Categories
Uncategorized

Works-in-Progress Workshop (12/01 at 4pm)

Photo by mentatdgt from Pexels

Want to get feedback on a draft of a seminar paper, conference paper, article, or dissertation chapter relating to the 18th or 19th centuries? Join us for a works-in-progress workshop on Wednesday, December 1 at 4:00 pm in CMU 202. Participants should submit their drafts to Laura Gehrke at lgehrke@uw.edu by Wednesday, November 24. 18/19 coordinators will group participants according to the length of their drafts, matching each participant with one or two others. Participants should read the drafts before meeting with the other writers to provide feedback on Dec. 1.

This peer-to-peer workshop is designed for graduate students at any stage in the program, from first-years to those finishing their dissertations. Any draft (including partial drafts) with a loose connection to the 18th or 19th centuries is welcome.

This event will be in person. Please wear a mask.

Questions? Contact Laura Gehrke at lgehrke@uw.edu.

Categories
Uncategorized

Reading Group: Priti Joshi’s Empire News: The Anglo-Indian Press Writes India (11/18 at 4pm)

We have the honor of hosting Priti Joshi (University of Puget Sound) to talk about her new book, Empire News: The Anglo-Indian Press Writes India (SUNY Press, 2021). This is an in-person event, to be held on Thursday, November 18 at 4:00 pm in Denny Hall, Room 256 (DEN 256).

Prior to the event, participants are encouraged to read the Introduction and Chapter Two of Empire News, “Through a Glass Darkly: The Great Exhibition and the Great Indian Contractor.” Contact Laura Gehrke for PDFs at lgehrke@uw.edu. After Priti’s talk, we will have time for discussion.

Proof of vaccination and mask required.

Questions? Contact Laura Gehrke at lgehrke@uw.edu.

Categories
Uncategorized

Meet and Greet (10/14 at 4pm)

Meet new people, catch up with old friends, and learn about what 18/19 has planned for the 2021-2022 school year! Join us on Thursday, Oct. 14 at 4:00 pm for a fun meet and greet on the patio of Shultzy’s Bar & Grill on The Ave (4114 University Way NE, Seattle, WA 98105). 18/19 will buy one drink per person (21+), plus some bar food to share. The cozy, outdoor setting allows us to relax and socialize in the safety of good ventilation.

Bring proof of vaccination, and dress warmly!

Categories
Uncategorized

The Victorian Cult of Shakespeare Reading Group

Join us at 4pm on Wednesday, March 3 for an event celebrating our very own Charles LaPorte’s new book, The Victorian Cult of Shakespeare: Bardology in the Nineteenth Century, out now from Cambridge University Press. Charles will give a short talk about his book at the beginning of the event, and then there will be plenty of time for discussion.

Prior to the event, we will be reading the Introduction and parts V and VI of Chapter One. Readings will be made available to those who register for the event. You can also listen to Charles talking about his book on the Folger Shakespeare Library podcast Shakespeare Unlimited by clicking here.

This event will take place on Zoom. Registration required: https://washington.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJAlduCvqzIoGdekfvdcUaH6GlXdLU5jKKRO

Direct questions to Laura Griffith at lgriff2@uw.edu.

Categories
Uncategorized

Valentine’s Day Reading Group 02/11

Join us for a casual reading group meeting in which each participant contributes one short, Valentine’s-Day-themed text to share and discuss. Texts can be poetry, prose, or images, and they can address anything related to love, hearts, St. Valentine, or anything else that strikes you as appropriate to the theme.

This event will be held on Zoom at 4pm Pacific Time on Thursday, February 11, 2021.

Registration required. To register, click here: https://washington.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJwvceytrj0rGNRE7D8weakg9laKC1CVk_MN

Once you register you will receive a confirmation email that contains the link to the Google Drive where participants can upload their texts.

Categories
Uncategorized

Douglas Ishii on academic publishing

On Thursday, Nov. 19, 2020 the Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Graduate Research Cluster hosted a panel on academic publishing. Douglas Ishii, one of our panelists, was kind enough to write up some thoughts he did not have a chance to share at the panel. Here they are:

BOOK AND STUFF

Someone asked me directly (I am so sorry, I know your face and the hue of your background walls) about my experience of revising the dissertation into a book.  I am dissatisfied with my answer!  I will take this unsolicited opportunity to elaborate on my thought.


What I mean to say is that, as you fashion and refine your original contribution to a scholarly conversation over the course of one to four years, while also finding your place in the larger scholarly community, your ideas will inevitably change.  Some of those ideas will make it to a dissertation revision; others will not and will wait until “The Book.”  Your dissertation might go forward with some parts that you know are not as relevant to your thinking now as when you wrote that chapter.  Similarly, when your committee reads your dissertation, they will provide some revisions that are required to graduate, and others to think about for “The Book.”


So, my experience is particular to me because it’s been six years since graduation; it also is rather applicable as more people aspiring for tenure-track jobs take on one or more contingent or postdoctoral positions before landing one (or changing career paths).  I did not choose to focus immediately on getting a book contract, though I did do archival research and figured out chapters to add that spoke to a key question that both interviewers and my committee had about the scope of the project.  I did focus on expanding my range of scholarly publications.  The article (a part of the dissertation that did not seem relevant to the new direction of the book) and the two chapters for edited volumes (one is thinking through my “Second Book”) I wrote in my postdoc and my second lectureship provided the space of thinking and feedback that clarified the direction of the book, as opposed to the dissertation, as well as the opportunity to crystalize some conceptual issues I had been thinking about toward the end of the dissertation process.


In sum: The Book is different than the dissertation, not only because of matters of genre and audience and professionalization, but because your thinking should necessarily always be growing and shifting and reframing and crumbling in on itself and meandering in new directions.  For now, focus on your dissertation without worrying so much about The Book until your adviser says so.


“TRENDY” WORK

Laura posed a question about following trends.  I am ambivalent (as I am about most things – except for following your publishing aspirations and being present at conferences).  It is absolutely crucial to have your fingers on the metaphorical pulse of your fields, which is one way I interpret the word “trends,” because this is a way of being part of the conversation that drives us to new avenues of inquiry.  However, I disagree with people who try to frame their projects to whatever’s popping for the sheer fact that it seems buzzworthy/marketable.  Yeah, some people do get ahead by riding trends – and others don’t.  I think that writing a longer-form article or a dissertation takes so much focus and energy and work that I turn most to the vocabularies, recent scholarship, and field conversations that feel authentic and necessary in propelling my own thinking.


An anecdote: I was pulling together my exam list during the affective turn in cultural studies, and, you know, affect is one of those theoretical turns that both became part of the water while also continuing to move in new directions.  Affect theory was the beginning and end of so many conference panels those years, and it has and continues to shape my thinking.  In seeing what parts of my dissertation fit into the book, the chunk of pages in which I read an Asian American music film to speak back to the deracination of certain new materialisms was the first to hit the cutting room floor.  However, the larger questions that the affective turn has helped me ask and answer about emotionality, collectivity, and political inclination remain relevant as ever.

BOOK REVIEWS

Laura posed a question about if and when to start doing book reviews, and Marshall offered a great answer.  I just want to build on that advice.  I will be encouraging my grad advisees to think seriously about their first book review post-exams.  Since the purpose of exams is to demonstrate your knowledge of cultural and critical fields, all of that reading becomes the foundation from which your review will draw.  As you think about your prospectus and dissertation, you will have to make the full transition from identifying what a piece of scholarship doesn’t do to recognizing what a piece of scholarship does do, and how that makes an intervention in the larger critical conversation.  With a fresh take on the state of the field and a mind toward thinking seriously about contributions and interventions, graduate students, I have found, make for really great reviewers.  (Do not write the snarky yelp-style review focused only on shortcomings and limits.  No one likes that dude.)


Another anecdote: my first academic publication was an unsolicited book review.  I chose a field-specific journal in which I wanted my name to appear that I knew also published book reviews.  I went to the journal’s site and read their note from the Reviews Editor to see if they took unsolicited book review proposals.  (I hope you’re not reading this as talking down, sometimes I literally needed and still need someone to tell me to check with the publication.)  The way my experience worked out is that I wrote an email to the Reviews Editor with a fresh-off-the-presses book in mind; I was already a fan of the author, and from watching her at conferences I knew that the book would be relevant to my dissertation.  The Reviews Editor agreed and, after a 4-month period of submitting an original draft, revising, and checking proofs, the rest is history.  The Reviews Editor remains a treasured mentor I delight in seeing at conferences; the author read the review in preparing her tenure file and we had a wonderful conversation about my dissertation; and it turns out some people found it helpful!

A side note: after your first book review, I might encourage you to look seriously into your first full-length, peer-reviewed article.  Especially if you do a great job, the journal or related journals might solicit a book review from you.  Which is great!  But know that a 3p. book review will not carry the same value as a 15-24p. piece of original inquiry.

Categories
Uncategorized

Marshall Brown on academic publishing

On Thursday, Nov. 19, 2020 the Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Graduate Research Cluster hosted a panel on academic publishing. Marshall Brown, one of our panelists, who has decades of experience on the editing side of publishing as well as extensive publications of his own, was kind enough to write up his responses to the questions. Here they are:

• Knowing that the publishing process comes with a certain amount of rejection, how do you manage your expectations for your article submissions? Do you have a process for handling being rejected—or receiving a particularly nasty reader’s report?

——————-Journal readers do it as volunteer work, pressed for time, not always with the right kind of expertise, and as fallible as the rest of us.  A bad report can sometimes be hostile, but mostly it’s just bad luck or inexperience on the reader’s or editor’s part.  If the comments don’t make sense or there aren’t any comments, thank the editor (if you can bear it), and send it elsewhere.  If it happens three times, take a deep breath, do more reading, and rethink it.  I had an essay rejected three times two years ago and followed my own advice. 

The editor is a person.  So is/are the reader/s.  If you have been misunderstood, occasionally you can explain that to the editor and ask for a second chance.  Or (if it seems compatible with the report) ask if the editor would be willing to consider a rewrite, explaining how you would do it.  That has sometimes worked at MLQ.

What is the etiquette for getting feedback, especially from one’s professors, on drafts of articles?

——————–No problem from the journal’s perspective.  And, as Jesse said at the event, your faculty mentors are among your friends.  Of course we ask our friends for input all the time.  Others above us have done it for us, many times, and we return the favor down (as well as sideways and up).  I had 22 letters in my tenure file; I have never forgotten that.

• I submitted an article. How long should I wait before I send a follow-up email?

——————-I suggest 2 months, unless the journal website says something different.  “Could you let me know the status of my submission?”  Sending an inquiry is not pestering.  Sometimes it helps.  Claire said 3 months.  It might depend partly on your schedule.  Journals and presses can be infernally slow.  The worst case I heard about was a colleague in my first job who had an essay turned down after 18 months.  The journal was Notes and Queries.  The essay was a 2-page note.

• They told me to revise and resubmit my article. What next?

——————–Revise and resubmit, like they say.  You have a 50% chance of acceptance.  Do read the editor’s message carefully.  Sometimes what sounds like a rejection is actually meant to be R&R.  The R&R form wording from PMLA used to begin something like this: “I am sorry to inform you that your essay has not been accepted.”  If you aren’t sure how to interpret the response, write and ask.  Do this promptly, while everything is fresh in the editor’s or reader’s mind.  You may need to use your judgment in interpreting reports.  One ubiquitous vice of reports is “a bit.”  (Jesse has been guilty of this one, but never again, once he has been publicly shamed.)  Readers don’t want to be too harsh, so they may write, “the essay is a bit too long,” when they really mean it should be cut by a third.

When you resubmit, include a detailed accounting of your revisions, including explanations where you differed from the reports, as is always your right.  Indeed, I always think it looks better if you aren’t merely subservient.  

• What are some risks/scams that graduate students should watch out for?

———————The risk that I’ve seen students fall prey to is committing an essay to an uncertain book publication idea.  The book has to be assembled, pitched to one press after another, waiting for reports at several stages.  It can take years.  These can be excellent opportunities if they are already slated for publication or if you have sufficient confidence that the collection editor will get it done, but they can also be traps for the unwary.

• How do you use conferences to support your writing and publishing process?

——————–I use them especially for initial stages of developing an idea.  I always practice delivering them out loud at home several times.  Listening to myself read is very illuminating about the flow. As I practice reading, I often find myself filling in gaps extempore.  This are places to expand as you write.  Sometimes at the session there are helpful questions, sometimes good contacts.

• Do you pay much attention to what’s trendy in academic work or do you think that’s not worth considering given potential long timelines for publishing articles?

———————You care about acceptance, not about publication.  Once it’s accepted, it goes on your CV, no matter how long the publication delay, over which you have no control.  As for trendiness; often trends are led by smart, original minds finding new opportunities.  Don’t shy away from them.  Still, over the decades, I have always felt that you’re usually best off doing what interests you the most.  I make an exception are areas that are truly on the wane.  A field where there is no demand is unpromising.  My experience does include some bad times and some difficult situations; the golden age of the humanities was over by horizon.  But the times are worse now.

• How do I choose a journal?

——————1) See if you can get any advice about whether it’s well run.  Some journals (PMLA!) can be very slow.  2) Then, choose a journal that publishes essays like yours.  If it has published essays that you cite, that’s generally a good sign.  3) If your topic is specialized, you stand a somewhat better chance of a well-informed reading from a specialized journal, such as one devoted to your author.  4) I think a CV looks more impressive if it starts with a good enough placement and moves up the line.

• When (in my education/career) should I start trying to get articles published?

——————The right kind of publication opens some doors; it can even close others.  Community colleges are not looking for publishing scholars.  If you wind up never publishing, that doesn’t make you a worse person (and vice versa), just different.  But the process is slow; if you want credentials on your CV, you need to start at least a year before you want acceptance to show up, and preferably two years.

• How much revision/polishing should I do on an article before I submit it?

——————1) As much as you can, without losing time.  If it’s going to sit for an extended period, then better on their desktop than on yours.  Do take the time to proofread very carefully and to recheck quotes.  It’ll make no difference with 90% of readers, but it will hurt you sometimes, so it’s a small amount of time well spent.  2) Do make sure that a dissertation chapter has been cut to size, has an introduction that makes it free-standing, and doesn’t refer to itself as a chapter.  If the opening sentence reads as if it’s the next step in a continuing discussion, it may get much less serious attention.  3) I have repeatedly had to spend two months doing additional primary and secondary reading after I thought an essay was ready (and following three rejections), to spruce up the framing and the annotations.  A slogan that I find often valid is that an excellent seminar paper or dissertation chapter shows you to be an expert on its topic, whereas a strong essay presents you as an expert in the field.  For instance, show that you have read widely in your author’s output, not just the work you are focusing on.  4) Do check the journal’s website for their specs, observe them, and if you’re in any way out of compliance, note that in your cover message and promise to work on it on the rebound.  Currently, I have an essay in hand that’s longer than the journal I’m thinking of asks for.  But I looked at what they’ve published, and it’s often longer than their spec, so I’ll mention that in the cover message.  5) My generic advice at MLQ is a 9,000 word limit.  If the essay is a reading of one or two texts, then really 7,500 is usually better.  6) A GOOD TITLE IS A BIG HELP.  It’s a selling point, draws readers, and can help you develop your ideas.  My essays have often begun with their titles.  You can look through the titles on my CV.  There are good ones and bad ones.  You’ll see the difference.  My worst title was The Gothic Text.  That book isn’t really unified, and I couldn’t come up with a better title.  No one reads that book.  7) I have writing advice posted at faculty.washington.edu/mbrown/writing.pdf.  It’s just one guy’s feelings, not gospel.  But it’s free, and you are welcome to poach from it.

• How does one go about writing and publishing book reviews? Do they have to be solicited?

——————–I consider unsolicited requests to review books.  I doubt that I’m alone in that.  If the book looks appropriate for the journal, I ask to see a writing sample.  I have sometimes commissioned reviews on that basis.  I like to find reasons to give early-career scholars opportunities.  I trust that most editors feel that way.  We have all been starters and know something of what it’s like.

Please don’t use “a bit,” or any comparable expression, in your review.  That’s a personal plea, not professional advice.

• Any other words of wisdom?

——————–“There is no system.  There are only people.”  See my responses to the first question and to the last before this one.

Categories
Uncategorized

Academic publishing panel (11/19 on Zoom)

Click here to view Marshall Brown’s answers to the questions posed at the panel.

Click here to view Douglas Ishii’s follow-up responses.

Join us for a faculty and grad-student panel on academic publishing on Thursday, November 19 at 4:30pm PST on Zoom.

Academic publishing can be daunting and baffling, especially to graduate students who are expected to publish but who do not know how to go about it. A panel of faculty and graduate students in English will talk about their experiences with academic publishing and answer your burning questions!

Panelists:

  • Marshall Brown
  • Jesse Oak Taylor
  • Douglas Ishii
  • Claire Barwise
  • Alex McCauley
  • Matt Poland

Zoom registration required: https://washington.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJwrduqupjIqHNWozanzGRV1yzBjlxgVWZTE

The panel will be facilitated by Laura Griffith. Please direct any questions to her: lgriff2@uw.edu.