tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10659275.post1570183565887928842..comments2023-11-04T01:41:23.277+00:00Comments on Memorabilia Antonina: Does Catullus sing Smokey? A meditation on the fannish academic and the return of the personal voiceTony Keenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07125792825206480340noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10659275.post-934408194130617672021-08-06T11:16:23.505+01:002021-08-06T11:16:23.505+01:00I apologise for the (now dead) reference to Peter ...I apologise for the (now dead) reference to Peter Stothard summarising a presentation by Steven Pinker; this was before I had any idea about Pinker.Tony Keenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07125792825206480340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10659275.post-87837396434923267022014-11-03T19:20:21.015+00:002014-11-03T19:20:21.015+00:00One thing that was in an early mental draft of thi...One thing that was in an early mental draft of this, but got forgotten over the years it took me to write, was something about the most "fannish" writer I know - Mark Kermode. In <i>It's Only A Movie</i> and <i>The Good, The Bad and the Multiplex</i> he writes with exactly the sort of personally-informed voice I've been talking about in this piece (I really must get on with reading <i>Hatchet Job</i>). This is what I wrote about <i>The Good, The Bad and the Multiplex</i> back in early 2012, for <i>Vector</i>'s review of 2011:<br /><br />"[I]nstead of talking about the most exciting sf I read last year, [I will] talk about a book that I think everyone reading this magazine should take the time to read. It’s not science fiction. Indeed, it’s not fiction at all, nor is it non-fiction primarily about sf, though the occasional sf or related work does get mentioned. That book is Mark Kermode’s <i>The Good, the Bad and the Multiplex: What’s Wrong with Modern Movies?</i> (Random House, 2011). My first reason for recommending it is that I think many of the people who read <i>Vector</i> will like the style. Kermode writes in a personal, autobiographically-informed fashion that many <i>Vector</i> readers will recognise as 'fannish'. This was very evident in his previous book, <i>It’s Only A Movie</i>, and is still to be seen here, if slightly reduced – the main reason for this is that where <i>It’s Only A Movie</i> was an autobiographical account enlivened by occasional examples of movie criticism, <i>The Good, the Bad and the Multiplex</i> is a book of movie criticism enlivened by autobiographical anecdote. The second reason is that Kermode is often bang on the money about the problems with the modern cinematic experience, where cost-cutting means there are no ushers to eject those who can’t shut up or leave their phones off for the length of time it takes to get through a movie, and ticket and refreshment sales are combined, worsening the experience for everyone. I particularly learned from his analysis that the problem for the British film industry is not primarily production, but distribution – lots of interesting movies (and lots of bad ones) are made, but they don’t get to cinema screens. Meanwhile the multiplexes serve up a diet of the same thing over and over again, and then turn round and say that this is what the audience wants – an audience that has not really been given a choice. David Cameron, who recently made idiot remarks about how the British industry should pursue commercial movies, would do well to read this book. And my third reason for recommendation is directed at those readers who have it in mind to write themselves about popular culture for a broad audience. Because this is how you do it. I’m not saying you should necessarily imitate Kermode’s style – his rants sometimes tip over into an <i>ad hominem</i> snarkiness that I don’t always care to employ, though they often make me laugh. But you should imitate his attitude – be engaging, be witty, and above all, be honest and true to yourself."Tony Keenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07125792825206480340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10659275.post-23578416312114307892014-11-03T18:47:02.590+00:002014-11-03T18:47:02.590+00:00Another relevant online source: http://timescolumn...Another relevant online source: http://timescolumns.typepad.com/stothard/2014/11/steven-pinker-on-good-and-bad-writing.htmlTony Keenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07125792825206480340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10659275.post-28413431748320983182014-10-20T13:16:47.709+01:002014-10-20T13:16:47.709+01:00Also, this post attacked the use of certain "...Also, <a href="http://hub.uberflip.com/h/i/19920605-5-weak-words-that-are-sabotaging-your-writing?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=b2b-content&utm_content=b2b-content&utm_campaign=blog" rel="nofollow">this post</a> attacked the use of certain "weak words", including "I believe"/"I think"/"I feel". I actually disagree about "I believe", "I feel", etc. Employing those phrases does detract from the authority of the writer, and that's a good thing. It admits the possibility of other points of view, and prevents the claiming of false authority. The problems come when "I believe" is considered to be enough, without any supporting evidence for that belief.