Saturday, 17 September 2005

On Jager; or, Drinking the Dissertation Away

You know you've had a damn good day of dissertating when you finish it off with a paragraph which, upon reflection, sounds like it was written by a lunatic with nothing to lose and academia to gain.  Or a drunk.  (Different, as souvenir shirts once scattered across Southern Louisiana—mostly in the French Quarter but available everywhere come Fat Tuesday—different, that is, from alcoholics because drunks don't go to meetings.)  Speaking of drunks, I like to drink.  Because I'm a graduate student.  And a drunk.  But not an alcoholic.  How do I know?  Back when I had cancer and couldn't drink for fear of interfering with the chemo, it came to my attention that while I enjoy unwinding in the evening with a drink (or two or three or enough shots to send me bending for a fortnight), I hadn't reached the point where I needed a drink to unwind.  Now maybe there's a stage in the writing process during which all dissertators drink a little more than they should or safely handle.  If there is I haven't reached it.  Because I can drink prodigious amounts of alcohol and feel nary a thing.  To wit:

This Jager_stag_and_logoevening I've recreated a wonderful concoction named something like a Double Super Sucker Nipple Twister.  It consists of Pineapple juice, Malibu Pineapple Rum and Jagermeister.  Yes, Jagermeister.  I know many of you will scoff when I say that my favorite mixed drink consists in part of a liquor reputed to contain the blood of Bambi's mother.  I suffer this embarrassment not because of the blood of Bambi's mother, who according to Whit Stilman is responsible for the modern environmental movement, but because Jagermeister's the shot of choice amongst "shot connoisseurs" like all of these incredibly refined folk.  (All of whom were found, I feel it necessary to add, by a Google image search for "Jagermeister."  That such drunken revelry appears at the very mention of the drink's name should be damning.  Should, I say, should.  Not is.  Bear with me.)  So I have my cocktail, and it contains Jagermeister, and I have similar cocktails on a fairly regular basis.  Or I have since I've kicked the cancer and worked in earnest on my dissertation.  (Not that I wasn't working on it when I had cancer.  I was.  Only I wasn't working on it so well, what with the insomia and nausea and wanting to cry like a spoiled child all the time.)  But I digress.  From my digression.  From this digression in a digressive post that people will undoubtedly think Jagermeister responsible for.  Well, "people," I said I recreated a cocktail.  I haven't started drinking it yet—and even if I had, my tolerance is so manly at this point that I could've downed a couple of shots of Jager, peirced my ears, stuck some clasps through them, attached said clasps to a keg of Jager and walked around some nondescript stage like that guy in that photo I've already linked to.  I'm that manly.  (Or by dint of dissertating I've been required by force of unyielding pressure to become so.  One of the two.)

At this point I intended to tell y'all all about my time in Italy.  The "good ol' days" when the wife and I canvassed the countryside of Northeast (i.e. Communist) Italy drinking Jager with archeologists, basketball coaches and hippies.  I intended to tell y'all that I love Jager's aftertaste, which tastes like the cracked shells of M&Ms eaten by a seventh grader in the dead of winter while re-re-re-re-reading Moby Dick or The Lord of the Rings.  But then I'd have to explain how said seventh grader had a lifelong habit of putting two or three M&Ms in his mouth, orienting them with his tongue so that they stood upright between two molars, then gently cracking down so that the candy shell disengaged from the chocolate core.   After hoarding these shells for, say, the time it took to read a couple chapters, this seventh grader would snap down on 'em all and they would taste exquisite, a combination of expectation and sweet candy coating...

...which the aftertaste of Jagermeister uncannily approximates.  But that'll have to be grist for another night's mill, since the pasta's boiling and the wife's hungry.  But I assure you that tomorrow I'll be more than suggestive.  No, I will.  I'll be responsible and answer Rich and Cam's comments and will tell you all about the "elixir of the soul" manufactured by French monks to simulate the state of drunkeness while allowing the mind to remain clear of prurient thoughts.  That's right:

There's a liquor that leaves you plastered but entirely clear of mind such that you're not plastered so much as "meta-plastered."  (I'm such a tease, er, meta-tease.)

