TripWillis

I am very into this post. This is sort of what I was getting at when I said Freud/Psycho. was more something I can't get motivated to explore than something I was just writing off completely. I think I have good reasons for my aversion to it, but I can definitely see what people like.

Everything this person said and I was too lazy to say.

Basically, I'm with Data when it comes to Freud.

Next time it's bear and leather night at the Eagle, I'll test it out.

I think that's the right approach. But then, it's hard for me to see how you can sustain a legacy of discourse off of certain of Freud's ideas when they're so fundamentally flawed. Not saying people can't do it (very obviously, they can! It's thriving!), it just isn't for me.

Maybe. I dunno. I can't remember ever using The Order of Things in my pickup lines. I have used it in snappy message board banter. But you maybe have a point.

Thanks for the poetic adjustment. I see what you're saying, but the accessibility factor is not what turns me off of people like Gladwell -- it's the content.

I think the point I was aiming for is that Malcolm Gladwell books seem less like books and more like conversation starters for dim yuppies to look intellectual when they're trying to obtain one another's seed.

I would be able to stomach this, except you are using that term incorrectly. Edit: I think the term you're looking for is reverse-orientation discrimination.

Oh, pffft, I forgot: Malcolm Gladwell, Chuck Klosterman, et. al. -- basically anyone in armchair philosophy or pop philosophy or anyone who writes for Grantland. I once had to listen to two breeders on a Bolt Bus yammer on for hours about Blink as part of their mating ritual. Blech.

Same here. I don't know what to believe -- is cultural studies and interdisciplinarity the wave of the future (I hope so, yes please), or do you end up cornering yourself out of every available job market? (i.e. not a history scholar, not a sociology scholar, not an English scholar, no lines for "American Studies" professors -- might be a tough pickle) Although, in Bluecheeses case, it is not the time to worry about that; it's the time to celebrate because this is effing awesome!

I can only speak for myself, but as a scholar, I've learned to question the rigor and review of Freud's research; as someone invested in gender studies, I've learned to question the simplistic nature of his theoretical metaphors; and as someone who cares about the sociology of culture, studies in interiority seem like an outdated, bourgeois fetish when it comes to the exigency of literary scholarship. I mean, we don't study phrenology anymore either, do we (ouch)? Pathology has often been used to explain socially deviant behavior that we find undesirable, but has incurred a considerable amount of violence to discourse in the process. I realize those last points are a very harsh critique, but it's just where I'm coming from in terms of my own interests; it is my own aversion -- psychoanalyze me and figure out why . It is fairly common for people to primarily read Freud through Lacan now, and Judith Butler and Deleuze and Guattari have only furthered a radical revamp of Freudianism. I'm sure there are other people out there salvaging Freud and psychoanalysis in the humanities, but since I am not a psychoanalytic scholar, I wouldn't be able to tell you who they are. Really, psychoanalysis is just not my bag, baby. Anti-Oedipus for the win*. *to be fair, Anti-Oedipus has its own problems with overwrought metaphorical narrative drives, but I would venture that it's at least more rich and thoughtful than what Freud posed.

The one nice thing about the incredibly low odds of getting into a Ph.D. program is that you will not likely have to attend with either of those people. I'm not sure how strong the Michael Brutsch contingent is in graduate study, but I would guess grad cafe is an unrepresentative sample, since I like everyone I go to school with. Also, *incite

HAH! Judgment... that's funny. Pot, Kettle; Kettle, Pot. I believe you're already acquainted with one another.

Oh, if only I could unread most things you've written. Edit: Ah, damn, IG-88 beat me to it. Jinx!

Heh, I was referring to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE3bm4_Rryg

Maybe s/he is a scientologist. You're glib, rems.

Excuse me. It just sounded like you were writing off the effectiveness of therapy because therapists get paid. I wonder if that's true of all paid occupations.

I would be willing to bet that if it's not fake, it's a nomination for some kind of Presidential Fellowship with a very early deadline. So no one stress about Buffalo.

UMass did not do interviews for admission, only for TAships. I know, because I was one of 'em. They also announced that you were getting an interview for a TAship before announcing that you were admitted, which was odd, but cool.

Clearly she should listen to the stranger on the internet instead.

thestage is right. I made myself crazy last year with the refreshing. It was not healthy.

Don't forget to update the results board! (It's really satisfying when you get accepted, and cathartic when you don't; trust me)

That sounds like an acceptance, but none of us jinx it! I got nominated for a TAship at UMass last year and got my acceptance letter three days later, so I assume this is a similar scenario. CONGRATS!