Friday, August 22, 2008

Crawling out of my hidey-hole . . .

well, maybe not quite yet, but between processing our garden produce (which is quite bountiful) and preparing for the Fall semester (which, perhaps somewhat ironically, I have been reading up on the pedagogical benefits and drawbacks of using blogs in the teaching of writing while surreptitiously neglecting my own blog), designing an intermediate composition course that both engages public affairs but does not, in any way, compromise academic and intellectual freedom nor displaces writing as the primary focus of the course, digging in to more dissertation work before the Fall, and preparing for my oldest, dearest friend's bridal shower and October wedding, I have woefully neglected my blog.

Not that I am complaining: to the contrary, this time of year is invigorating and exciting . . .

But back to my purpose, here (besides disrupting the illusion that I have abandoned my blog): any of you folks have experience using blogs in your teaching? Thoughts about it? Visceral reactions? I'd love to hear from ya'.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Tagged by the literati lizard. . .

My pal Bradley recently memed a little meme of literary classics, and I agreed to follow suit. So here goes:

Q1. What is the best classic you were “forced” to read in school (and why)?

Hmm . . . [scanning bookshelf]. This kind of question is precisely what makes canon discussions so darn difficult, no? Okay, so . . .

Today, at this moment, I’m thinking my choice must be Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man (though some may foolishly contest its canonical status). Here’s why:

Though separated by both time and war, Ellison’s novel seems to me the logical conclusion of two truly remarkable American moments, the Jazz Age and the Harlem Renaissance, in style, tone, and subject: for me, it’s like the literary grandchild of Dorothy Parker and Langston Hughes. Still almost painfully relevant, Invisible Man is uniquely, cogently, an American novel, one that speaks across multiple cultural moments---its narrator’s, its author’s, and this, our contemporary moment. Consider Ellison’s lines: “Step outside the narrow borders of what men call reality and you step into chaos [. . .] or imagination” (576) and “Life is to be lived, not controlled; and humanity is won by continuing to play in the face of certain defeat” (577). The book is worth reading for these passages alone.

In fact, it has been a decade since I last read it; I do believe it is time to have another look.


Q2: What was the worst classic you were forced to endure (and why)?

Vanity Fair. Vanity Fair. Oh, Dear God, Vanity Fair. Never has any author even come close to rivaling Thackeray’s contemptible, damnable characters. I hated them all. I hate him for writing them into existence. I realize that it is intentionally a “Novel without a Hero.” I don’t care. Vanitas Vanitatum be damned. I hate this novel. If I have to say much more, I will just start swearing uncontrollably.


Q3: Which classic should every student be required to read (and why)?

Though not fiction (and for some reason I just assumed we were talking fiction here), I’m going to jump genre and recommend that every student should be required to read and thoughtfully consider Aristotle’s On Rhetoric and Poetics (and since there is a quality compilation edition available, I’m counting these treatises as one). There is so much of value for anyone interested in language, discourse, civic participation, et al.

(and . . . can you require someone to ‘thoughtfully consider’ a work? Neat.)

If I must decide on a distinctly literary piece, however, then I’ll go with poetry here and select Dante’s The Inferno (the rest of the Divine Comedy should be recommended, but not required, reading).


Q4: Which classic should be put to rest immediately (and why)?

This is a tough one because even though there are a few classics I despise (Canterbury Tales, Vanity Fair, Tess of the D’Urbervilles, The House of Mirth, The Old Man and the Sea), I suppose I can see their literary value and purpose. But to put to rest a classic . . .

Well . . . it’s a major stretch, but I’ll go with the entire Star Trek corpus (including the franchise). Maybe only a cult classic, the novels were inspired by a bad ‘60s television show!? C’mon now. So I’ll go with a loose interpretation of ‘classic’ and ax Star Trek, effective immediately.

I’m also a little over the Kerouac hype, but I don’t know if I’d put On the Road to rest, per se---especially since I kinda dig it.


Q5: **Bonus** Why do you think certain books become classics?

Here I’ll adopt Kerr’s definition of curriculum and apply it to the classics: “nothing less than the statement a college [perhaps in this case, a culture] makes about what, out of the totality of man’s [sic] constantly growing knowledge and experience, is considered useful, appropriate, or relevant to the lives of educated men and women at a certain point of time.”

That, coupled with longevity--or perhaps the honoring of or curiousity about what has been “useful, appropriate, or relevant” to previous generations ---is, to my mind, what makes a classic.

I would also argue that craft has something to do with it, though that may be a troubled and tenuous argument.




And now, to plagiarize Bradley, if you are reading this, consider yourself tagged.

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Okay . . . just . . . breathe . . .

So, after my run this evening, my hubby drops this little bomb:

Kurt: So did ya’ read the sports news today?

Me: Oh! That Rodriguez and Michigan will pay up on what they owe WVU?

Kurt: Okay, no. The other sports news: a few of the Steelers shareholders have been shopping the team around. Not the Chairman---what’s his name?

Me: [with growing shock and panic] Dan Rooney?!

Kurt: Yeah, not him, but I guess his brother . . . and a few other family members who hold shares.

Me: But . . . . But . . . . [blathering, incomprehensible, breathless drivel]

[Pause]

But . . . Rooney! Pittsburgh! Steelers!

[Pause]

NO! Art Rooney bought that team in 1933! They can’t---

Kurt: Well, we’re in an age without loyalty . . .

Me: The Steelers are all about loyalty! They’ve only had three coaches in nearly 40 years!

[Pause]

Can’t . . . leave . . . Pittsburgh!

Must be Steelers. Must be Pittsburgh. Must be Rooney. Not good. Not good at all.

[Pause. Panic growing.]

No, no, no, no, no. Won’t happen. The City of Pittsburgh will NEVER let it happen. They can’t. Oh, they can’t. I don’t think I can breathe. I hope those other Rooneys don’t live in Pittsburgh . . . mob . . . pitchforks . . . torches . . . black tar, gold feathers . . .

How. Dare. They?!

[Frantic searching on the Web]

Okay . . . from Steelers.com:

“Steelers Chairman Dan Rooney stated, ‘I have spent my entire life devoted to the Pittsburgh Steelers and the National Football League. I will do everything possible to work out a solution to ensure my father’s legacy of keeping the Steelers in the Rooney family and in Pittsburgh for at least another 75 years.’”


And this guy, this Matthew J. Darnell, from Yahoo! Sports, I enjoy him:

Steelers fans can take comfort in the following:

• Druckenmiller [the team's prospective buyer] might be the only man on the planet who's worth more than $3 billion and regularly paints his face for football games

• He wore a Troy Polamalu jersey and a hard-hat to a game last year

• Will not sit in a luxury box, and prefers to be in the stands with like-minded Steelers fans

• There's no chance he'd move the Steelers out of Pittsburgh

• He'd let Dan Rooney control the team for as long as Rooney would like


Kurt: Well that’s good news, anyway. This Druckenmiller seems like a decent guy.

Me: I guess we’ll see. Ugh. I feel ill.

~end conversation~

For the love of all that is good and just and right and holy in this world, please---please!---don't mess with the Black and Gold!

Go Stillers!

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Never-friggin'-more

As if, as a die-hard Pittsburgh Steelers fan, I actually needed another reason to hate the Baltimore Ravens (aka 'Old' Browns):

Ravens to Offer Fans Free 'Peck-Your-Eyes-Out' Service

Trained ravens as mascots, the actual friggin' birds, ominously gliding around the stadium and screeching out touchdown and Go Ravens?!

My take?

Apocalyptic flurry of feathered, mite-infested, sharp-beaked, scaly-taloned ebony horror. Gah!

Friggin' GAH!

Auroral Kilometric Radiation (AKR)

Okay, so . . . the 3rd grade science geek in me is all kinds of excited about this clip from SPACE.com:

http://www.space.com/php/video/player.php?video_id=080627-earth-sounds

I've been a big fan of the aurora since the first time I saw it
over Lake Superior . . . .

Okay. Okay. My fascination with the aurora maybe began earlier when I learned about it via Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem's "Can You Picture That?" lyrics,

Lost my heart in Texas
Northern lights affect us
I keep it underneath my hat
Aurora Borealis
shinin' down to Dallas!
Can you picture that?
Can you picture that?


Yeah, well . . . learning comes from unusual places sometimes. Anywho . . .

These 'Earth sounds?' Seriously cool.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Back from my brain break . . .

at least for a while, and I’ve recently (re)turned my attention to what I’ve referred to in a previous post as the ‘professional parcel,’ the marketing of oneself in academe. It’s a funny little dance, isn’t it? Complicated, or perhaps enhanced?, a tad by open-access blogs et al. glimpses of persona via the Web. From my Higher Ed Leadership and org theory coursework (and experience), I’ve come to appreciate the importance of institutional culture, collegial and human resource frameworks, and ‘fit’ (for both the institution and the individual) when it comes to building, enhancing, or contributing to an academic community.

To frame it another way (in my brain’s vernacular), the interviewing/hiring process is, like academe itself, an inherently rhetorical project: the claimant works to establish a desirable ethos in order to persuade her audience that the ‘brand’ of professional teacher/scholar/administrator (logos) and general human being (pathos?), an ethos that lends itself to the going academic/community/professional climate and is consistent with (or at the very least amenable to) the institutional mission and goals. This makes sense to me, but moving theory into practice is not, as always, quite so straightforward.

When I think of my ideal positions, which all have at least some explicit administrative/policy/leadership component, I realize that though from my perspective my training, experience, and scholarship may support in very specific ways the responsibilities associated with the position(s), those hiring for those positions may not necessarily see the connection between, say, rhetoric and administration. Goodness knows I’ve had plenty of practice trying to explain my decision to minor in Ed Leadership and Policy Analysis, though the marriage of the discrete areas seems perfectly logical to me—but I also have something of a tendency toward the enthymematic argument because by the time I reason out a particular conclusion I am so intimately familiar with the premises that got me there that they seem so readily apparent that I worry I will insult my audience by their mention; of course, I also suspect I am not unique in this regard. At any rate, I imagine negotiating the challenge of professional ‘fit’ is shared by just about every person who ever sought a job.

But then there’s the tricky personal tab of the personnel file, the one that could certainly influence ‘fit’ in ways not readily predicted by assessment of the professional profile and posture. Bradley spent some time considering this aspect of the job market dynamic a while back, with specific regard for marriage and political alignment, and in today’s Chronicle, Na'ema Suleiman (pseudonym) frames the consideration in terms of parenthood, specifically motherhood.

For me, the questions are these:

Just how much relevant ‘pathos’ should a person offer when marketing the ‘professional parcel’? Or, more to the point, what ‘pathos’ is relevant?


Does a Web presence actually offer a reprieve from directly engaging these personal matters? Or, is allowing your Web presence to communicate the sticky details that may or may not impact ‘fit’ too evasive or even devious? Or (again) might it serve as a form of passive resistance to answer the kinds of unfortunate circumstances that would make such disclosures a professional liability?


And, finally, the old question persists: would I want to present a version of myself that is in any way fragmented or incomplete . . . would I want to misrepresent myself or my priorities in any way to land the dream job? Would I want a position that required this of me? And what if my professional priorities and my personal priorities are neither in conflict nor inextricably intertwined, but are, to a relevant degree, mutually exclusive? Then is the question of ‘relevant pathos’ moot?


I’d be interested to hear other folks’ thoughts on this. It is exciting, and a little unsettling, to consider . . . but the real question, for me, when it comes right down to it, is this: will all this deliberation actually help me land a job, and once I do, will it help me do my job well?

Thursday, June 5, 2008

Let Levi Ride!

In my earlier post today, I mentioned that the Tour de France begins one month from today. Now, in case you hadn't heard, the Tour has been plagued by doping scandals of every variety for several years now, and in an effort to clean up the sport, the ASO (that's the organization that regulates the sport) made the decision in February to ban Team Astana from competing in the Tour because of their past involvement in said scandals. Trouble is, Team Astana has undergone a complete renovation in the off season and, like a Phoenix rising from the ashes, has been completely reformed. With their decision, however, the ASO effectively met that Phoenix with the business end of an unfriendly double-barrel.

More to my point, part of Team Astana's reformation included inviting the incomparable Levi Leipheimer to lead the team, a man who joined Team Astana after the (sad) dissolution of the U.S. Team Discovery (formerly U.S. Postal . . . the team led for so many years by a Mr. Lance Armstrong--ever hear of him?).

I realize that of the three people who read my blog, two have absolutely no interest in sports (and that might be a generous estimate, on both counts). I also realize that support for cycling in the U.S. is just about nil. Still, Leipheimer is a dedicated competitor who has always conducted himself honorably. He is an athlete truly worthy of the iconic status of "role model" that is often too easily tossed around in our sports culture: disciplined, fair, humble, immensely talented, and possessing unbelievable endurance. He is the embodiment of all the sport, and especially the Tour, should want to represent.

So I am making an appeal to all you friendly academic types et al. who sometimes visit my musings here to take a half-minute to visit the Let Levi Ride Website and show your support. Please?