Sunday, 14 October 2007

Dear Good Sense,

I humbly request that you not leave me when I need you most.  I mean, you (mostly*) stuck with me as I chatted with Adam and John on Friday night and Saturday morning, but you abandoned me as I strode toward the front of the Walnut Room and introduced myself to James Wood.  Like, seriously dude—seriously—what was up with that?

I was convinced that walking up to him and telling he was completely misreading William Gass was a good idea.  You should've been there, you know, to tell me that Wood would've listened politely for about thirty seconds before shuffling away from the garrulous guy with the evident chip on his shoulder. 

You would've consoled me.  Told me I was right and didn't need to prove it to anybody.  Instead, you were, well, where were you?  In the room, reading Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell?  Mourning the Tigers' loss?  Watching Boston break its own heart?  Seriously, I needed you tonight, but you were "too busy" to keep my mouth in check. 

It followed my brain.  Now I'm an ass. 

I mean, Opportunistic Careerism stood by me, so hopefully Wood'll remember the name emblazoned on my name tag instead of the one I proffered.  (What's the worst that can happen?  Wood can't have John caned now, can he?)  Still, I'm upset you deserted me, and continue to do so.  Don't you know what time it is?  No one with you would still be awake, yet here I am, watching Matt Damon foil the best laid plans of mousy bureaucrats ...

Yours,

SEK

*I've been told never to repeat that story.  I mean, I'd already been told not to, but now I have independent verification that it's not the sort of story I should tell. 

Oct 14, 2007 3:55:16 AM | Books

8 Comments

John Emerson

You seem to have developed my kamikaze networking powers independently, without instruction from me. I'm impressed.

Posted by: John Emerson | Sunday, 14 October 2007 at 06:00 AM

Ahistoricality

If Mr. Woods had realized that you're one of the finest purveyors of hysterical realism in the blogosphere, he might have listened longer.

Your common sense really did desert you, though, if you tried to use a pseudonym in person while wearing a name tag!

Posted by: Ahistoricality | Sunday, 14 October 2007 at 01:42 PM

uncomplicatedly

I mean, it could have been worse. You could have strode toward the front of the Walnut Room and introduced yourself to James Woods, who probably would have had even less patience for your critique of his reading of Gass. That guy, he stands by his work.

Posted by: uncomplicatedly | Sunday, 14 October 2007 at 03:06 PM

Dan Collins

What does James Woods know about being blue?

Posted by: Dan Collins | Sunday, 14 October 2007 at 03:34 PM

eb

Wait, so the ALSC is not the American League Series Championship? I need to get my acronyms sorted out.

Posted by: eb | Sunday, 14 October 2007 at 08:44 PM

CR

That's so funny. I had the same opportunity with the same person this summer, extended actually over a week rather than an hour. Beforehand, I was all about to plans to needle him on this issue and that reading, explain to him all that he's right about and all that he's not, etc etc etc. And then I got there, and introduced myself, but kept my mouth shut beyond that. This even despite total loadedness.

(Loaded, I have a very helpful self-preservation instinct that shuts me up, leads me to stare blankly and say "Right. Right. Right. Right" until the evening runs itself out... I actually did that with some of our British blog-rades lately - too much Kingfisher...)

Which I'm very thankful for. I have a feeling that he gets what you gave him all the time. Comes with the territory - being the last living real literary critic - I suppose. All the young turks turking about in his face. And also comes with his status of being someone who actually gets literature in a world in which very few do - almost no academics. Plus there's the knotty matter of his "politics" - literary / cultural politics, which are guaranteed to draw fire. So I wouldn't worry about it.

You should have told him about how the blogs are going to make him, and his entire way of life, superfluous in the next few minutes. That would have been hilarious. But anyway, yet another case of me being older, and if not wiser, then at least way shyer than you.

Posted by: CR | Monday, 15 October 2007 at 01:25 AM

Tim Lacy

SEK,

[With pouty voice] Had you called me for coffee, I might have been able to save you from making a fool of yourself?! :) ... Perhaps not. Anyway, I hope you had a good time in Chicago otherwise!

- TL

Posted by: Tim Lacy | Monday, 15 October 2007 at 04:16 PM

John Emerson

Hey, where's the dirt on Kotsko and Holbo?

Posted by: John Emerson | Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 08:28 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
I Dream The Lameness Heroic This post concerns an Umberto Eco essay published in the Spring, 1972 volume of Diacritics entitled Or perhaps this post was an excuse to publish the title of article as printed in the Spring, 1972 volume of Diacritics. (As the Jews say: dayenu.) This essay's been on my mind since I read Scott McLemee's "Good Grief" (about Eco's "The World of Charlie Brown"), as evidenced by the following two dreams: Dream #1: The Lamest Mutant Power Ever Namely, the power to create and pop corn kernels with my mind. Attempts to propel myself into the sky on an ascending slide of popping corn (a la Iceman) failed. My attempt to stop a large object (a Buick) with a wall of popped corn met with similar "success." When my friends disappeared—presumably off to fight real criminals with their real powers—I amused myself by hitting the street and creating, then popping, corn kernels in the mouths of unsuspecting pedestrians. I took great pleasure in watching their faces contort to the tune of bug-in-my-mouth, then relax when the kernel hit their tongue. They had no clue where this popcorn came from, and only one or two broke stride to search for a potential source. The dream didn't "end" so much as "stop" when I became bored with the endless iteration of the same, or what Eco calls "a typical high redundance message [which] informs us of very little and which, on the contrary ... keeps hammering home the same meaning which we have peacefully acquired upon reading the first work in the series." (Or, in my case, from popping the first kernel in the mouth of a stranger.) I took comfort in the known and sated my "hunger for redundance." My complacence prevented me from realizing the potential my power held. Like Superman, who "carries on his activity on the level of the small community where he lives (Smallville as a youth, Metropolis as an adult)," I ignored everything outside the borders of the dream city in which I lived. Because I couldn't fight crime, I felt impotent. The fact that I could conjure food stuff from thin air disappointed me. Not only did I not want to feed the world, the thought never even occurred to me, because "the only visible form that evil assumes is an attempt on private property." Eco pegged the lameness of my unimaginative dream-hero. Dream #2: The Lamest Article Ever Contrary to the claims of Dream #1 and Eco, the Superman myth concerns issues other than the protection of the propertied classes from miscreants who place illegitimate claims on their stuff. In point of fact, the latest big-screen iteration, Superman Returns, is Bryan Singer's allegorical critique of the neoconservative movement generally and the Bush Administration in particular. Such, at least, was the argument I forwarded in an article published in n+1 at times, American Literature at others. As explained to the audience attending my talk, in the article I argued something about planes falling from the sky...
PREVIOUS POST
Absolutely, Positively the Last Words I'll Write about KC Johnson or Durham in Wonderland KC Johnson's obviously a dogged researcher and responsible scholar ... when he wants to be. When he doesn't—that is, when facts flatter his agenda—he either brandishes his liberal credentials or boldly dissembles. Johnson rebuts those who would associate him with David Horowitz: "Indoctrination" is a concern of some right-wing academic critics, especially David Horowitz. Yet, since Piot claims to have read the blog closely, he knows that I’m an Obama supporter who backs gay marriage and abortion rights. This statement is evidently more meaningful than the fact (as Rich discovered) that Johnson has contributed no less than seven articles to Horowitz's various publications. As Adam noted earlier: KC has to be blind if he doesn't see how his book feeds into the larger right-wing narrative about academia, which for convenience one calls "Horowitzian." Johnson's not blind. He knows what he's doing. He knows the people he must align with to do it. This isn't to claim Johnson's ideas are coterminous with Horowitz's, only that they appeal to the same people for the same reasons. Witness his commentariat. Better yet, since he distances himself from the racism and sexism so prevalent among some of its numbers, witness the meat Johnson tosses to them: This article represents what passes for a scholarly publication in [Charles] Piot’s field [cultural anthropology]. Indeed, it is listed as a "representative publication" on Professor Piot’s CV. Johnson may not agree with Horowitz, but he certainly appropriates his style. Piot's article is dubious. I grant Johnson that. (Just as I've granted him his due from the get-go.) And were Johnson to stop with the facts before him like any responsible scholar we wouldn't be having this conversation. Instead, he makes a leap as grandiose as the one which motivates the second half of Until Proven Innocent. To wit: Charles Piot's article represents what passes for scholarly publication in his field ... ... because Charles Piot lists it as a "representative publication" on his CV. Unless the field in question is "Charles Piot Studies," Johnson's argument is a sloppy attempt to discredit the work of hundreds of scholars through a flip rhetorical gesture. I suspect that when he reads this post, Johnson will correct his "mistake," thereby cementing his readers' belief in his integrity. I'm not buying it. He's too smart to not be this savvy. He makes statements hoping that no one notices them, because it's a win-win proposition. If no one does, his pack feasts upon the meat he's thrown it. If someone does, he plays the role of the judicious pack-leader, and his pack respects him all the more for his honesty ... but only because they've already stuffed a little meat down their gullets. Rhetorically, it's as brilliant as it is dishonest. And it is dishonest. I refuse to believe so thorough a researcher as Johnson wouldn't have performed a cursory examination of the field he dismissed in its entirety and learned that Transforming Anthropology is not among cultural anthropology's flagship journals. I refuse to...

Scott Eric Kaufman

The Typepad Team

Search

Become a Fan

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments