Comparing\nthe lists of works cited in pre-1990s bibliography and in recent academic\npublications, it is obvious that we are about to reach a critical turning point\nafter which our secondary sources will overwhelm our writing. At least this is\nhow I feel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
There are,\nI think, two justifications for the use of quotations in academic work. One is\nthe need to prove that you know how to find the relevant sources\u2013a task now\nmade easier by digital databases but also more onerous, precisely because you\ncan download in one afternoon a torrent of information that takes time you\ndon\u2019t have to digest. The other is the need to show that your argumentation is\nin touch with current debates on your topic and that you\u2019re not rediscovering\nthe wheel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Beyond these\ntwo factors, it used to be the case that quotations were used to strengthen a\npoint of your thesis or because the author in question expressed an idea with\ngreater accuracy than you could muster. Now, every article begins with a\nbarrage of increasingly short quotations and numerous parenthetical references\nto other sources simply alluded to by author\u2019s surname, before a thesis can be\nminimally discerned. This is usually offered but only developed, if at all,\nmany paragraphs later into the article as the barrage of quotations and\nreferences continues. In contrast, pre-1990s articles often rely on a maximum\nof ten sources, often no more than six, leaving thus room for close reading\u2013which\nis what we need to do\u2013and more importantly, for the expression of new ideas in\ncreative ways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
How have we reached this situation? It\u2019s a simply matter of numbers: the amount of English Studies specialists publishing new work in the 21st<\/sup> century is simply staggering. This means that in order to produce a reasonable list of works cited that does not consume 50% of the paper, as researchers we need to invest an enormous time in a) making a list of the relevant bibliography, b) reading as much and as fast as we can, c) taking notes. Then, once we have amassed about as many words as we can write (this happens to me every time), we need to start paring down all the information so painstakingly amassed in order to select the few precious words we can quote. I tend to write much more than I need for the limited word count we can fill in journal articles or collective books, which means that I need to weigh very carefully every secondary source I insert, hoping nobody will notice omissions. Needless to say, I try but do not always manage to read in depth all the sources I use, for there must be a balance between the time we consume in writing each piece and its importance in our research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This issue\nof the proliferation of secondary sources is a problem affecting all topics,\nsince there are specialists in all areas. I grant that more bibliography is\ngenerated on the canonical classics than on newer work but writing about some\npopular favourites\u2013for instance, The\nHunger Games<\/em>\u2013is also daunting. Basically, no matter what you want to\ndiscuss it takes much longer to combine your writing with the sources than to\nexpress what you wish to say. My student tutorees often complain that once they\nread the bibliography on their topic they feel dismayed rather than encouraged,\nand almost crowded out of their dissertations by the many other researchers\nthey need to name. This was one of the reasons why I started writing this very\nblog: to be able to express my ideas in a simple, direct way without the\ncompulsory search for bibliography\u2013here I just quote what I really need to quote\u2013and\nthe insertion of footnotes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Catalan\nStudies matters are, naturally, very different. The number of specialists is\ntiny in comparison to those in English Studies, which means that whole\nstretches of Catalan Literature are still unexplored (or neglected, depending on\nhow you look at it). Last Saturday I presented the collective book I have\nedited, Explorant Mecanoscrit del segon\norigen: Noves lectures<\/em> (Orciny Press, http:\/\/www.orcinypress.com\/producto\/explorant-mecanoscrit-del-segon-origen-noves-lectures\/<\/a>),\nwhich is a translation of the monographic issue published in English in 2017 by\nthe online journal Alambique<\/em> (https:\/\/scholarcommons.usf.edu\/alambique\/vol4\/iss2\/<\/a>).\nI still marvel that this is pioneering work\u2013sorry to brag\u2013despite the fact that\nManuel de Pedrolo\u2019s best-known volume (he published 128!) has sold more than 1,500,000\ncopies since 1974 when it appeared and has been read practically by every\nCatalan speaker under 50. There was a gap to fill in, it seems, and I\u2019m glad to\nhave helped.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If you look\nat the works cited list for each of the six articles in the new volume, you\nwill immediately see that the bibliography on Pedrolo is far more limited than\nthat on his anglophone equivalents, such as Graham Greene or George Orwell. We\n(the six authors) have nonetheless used the whole bag of tricks to give each of\nour essays the expected list of 25\/35 secondary sources, almost scrapping the\nbottom of the barrel and bringing in an assortment of tangential items (such as\nnewspaper articles, documentaries and so on) into our work. I have enjoyed, for\nonce, the certainty that the limited list of extant sources is all the\navailable bibliography there is, and relished my familiarity with most of the\nentries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is why\nlast Wednesday 24 was such an exceptional day for me. I was invited to\nparticipate in the one-day conference at the Universitat de Barcelona, \u2018Manuel\nde Pedrolo, una mirada oberta\u2019, and I had the immense pleasure to see in the\nsame room most specialists in Pedrolo\u2013almost the complete bibliography! In no\nparticular order: Antoni Munn\u00e9-Jord\u00e0, V\u00edctor Mart\u00ednez-Gil, \u00c0lex Mart\u00edn,\nElisabet Armengol, Anna Maria Villalonga, Patrizio Rigobon, Francesc Ardolino,\nRamon X. Rossell\u00f3, Jordi Coca and my co-authors Pedro Nilsson-Fern\u00e0ndez and\nAnna Maria Moreno-Bedmar (who invited me, for which I\u2019m very thankful). This\nmay be a common situation for other researchers but, as a non-native specialist\nin English Studies I always have the impression that the inner circles of each\narea I\u2019m interested in happen elsewhere, and this is the first time when I find\nmyself not only part of a circle but in the presence of most of its members. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Beautiful\nas the meeting on Pedrolo was, it was also further proof that, generally\nspeaking, textuality is overwhelming conversation by which I mean that, because\nthe paper presentations were so many and so long, we had hardly time to debate\nthe issues we had ourselves raised. This is always frustrating to me, to the\npoint that once I considered with a friend the possibility of having a one-day\nconference organized on the basis of speed-dating, with academics actually\ntalking to each other for a few minutes at least and reading the papers either\nbefore or after the event. The way we do things now, interaction happens too\nseldom and too hurriedly, which means that what we produce in writing is not as\nadvanced as it might be. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Sometimes you need someone from outside to realize that things are far from ideal. A non-academic friend who attended the presentation of Explorant Mecanoscrit del segon origen<\/em> was very much surprised to see that some of my co-authors were meeting then for the first time. He had assumed that a collective book springs from a series of previous conversations in which we draw a plan for the volume, then divide the tasks and next spend time debating each point in our corresponding papers. I explained that actually we tend not to read each other\u2019s work when we participate in a collective volume until this is published (at least, I always do that), and he was flabbergasted. In a way, so am I but, then, as I have just pointed out, not even seminars have room for debate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I\u2019m not the\nonly one to be calling for a slowing down of academic life, of course, but the\nparticular bee in my bonnet is, I insist, conversation. In our frenzy to\nproduce texts than count as research, we have forgotten how to communicate with\neach other\u2013we read and quote each other, but this is not real conversation. It\nmight even be a sign of profound loneliness. In my days as a na\u00efve undergrad I\nimagined that joining academia would mean enjoying whole afternoons of intelligent\nconversation once morning lectures were over, but this has never happened. I\nreally believe in the traditional institution of the common room, but instead\nwhat we get is each researcher in their office answering e-mails. If we stop to\ntalk, this happens mostly in the corridor, as we rush from office to classroom\n(or bathroom!). Conversation has the bad reputation of being idle chat, when it\nmight solve the problem of how to slow down hectic academic life and produce\nless but better research. (And here I am, writing to whoever is reading me instead\nof discussing books with my ultra-busy Department colleagues\u2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, to sum\nup my sketchy argument today\u2013easy access to what others write thousands of\nmiles away is a miracle in comparison to my days as a pre-internet PhD\ncandidate, yet digitalization and the very growth of English Studies has also\ngenerated the burden of colossal works cited lists. Experiences like the recent\nPedrolo seminar show me that, sometimes, small is much better than big but also\nthat textuality carries too much weight in comparison to conversation. If only\nwe could re-learn the almost lost art of conversation, academic life would slow\ndown and we could produce better research. Less prolific, of course, but\ndeeper. (But, then, would quoting from live personal communication in papers be\nvalid?).<\/p>\n\n\n\n I wonder\nwhich Departments still have common rooms and whether they\u2019re ever used for\ntruly meaningful academic conversation. Or has this never happened?<\/p>\n\n\n\n I\npublish a new post every Tuesday (for updates follow @SaraMartinUAB). Comments\nare very welcome! Download the yearly volumes from: http:\/\/ddd.uab.cat\/record\/116328<\/a>.\nMy web: http:\/\/gent.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Comparing the lists of works cited in pre-1990s bibliography and in recent academic publications, it is obvious that we are about to reach a critical turning point after which our secondary sources will overwhelm our writing. At least this is how I feel. There are, I think, two justifications for the use of quotations in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":98,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1510","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1510","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/98"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1510"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1510\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1510"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1510"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1510"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}