This is an archived page. Images and links on this page may not work. Please visit the main page for the latest updates.

 
 
 
Read my book, TEACHING BEAUTY IN DeLILLO, WOOLF, AND MERRILL (Palgrave Macmillan; forthcoming), co-authored with Jennifer Green-Lewis. VISIT MY BRANCH CAMPUS AT INSIDE HIGHER ED





UD is...
"Salty." (Scott McLemee)
"Unvarnished." (Phi Beta Cons)
"Splendidly splenetic." (Culture Industry)
"Except for University Diaries, most academic blogs are tedious."
(Rate Your Students)
"I think of Soltan as the Maureen Dowd of the blogosphere,
except that Maureen Dowd is kind of a wrecking ball of a writer,
and Soltan isn't. For the life of me, I can't figure out her
politics, but she's pretty fabulous, so who gives a damn?"
(Tenured Radical)

Monday, September 18, 2006

Are Academics Tougher?


Daniel Drezner explicates The Siegel, a Chekhovian tragedy in one act:

[D]espite [Lee] Siegel's status as a professional critic, he seemed incapable of tolerating any form of criticism leveled at his writing -- even if the criticism was, in Siegel's eyes, an expression of pure id by anonymous commenters.

This might be a comparative advantage academics bring to the blogosphere -- thicker skins. All academics have had the experience of presenting their work to other scholars, and then have that work analytically sliced and diced by experts who know what they are doing (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Once you have undergone that kind of experience, having a commenter write the equivalent of, "Hey, Drezner, you're a f%$ing @*&hole and your argument sucks!" seems like an amusing trifle...



Not sure I agree. What's striking about academics, as Drezner says, is that they're accustomed to reasoned criticism of their writing. My co-author and I have just read through three closely argued pages of response to our manuscript, The Return of Beauty to Literary Studies. The reader for the press recommends publishing it, but he/she has plenty to say about certain sections that need revision. Not only do we expect that; we welcome it as a sign that the reviewer read our work carefully and took it seriously.

The ad hominem stuff of the blogosphere is very different. I think most academics -- protected from the fray -- would find it appalling.

No - I think the explanation for the Siegel fiasco lies in the man's peculiar combination of extremely intense vanity and extremely intense aggression.



That was an academic way of putting it. What I mean is he's out of his effing mind.