Sunday, 23 July 2006

Reader Mail

You may have noticed—you may have even emailed your observation—that on Friday I "posted a lame allusion to VH1's 100 Greatest One-Hit Wonders and haven't been heard from since."1   I fail to write something substantial for four days and you consider me A.W.O.L.?  Some bloggers disappear for weeks with nary "a lame allusion."  I "disappear" for 48 hours and you call off the search?  I could be drowning in two inches of water right over that ridge but you wouldn't know until they matched the dental records of them bones to mine in 2027. 

Point being, you people care too much, but not strongly enough.  You lose the hounds when I quiet down, but you rein them in before they have a chance to find me.  (A beagling metaphor on a blog?  Is that really necessary?)  That disturbing counter-tenor reminds me that I "reemerged" from my "hibernation" to answer some reader mail.  I receive more of it than you may think, along the lines of three or four missives daily.  (You must seem approachable.)  I must.  To the mailbag!

But not mine!  This is from Adam Roberts' mailbag, which he forwarded to me, and to which I replied, and from which a carbon-copy permission to reprint was ventured and obtained:

Adam:

Glad you like the Valve.  There's a lot of interesting stuff posted there.  Then, once you get hooked on Crooked Timber, Long Sunday, Torque Control and all the other literary blogs you'll really discover the meaning of the phrase 'time wasting'.

Jessica:

Oh, why did you do that?  I am now hooked on Crooked Timber.  (And Acephalous, though that dates from a while back; I've been a fan of Scott Eric Kaufman for beards.)  I also like Pandagon, which keeps me in American-themed righteous feminist rage.

Flattery does wonders for the soul, as does "American-themed righteous feminist rage" (about which, more later).  Only I find Jessica's assertion that she's been a fan of me "for beards" perplexing.  (You have fans?  That's awesome.)  It is, isn't it?  Now hush.  People'll get ideas.  Where was I?  (Beards.)  Yes, "for beards."  What could she mean?

I've narrowed it down.  It must mean she's read me

  1. For as long as it's taken her to grow one (presumably, quite)
  2. For as long as it takes me to grow one (a week, tops) or
  3. That she read that nifty Jonathan Lethem article "The Beards" [.pdf] (in which case I'm one of the three most important people in her life, a fact she won't recognize for a decade or so, long after she's stopped reading me).

I must say, my Canadian readers confuse me mightily.  On to the next question!

I don't know why, but the other day I couldn't get your site to load, so I searched your full [pretentious] name and found you all over the place.  Some of the places I could see why, but what's with all the feminist blogs?  I don't want to sound like a jerk, but you don't strike me as the kind of guy who'd spend time in the feminist blogosphere.

I'm not sure how to answer this one.  I do spend a lot of time reading feminist blogs, and I do comment on Feministe regularly.  I read most of the other big feminist blogs, but I don't comment on 'em so often.  I don't think it has much to do with the quality of the community, since there's substantial overlap between 'em ... so it must be the color scheme. 

When I'm commenting at Feministe, I feel like I'm at  home.  The soothing blacks, greys, reds and the familiar oranges of "Shotgun Sally" must incline me to comment comfortably, as I have no other explanation.  Still, I admit that I feel much like this reader everytime I venture into unknown territory and find a string of comments by John Emerson.  Where does that remarkable man not write regularly?

I'll have more to say about this idea of "community expectations" in my presentation at the MLA ... which means I'll be running it by y'all well before-hand.  To the next email!

You've mentioned your man-crush on David Wright before, so I'm guessing you're a Mets fan.  What do you think there chances are?

Mr. "Brave4life" would love for me to jinx this magical year out of existence, but I refuse to comply.  He or she will have to settle for the following explanation:

David Wright is a beautiful, talented man.  Dos Carlos make my knees weaken when either step to the plate.  And José Reyes?  With feeling I sing "Olé, olé olé olé, José, José.  Olé, olé olé olé, José, José."  What Met fan hasn't questioned his orientation this year? 

We're all way too into men to call ourselves straight. 

Y'all need to deal. 

You love men. 

Get over it.

1 For the record, I alluded to a conspicuous absence from VH1's 100 Greatest One-Hit Wonders.  Who doesn't wonder whatever became of "The Cutting Crew" every once in a while?  What?  Seven albums?  A MySpace presence?  A current tour?  Looks like someone will be headed to the Joe's Crabshack in Santa Ana on October 14th.

Jul 23, 2006 8:32:58 PM | Academia, Books, Dissertation, Evolution, Literary Theory, Literature, Philosophy

1 Comment

Rich Puchalsky

Bah to your hipster resurrection of one-hit wonders. I'm currently listening to the latest triumph of post-post-whatever-modern music, The Residents' _The King & Eye: RMX_.

The Residents, in 1989, put out an entire album of Elvis covers redone to focus on a putative "dark side" within the music -- the homoerotic "Jailhouse Rock", bondage-themed "Teddy Bear", downright creepy "Little Sister", etc., the whole wrapped within a narrative about the King's pathetic need to be loved -- basically reclaiming another chunk of American past for bohemia. Well, now they've taken the album and handed it over to German producer "Paralyzer" to have the whole thing redone with dance beats and kitsch techno special effects. Truly horrible, of course, yet somehow capturing something about this historical moment.

Posted by: Rich Puchalsky | Monday, 24 July 2006 at 10:42 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
The Cutting Crew Regrets to Inform You ... ... that Scott Eric Kaufman just died in your arms tonight. The Israeli ambassador to Ecuador purports that it must have been some kind of kiss, and confirms reports that you should have walked away. You really should have walked away.
PREVIOUS POST
Blogging Derails Unpromising Careers, Too: Part I I know how much everyone loves meta-blogging, so I've decided to dedicate a couple of days exclusively to it. All meta-blogging, all the time. I may even refer to points already presented, thereby engaging in the even more beloved practice of meta-meta-blogging. I aim to please ... and organize some ancillary thoughts for the MLA presentation, which I esteem finishing sooner than later. Now, on to the post: Can blogging derail your career? The Chronicle wants to know. As someone currently without one, I'm probably not the best person to ask. (May account for why they didn't.) But I want to echo and expand on some of what was said. Daniel Drezner: When I was an assistant professor at the University of Chicago, a senior colleague once told me his secret to academic success: One bad article equals five great ones. His point was that the worst thing a scholar can do is to publish too much, as opposed to too little. Any substandard publication creates a black mark that is difficult to erase. As someone who has worked through disciplinary issues on his blog, this worries me. The implication is doubly worrisome, as it suggests that people who consider your blog unacademic—unworthy of mention—will read it, discover inchoate ideas or undigested commentary, and consider it reason enough to dismiss your published work. If blogs as a medium are incapable of producing serious work, then the obverse—that they not be treated a serious work—should also hold. But we know this to be untrue. Careers are made and destroyed in the faculty lounge, the staff meeting, and five minutes of idle conversation while waiting out a storm. Scholars should base their impressions on more, but as human beings, we can't fault them for basing them on less. So what are bloggers to do with this online archive they've created? As I scan through my archives, the first thing I notice is that I ought to revise many, many posts. Stop boxing your ears. I said it. Revise many, many posts. Stylistic infelicities abound in even the best posts. You could chalk up such mistakes to means and pace of production. I blog on a timer, for example. I start writing at 6 p.m. and I stop at 7 p.m. If there's no chance I'll finish the post before the timer chimes, I stop generating new prose and start working over old. I polish up some little something I'd half written already and put it on display. Why fixate on the polishing? Because blogging is about paying attention to writing-qua-writing. The same cannot be said of academic writing. A successful academic must produce so much material in such a short amount of time, she must be born with or have already acquired a style prior to enrolling in her graduate program. The traditional outlets for stylistic development have disappeared. We no longer write letters—and we all know email rarely scales the epistolary heights of previous generations. Nor can we all be former...

Scott Eric Kaufman

The Typepad Team

Search

Become a Fan

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments