Charlotte Allen has written an exceedingly silly article about this year’s Kalamazoo International Conference. Scott Nokes has a list of the various responses here. I want to draw attention to some aspects of the article that I think haven’t really received as much attention at they ought.
Allen asserts that “One session was entirely devoted to medieval blogs, including a paper comparing the works of Geoffrey Chaucer to the blog “Geoffrey Chaucer Hath a Blog.”
This is interesting since not only was I there, but I liveblogged it.
I know for a fact Ms. Allen wasn’t there, and didn’t even do a cursory Google check, because the paper about “Geoffrey Chaucer Hath a Blog” wasn’t even presented.
Just after the blogging panel reference, Allen refers to session 116 “Neomedievalism I: Alternative Realities.” She specifically refers to one paper from that session:
In one of those papers, delivered with much help from PowerPoint and titled “Knights, Dykes, Damsels and Fags: Gender Roles and Normative Pressures in Neomedieval Films,” Wayne Elliott , a graduate student at Kent State University, argued that the film A Knight’s Tale had a homoerotic subtext because it starred Heath Ledger. Poor Ledger. He made the double career mistake of (a) playing a gay cowboy in Brokeback Mountain and (b) dying before he had a chance to live it down.
But look at what Allen does with Elliot’s paper— she reduces it to an assertion that Eliot argued that “Knight’s Tale had a homoerotic subtext because it starred Heath Ledger.” He did nothing of the kind. That’s just a pot shot, and a mean-spirited one that’s manifestly inaccurate. Now look at Allen’s next statement, with respect to Heath Ledger, who plays the protagonist in Knight’s Tale.
Poor Ledger. He made the double career mistake of (a) playing a gay cowboy in Brokeback Mountain and (b) dying before he had a chance to live it down.
Now isn’t that delightful? She refers to Ledger’s death— a death by overdose— and turns it into an anti-queer slam—notice the “double career mistake” reference, and the assertion that Ledger died “before he had a chance to live it down.”
Why yes, this is the same person who wrote this lovely misogynistic screed. And yes, she’s brimful of unjustified malice towards her peers.
You’ll note that Allen complains somewhat bitterly about critical theory, particularly what she, less than accurately, terms “pomo.” For instance:
Not that the postmodernist modus operandi was likely to be any different elsewhere. Down the hall from waste studies that morning was Session 5: “(Ab)normal Societies: Disability as a Socio-cultural Concept in Medieval Society.” The parentheses bracketing the “Ab” are examples of a favorite postmodernist punctuation strategy, signaling to readers in the know that putatively neutral words such as “abnormal” actually convey oppressive, often sexist, hidden agendas.
Anyone who thinks “abnormal” is “putatively neutral” needs a basic etymology class; it can’t possibly be “neutral.” That’s sort of its purpose–to point at the thing that is not “neutral,” safe, expected, or comfortable to confront, usually, to make such things (and people) easy to avoid.
Behind (I fear to use “subtext here”) all the back-of-the-bus little boy poo-poo jokes, Allen is clearly uncomfortable in particular with the juxtaposition of the “pomo” and the medieval. Ms. Allen ought to know that the middle ages are very much inherently “pomo” in the ways primary texts and their creators are constantly self-referential, and deliberately cross back and forth between propre person, character, and narrator.
That’s not all she’s uncomfortable with either:
There were numerous other papers with either “normative” (“heteronormativity” is bad because it implies that heterosexuals are more normal than homosexuals) or “masculinity” (like femininity, a social construct, not an inherent characteristic) in their titles,
Heteronormativity is not “bad,” but it is a set of assumptions that needs to be checked. If we read with heteronormative assumptions, we may not be really reading medieval texts either authentically or critically accurately— and that’s bad. It means we’re applying 21st century assumptions to early centuries, which, while often interesting and provocative, isn’t the only or even the best way to read an early text.
She also objects to Tolkien and Harry Potter at Kalamazoo, opining that
The total number of medievalists probably exceeds the total number of college undergraduates these days who have the slightest interest in learning the smallest thing about the Middle Ages. That dismal fact lies at the core of all other observations to be made about the congress.
This particular statement reflects poorly on Allen’s research skills.
There are more undergrads interested in things medieval now, than in the last twenty years–in part because of the strong presence of medieval cultures and references in contemporary pop culture like Lord of the Rings, A Knight’s Tale, and Harry Potter (has Allen forgotten that Tolkien was an important medieval scholar as well as philologist?).
Then there’s this bit:
Thus the overwhelming majority of the sessions nowadays are in the field of literature, especially English literature, which is notorious for its vulnerability to theoretical hoo-hah and for the large numbers of bottom-feeding assistant professors and at-sea graduate students needed to staff the required freshman composition classes that are run out of many universities’ English departments.
Err, well, no, early English literature really isn’t “notorious” for “its vulnerability to theoretical hoo-hah”— speaking as one who fled to the bastion of philology after a bit too much Derrida—for the simple reason that the mind set that allows one to become comfortable reading, often in mss., Old and Middle English, never mind Medieval Latin, or Old Norse, or Old Irish, isn’t one to lend itself to “hoo-hah” of any stripe.
But her closer is . .. well, it’s pretty much “And they dress funny, too!”
I don’t mind Ms. Allen judging the conference by whatever standard she sees suitable. I’d just much rather that she judged it for what it is–one of the largest gatherings of medievalists in the world, one where historians rub shoulders with philologists, and grad students with Really Big Name Scholars (yes Charlotte, they were there too—and quite a few of the future Really Big Name Scholars)–instead describing a conference that bears so little relationship to the one I attended, that I honestly initially thought her article was inept parody.
I’m going to be doing a link-post to others who are blogging Kalamazoo, and maybe add some general impressions of my own, in a bit. I’ve uploaded my paper on medieval fairies, and speech and silence in Sir Orfeo, Thomas of Erceldoune, and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight “‘They are fairies; he that speaks to them shall die': Speech and Silence in Medieval Fairy Narratives” here. Mostly I’m smug that I aimed for a fifteen minute paper, and I nailed it, even though it meant reducing about twelve thousand words to three thousand.
I’ve decided to live-blog a blogging session at the 2008 Medieval Congress at Kalamazoo. I’m not a transcriber, so I’m not in any way doing the presenters the kind of justice their thoughtful papers deserve.
The session was organized by Elisabeth Carnell, Western Michigan Univ., and Shana Worthen, University of Arkansas–Little Rock, with Elizabeth Carnell presiding.
These are the papers that are being presented:
“Do I Know You in Real Life? Building Scholarly Communities and Professional
Networks through Anonymous Weblogs” Julie A. Hofmann, Shenandoah University
“Text in Motion: Navel-Gazing as Pedagogical Strategy” MacAllister Stone, Independent Scholar
“Unlocking Wordhoards: Popular Medievalist Communities” Richard Scott Nokes, Troy University
Julie Hoffman maintains Carnivalesque, and is a pseudonomyous blogger. She came to Web blogs via the now defunct Invisible Adjunct blog, and the blog of Cranky Professor, and a number of other blogs, none of them medieval. When Julie Hoffmann began commenting on these blogs, it became clear that they were colleagues, anonymous or not. Most of the anonymous bloggers were women, and junior faculty, like her.
The act of blogging under a pseudonym served to create a collegial environment, that crossed the conventional lines of academic rant. She mentioned the real-world phenomena of people at conferences who look at name tag to check an institutional affiliation. Online it doesn’t matter; the public place of the Internet creates an intimacy that creates a way to see past the c. v. and into the scholarly process. People connect not only on the scholarly level, but on a more personal level. Blogging provides an immediate way to pass the collegiality test.
Blogging under a pseudonym seems to add another set of measurements to be used by our peers. She has had real-life opportunities from blogging, from people who had never met her in real life but did know her blog.
Julie Hoffmann spoke a little about the differences between men and women blogging; men are more likely to use their real name. She notes that women who blog tend to write more about their academic lives and their teaching. Men seem to blog more about their scholarly interests and reach out to their students, but that there are sex-linked differences. These gender differences don’t seem to matter in terms of networking. She spoke about the rarity of medievalists on many campuses and the consequent isolation. She spoke about creating a protected writing group for medieval scholars on LiveJournal.
MacAllister Stone opened with a quote from John Gower, and the nature of text, digital and otherwise. She talked about the nature of fluid, deletable text, and a professor who wondered where the words went when he deleted them, and referred to a story by Stephen King in which the writer’s word processor was somehow tied to reality; deleting a name, deleted a person.
MacAllister Stone also spoke about the fluid nature of text, and the potential for outreach that medievalist have, and the support for community building. You can read her paper here.
Scott Nokes spoke about popular Medievalism, and communities built around them. He spoke about the distinction between subject and object, or perhaps in terms of Weblogs, academics/medievalists, and those outside the profession. Medievalism doesn’t have to be historically accurate, and is often mythic. Since it isn’t historical, Medievalism can’t be anachronistic. He spoke about mythic transference, with a nod at Northrup Frye. He spoke about transference from the present into the past (Twain’s Connecticut Yankee) or from the past into the present (Don Quixote).
Scott Nokes discussed the subject/object role (defined in terms of grammar as a metaphor) and supplied examples from the SCA. A movie goer watching a film about Robin Hood, and is expected to some extent, to identify with the characters—but is not supposed to believe that she is that hero.
In terms of online communities, and popular medievalist communities is the present, and not the past. He used the example of the Disney film Prince Caspian, as inculcating a popular interest in allegory in the context of the film, for however brief a period. He discussed the differences between a scholarly online community and, for instance, a community built around a medieval-inspired community, and the ways in which a scholarly community, where the community is built around the model of expert to the group, shut down conversation for the non-medievalist. In a popular medieval community, the scholar has a privileged position, but not one that allows the shutting down of the community. Scholars in the online community need to attract those popular medieval community members and encourage them to participate rather than to observe in silence; they have been given a voice and we need to listen to it. You can see some of his outreach efforts here, at MediEvolution.
I’ve posted my Kalamazoo paper “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight: Tolkien’s ‘game with rules’,” here, such as it is. There’s a handout, too!
Technorati Tags:Gawain, Kalamazoo