Monday, 26 December 2005

My MLA Schedule (At Least Till The Wheels Come Off)

This schedule is as tentative as it is idiosyncratic.  Some panels I'm attending for the speakers, others for how they speak to general theoretical issues of interest, and the rest because they may do my dissertation some good.  I'm not attending all the panels I'd like to . . . and I doubt I'll be able to attend all the panels I've listed here.  I hear the whispers insisting I'll burn out.  I figure if I post this here as a challenge to myself the odds of my being insanely responsible jump a good 389 percent.  The schedule:

Tuesday, 27 December

21. Contemporary Fiction and the Novel of Ideas
5:15-6:30 p.m., Park Tower Suite 8216, Marriott

35. English Studies and Political Literacy (Bauerlein)
7:00-8:45 p.m., Cotillion Ballroom North, Marriott

89. Walter Benn Michaels' Our America Ten Years Later (Michaels, McCann, Dimock, Warren)
8:45-10:00 p.m., Coolidge, Marriott

Wednesday, 28 December

125. Marxism Now: Beyond Cultural Politics and Back to Class (Foley's "Philip Roth, Sinclar Lewis and Representing the Right")
8:30-9:45 a.m., Monroe East, Washington Hilton

146. Citizenship and United States Writing: Perspectives from the American Literature Division (Brook Thomas, Dana Nelson, Judith Jackson Fossett)
10:15-11:30 a.m., Virginia Suite C, Marriott

OR

158. Covering Academe (McLemee)
10:15-11:30 a.m., Wilson C, Marriott

185. Representing Dialect
12:00-1:15 p.m., Map, Washington Hilton

214A. Spin and Political Narrative (Gillory, Corn, Frank, Garber)
1:45-3:30 p.m., International Ballroom East, Washington Hilton

268. Literature, Affect, and Anaesthesia (Ngai, Lindsay Waters)
3:30-4:45 p.m., Thoroughbred, Washington Hilton

330. Particularism and Overdetermination in the Nineteenth Century Novel
7:15-8:30 p.m., Roosevelt, Marriott

Thursday, 29 December

357. Posthistoricist Approaches to American Literature
8:30-9:45 a.m., Park Tower Suite 8222, Marriott

389. Zizek and Christianity (Holbo)
10:15-11:30 a.m., Kalorama, Washington Hilton

441. Historical Frost (Hoffmann, Allen, Sheehy)
12:00-1:15 p.m., Virginia Suite B, Marriott

493. Digital Scholarly Publishing: Beyond the Crisis (Ratliff)
1:45-3:00 p.m., Maryland Suite C., Marriott

515. Popular Modernism
3:30-4:45 p.m., Hoover, Marriott

572. Report of the Task Force on Evaluating Scholarship for Tenure and Promotion (Berube, Guillory)
7:15-8:30 p.m., Wilson A, Marriott

611. Critique and Terror: The New Americanists and Cultural Politics Today (Pease, Arac)
9:00-10:15 p.m., Harding, Marriott

Friday, 30 December

653. UnCritical Reading
8:30-9:45 a.m., Monroe East, Washington Hilton

697. Style and Substance III
10:15-11:30 a.m., Maryland Suiute C, Marriott

713. Hemingway's Global and Sexual Politics (Thill)
12:00-1:15 p.m., Marriott Balcony A, Marriott

Dec 26, 2005 8:30:00 PM | Academia, Dissertation, Evolution, Literary Theory, Literature