<br />Tony Keenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07125792825206480340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10659275.post-87302906717483344782014-10-20T11:22:38.561+01:002014-10-20T11:22:38.561+01:00And in one of those coincidences that are driving ...And in one of those coincidences that are driving this particular piece of work, I spent Wednesday lunchtime in a reading group discussing Emily Robinson, ‘Touching the void: affective history and the impossible’ (Rethinking History 14.4, 2010, 503-520), which was all about historian's emotional engagement with their study. Robinson is primarily focusing on historians operating in archives, handling physical artefacts touched by the people who are the object of study. This doesn't happen much in my discipline - I've never touch a manuscript of an ancient author in my life, and even if I did, it would be up to fifteen hundred years removed from the original creator. However, I think some of her more general observations may be transferable to wider contexts (certainly, one can argue that handing archaeological evidence, which I *have* done, has much in common).<br /><br />Interestingly, she discusses all of this engagement of historians with their work, and the benefits that being aware of this might bring, in very detached and formal manner; she makes great use of historians' anecdotes, but, as Carrie Hamilton noted in the reading group, includes none of her own.<br /><br />Meanwhile, <i>The Guardian</i> <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/oct/17/frank-cottrell-boyce-david-fickling-lecture-literacy-reading-children" rel="nofollow">reports</a> on a lecture by Frank Cottrell Boyce, in which he argues against getting children to analyse texts. I worry about the promotion of reading as an entirely passive activity that this implies. Analysis is not the enemy of engagement with a text - the two should go hand-in-hand.Tony Keenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07125792825206480340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10659275.post-63123908684968931152014-10-14T23:50:42.368+01:002014-10-14T23:50:42.368+01:00Because I'm the sort of person who doesn't...Because I'm the sort of person who doesn't like to leave a question unanswered if I can help it, I spent some time in the ICS checking out the early work of John Henderson. I did this because I feel that it's important to find out whether Henderson began writing in a non-conformist manner from the moment he started his career, or whether it come much later. The latter appears to be the case. After a search of <i>L'Annee Philologique</i>, I found only three articles before 1987 - the one in <i>PCPS</i> for 1977 mentioned in my main text, one in <i>Ramus</i> for 1983, and one in an 1986 issue of <i>Liverpool Classical Monthly</i> that I couldn't find in the ICS, but probably have on a shelf somewhere. There's little of the typical Henderson voice in the <i>PCPS</i> article, though it can be detected a bit in the notes. It's rather more emergent in the <i>Ramus</i> piece, but not yet fully-formed. By the late '80s, when we get the full Henderson, he had been a Lecturer at King's for nearly a decade, and virtually unassailble in terms of tenure; the worst that might have happened would be that his promotion would be delayed. As Susanna Morton Braund hints, he seems to have adopted his idiosyncratic voice from a position of privilege, having had the opportunity to develop it out of the public eye. It hardly needs saying that in today's research output-focused world, the opportunity to establish a secure academic position before beginning publishing simply no longer exists.Tony Keenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07125792825206480340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10659275.post-33538233421098986762014-10-13T12:08:46.825+01:002014-10-13T12:08:46.825+01:00(This is a comment I made on Neville's post, c...(This is a comment I made on Neville's post, copied over to here.)<br /><br />Thanks for an interesting response to my post, Neville. I think you're a lot more nuanced and subtle than I was in my post, and that's very helpful. There were a lot of unwritten assumptions that I should have brought out more clearly. <br /><br />I do, of course, agree that not all blog posts are the same - indeed, the point of a voice being personal is that your voice won't be like everyone else's. I blog on several different platforms, and I don't approach any of them in quite the same fashion. <br /><br />I didn't mean to suggest that an approach from blogging is directly transferable into writing for an academic audience, though I can see that it may have looked as if I did. I cited fanzine writing as having a positive effect on my academic writing, but that doesn't mean I'd approach an article for <i>Classical Quarterly</i> the same way I'd approach one for <i>Banana Wings</i>. Rather, I think that the experience of writing outside academia can shake up your academic writing, and give you ways of improving (and it works both ways - I'm a better fanzine writer because academic writing has taught me how to sustain the thread of an article). It's certainly the case that my fannish and academic writing are closer together than they were in the 1990s.<br /><br />I'm not trying to be in any way prescriptive here - rather my aim is to make people aware of the possibilities here. When I say that autobiography doesn't have to inform the personal voice, I'm certainly not trying to banish autobiography, just saying that it's not the only approach. Rereading Vanda's piece [Vanda Zajko's chapter in <i>Compromising Traditions</i>] (and thank you for making me do that) drives home the idea of different approaches. Clearly Vanda's research and writing has always been closely embroiled with her personal and sexual politics. For me, whilst I am passionate about politics, as anyone reading my Facebook can tell, there's never been that close link with my scholarship. Again, both approaches are perfectly valid.