Thursday, 24 May 2007

The Most Important Blogging Panel Ever*

I wanted to wait until the promised podcast of yesterday's event was up, but since Brad's already posted his notes, I thought I'd enter into the fray.**  Some random points, as I am very tired, very busy, and very tired:

  • As I was waiting to fly to Sacramento on Southwest, Delta paged "San Jose customer Scott Kaufman to Gate 8."  After the third time—and despite being painfully confused—I walked to the Delta counter.  The attendant told me that I'd been bumped to a later flight.  I told them I was flying Southwest, but they didn't appear to be listening.  They wanted me to sign something.  I tried to explain the confusion.  Finally, I walked away.  (Tomorrow, this will be the topic of a "You Finish the Post" Contest, in which I narrate the first half of the conversation, and you provide the humorous esprit de l'escalier.
  • I learned that I'll be sharing a panel with this guy and this guy come November.  You should attend!  I'll be the zebra sitting between them.
  • Brad and I learned not to fear The Ogged, for The Ogged is a gentle soul who, when he cuts, does so politely.  (And, despite being Iranian, only with words.)
  • Speaking (again) of Brad, I might have been an economist if I'd had him as a professor.  His quiet hilarity is a quality I gravitated toward as an undergraduate. 
  • Speaking of which—and this and the previous bullet will be verified when the podcast's published—Eric Rauchway is also much more soft-spoken and funny than I imagined.  (His colleague, Ari Kelman, is equally funny, but not quite so quiet.)  (Apologies for the double parenthetical, but I feel the need to add: I'm not trying to reconstruct what they said that was funny because you'll be able to witness it for yourself soon enough.)

*Which I'll describe in more detail on a day which doesn't involve hours in airports and/or above California.

**In today's bit of web-meta, when the podcast hits the 'Net, pay close attention to the Brad first scribbling, then typing as Tedra and I speak.  Not only is he composing a post about a blogging panel during the panel itself, he's reenacting the very history of letters he discusses in his talk.

May 24, 2007 9:25:32 PM | Academia, Books, Dissertation, Historicism, Literary Theory, Literature, Novel of Purpose, Shameless Self-Promotion, Teaching, Weblogs

11 Comments

Rich Puchalsky

You're already on another blogging panel? This is begging for a Spinal Tap mockumentary treatment. You know: Scott figures that he can get more points in if he divides his talk into 11 "minutes" rather than 10 minutes; Scott shows off "The Blank Overhead", a projection accidentally erased that now serves as a meditation on where all our ideas come from; Scott in his latter days must speak at a blogging panel in the local Elks Lodge along with Kaye Grogan and as headliner the Fafblog guy, who doesn't show (with an advertisement showing "Tonight: THE MEDIUM LOBSTER, Kaye Grogan, also Scot Kaufmann"), finally, it is announced that Scott is big in Japan and gets to go on a final triumphant tour along with a translator and a quick study guide for Sailor Moon.

Posted by: Rich Puchalsky | Thursday, 24 May 2007 at 10:28 PM

eb

reenacting the very history of letters

Is the post going to be titled "Oxen of the Sun"?

Posted by: eb | Thursday, 24 May 2007 at 10:56 PM

Alex

Kotsko Versus Holbo!

Where do I buy tickets?

I need a flight NOW.

Posted by: Alex | Friday, 25 May 2007 at 05:57 AM

ben wolfson

Adam has consented to join a panel about (presumably) academic blogging? The mind boggles.

Posted by: ben wolfson | Friday, 25 May 2007 at 02:27 PM

Rich Puchalsky

But Ben, that was always implicit, wasn't it? A post about the uselessness of academic blogging is still a post about academic blogging. Without a certified pessimist as well as an optimist, this couldn't be a proper subject for cultural dispute.

Posted by: Rich Puchalsky | Friday, 25 May 2007 at 02:47 PM

The Constructivist

Scott, when you make it big in Japan, be sure to have these guys show you around.

Posted by: The Constructivist | Friday, 25 May 2007 at 08:55 PM

Mike S

Scott, where can I find the link to the podcast?

Posted by: Mike S | Friday, 25 May 2007 at 11:05 PM

Adam Kotsko

Early on, I made a commitment to myself that I wouldn't do anything CV-able that related to blogging. Then I saw that there was a loophole: I could do CV-able things that were anti-blogging!

I'm a little unclear as to how I could suddenly discover this overlooked loophole to a rule that I myself made up, but that's how it played out.

Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Saturday, 26 May 2007 at 10:21 AM

Scott Eric Kaufman

Rich, as I said at the talk on Wednesday, I find it alternately elating and depressing that I can't land a panel related to, say, my dissertation, but that people can't seem to get enough of me talking about blogging about writing it.

Clever, Adam, clever.

Mike, as soon as Eric Rauchway tells me where it is, I'll 1) watch it in horror and 2) post a link.

Constructivist, when I make it Big In Japan, I'll be disappointed by anything less adventurous than Lost in Translation. I demand adventure when I travel. (As Adam will find out when I pelt him with paint balls from a makeshift blind.)

Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman | Saturday, 26 May 2007 at 03:19 PM

The Constructivist

You won't be disappointed, then. Seriously, Lost in Translation is super low-key by Macias and Co.'s standards. I wouldn't know from personal experience with them, not being in Tokyo and all, but I do like their blogs.

Posted by: The Constructivist | Saturday, 26 May 2007 at 05:25 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Tom & Joe, This is How You Read a Poem Tom and Joe decided to challenge Ann Althouse to a reading competition, to which I can only say: "Unwise, my friends, unwise." Ann Althouse is a lawyer. You guys are graduate students. Moreover, you two are playing on her turf. Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer, not a graduate student. Not that you could take her on yours, mind you. See, for example, her magisterial display of intertextual prowess, in which she pairs an episode of The Sopranos with the most literal poem in human history, W.B. Yeats' "The Second Coming": You need to study the poem as you rewatch the episode. It's not enought to say "Things fall apart ... Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world," so there's going to be an all-out war between Tony and Phil. Or "somewhere in sands of the desert ... what rough beast ... Slouches towards Bethlehem," so all that talk about the Mideast and terrorism is going to have to be part of the series dénouement. There must be endless depths there. You're just getting started. Perhaps Tony will find his humanity (or is he the "rough beast"?). He gives an expensive watch to Carmela, which is typical for him, but what was that inscription? He tries to connect with the guys talking about his peyote visions, but he fails. He tells Phil he wants to talk to him "on a human level." Which also fails. He saves his son from drowning. ("blood-dimmed tide... innocence is drowned.") The water imagery from last week. He cradles the son he saves. Mother imagery from last week. He starts saying "poor you," the way his own mother Livia did. More mother references. Before saving his son from drowning, he eats the "Lincoln log" food Carmela made to try cheer up A.J. Imagery carried over from last week: mother, phallus, assassinated President. Consider yourself pre-schooled. Let me walk you dolts through this brilliance one brilliant sentence at a brilliant time: You need to study the poem as you rewatch the episode ... ... with a law degree in one hand, a glass of wine in the other. It's not enough to say "Things fall apart ... Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world," so there's going to be an all-out war between Tony and Phil. Because Tony and Phil are "the world," like in the poem you studiously studied, in which "things fall apart" and on which "anarchy is loosed." (Ann's absolutely right to ignore the "mere." It's a useless poetry word poets throw in when they need an extra beat.) Or "somewhere in sands of the desert ... what rough beast ... Slouches towards Bethlehem," so all that talk about the Mideast and terrorism is going to have to be part of the series dénouement. Deserts and Bethlehem are both in the Middle East. (So is the Spiritus Mundi, for that matter.) There must be endless depths there. Word. You're just getting started. No, Ann, you are. I but bask in your reflected glory. Perhaps...
PREVIOUS POST
Gender & Citation: "I'll Have Her, Please" While collecting all my citations for the Jack London chapter, I noticed something unusual: I like women. I really, really like women. However, this may not be apparent when you first glance at the gender distribution of my citations: Male: 51 Female: 42 Remove multiple items from the same author and it looks like this: Male: 28 Female: 39 The steepness of the decline comes from the fact that I quote across the corpus of both London and Herbert Spencer. So of the 67 individuals I quote in this chapter, 58 percent of them are women. But things become even more interesting when the primary sources are removed: Male: 12 Female: 36 The overwhelming majority of contemporary scholarship I cite was written by women. The disparity seems especially odd considering the lion's share of London scholarship is written by men. Does this say something about me? London scholarship? Men who work on London? Women who do? I'm not sure. The Mitchell chapter is little help here, since there is so little contemporary work on him. My paper on eclecticism isn't useful either, since I was forced (by dint of history) to address the major figures, most of whom were men. I need more evidence, certainly, but I find it odd that when I select from a deep pool of contemporary scholarship, I gravitate to works written by women. I wonder whether I'm alone in this. Thoughts?

Scott Eric Kaufman

The Typepad Team

Search

Become a Fan

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments