[Hey! If you read this, whether you're a regular reader or not--whether or not you even like this blog--would you please leave a comment? Thanks!]
I've been posting to this blog less and less over the past year, and I think it's only partially a matter of not having enough time due to studying for general exams, doing archive work, and (in a few weeks) teaching. I'm also just having trouble motivating myself to sit down and write about things. I'm not sure, though, that the best solution is to accept it and "go on hiatus" (which, like "taking a break" in a relationship, is almost always code for "it's over, I just don't want to admit it"). So I'm turning to you, the readers Google Analytics tells me I still have.
When I first started Slawkenbergius's Tales just over four years ago, I established a few fairly arbitrary ground rules for myself: each post would be an attempt to flesh out some interesting minor idea, usually found in the depths of some canonical text; each post would at least be long enough to sketch the idea out in a rudimentary fashion; no book or author could be featured twice. (I've broken that one a couple of times.) This happened to work well with the kind of reading I was doing as a 20-year-old baby intellectual, but I'm not sure it's working quite as well for me as a 24-year-old PhD candidate.
First, the reading I'm doing now tends to be rather specialized and frankly very boring to anyone who isn't an academic historian (and frequently even to those who are). After reading twenty variations on Terror, Power, and Revolution: One Social Group and Another Social Group in Some Boring Russian Province in the 1930s or The Discourse of Enlightenment: Five Randomly-Selected Eighteenth-Century French Authors Shelved Next to Each Other at Bodleian, I'm not usually particularly excited to go through them in search of the merest crumb of something mildly compelling to a lay audience. And then, when I want to take a break, I'm sure as hell not turning to the volume of Vico that has been silently guilt-tripping me from my shelf for the past year and half. I read fantasy, and I don't read it for the ideas.
The result, inevitably, is that I don't have much to bring back to y'all, and I feel guilty about all the interesting canonical and classic works I should be reading and writing about as I tear through another saga about a strong-yet-graceful-and-clever swordsman-musician-scholar-ninja-wizard and his buxom red-haired entourage. Part of me feels like this is a natural evolution: I've shifted from a kind of unguided semi-autodidacticism to a more focused and in-depth style of scholarly work, the kind of style that is ideally going to help me finish my dissertation before some brainy CS major figures out how to do it without human intervention. Another part of me wants to resist overspecialization and recoils in horror at the idea that one day I, too, will be writing tedious Enlightenment books of use to nobody except the people who make money from pulping remainders, and thinks keeping up a blog like this is a way to keep those outward-turning muscles toned.
If I go with the first idea, I'm going to be honest with myself and shutter this blog, because even I don't want to write six posts a month about how the Russian trade caravan was delayed by local officials in Solikamsk in 1735 and what that means for the politics of reputation in the republic of letters. Ugh. If I go with the second idea, I would in theory finally read that Vico and those thousands of other Great Books and energetically write new and thought-provoking things about them, but in practice would probably spend more time feeling guilty and stressed out that I'm not doing that (which is more or less what is happening now).
Rather than make an unappealing choice between these two alternatives, I want to ask you: what kind of content would you like to see on this blog? Longer, shorter, more inside baseball about Russia, less inside baseball about Russia? Do you even care? Is asking these kinds of questions inherently narcissistic? Should I just accept that all things must come to an end? Any kind of input would be nice.
I've been posting to this blog less and less over the past year, and I think it's only partially a matter of not having enough time due to studying for general exams, doing archive work, and (in a few weeks) teaching. I'm also just having trouble motivating myself to sit down and write about things. I'm not sure, though, that the best solution is to accept it and "go on hiatus" (which, like "taking a break" in a relationship, is almost always code for "it's over, I just don't want to admit it"). So I'm turning to you, the readers Google Analytics tells me I still have.
When I first started Slawkenbergius's Tales just over four years ago, I established a few fairly arbitrary ground rules for myself: each post would be an attempt to flesh out some interesting minor idea, usually found in the depths of some canonical text; each post would at least be long enough to sketch the idea out in a rudimentary fashion; no book or author could be featured twice. (I've broken that one a couple of times.) This happened to work well with the kind of reading I was doing as a 20-year-old baby intellectual, but I'm not sure it's working quite as well for me as a 24-year-old PhD candidate.
First, the reading I'm doing now tends to be rather specialized and frankly very boring to anyone who isn't an academic historian (and frequently even to those who are). After reading twenty variations on Terror, Power, and Revolution: One Social Group and Another Social Group in Some Boring Russian Province in the 1930s or The Discourse of Enlightenment: Five Randomly-Selected Eighteenth-Century French Authors Shelved Next to Each Other at Bodleian, I'm not usually particularly excited to go through them in search of the merest crumb of something mildly compelling to a lay audience. And then, when I want to take a break, I'm sure as hell not turning to the volume of Vico that has been silently guilt-tripping me from my shelf for the past year and half. I read fantasy, and I don't read it for the ideas.