Sep 17, 2005 9:58:23 PM | Academia, Books, Literature, Weblogs

8 Comments

Mike S

Scott, if the academia thing doesn't work out, you might try your hand at fiction, assuming you haven't done so already. Your gift for gab is always amusing.

Posted by: Mike S | Sunday, 18 September 2005 at 01:25 AM

Shrike

That was pretty darn funny, says I.

Now I have to go back to staring at the evil handiwork of OtherScott in that OtherHobby. Damn.

Posted by: Shrike | Sunday, 18 September 2005 at 01:51 AM

Scott Eric Kaufman

Mike,

I'm offended that you think I'm making that up! Did you not see the typos I've since silently corrected? I had a wicked buzz while writing that. I demand you declare me the drunk I so deny being! Chop chop!

Shrike,

OtherScott from the OtherHobby needs some OtherLife, since his CurrentLife and CurrentUnemployment have allowed him to exploit the weaker OtherHobbyists among us. (According to the OED, that's how you spell "hobbyist," but in my Jager-inspired stupor I do declare it looks wrong, wrong, wrong.)

Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman | Sunday, 18 September 2005 at 02:07 AM

Stephen

Scott, said liquor does not so much leave you with a clear mind as clear your mind. Remember my bachelor party? I don't.

Posted by: Stephen | Sunday, 18 September 2005 at 08:53 AM

Matt

I liked this post.

Posted by: Matt | Sunday, 18 September 2005 at 12:40 PM

Mike S

Scott, some points of clarification: I did not mean to imply that your post was fictional but that your prose, when lubricated with Jager, shines and amuses in a way that great fiction often does. My last post was a thinly-veiled compliment which I'm assuming came across differently.

Also, the regional flair demonstrated in such phrases as "wicked buzz" and "I do declare" lends your drunken post a sort of postmodern americana quality.

Posted by: Mike S | Sunday, 18 September 2005 at 12:44 PM

Adam Kotsko

When will someone have the courage to declare, "I shall never blog again except when I am drunk" -- and then stick to it? The world waits.

Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Sunday, 18 September 2005 at 02:48 PM

Scott Eric Kaufman

Stephen,

If you weighed more than wet laundrey you'd have had a completely different experience. I drank as much of "the elixir of life" as you and I experienced a cascade of epiphanic moments. It's not my fault you don't crack 90 on the scale. (ducks for fear of Canadian bombardme...wait...stands up and shakes fist at pathetic Canadian "military" apparatus.)

Mike,

I know you didn't mean it as an insult, and I didn't take it as one. No worries.

Adam,

All I can say is: Are you challenging me, Kotsko? Because as soon as the Completed Chapter Euphoria subsides I'll be...never mind. Eighty-six the whole sentence...

Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman | Sunday, 18 September 2005 at 10:35 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
The Machine's Only As Reliable As Its Cogs; or, Are Such Statements Ever True? Whilst rereading Rereading Jack London (1996) I often stumble across statements like “Naturalism’s claim to be a catalyst for change is perpetually undermined by its own combination of pessimistic determinism and Social Darwinism” (151). Readers familiar with this humble blogger’s dissertation immediately recognize one cog in Christopher Hugh Gair’s claim that’ll cause some consternation, but I’m not on the Social Darwinian beat for the time being. I want to focus on the category of the claim itself, on what it means to refer offhand to a body of thought so grossly generalized as to never resemble that to which it presumably points. To put it another way: any summary of Marxism will, to the studious Marxist, summarize vulgar Marxism. Another still: everyone else’s interpretation of Das Kapital so exaggerates some sub-sub-sub-claim of a point itself so inconsequential that to call what he or she preaches “Marxism” sends Marx sliding down a slippery slope (at the bottom of which Andrew and Dale Carnegie consume crumpets while discussing the merits of the responsibility assumption). Given that contemporary “categorical” debates are always hotly contested, why are critics so comfortable with historical categories? At what point does the need to qualify end and a category’s life as a cog begin? I ask this in part because of CR’s comment yesterday: And the thing is, things are heading now in the other direction. Ebb tide. Toward serious scholarship, historicism in the New Historicist sense, but even worse: textual criticism is coming back (for non-initiates, that doesn’t mean close reading but rather hanging out in libraries, looking at multiple copies of the same dusty book—yuck!) Theoretical extravagance is regarded as outre and kind of silly. [...] In other words, a specter’s haunting English, a specter that brings narrowness, specialization, horrendous boredom, and useless expertise. CR implies that theory is as parasitic on the work of “serious scholars” as their work is on whatever unacknowledged theories subtend it. If that’s the case—if these categorical beasts are as beastly as I contend—then despite the horrendous boredom works of “serious scholarship” ostensibly entail,[1] without such work the quality of theoretical tinkering will decline. The machine’s only as reliable as its cogs. What disaster would befall the machinist who depends on cogs of talc! Springs all sprung but the talc cogs have evaporated and the machine, dear readers, the machine, its innards dusted with a fine coat of talc, grit for future gears. Grit for future gears! Given that any theoretical approach necessarily builds on these historical commonplaces, its fate is inextricably bound to the claims beneath the claims beneath its claims. If some of those are of dubious quality, then no matter how sophisticated or interesting the theoretical edifice built upon them, they fall with the foundation. Everywhere I turn I find foundations I wouldn’t even pitch a tent upon. (Much less build a house.) Since muddy foundations and putty cogs endanger all in equal measure, the call to continue pouring water on dirt from mixers made of talc...
PREVIOUS POST
The Mamet Meets The Beckett or A Fairytale Reference Maybe Mamet moves more briskly when watched in an insomnious state, but in the midst of a battle with wakefulness unlike any I've waged lately I thoroughly enjoyed his Spartan. (Why I had insomnia after a night of feigning a prodigious drunk baffles me. Had I imbibed an abnormal amount of high-octane alcohol last night I would no doubt have passed out like a petrified log. Instead I stood giant like the sequoia, surveying the vast expanse of consciousness that lay before and behind me and praying for an illegal timber outfit to clear-cut me out of my misery. But I dendro-digress.) In Spartan, Robert Scott belongs to the government agency involved in the operations. As the film opens, the woman being chased by the man in the woods passes the seated Scott. The man sees Scott then looks at the woman. The woman stops running and shrugs. Scott turns to the man. Says You've had your whole life to prepare for this moment. Why aren't you ready? The man claims he is and runs after the woman who seeing the man resume chasing resumes fleeing. Cut to the military barracks. The woman loudly informs Scott of her prowess with knives in close quarters. Scott: What they got you teaching here young sergeant? Black: Edged weapons sir. Knife fighting. Scott: Don't you teach them knife fighting. Teach them to kill. That way they meet some son of a bitch who studied knife fighting, they send his soul to hell. Then things happen. The truck is driven. The helicopter piloted. Now Scott leads the task force to find the girl. The girl had been kidnapped. The government official named Burch corners Scott: Burch: What about if we had to go off the meter? Scott: The door is closed sir. Burch: I need to ask you to do something. Scott: I am here to get the girl back sir. And there is nothing I will not do to get the girl back. Eventually the only native speaker of Mametese (William H. Macy) arrives. The shots are fired and the credits roll. Perhaps I exaggerate Mamet's desire to create a conspiratorial mood via the definitive article. Perhaps. But in Spartan this technique works to spectacular effect. Mamet employs a variation of the technique Hugh Kenner attributes to Samuel Beckett: Two men waiting, for another whom they know only by an implausible name which may not be his real name. A ravaged and blasted landscape. A world that was ampler and more open once, but is permeated with pointlessness now. Mysterious dispensers of beatings. A man of property and his servant, in flight. And the anxiety of the two who wait, their anxiety to be as inconspicuous as possible in a strange environment ("We’re not from these parts, Sir") where their mere presence is likely to cause remark. It is curious how readers and audiences do not think to observe the most obvious thing about the world of the play, that it resembles France...

Scott Eric Kaufman

The Typepad Team

Search

Become a Fan

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments