No but really, who are you?
Hi, my name is Scott, and I have too many blogs. In addition to my personal blog, Acephalous, I also edit a literary theory blog, The Valve, and contribute to a history blog, The Edge of the American West.
That’s a list of where you write. It doesn’t tell us who you are.
You probably know me as the professor who caught random students having sex in his office, or the kid who first learned about rape from a comic book, because those were two posts that were linked here. As for the rest, all I’ll say is that I live a statistically improbable life.
Why are you here?
I’m here because I’ve always wanted to poach links from Shameless Self-Promotion Sundays, but knew that would be tacky. So I sent Jill an email saying, “I’ve always wanted to poach links from Shameless Self-Promotion Sundays, but know that would be tacky. Maybe I could collate them for you at Feministe?”
How exactly will this work?
I don’t exactly know yet. I’m going to try to parse the material out in readable chunks. I don’t want anyone to think that my not linking to them amounts to a silencing, when it is, in fact, a concession to our ever shorter attention spans. I may hold off on posting a link one week, for example, because I think it deserves a wider airing than it would receive were it the fiftieth entry on a seemingly endless link dump.
As a blogger myself, I’m sensitive to issues surrounding publicity. I know how gratifying it is to post something today and see it linked on some main page tomorrow; but then there might be a more substantial dialogue if posts on similar topics are collected, coordinated, and posted together at a later date. (Which has the added benefit of allowing me to cull the archives for brilliant posts that would be ignored simply because they were written last week or month or year.) As I’m terminally indecisive when it comes to administrative matters, feel free to voice any preference you might have.
What I will say is that I’m committed to being fair, i.e. that I will actively seek out and encourage new voices, and try to make sure each post is as representative as possible. I mean that both in terms of whose links I elevate and which subjects are addressed. If the majority of links address a particular issue, I may devote one post to links that address that issue, and another for all the subjects that might otherwise be drowned out by the thrum of the news cycle. As I said, this is a work in progress, and any ideas or advice you have is most welcome.
One last note: if you link to posts with substantial audio components, please do not lie about what is said in them. I’m legally (and sometimes disturbingly) deaf, and the combination of not being able to read podcasters lips and the low bitrates at which podcasts are recorded make it nigh impossible for me to understand them. I’ll be able to tell if you disguise a recording of your cat howling all the way to vet as an excellent lecture by an important person, but only barely.
Isn’t that an awful lot of prefacing for a first post?
Probably. But what else could I have done?
Incorporate some of the links into your introduction?
You mean I should said something about how I’m co-authoring a book about how to use comics in composition classrooms, then written something like, “And speaking of comics, s. tried to determine which circle of Hell the EA marketing department belongs in for their misogynistic promotion at Comic Con 2009.” Is that what you mean?
Maybe a little more subtle.
Subtle? I can do subtle. Let me see . . . I loved The Wire, which was on HBO. Natalie demonstrates that HBO executives might be unwittingly embracing homophobia; meanwhile, Sara Freeman writes about HBO’s decision to broadcast a sensitive, respectful portrait of a bipolar life cut short.
How is that any more subtle?
Good point. I should probably just get down to posting some links.
Alright then, the inaugural wrangling of the links commences now:
RMJ—who changed her background since, I think, this morning—is still looking for contributions to her list of 50 Books for Problematic Times. I keep meaning to contribute forty or fifty, then I remember that nobody besides other literature professors wants to hear what literature professors have to say about literature. Speaking of literature professors, Faith reminds us that the most famous one, currently, once defended misogynistic lyrics as being hyperbolic parody, then busted out laughing at the thought of them.
But enough about literature professors. How about we return to talking about literature? Isabel responds to Steph’s post here with what I have come to call “the Faulkner defense”: “[S]o, Fitzgerald, obviously not a feminist, apparently got people well enough that when he was writing he couldn’t help but write his women as people.” A novelist might not be able to overcome their prejudices, but if they stay true to the complexity of their craft, they might accidently transcend them. (I named that defense after Faulkner’s portrayal of race in Light in August. The man was, clearly, a racist; but as a novelist, he captured the complexity of racial politics with such delicacy that his novels can overcome the prejudice of their author.)
Lauren O. thinks that “feminists should just shut up, because there is no such thing as gender inequality or patriarchy, and it’s actually men who are oppressed.” That, or she’s damn sarcastic. Read her post on catcalling and decide for yourself.
Miranda questions the viability of “TV show with a strong female lead” as a Netflix category, seemingly unaware that the first iteration of that category was “TV show with a strong female character,” which Netflix dumped after realizing that the only shows with strong female characters were those with strong female leads. (That last clause is a lie, invented by me; but sadly, it’s so plausible you might not have caught it had I not confessed.)
Jasper Gregory provides a thoughtful critique of brain sex theories of gender, then models how to discuss sensitive issues with strangers on the internet. (Not that I need to tell anyone here how difficult it is to do so.) [UPDATE: It figures that I would make at least one awful error my first post, and it appears I have: it seems that the reason that Jasper’s discussion is so civil is because he’s silencing commenters he’d rather not respond to. That, obviously, is not modeling how to discuss sensitive issues with strangers on the internet. Had I known he was doing that, I wouldn’t have held him up as such. I apologize for the error, and promise to make many more in the future. Not that I plan to, mind you, but I’m human and it happens.]
Adventures in medicine are had by The Czech, during the course of which we learn that, for doctors, the operative phrase is “making AIDS.”
Finally—and in what I hope will be a regular feature—I want to welcome some newcomers to the blogs: this week we have Katie at Kataphatic, who focuses on fat liberation theology.
That’s not all for this week, but that’s all from me tonight, as I don’t want to hog the front page. Future editions will be more coherent, I promise. (I actually have a monstrous post cobbled together from the past few month’s worth of material, but it resides on a laptop that refuses to boot since I moved from the OC and into Riverside County. I suspect snobbery.)