The result, inevitably, is that I don't have much to bring back to y'all, and I feel guilty about all the interesting canonical and classic works I should be reading and writing about as I tear through another saga about a strong-yet-graceful-and-clever swordsman-musician-scholar-ninja-wizard and his buxom red-haired entourage. Part of me feels like this is a natural evolution: I've shifted from a kind of unguided semi-autodidacticism to a more focused and in-depth style of scholarly work, the kind of style that is ideally going to help me finish my dissertation before some brainy CS major figures out how to do it without human intervention. Another part of me wants to resist overspecialization and recoils in horror at the idea that one day I, too, will be writing tedious Enlightenment books of use to nobody except the people who make money from pulping remainders, and thinks keeping up a blog like this is a way to keep those outward-turning muscles toned.
If I go with the first idea, I'm going to be honest with myself and shutter this blog, because even I don't want to write six posts a month about how the Russian trade caravan was delayed by local officials in Solikamsk in 1735 and what that means for the politics of reputation in the republic of letters. Ugh. If I go with the second idea, I would in theory finally read that Vico and those thousands of other Great Books and energetically write new and thought-provoking things about them, but in practice would probably spend more time feeling guilty and stressed out that I'm not doing that (which is more or less what is happening now).
Rather than make an unappealing choice between these two alternatives, I want to ask you: what kind of content would you like to see on this blog? Longer, shorter, more inside baseball about Russia, less inside baseball about Russia? Do you even care? Is asking these kinds of questions inherently narcissistic? Should I just accept that all things must come to an end? Any kind of input would be nice.
This sounds cliché, but: if there's no way of making your PhD research interesting, then maybe your thought about it isn't fully developed. (I was going to say "interesting for a lay audience" but from what you've written here you seem to think it is more simply boring, full stop.) I, for one, would be interested in seeing whatever approach you take grow to the point where it's more generally relevant, or at least starts having something to say about goings-on outside its borders. It would be particularly sad to see you consign yourself to academic obscurity, especially considering what you've written about academia and its future here and elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteAll that said, if you do stop blogging, keep all the old entries up! They're gold.
I want to ask you: what kind of content would you like to see on this blog? Longer, shorter, more inside baseball about Russia, less inside baseball about Russia? Do you even care?
ReplyDeleteI care, but I care more about reading what you write than about what particular subjects you cover. Longer or shorter doesn't matter except in terms of which makes it easier for you to keep up the blog; I find at LH that sometimes I just want to toss off a brief squib and sometimes I feel like going on at length about something, and I don't feel those are incompatible alternatives one has to choose between.
As for topics, I love inside baseball about Russia, and I even love stories about how the Russian trade caravan was delayed by local officials in Solikamsk in 1735, but I guess I'm not the average reader. I would certainly rather read about Russia than Vico, but frankly, whatever makes you want to keep the blog going is fine with me. You have an interesting mind and a good prose style, and I would be sad not to have new posts to look forward to.
Personally I'm really curious about the fate of that trade caravan in Solikamsk in 1735. Can you tell us more?
ReplyDeleteAs to the questions you pose... I'll keep reading what you write, so blog what you feel like. You haven't bored me yet.
Enjoy reading your posts. Enjoy inside baseball on Russia, and wouldn't mind shorter posts if it meant you kept this up.
ReplyDeleteI found your blog via Language Hat and really like your perspective on a variety of things. As your compatriot, I would enjoy baseball about Russia; as well as more obscure topics - it makes your blog a great source of unexpected learning. I hope you keep it up, and I second the plea to keep the archive available.
ReplyDeleteI've been reading your posts for a while mainly because I like your approach, including your posts connected to your present research work : je vous le dis en français par ce que c'est la langue que je maîtrise le mieux, mais j'apprécie votre façon de questionner votre travail ou vos lectures ou même vos propres arguments. The content of your posts has been very often of high interest for me (found your last posts really interesting)... So I trust your choice for what will be next, and just hope you'll keep on posting. Anyway, thanks to you for those moments of great reading.
ReplyDeleteI found your blog via your Metafilter profile, after I noticed that many of the posts that stood out from the noise there were from you.
ReplyDeleteThese are recent posts that I liked enough to share with friends:
http://slawkenbergius.blogspot.com/2011/06/archives-antiquarianism-and-digital-age.html
http://slawkenbergius.blogspot.com/2011/05/empire-and-barbarians.html
http://slawkenbergius.blogspot.com/2011/04/few-fine-men.html
http://slawkenbergius.blogspot.com/2011/04/genre-machine.html
All of these posts are on topics other than your research, which might confirm your suspicions, but the analysis is interesting enough and the viewpoint engaging enough that I would pay to read it. I always appreciate your perspective, both here and on Metafilter. I hope that if you do shutter this blog, you keep writing elsewhere.
I agree with languagehat; though I'm less interested in Russian history than the two of you I read this blog to hear you write about what interests you, not what I think interests me. So please keep it up (and get around to Vico!)
ReplyDeleteYeah, whatever,.. get round to Vico. I actually had my copy of New Science in my lap when I read the above so I'm definitely interested in whether you can make sense of it without resorting to more learned authorities.
ReplyDeleteI would be happy to read anything you continue to post. To say my knowledge of Russian history is limited is an understatement, but I nevertheless tend to take something from each of your posts (whatever the topic). I've always been impressed with how polished your entries are - as a PhD student, myself, I have an idea of the ways in which this vocation can hinder such a blogging style.
ReplyDeleteAn infrequently updated blog isn't always the worst thing in the world. And sometimes, taking a break really is a good idea - and not necessarily code for "it's over." (But what do I know? I still harbor hope for Varieties of Unreligious Experience...)
I, for one, would greatly enjoy reading about the Russian trade caravan which was delayed by local officials in Solikamsk in 1735. None of your posts are boring, probably due to your talent in writing and sense of humor.
ReplyDeleteGreg, I cracked up three separate times while reading this post and regaled my wife with the book titles. As usual you've nailed something and done it elegantly and with a delightful dry wit, with the perception and depth to stand out from both the pomposities and unintentionally hilarious superficialities of the academic blogosphere.
ReplyDeleteI think of this as one of the two or three very best blogs I read. I almost never know much about what you're writing about, and I don't always have the headspace handy while I'm in blog mode to think it as deeply as your posts deserve, but I'm never less than intrigued. If I want to learn something and be kicked up to a higher level I come on over here. I would be very sad to see this go, although I share your ambivalence about the projects of both micro and macro publishing in our weird little sandboxes.
I don't really care what you write about - I want to read it. And if you do decide to mothball this salon, or if you'd just like a place for more casual/occasional outward-turning muscle toning, we'd be delighted to have you over at Dead Voles.
Stuff about Russian politics and political philosophy would be sweet.
ReplyDeleteI want inside baseball, please.
ReplyDeleteI'm flabbergasted. Thanks for the feedback, all! I'll keep on truckin', I think.
ReplyDeleteLate in the game, but I'd like to add that you have a knack of writing interestingly about topics about which I don't know much, and on the issues where I know a bit more about, you're well-informed and have opinions worth thinking about. So it's good if you continue!
ReplyDeleteNow, what about that caravan? Or did you make that one up? (This is Hans - for whatever reason, the Google / Blogger log-in doesn't work when i wnat to post here.)
Are all you Anonymi aware of the Name/URL option in the dropdown? It's a lifesaver; the the Google / Blogger log-in has been a total FAIL for some time now.
ReplyDeleteYes, more about that caravan stuck in Volokolamsk!
ReplyDeletePlease keep writing about whatever you find interesting. I'll keep reading.
ReplyDeleteLargesse!! Largesse!! We are honored and humbled to receive your excellent blog - or at least I am. I hope it doesn't stop, but that is the natural way of blogs.
ReplyDeleteI am also late I guess, but I agree! I find it very enjoyable to read what you write and love your style.
ReplyDeleteI wandered over here via your Metafilter account info page some time back, and your blog has been on my "check daily" list ever since. I rather enjoy the detailed academic stuff, myself, and from other comments here it seems I'm not alone.
ReplyDeleteI just thought I'd throw my own two cents in: I envy the consistency with which you manage to write such stimulating posts as you do. I've tried a few times to restart my own blog, but I have yet to get very far. Maybe I've already suffered too much from academic specialization, weird reading and intellectual fatigue, but I think it comes down to a lack of ideas or the means of expressing them. You have ideas, and have them often, and you find a way to put them on the page without too much trouble. I admire that.
ReplyDeleteDon't be h8ing on the Vico-man. Otherwise, please keep truckin'. Your blog is always a pleasure to return to.
ReplyDeleteI've come across this blog a couple times via google searches (mainly having to do with Enlightenment/early modern stuff) and I've been impressed by the quality of your writing/analysis even if I haven't necessarily agreed with it. I say keep at it; there are way too many bad history blogs on the internet, why shelve one of the well-informed ones?
ReplyDelete-Ben