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Holiday Love: A Worthy Meme I'm not big on memes . . . but I'm big on blogs so I'm "starting" one. Kevin first dished the holiday love but I'm the one who memed it. I won't include Kevin on my list since he wrote the post I memed—nor should you feel obliged to include me on yours—but I demand Adam, Miriam B., Michael, Noah, Tim, Dr. B., Luke & Jonathan, Matt, Ben and OtherScott bow before my meme. These are the ten blogs I feel the urge to check most frequently. Some of them don't update regularly . . . some of them I disagree with vehemently but in productive ways . . . some of them I feel like a brother to . . . and some of them make me feel like a fellow traveller. But all of them make me think outside the cooler on a regular basis and for that I bestow upon them the garland of Holiday Love. I should be more specific. I should say things like: "Noah renews my faith in literature." "Dr. B. reminds me that all feminism isn't as shrill as first year graduate student feminism." "Tim says everything I wish I had the smarts to say . . . only better and in a timely fashion." "Adam causes me to pause before I mouth my nonsense to the faithful or the psychoanalytically inclined." "Michael embodies the public intellectual I aspire to be . . . and in doing so stops me from drinking myself into a stupor nightly." "OtherScott reminds me that had Michael or Trilling been booted from academia they would not have been denied the life of the public intellectual." "Matt gives me pause . . . gives me reason to remember what it was like to discover meaning instead of finding it." "Miriam B. provides me the example of responsible but responsive scholarship I hope to emulate." "Luke & Jonathan call to mind the wide eyes and enthusiam which I brought to graduate school and force me to face the mind I was." "Ben reminds me that I'm a lonely blade a grass next to a massive fucking sequoia." While I'm at it I also want to thank my readers, without whom this blog wouldn't be read: Rich, Jonathan, Kevin, Adam R. and (other) Adam R., (Old) Doug Johnson, Laura, Shrike, David, Justin, Steve, Tim, Shannon, (other) Laura, Meg, Walt, Stephen, (other) Stephen, (other) Scott, (other other) Scott, Steve, Mike, (other) Mike, Jenny, Jennifer, (other) Tim, Nichole, Kelly, McKenzie, Beth, Jamie (female), Jamie (male), Christian, Jim, Dan, (other) Jason (Houston), (other other) Jason (Houston), Ray, Ralph, Raymond, Vincent, Patrick, Rachel, S. and Rachel W. and Sarah C. and Sarah K. and Sarah S. and Brian F. and Brian T. and Brian Q. and . . . and anyone else who I've accidently omitted from this list. I didn't forget you . . . I just can't count that high. The fact that I have so many people who read my work...
PREVIOUS POST
King Kong: The Sum of Its Ideological Failings or Grist Your Mill Can't Refine? Peter Jackson's King Kong will cause your average academic to explode in hyperventalitory fits about evils like crass capitalism, American imperialism and racialized sexualities. These predictable complaints predate the viewing of the film because they are staples of American academic culture. No left-thinking scholar would dare utter a word in favor of Jackson's film for fear of being shot down by his or her peers as supporting capitalism, imperialism, racism and heteronormative gender roles . . . across species. But can you imagine a more boring reaction to a work which somehow manages to offend so many sensitivities? To assume that it can be no more than the sum of its ideological failings entails another assumption: that Peter Jackson is unaware of the historical context not only of his film but the original. One more thing: to focus on what the film captures about its historical moment and 1) not acknowledge that there is a significant difference between a work produced in a given historical moment and one which reproduces that moment 70 years later and 2) plain lazy thinking. I'll deal with the latter first: LOOK AT EVERYTHING JACKSON CRITIQUES! LOOK HOW DAMNING HIS CONDEMNATION OF COLONIAL EXPLOITATION, CAPITALIST HUBRIS, STEREOTYPICAL MASCULINITY AND HOLLYWOOD VALUES IS! LOOK AT VALORIZATION OF THE CLIFFORD ODETS-LIKE DRAMATIST, THE AFRICAN AMERICAN CREW CHIEF AND THE INDEPENDENT WOMAN IS! LOOK! SEE? The knee-jerk academic criticism of the film would miss the subtle way in which Jackson's film fights the stereotypes of the people populating it. He and his co-writers scripted narrative that invalidates the stereotypes to which an academic who hasn't seen the film but "knows" what it's about would object. No one who left that movie would think the spirit of American ingenuity—valorized in Act One but vilified in Act Three—such a wonderful thing. Unless academics are so hardened that they don't empathize with Kong, there is simply no way that they leave the film thinking anything other than: Racism is bad. Sexism is bad. Capitalism is bad. Hollywood is bad. Platonic love is super. Animal rights are awesome. The means by which those thoughts are achieved are suspect . . . as they should be, given that Jackson remained faithful to the film he had adapted. The only way this strawman would be satisfied would be for Jackson's film to resemble the original in name alone. But isn't what he's done more subversive? Isn't sneaking sound left-thinking morality into an otherwise morally reprehensible film a good thing? Isn't that the sort of counter-propaganda the academic left should support? I think it is . . . . . . but I should add that I have no proof anyone, academic or otherwise, actually thinks these things about the film. I thought them as I watched it because I couldn't deny that some of the representations—esp. of the "race" of "natives" who "worshipped" Kong and looked suspiciously like the Uruk-hai from The Lord of the Rings — had me squirming. Then I asked myself...

Scott Eric Kaufman

The Typepad Team

Search

Become a Fan

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments