Okay literary scholars, help me out here. My revision-and-submission plan is working so well that I have articles under consideration at four different publications, but now I've finished all the easy stuff and I need to tackle some more complicated projects. My next task is to revise a conference paper into a full-blown scholarly essay, but that requires significantly beefing up the scholarship, so I'm reading a big pile of books and articles on my author.
Nearly 20 years ago, a particular critic published an influential analysis of Mr. Author's work, and I would estimate that at least 90 percent of the books and articles I've read feel the need to respond in some way to that critic's argument. Now I have read Mr. Influential Critic and while I find his ideas interesting, they have no bearing whatsoever on the argument of my essay.
It's tiresome to see so many scholars fighting the same battle nearly 20 years after Mr. I.C. published his work, and I would prefer not to echo what has already been said (probably better!) by others. It's time to move the argument on to the next stage, but who has the authority to do that? No one wants to be accused of sloppy scholarship.
If I ignore Mr. I.C. entirely, I can foresee receiving a reader's report accusing me of carelessly overlooking essential scholarship on the topic, but on the other hand, I hate to include a critic simply to point out that his ideas are irrelevant to my argument. Is it better to ignore Mr. I.C., engage briefly with his ideas in order to show that they're not relevant, or dismiss him in a footnote?
I know what I would tell my students to do, but in this case I resist taking my own advice. How about you?
1 comment:
Dismiss Mr. I. C. with an endnote. That way you forestall the inevitable Mr. Gotcha without damaging the integrity of your text.
Post a Comment