Dennis Redmond wrote:
>Well, there's a difference between US academia (which is in horrible,
>horrible shape right now) and criticism. There's still that 1% of all
>critical academic writing which has crucial, indispensable insights,
>making the hassle of wading through the remaining 99% worth it.
>
I agree with you about the proportions; that was my experience when
doing research. But I don't think you need the 99% to get the 1%. A lot
of the really good crit/scholarship I found was pre WWII. That is, it
was written when critical output wasn't required for holding on to
academic jobs. It was just done by those profs who were sufficiently
interested and passionate about their work to go the extra distance.
Joanna
>
>
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20051118/48b0a1af/attachment.htm>