tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3195664823885405075.post94964443255720752..comments2023-09-26T04:17:33.460-04:00Comments on Speculative Diction: "Myths & Mismatches" Part 4: Structural Faults?aesthetic.vigelantehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10599532539822234700noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3195664823885405075.post-87121623729325540442011-01-11T19:47:10.408-05:002011-01-11T19:47:10.408-05:00I hear you. I know all about not "fitting&quo...I hear you. I know all about not "fitting" into any disciplinary silo. I teach primarily (English) composition and am currently obsessed with a Haitian author who writes in French. Not to mention this whole how higher education needs to be re-imagined thing and wondering if devising a collaborative space to share knowledge of said Haitian author is even feasible...<br /><br />I was thinking of this very thing when I was writing about what it means to be a geek...If we accept that a geek is someone who is obsessive about one particular thing, then I wouldn't fit into that category, either, which as you point out, makes it really hard to be a "good" academic. And I think I see why, too: You said it, you try to solve a problem, and you let it take you wherever it goes in order to solve it. Academics aren't necessarily problem solvers, at least not in the humanities. We see problems, we theorize problems, but we rarely solve them.<br /><br />In literature, I think it's even worse because there are no "problems". But I think if the #MLA11 is any indication, the problem is now, how do we communicate and share what we do to a larger audience? And I think my idea, my project, is one way I'm trying to solve that problem while also doing more traditional textual analysis. But I think so many in the humanities are just ignoring the problem or have decided that if there is a problem, it's impossible to solve. Isn't that the point, though, of what we do?Lee Skallerup Bessette, PhDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12243750156552824701noreply@blogger.com