A FUCKING MOUNTAIN HES SO RICH
MadCow Dragon: THEN CRASH IT AND GO, "Tee he he! That was fun!" AND NOT CARE HE JUST CRASHED A FACTORY THAT PRODUCES SLEDS

Posted by: David | Tuesday, 03 May 2005 at 01:40 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
How to Open an Academic Essay, Part III: Good Sir, I Implore You! vs. The Historical Anecdote Since John Holbo over at the Valve was kind enough to mention my humble little project I thought it best to hop back on the horse and continue working on it. Today I'll discuss two more introductions to my dissertation that differ not in content but in the way they address the reader. Good Sir, I Implore You! entails forcing a particular series of impressions upon the reader in the most obvious possible manner: Imagine an educated reader, a contemporary of Charles Darwin, glancing past the soft leather spine of a first edition On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859) and briefly mulling its ambiguous title. A student of philosophy might think it a treatment of the Platonic Ideas, Forms, or Species, an examination of the apodictic reality beyond the illusions of human experience. A logician might expect a discussion of the second of the five Predicables, that “Term affirmed of several things, which must express their whole essence, which is called a Species”; a Catholic, a treatise on the transubstantiation of bread and wine, the Eucharistic species, into the Very Body and Blood of Christ Himself; a politician, a banker, or a metallurgist, an account of “the different Rates at which the same Species of Foreign Coins do pass,” or of how “paper securities [are] held out as a currency … in lieu of the two great recognized species [gold and silver] that represent the lasting conventional credit of mankind.” Darwin frustrates potential readers, then as now, because, as John Dewey says, “few words in our language foreshorten intellectual history as much as does the word species.” In the Aristotelian tradition, ειδοσ—later translated into Latin, then English, as species—referred to the “formal activity which operates through a series of changes and holds them to a single course; which subordinates their aimless flux to its own perfect manifestation; which, leaping the boundaries of space and time, keeps individuals distant in space and remote in time to a uniform type of structure and function." The Scholastics “deepened the force of the term” by applying it “to everything that in the universe observes order in flux and manifests consistency through change,” including the Platonic Forms, the second of the five Predicables, and the Very Body and Blood of Christ Himself. For readability reasons I've omitted the citations, but I assure you of their existence and commend you on that tiny twinge of doubt you felt when you realized I hadn't reproduced them. By forcing my readers to imagine the confusion felt by a hypothetical contemporary of Darwin, I'm able to traverse, quickly, the history of "species" as a term and melt its various possible meanings into the confusing pulp with which Darwin's contemporaries would've been confronted. The intent is to militate against the associations that normally accompany discussions of Darwin and the species concept; that is, I'm out to confuse the reader in a manner that's compelling and historically accurate. The problem with this approach is that it's...
PREVIOUS POST
Anecdotes Personal and Professional and Awful [Skip to elsewhere if you prefer your whining in small doses.] Today's been a busy day in these headless quarters. I'm debating whether the Academic Introductions Project should continue straddling the fence between utter buffonery and responsible cataloguing because, despite my best efforts, I'm now categorizing every introduction I read. Don't misunderstand me: I finish the essays. But an inordinate number of my reading notes now focus on the first paragraph. Sometimes this approach produces some interesting (if obvious) insights, as when reading Cathy Davidson's "No! In Thunder" in the most recent American Literature I noticed that she introduces the essay with an anecdote, constructs a narrative by stringing together anecdotes, but then dismisses the evidentiary value of the anecdote the moment the ideological opposition shares some. Davidson is probably correct, as you'll see, but the logic subtending her claim poses some problems for her argument. Davidson counters the way conservatives "use the word 'harassment' to describe what happens to conservatives on our nation's campuses" by saying "Let me tell you about harassment." And she does, convincingly, with an anecdote about the death threats she received after she accepted the editorial helm of American Literature. Despite the number of complaints by conservative professors across the country, however, she determines that their "whining" is illegitimate because the evidence of systemic liberal bias is entirely local and anecdotal. How does she know these anecdotal complaints are illegitimate? As she says, "I have never heard any Republican colleague report anything similar [to death threats], despite some current whining about 'harassment' of conservatives. Let's get real, folks." Granted, this article is more personal essay than academic article. Granted, she knows she stands before the choir. And, as I already granted, her points hit the mark. I grant all that and am still bothered by her belief that the only representative anecdotes are the ones she believes are representative. The unrepresentative anecdotes ideological opponents repeat ad nauseam are easily dismissed because they don't jive with her equally unrepresentative anecdotes. Could she provide intelligent conservatives with a better portrait of the clubby quality of left intellectual thought? "I can't step out of my office without tripping over Republicans," she argues, "so they ought to stop whining about being unrepresented in academia. Let's get real, folks." Doesn't she recognize that her appeal to "folks" validates the very point she's condescendingly dismissing? Doesn't she recognize that if she's arguing with anecdotes then anecdotes are fair game? These are the sorts of observations I'm making now that I'm concentrating on the formal and stylistic characteristics of academic introductions. I could huff and puff in this sober tone at length, and I think recognizing and criticizing problem claims in arguments with which you otherwise fundamentally agree is time well spent. But I don't want to be the Bill Hicks of academia, spouting the things people generally believe and loved to be reminded they believe. (Bill Maher veers in this general direction on occasion, or at least he did before he...

Scott Eric Kaufman

The Typepad Team

Search

Become a Fan

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments