Tis the season. Open season! On the MLA! I see the NY Times has taken the first potshot. And so I give MLA bashing its first comment box! I must say, I don’t even think we need Chun to tell us this effort is not very impressive. (Scott McLemee‘s "Provokies" were much funnier. I think perhaps he was wise to get out of this business while the getting was good.)
Tragic hipness, multicultural agendizing and an almost abject embrace of low/popular culture converge in titles like " ‘Dude! Your Dress Is So Cute!’ Patterns of Semantic Widening in ‘Dude,’ " an entire session dedicated to papers on Mel Gibson’s "Passion of the Christ," "Urban Expressionism: Theater, Ritual, and the Hip-Hop Generation’s Black Arts Movement," "Utopia in the Borderlands; or, Long Live El Vez the King" (El Vez is a Latino Elvis impersonator), and "A Pynch in Time: The Postmodernity of Prenational Philadelphia in Thomas Pynchon’s Mason and Dixon and Mark Knopfler’s ‘Sailing to Philadelphia’ " (Mr. Knopfler is a rocker best known for wanting his MTV). The clunkiness of all this suggests that eggheads are still nerds, but it that some of them are terribly self-conscious about it now.
The trouble is that the author is so sure it’s all nonsense that he is lazily lumping the patently silly and the just possibly serious. (No, really, when the target is this big you should really try for a clean hit.) What is necessarily wrong with having a panel discussion of "The Passion of Christ"? What is specifically ‘clunky’ about it? (Unless, as seems grammatically possible, the panel is actually called ‘Dude! Your Dress Is So Cute!’ But I sort of suspect that’s not the case.) Also, calling English profs ‘eggheads’? Who calls anyone an ‘egghead’? (Sounds like Foghorn chuckling about widdah Hen’s genius kid.)
I have ever so much more to say but I’ll just declare this an open thread. I welcome reports from actual attendees of the conference. Be more informative and entertaining than the NY Times, if you please. (OK, here’s a specific question for discussion. If it’s alright for bloggers to give their posts very silly titles – which I mostly do – could the MLA solve all its problems, cross that fine line between stupid and clever, just by turning all the conference papers into blog posts?)
{ 29 comments }
harry 12.28.04 at 6:55 pm
Just to add: it was MTV wanted Knopfler, not the other way round (if the author bothered to know anything abut knopfler).
Can’t link to it, but the Economist has a lovely take-down of its critics in English departments in the Christmas edition.
jholbo 12.28.04 at 7:01 pm
I would add: why assume that the audience will know ‘Pynchon’s Mason and Dixon’ but not ‘Mark Knopfler’?
Ophelia Benson 12.28.04 at 7:03 pm
So sad. Poor Times. Trying so hard, and coming up with so nothing. Looking so very lame in the process. Scott did it with such effortlessness, such (dare I say it? oh go on – be a dog) sprezzatura, such panache, last year, and then drew a line under it (having given poor Chun fits in the process, which must have been reward enough on its own). The poor old sweaty plebian Times can’t raise the ghost of a smile. Sic transit gloria mundi, or sic semper tyrannis, or something.
J. Ellenberg 12.28.04 at 7:03 pm
The Strausbaugh piece was a truly poor effort from a writer who can do much better. He makes a strange pre-emptive lurch at the outset, saying (paraphrase): “This is the time of year when bored journalists phone in articles consisting of catalogs of cherry-picked comical MLA talk titles.” But instead of writing something more interesting, he uses this lead to segue into “and I am no exception.” Dire stuff.
V. 12.28.04 at 7:09 pm
Oh, man, do I hate this op-ed season. In fact, there is also nothing particularly stupid about the study of semantic change in the word “dude.” (Probably it should be presented at the LSA instead — maybe it is, in addition; I don’t know.) The title may not be the wittiest thing in the world, but who cares?
peter 12.28.04 at 7:20 pm
If the author was going to have so much fun with the conference, I wish he had focused on the more political titles. (Or rather those less focused on sexual politics.) For some strange reason, as I read the piece I recalled an episode of Law and Order, of all things, that I saw probably a decade ago. It was loosely based on the story of the Symbionese Liberation Army fugitives, and one of those suspected of aiding the fugitive in question was a middle-aged English professor at some college in the city whose dissertation had had a title somehow along the lines of “The Whale is Red: Moby Dick as Neo-Marxist”. Now, titles like that are worth lampooning. Were there any along such lines this year?
