"...says a triggered pearl-clutcher doing concern-trolling." what a fine assemblage of contemporary argot.
Here's how I see it. I am now middle-aged. There is a core group of classicists 10-15 years younger than me doing outward facing work and trying to make a difference in the world (e.g. Pharos, Itinera, Sportula, Eidolon, etc) instead of just feeling sorry for themselves. On the other hand, there are a bunch of MCGA wackos who don't seem to stand for anything but petty nihilism, reactionary pessimism, or just cracking lame jokes.
Even if I don't agree with everything they say, do and believe, I prefer to be on the side of people who believe in things and believe that Classics can be a part of improving the world both for Classicists and others.
I'm not convinced that there's more than one. One advantage of moving to a system where people have to log in is that it would take a lot more work for one person to look like more than one person.
I recently read a piece wherein a scholar contemplated whether or not Achilles was black, in response to the reaction of morons on the internet who got their knickers in a twist because there is a television show that has Achilles (and others) portrayed by black actors. Clearly the sort of people who are upset are the kind of philistines who don't know that colorblind casting has been a thing at least in theater for years.
Anyway, instead of writing the sort of response that kind of reaction merits, which would have been, "You are unqualified to comment on this subject. Go earn yourself a doctorate in Classics/ancient history/archaeology if you want to give your unsolicited opinion on this topic. Until then, shut up," the scholar went on a rather extended excursus on the blackness of various characters in Greek myth before concluding that, no, Achilles wasn't black. Nevermind that neither Achilles nor any of the other characters weren't real, but that's neither here nor there.
I suppose the whole point of my own long post here is that outlets like Eidolon are too willing to engage with fascists, racists, and other assorted human trash instead of just telling them to fuck off because they don't know what they're talking about. In either case they'll ignore what you have to say anyway and send you death threats, so why bother putting forth the effort beyond giving the middle finger?
@1:52, I thought that was a very interesting piece that examined how ancient perceptions of color and ethnicity engaged and did not engage. Plus, telling people to shut up because they lack proper qualifications has definitely not worked, both inside and outside of the discipline.
I enjoyed the article on Achilles a lot too, but I am inclined to agree with 1:52. See for example Sarah Bond, who simply pointed out that sculpture was painted in antiquity and that viewing the ancient world's aesthetic as one of white marble was a modern fabrication. She was savagely attacked online by people who had not a clue what they were talking about. Reach out a hand to these sort of people and you draw back a nub.
I don’t *think* that Bond was just saying that statues were painted in antiquity (we all knew this anyway), but was instead extending her point to imply that the Greeks/Romans were wildly diverse ethnically-speaking. While not entirely untrue, it is a bit of a stretch to imagine the Romans across the Empire looking *too* diverse. Without a doubt, if one could travel back in time and peer around at what Romans looked like, we’d be little surprised to see what we’d classify as “Caucasians” running around im togas. Yes, there would be a wide array of various ethnicities but unless one visited Mauritania or Syria, you’d not see too much variation.
The important bit to stress is that those in antiquity didn’t give a shit about skin color. They noticed it, of course, but didn’t care about it, as they didn’t draw conclusions about one based on it. Now prejudice existed, but it was cultural. If you wore a toga, spoke Latin, attended Roman games, etc.. you were a Roman. Period. If you take on Roman culture you were “one of us.”
So, did some statues of Romans have darker shades of skin tone? probably. Did it mean anything? No. So long as the painter chose a color that corresponded with a human skin tone, it was fine. I don’t believe that it mattered at all, so long as the end result looked like an actual human being. No different than if one today were paint a picture of a crowd of people; so long as they all have blue/brown/green eyes it didn’t matter what pigment you use as the artist—just don’t use bright red, pink, etc..
It’s our modern obsession with “race” that has colored (no pun intended) how we internalize ancient ideas about it.
Funny, I’ve had a suspicion for a while of who the MCGA troll might be and it is a he who also won a fairly prestigious job this season. Only speculating, but I know for a fact this person posts on this forum and I’ve heard him express some fairly shitty views in person. If those are the ones he cops to, who knows what he might say under cloak of anonymity. But perhaps the lesson is that there are several such trolls, which is pretty depressing.
A troll, in the proper sense of the term, is a person who posts in a certain persona in order to mock that persona. Hence the MCGA troll does not believe anything s/he posts, but is simply pretending to be what s/he imagines an actual "MCGA" person would believe and say. So I would assume that the MCGA troll is actually a woke goodthinker in real life.
But that's not the definition of an internet troll. Though I hope to God you're right that this person is a left-winger, since I'd find that entertaining.
Is UCLA moving on to its third choice candidate, or failing the search? Info welcome (as someone who applied, didn't get a campus visit, but is hopeful for next year!)
The number of high-profile failed searches this year is surprising and dispiriting. The number of excellent candidates is so high that no place should have a search fail.
@2:09 PM: are you kidding? Of course searches fail, especially when 2-3 schools are all fighting for the same candidates. The search becomes drawn out; months pass by.... by the time you realise none of your top 3-4 candidates are available (or suitable: a job talk / campus visit changes a lot), then it's too late to go down the list... I've never heard of a second round of campus visits. So, hey presto: a failed search.
2:09, while it seems logical that with so many excellent candidates there should never be a failed search, unfortunately that's not how it works on the ground. At my SLAC, for instance, we have to certify a list of 6 top candidates before we schedule on-campus interviews. We are not allowed, under any circumstances, for any reason whatsoever, to go down the list to number 7.
I know 6 seems like it would be enough. But on a SC I was on a few years back (not in classics; I was the outside member for a different humanities dept.), we were late in scheduling interviews, for various reasons including serious illness of one crucial SC member. Candidate 1 called us right after we'd certified our list and withdrew his application; he'd decided moving would be too disruptive for his kids. No problem, we still had 5 candidates. Candidate 2 scheduled a visit but then accepted another position before she came to our campus. All right, we've still got 4. Candidate 3 also accepted another position. Ulp. Well, we've still got candidates 4, 5, and 6. Candidate 4 came to campus and bombed spectacularly. Candidate 5, yes, accepted another position before our on-campus visit. Luckily, thanks be to all the gods, candidate 6 was spectacularly good and got the job.
But notice that this meant in the end we had only TWO on-campus interviews--we pointed that out to the Dean and asked to be allowed to bring Candidate 7 to campus, so that we'd have the normal 3 interviews. We were told absolutely no way. Once the list is drawn up, your 6 certified candidates are your entire pool, and that's that. Had Candidate 6 bombed, or taken another job, we would have had a failed search.
Now, obviously this was a perfect storm of bad luck. But it's the kind of thing that can and does happen. And when the adminstration's rules are as rigid as ours are, there is quite literally nothing the SC can do about it. Believe me, we argued and pled and begged, and pointed out that all we were asking for was the 3 on-campus interviews that are normal; we weren't asking to bring in a 4th candidate, for instance. We might as well have been talking to a wall. It was maddeningly frustrating, and horribly bad luck for candidate 7 (though of course s/he never knew about it). But that's what happened.
This discussion puts me in mind of the scene in "A Beautiful Mind" explaining Governing Dynamics: all these places are going after the equivalent to the hot blonde and therefore cannot all succeed, whereas if they all ignored her Classics job candidate equivalents and went for the ones who are a bit less appealing they'd all be able to hire someone. And someone quite good, because there are plenty of top-notch people who are not tip-top-notch.
The scene, for those of you who haven't seen the movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ITWl7CBzSA
Another SC member from a SLAC here, just chiming in to substantiate 5:24's descriptions of the process. My school is even worse. We're only allowed to certify 3 candidates. If we don't get any of those 3 for whatever reason, it's an automatic failed search. Our department is a foreign language one with Classics rolled in. One year when we were looking for an Italian language scholar, our first visit was beyond terrible (as in the candidate didn't prepare anything at all for their job talk or teaching demo), and the other two accepted jobs elsewhere. More than 150 people applied for that job, and I have no doubt that most of those we interviewed would have been great. But we had to call a failed search anyway.
Apparently the scuttlebutt the next year when we advertised again was that we were terribly disorganized, toxic, and all other such things because of the failed search, and people were angry that we didn't hire. I wish I could have emailed all the remaining candidates we interviewed and begged them to apply again. Alas, none of them did, probably figuring that we didn't want them. Luckily we hired a good person the second time around, but I think folks should be aware of situations like this. If you applied for a job and a search fails without you getting a campus invite, definitely apply again the next year, especially if you got a first round interview. The SC may well have been hoping that candidates like you applied again.
Congratulations to everyone who graduated/will graduate this month! Whether or not you landed a job in the field, finishing the PhD is a great accomplishment in its own right. Congrats!
Yes! As someone who only landed a job after I finished my Ph.D., don't give up yet if you don't have anything and are about to graduate. It can happen!
Very little exists for Classics. Check out Higheredjobs.com and look under their humanities section. Sometimes applicable jobs appear for Classicists (comp lit; myth; rarely Latin).
Adjunct gigs are avenues where folks with a “history” PhD have a distinct advantage over “classics” PhDs.
Fairfield has been on the Wiki for a a few days now (I added it).
I wouldn’t expect word to be out for at least another week. For what it’s worth, Fairfield is also my last remaining job prospect. Best of luck to us all.
For finding adjunct work, here's one method if you have the ability to potentially wait for a while for this to bear fruit: investigate every university, college, and community college within whatever distance you can/are willing to commute. Find out what departments offer classes you could teach (Classics, History, PoliSci sometimes has ancient history or Latin courses depending on the institution, Art History, Art, Languages and Literatures, etc.), then send your CV and a brief, polite email to the chairs of those departments explaining who you are and that you are available to teach xxx classes in their department should they have need. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, sometimes they'll send your name to someone they know at another institution, and sometimes (especially due to institutional budget cycles) you'll end up not having anyone offer you anything for 6 months to a year, but this is one option if you're geographically restricted and want to find academic work in the area. Also, a lot of smaller and/or non-Classics programs will never advertise through the SCS, so this is one way to start getting connected to people in your area.
I got some of my first positions by cold emailing department chairs in any department I could teach in (English, Modern Languages, Classics and History) at every college, Community and otherwise, within reasonable driving distance of Chapel Hill, where I was living at the time. You have written (or are writing) a PhD dissertation in a Humanities field. You can teach literature courses, you can teach college writing for which there is always a need.
As someone who adjuncted at various places for more years that I care to recall, due to personal circumstances that restricted my ability to move for a job, I second everything the previous posters said. I would just add that most institions will NOT advertise part-time adjunct positions with the SCS or anywhere else. They normally don't need to. The only way to find adjunct work that I know of is to do precisely what others have suggested -- let any and all departments in your area (however you define that) know that you are available and eager to teach. Obviously, your chances are better if you're within commuting distance of a major city with many institutions.
I eventually got a tenure-track job so I haven't adjuncted for the past few years, but I think the situation with finding adjunct work hasn't changed. Don't expect adjunct work to be advertised anywhere. You have to seek it out.
I'm starting a 2 year VAP in August and thought I'd ask for some advice from more senior members of FV about how "in touch" I should be with the department over the summer before the semester starts.
Is it expected for me to do my own thing over the summer -- to enjoy some time off after submission of dissertation, to catch up on some reading, to return to papers I had put on the back burner while dissertating -- and not to be in touch with the department? Do some faculty members see a lack of communication from an incoming VAP over the summer as a sign of an uninvolved colleague? Just wanted to get a sense of how involved I should be virtually before actually moving to campus... Thanks in advance for any thoughts!
Man, what a disappointing year (1st year with PhD in hand). I’ve had a good amount of 1st round interviews (4 T-T; 3 VAP) but zero campus invites and zero job offers. I’m sitting here waiting on 2-3 late-game VAPs, but I have no sense of optimism. I keep hearing people on FB talking about being stuck in “VAP hell” but to me being employed at all sounds like a dream come true. ...not sure how much company I have in the “complete failure” category along with me, but it really is discouraging to have been passed on all the way into late May.
2:12, as one who has held multiple VAP/lecturer positions, I'd say that you can do your own thing this summer and not feel more communication is expected of you. Of course, if you have valid questions -- about the move, housing, ordering books, etc. -- then don't keep them to yourself, but don't send e-mails or phone just for the sake of it.
Yes, as someone else with many VAPs, having a VAP contract is not like having a girlfriend/boyfriend. You don't have to call all the time. Respond promptly to their requests, but otherwise make the most of your summer.
We've entered the last stretch here...will FV die and will we let Donna Zuckerberg reign unopposed as the online neoliberal Queen of Classicsdom? A despot after Xerxes'own decadent Oriental heart, come to crush the spirits of the good and free people?! I say no! MCGA now, MCGA tomorrow, MCGA forever!
Honestly, as someone who has lived in both the States and several European countries, I think that part of the problem is that America is so sexually repressed and puritanical that it breeds a preponderance of perverts and predators.
That said, I thought the person in question was being accused of Daddy Cruel-style perversion, but instead it seems that it's their work that is problematic and that they misrepresented what their presentations would be about. I think that refusing to ever use a person's work because they're a pervert or criminal is a bit silly though. I recall people debating the same when Daddy Cruel was outed, and Aunt Lydia even wrote a piece in Eidolon about it.
No, 1:43 p.m., that long series of tweets by the poor man's D.Z. is not worth discussing here. It has nothing at all to do with FV's core mission and is about someone who was discussed here several weeks ago.
If you want to discuss it then just tweet back at "The Microcosm."
This was my first year on the job market with PhD and I have a few questions.
First, I’m an ancient historian (History PhD; Classics MA; Classics BA), with PhD from a top-10. I applied to positions both in Classics Departments and History Departments. There was a sharp divide in my response. For History Dept T-T jobs I had Skype interviews for 6/7 and for History Dept VAPs I had Skype interviews for 3/4. ...For Classics, I had 0 Skype requests for 12 T-T and 8 VAP jobs. Let me repeat, zero. :/
So, what I’m wondering is, if I ever happen to get a VAP gig at a Classics Dept (and therefore am able to prove what ought to be already obvious—that I can teach Latin and Greek) will that be enough to open doors or is having a History Dept PhD an insurmountable hurdle ?
I find this boggling, since my BA and MA are in Classics (and from good schools) and I hope that it is known by Classics faculty that literally EVERY History Dept PhD has to be fully capable and competanat in their respective language. Are Classics folks really *that* snobby?
Second, is it normal to have not secured a VAP on your first year out (I was offered a continuation of my sitting adjunctship, at least)?
Oh, come now. There are plenty of people with Classics Ph.D.'s who aren't as deeply trained in philology as they should be, since they went the theory route. A well-trained ancient historian should at least be their match in Latin and Greek classes.
I'm also an ancient historian and had nearly the opposite experience this year (I say nearly because you had way more interviews! well done). I didn't get the slightest hint of interested from any of the History department jobs--all my interviews were with classics departments. I have done an unusual amount of legwork to show that I am a trained philologist. Perhaps more important, my work is pretty legible to classicists while also being utterly unlike the outmoded "here's How It Actually Happened, based on my common sense intuitions about lost sources" school of ancient history. I ultimately didn't get any offers (for different reasons in each case, I think) so I don't have any brilliant insight to offer you, 5:08. But what I would say in answer to your implicit and explicit questions is that, (a) yes, if you get a VAP in a classics department, I would expect future applications to be taken much more seriously; (b) you say it "should be obvious" that you can teach L & G, but have you? do you have any experience doing so? (perhaps in your MA program?) I've said this before on this forum, but if you've never taught Greek and Latin, why would you expect to be taken seriously as someone who can do those things when there are so many other people applying who have? It's not "snobby"; it's realistic. I think this is probably the biggest factor in what happens on the otherwise-baffling ancient history job market--a lot of search committees are going to wonder if you can really teach what they want you to teach. (For various reasons, I've never taught history, so it's not a surprise that I didn't succeed in history departments (even though I am a historian).) (c) the fact that you were so successful at getting interviews in history departments seems extremely encouraging to me, even though, like me, you came up blank. I don't know what your current adjuncting situation is, but if you are eager to get a job in a classics department, it would be good to get some language teaching. Otherwise, it seems that you are already a strong candidate. I wish you the best in getting that first "real" job--the hardest to get, it seems.
But by the same standards a “Philologist” should never be hired in a History Dept, since being familiar with historical sources and having a sense of the culture and socio-economic world of Greece and Rome is fat different than being deeply trained in History. A French professor or a German professor shouldn’t be teaching courses in a History Dept on the French Revolution or the rise of Hitler, yet some tend to imagine that a Latinist or Hellenist are somehow capable to do it all. ...this is a major flaw within Classics: overblown egos of the all-mighty philologists who feel that an 18th Century academic model applies today.
Second, the fact that you pointed out the typo of 5:08 (I imagine he/she was using their phone to thype) just underscores the arrogance and snobbery so deeply embedded within Classics.
@5:08,
You ARE capable of teaching undergrads how to decline amo, don’t let 6:00 fool you. Also, as an ancient historian I imagine you can offer a great deal of USEFUL commentary to a direct reading course, which, as we all know, tend to be laden with pedantic questions about “why is this in the dative and not the accusative?” or asinine comments like “ooh, this line from Cassius Dio is deliberately mimicking this one obscure line from Pindar that I’m aware of, let’s jerk each other off and talk about that for 10 minutes rather than actually discuss the actual material that the author is talking about.” God forbid we discuss *historical context* when reading an ancient source.
To answer your question, a soft yes. Once you can show that you can teach Freshmen about declensions and conjugations (because it’s soo complicated), you’ll be able to market yourself as Classics Dept worthy. Some might be still think that it’s not enough (see 6:00), but it will at least open up many more doors.
'Also, as an ancient historian I imagine you can offer a great deal of USEFUL commentary to a direct reading course, which, as we all know, tend to be laden with pedantic questions about “why is this in the dative and not the accusative?” or asinine comments like “ooh, this line from Cassius Dio is deliberately mimicking this one obscure line from Pindar that I’m aware of, let’s jerk each other off and talk about that for 10 minutes rather than actually discuss the actual material that the author is talking about.”'
This might be the greatest comment in FV history. As an ancient historian I am starting a slow clap for saying what all of us think about certain philologists.
6:29 again. I hate to say it, but by so contemptuously dismissing exactly the kind of expertise that some "philologists" consider basic, you are only demonstrating why some ancient historians continue to struggle on the classics job market. Also, by carving off history as something that only YOU can teach, you make it more difficult to explain why the lamguages aren't something only THEY can teach.
I think the point being made was more that: if only philologists can teach Latin/Greek (the point made by 6:00), then only Historians should be teaching history. Underlining a stark double-standard that exists.
IMO, undergrad Latin van be taught by one with an MA in classics and PhD in Ancient History; Greek is best left to philologists at all levels past 101/2; More advanced graduate Latin courses should be taught by philologists. ...Archaeology should be taught by archaeologists. ...history *can* be taught by *some* non-historians at the 100-level, but it’s foolish to have a classics PhD teach any history course at the advanced undergrad or grad level. ...I’m sure not everyone will agree with me in this.
I don't know if that's the point 6:00 was trying to make, but I read it as pointing to the existence of a space between "knows Latin" and "is qualified to teach Latin [at all levels]." I would continue to emphasize that even if you believe philologists enforce double standards in the treatment of specializations, looking for evidence of past success in language teaching is not one of them.
Does one really need to be “deeply trained in philology” in order to teach first or second year Latin? I concede that in order to properly teach graduate-level Latin it’s best for the prof to be a Philologist and not a Greek archaeologist.
...but, as noted above, it’s not awfully difficult to run through amo/amas/amat with freshmen for anyone who has an MA in philology as well as a PhD in ancient history. Remember that most programs require PhD candidates to demonstrate doctoral-level competency in big Latin and Greek in order to progress through said program; additionally, you CANNOT undertake a proper dissertation or do competent research without being able to work through the languages.
FWIW, I feel that many Classics Depts (at least for VAP jobs) are a bit out of touch with reality if they feel that someone like 5:08 can’t teach first or second year Latin.
"FWIW, I feel that many Classics Depts (at least for VAP jobs) are a bit out of touch with reality if they feel that someone like 5:08 can’t teach first or second year Latin."
From my experience on several SCs, I'd say this has it exactly backwards. We would be hesitant ever to hire someone with no experience teachng either language (and no, being competent in reading the ancient languages is not evidence that you can teach them), but we would be willing to mentor a new T-T colleague with no experience in teaching the languages if that person was very strong and a great fit for our program in other areas. We could give that person a couple of years to settle in and then move them into taking on some of our language teaching.
But we would never consider hiring someone without language-teaching experience for a one-year VAP that included teaching languages. For a VAP, the dept. needs someone who can step in and cover existing courses for one year. When the market is glutted with people who have already taught both languages for several years, it would be insane for us to consider handing language classes over to someone who hasn't taught languages yet. Remember, a VAP will only be with us for one year -- we can't invest a lot of mentoring time for someone who won't be around after that year, and we can't risk bad language teaching (and we are ALL bad at it the first time we try it, which is why the first time should be in grad school with supervision) for a year.
This isn't "snobbery". It's recognizing that language pedagogy is difficult, that everyone makes a lot of mistakes the first time they try it, and that we have a responsibility to our students to hire the best teachers we can find for them, especially when those teachers are temporary. It makes sense to accept a rocky start at teaching for a t-t hire who'll be with us for many years. It makes no sense to do that for a VAP.
"There are plenty of people with Classics Ph.D.'s who aren't as deeply trained in philology as they should be, since they went the theory route."
I dare say, as a philologist who has theoretical training, that the "theory route" produces professionals who can teach more and to a broader audience.
5:01 AM summarizes the VAP teaching issues quite nicely. I'll add that teaching Latin well enough *to attract Classics majors* and prepare them for the advanced levels of language study is a hell of a lot more difficult than simply running through amo/amas/amat.
Picture a Classics department at a SLAC with 25 students enrolled in Latin 101. The department might expect to gain 3-4 majors out of that group once they've finished the intro level, perhaps 5-6 in a good year with an exceptional instructor in front of the class. If they roll the dice on a VAP candidate with no language teaching experience and that person completely bombs, they might only get 1 (or zero) majors out of that group. A bad (or even mediocre) teaching performance at the 100-level can have repercussions for years, including cancelling 200- and 300-level classes due to low enrollment.
Was 6:37 PM's "You ARE capable of teaching undergrads how to decline amo" meant as a joke? I'm guessing not, but the error does tickle me.
Terminology aside, I doubt you historians would be happy if I said "I don't see what's so hard about teaching Roman History-- anyone can hand them a list of the dates that each emperor reigned." Some of you sound equally flippant when you talk about teaching Latin.
Teaching Latin is not hard. I may be a rare bird, but I'm one of those archaeologists who was trained first in the languages, so I can and have taught Latin up through the graduate level. Greek, however, I'm not comfortable teaching beyond the intermediate level. In my estimation this is where you definitely want a seasoned philologist.
Let me add that all that I happen to have major issue with is that philologists are often applicants and successful T-T hires for ancient history jobs in a History Department; this is very wrong in my opinion and this is the double standard: philologists claim the ability to be able to teach IT ALL, but historians, archaeologists, etc.. can ONLY teach THEIR stuff.
A large reason why philologists land T-T jobs in History Departments is because the SC for a History Department is not going to have any other ancient specialist on it, and most often will not even have a Medievalist. So, it's a group of modern historians who have no clue (to no fault of their own) what a 'Classics' degree really entails; i.e., they have no clue that a Harvard classics PhD may have a freshman-level understanding of history and historiography. All they see is "Harvard" and "PhD in ancient something-or-other" and that's enough. It's a real shame that folks who may have a deep background in classical philology (as OP said they did) with a BA and MA in Classics, then pursued a PhD in History yet they face an uphill struggle to get hired for T-T jobs in History Depts who are seduced by fancy pedigree and ignorant of candidate ignorance, AND they themselves are considered worthless to a Classics Dept simply because they dedicated their PhD studies to Classical History and not Classical Philology.
One solution would be for (larger, at least) Classics Departments who put out ads for T-T hires for Greek or Roman historians to, I don't know, maybe only expect them to teach history courses, much like most archaeologists never teach a Latin/Greek course nor are expected to at most R1s.
Something that most Classics Departments fail to recognize is that it is NOT Latin or Greek classes that have the most potential to recruit new majors, but Roman and Greek history courses taught by really good profs. This is why many History Departments are opening up new lines for Ancient (all of the Humanities are struggling to keep up enrollment) as a means to recruit new History majors, knowing that these courses fill up immediately and are attractive to a broad audience.
Classics Departments, on the other hand, are doubling-down on a 19th Century academic worldview of "languages first" and then sit there wondering why the field is dying.
Change the perspective. Offer a great deal of ancient history and classical civilization courses to fill classes up and to promote interest, and have the Latin and Greek take a back seat. Leave the Latin/Greek there for serious majors who want to pursue Classics further but take it off the pedestal. Offer 1 or 2 Latin 101 course a fall and use the other slots to teach courses that offer BROAD APPEAL to a wider audience of undergrads. You'll see enrollment jump up, and you'll end up recruiting more majors from that who then will want to take language courses as well.
My PhD institution (a top-10 R1) offers 4-5 Latin 101s in the fall and has only hyper-specialized (and often SJW-ish) classical civ courses that only perpetuate the problems of declining enrollment. This same Dept bemoans how it is dying and how it can't fill classes up. Over the years the Hitory Dept has stepped in and offers many history courses (2 new ancient hires) that fill up within a week of registration with 220+ undergrads, while Classics can't get more than 6 undergrads to take a course on homosexuality in the ancient world (the course was slashed before the semester began due to low enrollment).
Whether we like it or not, history courses on Rome, Greece, Alexander, Ancient Warfare, etc.. will have lines of students wanting to take them, while boutique courses on The Underprivileged Classes in Antiquity; Women & Feminism in the Ancient World; Greek and Roman Mathematicians; and the Topography of Athens, etc.. are far too selective in their audience appeal.
Every Classics dept. at every SLAC I'm aware of is already doing precisely what you suggest. In my own 2.75 person dept., we offer one section of 1st-semester Latin and Greek each year, and one section of 2nd-semester; we offer Intermediate in the Fall only, and teach upper-level languages as uncompensated overloads. We also offer at least four large Classical civ courses a year, five when we can manage it. Courses in Ancient Philosophy or History -- taught in those depts. -- count towards the Classics major. It's not exactly a new idea that Civ. classes are where you find potential majors whom you can then interest in languages; most SLACs and many state universities have been operating on that assumption for at least the past 30 years. Nor do the higher enrollments in Civ. classes escape the notice of Deans. In our case, the only reason we're allowed to keep our very small language classes going is because we pay our institutional "dues" with courses on Myth, Gender, Tragedy, Art, Epic, etc. etc. and we set the enrollment caps for those at 30, which is considered a huge class here. The type of dept. you describe that foregrounds language almost to the exclusion of civ. and history courses is an increasingly rare bird. (By the way, we'd dearly love to add an ancient historian to our dept. but cannot, because in our college's organization the ancient history courses are taught in the history dept.)
I think she/he was referring to the homosexuality course and the women course more than that on mathematicians or topography.
It's not wholly inaccurate to refer to courses that deal with modern social issues like underrepresented racial groups, the gay community, or Women's studies as being in the camp of SJWs. These are courses that tackle social issues of antiquity using a modern lens that only exists on account of SJWs in the first place; could you imagine any of those courses being offered at any institution in the 1920s? ...No. Can you imagine these courses being offered today, in the wake of generations of social change and very active SJWs? Most definitely.
...But, you're de-railing the point that 11:41 was presumably making, which is that Classics Depts, who already are a specialized group, ought not make themselves even further isolated and more hyper-specialized if they want to remain alive.
I don't think it's derailing to question the idea that courses dealing with 'modern social issues' are because of 'social justice warriors', a phrase used to imply that it's only histrionic identity-politics online mobs that care about these things. Or do you think homosexuality and women in antiquity shouldn't be studied at undergrad level?
At my undergraduate institution there used to be a course called "Roman Decadence," which I took. A great title for drawing interest. It proved to be purely a literature course, reading Petronius, Apuleius, Seneca, and several others. The professor who taught it is long retired, so you may all go ahead and steal it, if you want a title that will catch the eye.
I wasn't the SJW poster above, and have no objection to departments having courses on women or on homosexuality (or a "women and gender" combo), or on race in antiquity, but if departments bet too heavily on these they might be giving up potential enrollments by not having more varied courses, and courses with a broader appeal. Do departments really need to teach about women in antiquity every year, or even every semester (as I have seen done)? With gays and lesbians representing just 3-4% of the population, the combined number of gay and straight undergrads who care enough to take a course on ancient homosexuality simply will never be as great as those interested in ancient athletics, ancient battles, ancient religion, ancient politics, and so on, and therefore to me this seems a course that should not be taught more often than once every four semesters. Race in antiquity, too, is unlikely to appeal to more than a small percentage of students. If departments are healthy and have good enrollments they have the luxury of offering these courses with a more narrow appeal in order to feel that they are doing some good, just as they have the luxury of offering ancient medicine or some other topic that is worthy but without broad appeal, but if they are struggling to attract students then they might be shooting themselves in the foot by narrowing their appeal in the name of a good cause.
(I will add that the wild card is when courses count for some graduation requirement, and I suspect that some of the success these so-called SJW courses do have is due to this factor. But I'm speaking of courses on a level playing field, i.e. if students are choosing solely based on subject matter without being steered towards one or another by the university's/college's rules.)
If enrollment isn’t there, no, don’t offer courses on homosexuality or Women’s studies in antiquity. If you want Classics to survive the 21st century, it’s more important to keep ourselves viable to an already Humanities-targeting and STEM-friendly administration.
Courses on the Roman army, Alexander, and Christianity in the Roman World can fill up a 200+ room, so until Classics reaches a position of strength again, let’s not do boutique courses at the undergrad level.
Courses on the Roman army? I teach a Roman history survey course, and that is already usually 75% male students. Imagine what the percentage would be for a course on the Roman army!
Irrelevant. Numbers of seats filled is all that matters to admin. FWIW, every time (6 years now) that I’ve taught Roman History, it’s been essentially 50:50. I’ve never had a class that was noticeabley scewed with regards to gender. [at a large R1]
At my institution, our course on Women in Antiquity had such large enrollments and so long of a waitlist that we had to add a second section and eventually split the course into Women in Greece and Women in Rome. Both courses continue to be filled every year (usually capped at 150 or 170 depending on room size). The majority of students are usually women, but we get plenty of male students too. I hardly think this counts as a "boutique" course.
4:23, 2:57 here. Are those courses meeting one or more crucial graduation requirements? As I indicated above, any course can fill up if it lets students check off a box needed to get their degree, especially if it's a requirement that's only met by a small number of courses each semester.
I'm not one who thinks of "Women in Antiquity" as boutique, whereas "Homosexuality in Antiquity" most certainly is. But those numbers you describe suggest graduation requirements are a factor, or an especially popular professor. Quite possibly both.
Here is a fun story involving graduation requirements. I once had a VAP at a large state university where I was allowed to teach a specialized course in my area of research (what would be called "boutique" by at least one of you) but as a giant lecture course, and since my department could not have the subject approved by the university and included as an official offering it was instead offered under the aegis of a catch-all, reusable subject with some generic name like "Topics in the Ancient World." And since my department did a lousy job of getting the word out, the students had no way of knowing in advance what they were enrolled in, unless they had spoken to me or a colleague. But more than 400 of them were there on the first day of class because the lecture course was one of those meeting a graduation requirement (World Cultures, or something like that). For kicks, on that first day I asked for a show of hands to see how many students knew the specific subject of the course, and only three hands out of 400+ went up.
And I'll bet a number of them would have stayed if I had called an audible and changed the subject to something far less interesting, such as having my lectures consist solely of reading through the names on the Karanis Tax Scroll (the ancient equivalent to reading from the phone book, I've just decided). At least 100 would have stuck around no matter what, just so they could graduate that May.
SLAC prof. here. My "Gender in Greece and Rome" class has been the most successful of all our classics-in-translation classes for the past decade and a half, consistently filling to wherever I set the cap, and with a waitlist of at least 15 students, every time it's offered. For context, a class of 20 is considered large here and 25--my usual cap-- is enormous. So a waitlist of 15 is significant. Since we're a small department the course is on a two-year rotation (as are almost all our in-translation courses), but every time I offer it I hear from students that their RA or older friend or someone has told them they MUST take this course, that it's one of the best courses at the college. Yes, it fills a distribution requirement, and some students are there just for that. But we have also gained several majors from it. Courses on gender are no longer just "boutique", if they ever were. They're bread-and-butter for departments like mine.
5:50 here again -- I should make it clear that ALL our classics-in-translation courses meet Humanities distribution requirements, not just the "Gender in Greece and Rome" class. This is fairly standard at SLACs, I think. So there is an "even playing field" in the sense that students need to choose two courses to fill their Humanities requirements, and among the possibities across Humanities departments, our Gender course is one of the most popular.
