MLA 2005
It's time, once again, for the annual meeting of the Modern Language Association.
- "Blogging MLA," by Clancy Ratliff
- "MLA: The Random Example," by Scott Eric Kauffman
- "Nine Theses for the MLA Convention," by John Emerson
- "Three MLA Observations, one of them tangential," by The Little Professor
- "And I'm Off...," by Mel
- "And Finally, Done!," by Dr. Crazy
- "Incheckning," by Dr. Gaffel
- "Guilt Free," by KF
- "MLA! Hooray!," by Collin Brooke
- "MLA at Home," by Chuck Tryon
- "Off to MLA," at What Now?
- "Word Play at the MLA," at Inside Higher Ed
- "IHE on MLA," by Robert KC Johnson
- "Who's Afraid of the MLA," at TCS Daily
For now, my only observation will be (as I've said here in the past) that it is a shamefully shallow argument that is based solely on a familiarity with the titles of a few papers at the current or at previous meetings of the MLA.
UPDATE: As Henry and John Emerson point out in comments below, I should have been clearer in the last sentence above. Nick Gillespie writes
Despite its preeminence within academic literary and cultural studies, the MLA convention is the Rodney Dangerfield of such confabs, getting little or no respect not just from right-wingers who reliably scoff at the unmistakable left-wing bent to the proceedings but from liberal mainstream media who eye the jargon-choked pronouncements of the professoriate with equal helpings of disdain, derision, and dismissiveness.
Yet most of the "mainstream media" who bother to pay attention to the annual meeting of the MLA don't actually take a very in-depth look at what goes on there. Last year, I pointed to the annual offering on the MLA from the New York Times, "Eggheads' Naughty Word Games." As Gillespie notes, "somehow, the paper of record never seems to stop chuckling long enough to get around to actually reading the essays in question." Unfortunately, articles like this have successfully shaped the public's understanding of the annual meeting as a gathering of out-of-touch kooks, as the comments threads in various locations online demonstrate.
I would much rather read an article in which a writer attends the MLA and looks for (and actually attends) the panels that are most interesting to that writer, rather than the panels that appear most ridiculous. Although the MLA is not my favorite conference (too big, too chaotic) I've never had difficulty filling up my days with panels addressing topics that appeal to me: early modern literature, the digital humanities, and book history. Furthermore, the book exhibit (enormous!) and the cash bars are essential parts of the experience. And any account that fails to address the job interviews taking place at the annual meeting is really not worth reading. All of those elements are what make up the conference, not just the handful of silly titles one finds.
UPDATE 2: del.icio.us bookmarks for "mla2005" can be found here.