One of the major drawbacks of my chosen field (economics) is that you just don’t see such amusing titles. In that sense we just are not very creative.
Ophelia Benson 12.28.04 at 7:24 pm
I know – that’s the only funny thing in the article.
“The convention has become a holiday ritual for journalists, as routine as articles on the banning of Christmas crèches in public places,”
so he proceeds to write a routine bit of boilerplate himself. Interesting approach. Might as well title the thing ‘Another Boring Enervated Article.’
BenA 12.28.04 at 7:40 pm
…so he proceeds to write a routine bit of boilerplate himself.
In my first year of graduate school I once tried this sort of thing at the beginning of a paper. I began with a total cliche, while noting semi-ironically that it was a cliche. My prof rightly noted that it’s still a cliche, even if you admit it is, and it’s still lazy writing to start with it. Kind of sad this passes for journalism at the Times.
derek 12.28.04 at 8:07 pm
What’s the MLA?
pedro 12.28.04 at 8:13 pm
I’m a mathematician playing anthropologist at the MLA. My wife’s interviewing, and I’m having a blast pretending to belong. Tomorrow I’ll try to infiltrate a few interesting talks, especially the one by fellow blogger Michael Berube, although it is a bit of a hassle with all the security guards around checking people’s badges: odd really. The only thing I will report for now is that I one sees far more suits and ties here than one does at a convention of mathematicians. ;)
jonathan 12.28.04 at 8:17 pm
The very apt question, “who cares?”, is best answered by realizing that some journalists, etc. perceive literary and cultural studies as having the lowest barrier-to-entry of any academic field. So if the title of an MLA paper seems silly or difficult to understand to them, then it must be, since anyone can read and talk about books with made-up-stuff in ’em. (The extensions to non-book material are, of course, considerably more provocative.)
J. Ellenberg 12.28.04 at 8:23 pm
Not quite true, Pedro — the one math conference where you see a lot of suits and ties is the AMS/MAA joint meetings, which — like the MLA — is where a lot of job candidates go to do interviews. Whence the formal clothes. I’d guess that English professors, at their more specalized conferences where interviews aren’t happening, dress more or less as we do.
Ophelia Benson 12.28.04 at 8:33 pm
Hmm…maybe not though. Do you mathematicians know Rebecca Goldstein’s highly amusing theory about the inverse ratio between solidity of findings and obsession with presentation of self? Mathematicians don’t need to impress anyone, so they don’t; literaturians, at the opposite end of the scale, do, so they do. Big time.
Jonathan 12.28.04 at 8:39 pm
Ophelia–I’m not sure that mathematicians don’t need to impress anyone; those other three people in the world who might possibly understand what you’re doing seems like a pretty important audience to me.
And the second thing that a journalist will mention about the MLA is the frumpiness of its attendees
pedro 12.28.04 at 9:01 pm
My oh my… hush Jordan… you’re shattering my expectations of the AMS/MAA meetings! I guess when my turn comes to go, I’ll have to impersonate my current subjects of study.
J. Ellenberg 12.28.04 at 9:12 pm
But Ophelia, a mathematician who came to give a lecture dressed in a suit and tie, or who prepared an elaborate PowerPoint presentation, would be looked at a bit strangely. So it’s not so much that self-presentation isn’t important, it’s that a different set of self-presentations is highly valued.
Matt McGrattan 12.28.04 at 9:43 pm
“..a mathematician who came to give a lecture dressed in a suit and tie, or who prepared an elaborate PowerPoint presentation, would be looked at a bit strangely.”
ANYONE who gives an elaborate PowerPoint presentation, ought, as a matter of course, to be be looked at strangely.
There’s rarely, if ever, an excuse for it — with the possible exception of a tiny minority of scientists and/or social scientists who need some conventient framework they can use to embed a lot of data, charts, video, etc.
And anyone who uses those “whoosh” noises or has bullet points that fly in from the side, deserves to be ostracised from their chosen profession forever — or at the absolute minimum denied tenure for bringing their discipline into disrepute.
drapeto 12.28.04 at 10:27 pm
What is necessarily wrong with having a panel discussion of “The Passion of Christ”?
someone needs to update hofstatder’s anti-intellectualism in american life with a section on disdain for intellectuals who consider the popular is a motif of populist discourse.
the nyt is under the impression that if they bash anyone with a whiff of leftitude or intellectuality (“eggheads!”), ann coulter will start saying they are a bastion of down-home righteousness. if they can publish judith miller, why wouldn’t they publish bs about the mla?
If the author was going to have so much fun with the conference, I wish he had focused on the more political titles.
right….. they should make their agenda even more obvious, for the vision-impaired.
ps. for the rockistly-impaired, does Sailing to Philadelphia have anything to do with Sailing to Byzantium?
Ophelia Benson 12.28.04 at 11:12 pm
“So it’s not so much that self-presentation isn’t important, it’s that a different set of self-presentations is highly valued.”
Wull – same thing, dude!
digamma 12.29.04 at 3:32 am
Reason even came to the MLA’s defense from this article: “The plain fact is, most of the panels don’t have bizarre titles and most of them are devoted to recognizable subject areas, historical periods, and serious examination of new and old texts that are important to people in their respective fields.”
Home in Philly for the holidays, I had a look at the conference schedule today and, wow, there’s an incredible amount of genuinely interesting material. Having just seen Ocean’s 12, I think it shouldn’t be too hard for me to sneak into a few sessions without a badge….
Bucky 12.29.04 at 8:09 am
Knopfler’s best known for the Money for Nothin/MTV trope but in the early 80’s he wrote a song called Telegraph Road that was brilliant, and brilliantly performed – pretty much a lyrical summation of human history side by side with a concise chronology of the plucked string. From wandering vagabond and simple acoustic melody to 10-lane rush-hour traffic and absolutely raging electric guitar.
Doug 12.29.04 at 12:08 pm
Shorter John Holbo (as written by the man himself): I have ever so much more to say.
Thanks for the epiphany!
Doug 12.29.04 at 12:10 pm
But isn’t it really duck season?
Another Damned Medievalist 12.29.04 at 5:56 pm
As if people wouldn’t know who Mark Knopfler was … ok, they might if they are neither Dire Straits fans or folkies (but damn, the man can write some good songs).
Even in History, titles can be touchy. When colleagues note my dissertation title, they tent to mention how “old fashioned” it is — no catchy phrase with colon. I like to think of it as informative and to the point. And maybe Retro.
A colleague in English, however, claims his advisor told him that the title was as important as the content, and that it must be in the ‘Witty but unclear/unrelated Catchphrase: Superlong description that tries to make the catchphrase sensible’ format.
Adam Kotsko 12.29.04 at 6:37 pm
I think Ophelia should be invited to do a guest post on the MLA, since every third comment on this thread is from her. Thanks!
lemuel pitkin 12.30.04 at 9:36 pm
the inverse ratio between solidity of findings and obsession with presentation of self? Mathematicians don’t need to impress anyone, so they don’t; literaturians, at the opposite end of the scale, do, so they do.
Adam Smith has a nice passage on this in The Theory of Moral Sentiments:
Mathematicians and natural philosophers, from their
independency upon the public opinion, have little temptation to
form themselves into factions and cabals, either for the support
of their own reputation, or for the depression of that of their
rivals. They are almost always men of the most amiable simplicity
of manners, who live in good harmony with one another, are the
friends of one another’s reputation, enter into no intrigue in
order to secure the public applause, but are pleased when their
works are approved of, without being either much vexed or very
angry when they are neglected.
It is not always the same case with poets, or with those who
value themselves upon what is called fine writing. They are very
apt to divide themselves into a sort of literary factions; each
cabal being often avowedly, and almost always secretly, the
mortal enemy of the reputation of every other, and employing all
the mean arts of intrigue and solicitation to preoccupy the
public opinion in favour of the works of its own members, and
against those of its enemies and rivals.
Ophelia Benson 12.30.04 at 10:31 pm
Ah, that’s a great quotation from Smith. (Dang, I need to read the Theory of Moral Sentiments. Have been meaning to for ages.) That’s probably where Goldstein got it – she is a philosopher (married to a physicist, so it all kind of joins up). How very amusing.
(The idea is in her first novel, The Mind-Body Problem, in case anyone was wondering. Quite wittily expressed.)
Frolic 12.31.04 at 11:51 pm
I’m still a little shell shocked from the conference, but I will offer a comment I heard while eating lunch next to two Victorianists:
“The study moved from Middlemarch to Bleak House. That was really ballsy.â€
S 01.03.05 at 2:26 pm
Apropos of clever titles, the idea that one’s thesis title needs to go “snappy phrase: longwinded account of what your thesis is actually about” is very sweetly referred to in my department as “post-colonial theory”.
Comments on this entry are closed.