I think (though this is undoubtedly oversimplified) I’m less interested in the text qua text, but think of it as another piece of evidence. As with all evidence, I read critically - for genre, audience, purpose, assumptions, silences, etc. - to put it in dialogue/1
-
-
With other evidence. How does a text relate to the society in which it’s written? I ask historical questions, not literary ones. Who are the people? Who has power? Why these people, here? What changes, why? There’s overlap, but no one would ever mistake me for a lit scholar.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 9 tykkäystä -
This is such a great discussion. What’s striking about
@susandamussen’s questions here is that a lot of lit people would want to ask them too.1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 8 tykkäystä -
Yes we would and do.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä -
That’s why I said it was a vast oversimplification! But when I read your work, or Kim’s, or Fran Dolan that we’re approaching things from a different angle. It’s hard to pinpoint. Been thinking about this a lot trying to think through why E M historians do so little re race.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 6 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @susandamussen, @Elysabethgrace ja
Isn’t it because they don’t count our evidence as evidence? And so they can now claim that Black people were in early modern England because a historian now says they’re were when Imtiaz Habib had already done that work years earlier?
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 4 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @DrDadabhoy, @susandamussen ja
this was my experience with history profs in undergrad - what would count as evidence in literary studies didn't count as evidence for them
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 4 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @carometonym, @susandamussen ja
I still have this convo with historian colleagues.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 4 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @DrDadabhoy, @Elysabethgrace ja
I apologize on behalf of my colleagues. (And FWIW, I cite Imtiaz Habib - it's so important.) I think what's different is that we assess evidence differently: for the same reason, lit scholars don't always value my reading of plays.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @susandamussen, @DrDadabhoy ja
I started as a history student and moved to literary studies from there, and it took a long time to figure out how to read texts like a lit student; I think maybe I was reading texts for what they revealed about an event/time/etc
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 4 tykkäystä
This is a hard one and something I think about quite a bit because I’m in an interdisciplinary Humanities department: how do we orient ourselves to our objects and what we ask of or through them.
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjille @DrDadabhoy, @Elysabethgrace ja
Our Ph.D. is Interdisciplinary Humanities, but I don't think we've really had the hard conversations yet.
0 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 4 tykkäystäKiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.