<br /><br />I'm also interested in the fact that the majority of responses to this piece so far have focused on the bit that deals with the personal voice, which I conceived of as an adjunct to the main thrust of the post, which is about cultivating a "fannish" attitude in scholarship.Tony Keenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07125792825206480340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10659275.post-80626569978322307032014-10-11T19:49:26.068+01:002014-10-11T19:49:26.068+01:00Fascinating responses from Neville and Liz. I can ...Fascinating responses from Neville and Liz. I can see your point, Neville, that perhaps the obviously provocative approach of Henderson may not be the best example to follow - I think, however, that he is still worth mentioning at least as a means of showing what the possibilities are, even if one should not necessarily imitate him. (As I say, and I think Liz is also getting at, the personal voice must be personal, and adopting someone else's idiosyncrasy is missing the point.) <br /><br />I've had my attention brought to this blog post: http://www.profawesome.com/?p=678. This makes some of the same point as I do about fannishness in academic study, though at shorter length and adding a feminist perspective.Tony Keenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07125792825206480340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10659275.post-13223613139563909742014-10-11T14:23:35.221+01:002014-10-11T14:23:35.221+01:00In my writing, I have always striven to be clear, ...In my writing, I have always striven to be clear, interesting and accessible. In a way, that's as much a choice about personal voice as anything else, to eschew some of the expectations of heavy jargon that some ECRs seem to feel justify their writing (at least initially). I think there is a way of writing which both reflects the author's personal voice and the conventions/expectations of scholarship.<br /><br />That said, I also admire Gideon and John's writing tremendously (and had to resist the temptation to adopt Hendersonian style when writing my own stuff on Seneca's <i>Epistulae Morales</i>). I'm very much hoping to develop something as distinctive and recognisable in my writing, but of course the risk is always that you mimic rather than speak when you have your stylistic exempla in view. That, I suppose, is in and of itself an indication of how rare a truly distinctive voice is in academic writing.<br /><br />In personal terms, I very much see my own investment in Seneca and in the issues of space and gender I'm playing with elsewhere. It's finding a way of including this that's the tricky bit; it feels like something that's easier to do in a book than article.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10659275.post-10873195445846374592014-10-10T21:01:55.996+01:002014-10-10T21:01:55.996+01:00Really enjoyed this - I'm fascinated by the qu...Really enjoyed this - I'm fascinated by the question of the personal voice in scholarship, both as a personal issue and in reading other ancient historians. I think I would emphasise a bit more than you have the fact that as academics of some sort we're operating on several different axes: not just personal-impersonal but formal-informal (if not also others). So, the development of blogging has made it easier for some of us to be obviously, overtly personal because the form demands a more casual, chatty style, which is frowned upon in conventional academic contexts. It's probably easier to be personal in such an informal context - but it would be risky to assume that therefore the formal can never be personal, and that we shouldn't try to be ourselves in 'proper' books and articles as well. (To be honest, I do find that some of the academic studies of SF I know fall into precisely this trap; yes, they retain their enthusiasm for their subject, but their style becomes thoroughly conformist).<br /><br />In looking for models of personal voice in academic, perhaps the obviously maverick, envelope-pushing figures like Henderson aren't the best examples; we should be focusing on those who are able to be and express themselves distinctly and distinctively while still remaining largely within the generic conventions. Obviously I focus more on ancient historians than classicists; one example for me would be Keith Hopkins - and I'd argue that he's actually much more personal and distinctive in his 1980s articles on Roman economy and society than in his self-consciously experimental chapters in 'World Full of Gods', where he becomes an utterly faceless and generic would-be SF short story writer instead of a unique ancient historian...Neville Morleyhttp://thesphinxblog.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10659275.post-11064217400114656432014-10-08T19:09:27.043+01:002014-10-08T19:09:27.043+01:00Yes, that's an absolutely valid point.Yes, that's an absolutely valid point.Tony Keenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07125792825206480340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10659275.post-1265057896997836902014-10-08T16:55:56.872+01:002014-10-08T16:55:56.872+01:00As an addition to paragraph 8 of this article, I&#...As an addition to paragraph 8 of this article, I'd like to point out that fanworks* fans also write lots of what we call meta. Meta includes analysis of the texts we are fans of, and of the fanworks we create around them, and of the fandom community. It's another category of fannish writing, which is much overlooked.<br /><br />*I'm moving away from fanfiction fans as a category - our output is more varied than those words suggestKate Keennoreply@blogger.com