1) Dreaded thread on why I think the response to postcritique is so vitriolic. Short version: Because literary studies is a discipline in search of an application.

2) Before I go on, I'll say from the outset that many in lit studies explicitly reject the idea that the field *should* have an application. My opinion is that's fine if you want to do book clubs, but if you want an institution you can't ignore that difficult issue. But anyway...
3) The evidence by this point is overwhelming that when lit scholars talk about 'method' we're actually just talking about ourselves: 'ways of reading,' 'how we argue,' 'phenomenology of reading,' etc. etc.
4) David Kurnick nicely illustrates this phenomenon:
5) But none of this is method discussion. Talking about ourselves, how we approach our objects of study, our motives and objectives, our commitments, etc. would be the *beginning* of a method convo in every other discipline. In lit studies it's the *end*, or the whole convo!
6) I think that's bc as a field we actually don't know what our purpose is, so we turn with alacrity to critically analyzing the conditions of our professional lives, labor situations, etc., using tools never meant for such analysis to 'read' ourselves instead of our objects. ...
7) In that way critique gets notionally bound up in our social and labor conditions in ways it's actually not. We overestimate the representational value and impact of our critical gestures bc our tools (traditionally) only work in this territory. It's a mismatch to be sure.
8) Likewise we overestimate the role of narratives in producing or enabling our present social, labor, institutional conditions. We tell ourselves that the reason 'the humanities' are on the ropes is that conservative culture warriors and politicians wage neoliberal war on us...
9) There's truth to that, but that our preference for this tidy narrative leads us to overlook is that the world in 2021 will use any pretext to explain and enact the inevitable, which is that it no longer needs arbiters of of a 19th-20th c version of literature and culture.
10) In other words, this narrative conservative & neoliberal attack on us is superficially correct, but it's just the veneer. The fact is even ordinary progressives who love and appreciate art don't need a dated version of literary study. Everything else is downstream from that.
11) Progressive activists don't need interpretations of novels and poems *as we presently do them* anymore than Young Republicans.
12) What I'm getting at is: lit study as a field has been implicitly or explicitly aware of all this for some time. These realities invite the defensive tone of our public humanities work. Critique has been the keyword for the field's dominant sense of its application.
13) Best and Marcus raised this very point in the 'Surface Reading' essay:
14) I'm suggesting it's no longer possible to tell ourselves that story--that our application is political activism--with a straight face. Especially because it in no way distinguishes our work from work in other disciplines with far more public and policy credibility.
15) This is why the critique / postcritique debate is so vitriolic. It's like a fight at a funeral. It's processing all kinds of grief. It's blaming one another as critical proxies for some larger political forces that never cared one way or another how we interpret texts.
16) Now a surprise: I'm actually a lot more optimistic about the future of the field than my remarks to this point might suggest.
17) We're here for the end of something, which means we're also in the position to make something new, something suitable for our time and the particular challenges it brings.
18) For my part, I don't think that 'new' thing is turning back the clock and recovering the energy of late 20th c. energy literary and humanistic education. I don't think that's coming back. But I do think much of the world is grappling with ...
19) significant changes in the organization of knowledge and knowledge work, the structures of our institutions, etc. And at the heart of those reorganization are some things we in lit studies can be very good at:
20) Historical genre: What are the new, mixed, influential informational genres now and where do they come from?
21) Conceptual engineering: Can we fix language (to use Hermen Cappelen's phrase) to make concepts work better for us in the world?
22) Natural Language Processing: In light of above, what will be our role in e.g. producing non-racist algorithms, or making AI work well with humans and human languages.
23) This isn't an exhaustive list by any means, but it's a few things that excite me about what lit scholars can do. What this work might mean is neither critique or post-critique as such, but post-interpretation as the central organizing mode of lit scholarship. /end
Addendum: Another thing I should've mentioned: Speculative fiction and fiction-as-modeling is another really exciting area where lit scholars offer our field and the wider world something generative and necessary.

More from For later read

Part of what is going on here is that large sectors of evangelicalism are poorly equipped to help people deal with basic struggles, let alone the ubiquitous pornography addictions that most of their men have been enslaved to for years.


On the one hand, there's a high standard of holiness. On the other hand, there's a model of growth that is basically "Try Harder to Mean it More." Identify the relevant scriptural truth & believe it with all of your sincerity so that you may access the Holy Spirit's help to obey.

Helping sincere believers believe and obey the Bible facts is pretty much all the Holy Spirit does these days, other than convict us of our sins in light of the Bible facts.

If you know you are sincere and hate your sin and believe the right Bible facts as hard as you can but continue to be enslaved to your pornography addiction, what else left for you to do? Just Really, Just Really, Just Really Trust God and Give it to Him?

To suggest that there are other strategies available sounds to those formed in this model of growth like one is also suggesting that the Bible is insufficient, but it also suggests something just as threatening- that there are aspects of reality that are not immediately apparent.

You May Also Like

@franciscodeasis https://t.co/OuQaBRFPu7
Unfortunately the "This work includes the identification of viral sequences in bat samples, and has resulted in the isolation of three bat SARS-related coronaviruses that are now used as reagents to test therapeutics and vaccines." were BEFORE the


chimeric infectious clone grants were there.https://t.co/DAArwFkz6v is in 2017, Rs4231.
https://t.co/UgXygDjYbW is in 2016, RsSHC014 and RsWIV16.
https://t.co/krO69CsJ94 is in 2013, RsWIV1. notice that this is before the beginning of the project

starting in 2016. Also remember that they told about only 3 isolates/live viruses. RsSHC014 is a live infectious clone that is just as alive as those other "Isolates".

P.D. somehow is able to use funds that he have yet recieved yet, and send results and sequences from late 2019 back in time into 2015,2013 and 2016!

https://t.co/4wC7k1Lh54 Ref 3: Why ALL your pangolin samples were PCR negative? to avoid deep sequencing and accidentally reveal Paguma Larvata and Oryctolagus Cuniculus?
“We don’t negotiate salaries” is a negotiation tactic.

Always. No, your company is not an exception.

A tactic I don’t appreciate at all because of how unfairly it penalizes low-leverage, junior employees, and those loyal enough not to question it, but that’s negotiation for you after all. Weaponized information asymmetry.

Listen to Aditya


And by the way, you should never be worried that an offer would be withdrawn if you politely negotiate.

I have seen this happen *extremely* rarely, mostly to women, and anyway is a giant red flag. It suggests you probably didn’t want to work there.

You wish there was no negotiating so it would all be more fair? I feel you, but it’s not happening.

Instead, negotiate hard, use your privilege, and then go and share numbers with your underrepresented and underpaid colleagues. […]
Department List of UCAS-China PROFESSORs for ANSO, CSC and UCAS (fully or partial) Scholarship Acceptance
1) UCAS School of physical sciences Professor
https://t.co/9X8OheIvRw
2) UCAS School of mathematical sciences Professor

3) UCAS School of nuclear sciences and technology
https://t.co/nQH8JnewcJ
4) UCAS School of astronomy and space sciences
https://t.co/7Ikc6CuKHZ
5) UCAS School of engineering

6) Geotechnical Engineering Teaching and Research Office
https://t.co/jBCJW7UKlQ
7) Multi-scale Mechanics Teaching and Research Section
https://t.co/eqfQnX1LEQ
😎 Microgravity Science Teaching and Research

9) High temperature gas dynamics teaching and research section
https://t.co/tVIdKgTPl3
10) Department of Biomechanics and Medical Engineering
https://t.co/ubW4xhZY2R
11) Ocean Engineering Teaching and Research

12) Department of Dynamics and Advanced Manufacturing
https://t.co/42BKXEugGv
13) Refrigeration and Cryogenic Engineering Teaching and Research Office
https://t.co/pZdUXFTvw3
14) Power Machinery and Engineering Teaching and Research