I wrote this for my PhD

First academic books rarely shake off the “I wrote this for my PhD” feel. Not to the detriment of their rigor or scholarship, a certain punctiliousness marks the surface of such writing. It’s difficult to pinpoint exactly where this feeling originates – perhaps from uniform section lengths, frequent citations of the primary corpus with careful gloss, and prominent advanced organization with much attention given to clarifying the exact scope of the project – but the canons of assessed academic writing have resulted in a style we might dub ‘doctoral lapidary’. It’s probably best that PhD candidates are not encouraged to flirt with belletrisme: the academy’s reputation rests, after all, on rigorous investigation and not effete stylistics. Yet, there’s an antsiness to the care of first books, written in the shadow of a jury’s hypothetical reproach, to make clear that they are doing this, and that that lies outside the scope of the present investigation.

(Perhaps not the best way to open a review. But I at least acquired a free book and learned that academic review work is not my cup of tea.)

This entry was posted in academia, bullshit, criticism, pointless rants, rejected book reviews. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s