I'm going to hop onto a slightly older thread: who should be "allowed" to teach history, languages, archaeology, etc. To me, it very much depends on the person, not the degree or department.
I know historians who excel at the languages and have a keen understanding of archaeological methods. I know philologists with extensive fieldwork experience and a a deep knowledge of historiography. I know archaeologists well versed in history and who have won prestigious awards for their language pedagogy. I also know plenty of each (historians, philologists, archaeologists) who, like many, are only skilled in their chosen field. Sadly, I even know a good few (too many) who are mediocre or even bad at their specialty and downright abysmal at everything else. The full CV and life history should determine what someone has the knowledge to teach. It should not be just the name of the department ("Classics" or "History" or whatever) that granted their highest degree.
Teaching SKILL is an entirely different matter. It is true that many departments cannot afford to risk someone with no language teaching experience doing a poor job and effectively killing the language program for several years, as 9:15 AM yesterday commented. On the other hand, there are lots of people with PhDs in philology whose research is entirely philological and who have taught many language courses, yet are still bad language teachers. I have seen some of them in action and they can be just as detrimental to a language program as anything or anyone else; sometimes they are even more detrimental, especially when they believe that they are great educators and the students are to blame for poor evaluations, low enrollment, etc. Again, it all just depends on the individual.
So, let's stop with the bickering about jurisdiction and just acknowledge that some people are capable of working in multiple fields and teaching a broad array of content. If we think about it, we can all name a few. Is everyone capable of that? No. Still, should someone's language skills be discounted because his or her PhD is in History? No. Should someone's knowledge of historiography or archaeological field methods be discounted because his or her PhD is in Classics/philology? No. Speaking in generalities only works until you need practical application, such as assigning who will teach what in your department, at which point everything depends on the team of individuals available, not a list of program names.
9:17, that's all well and good, but how can SCs guess from CVs which historians might be able to teach languages? Especially for a VAP (as noted yesterday), the SC can't afford to take a risk on someone who has never taught languages before, in the hope that this candidate MIGHT be one of those super-talented individuals you mention.
What the SC can--and should--do when hiring for a position that requires language teaching (again, esp. for a VAP) is look at CVs and see who has experience teaching the languages. And then -- this shouldn't need saying, but probably does -- they should require candidates to teach a class as part of the on-campus visit. You are absolutely right that there are trained philologists who are lousy at teaching languages. I have seen several such disqualify themselves from VAP and t-t positions by making elementary errors in the Latin or Greek class they were asked to teach as part of their on-campus visit, by mumbling at the table and never engaging with the students, and so on. That's part of what the campus visit is for, to verify that candidates can actually teach the languages competently and effectively.
Are you referring to SLACs here? I ask because for every T-T campus visits that I ever had, as well as my colleagues, the campus visits were job talks focused on research capacity and trajectory, questions of pedagogy (if they ever came up) were during the first-round Skype interviews.
Also, VAP positions rarely have campus visits. Some may, of course, but most cannot afford the time or financial burden to fly out 3 folks for a VAP job. VAP jobs, as all of us with too many years of them under our belt can attest, are determined by the Skype interview and the Skype interview alone. ...One can expect a question or two about "how would you teach the lesson on, say, gerunds, gerundives, and gerund-replacing gerundives?"
..Sadly, many SCs will be dismissive of folks with a "History" PhD for both T-T and VAPs unless they have some teaching or tutoring experience with at least Latin. I can say, however, that once a History PhD can get a single year of Latin and/or Greek under their belt, any worries that future SCs may have will be largely gone.
I'd say that so long as the History PhD comes from a top school and has a proven track record of successful teaching (even if not in Latin/Greek), then it's not really much of a risk for even a small SLAC to take that such a candidate is qualified to be as equally effective an educator in the languages as they are in other material for which they are well versed.
10:14 here. Yes, my only experience on SCs has been at an SLAC, but before I got my t-t here I had more VAPs than I care to remember, and most of them included a campus visit. Every campus visit I ever had (for VAPs and t-t jobs alike) included a teaching demonstration. That was a while back, but at my SLAC, at least, we do indeed do campus visits for VAPs. We don't bring out three; we bring the top candidate and if s/he does well, that's it, we make the offer. If s/he doesn't do well, we bring the second one, and the third one if necessary.
I know that some places don't require teaching presentations, but I still find it shocking.
SC member at a high-ranking SLAC here. We tend to invite 3 candidates to interview via Skype. We have perpetual VAPs and some years as many as 4, between full VAPs and Adjuncts. We’ve been very fortunate in that I don’t recall ever having any issues with our hires teaching the languages. Also, let me add that our interviews tend to be heavy on pedagogy, but we never have campus visits for our non-TT hires.
Also, let me add that we’ve often hired many History PhDs to be generalists here in our Clasics Department. Though, if memory serves, they were always candidates whose BA & MA were in Classics. Additionally, for what it’s worth, those with a History PhD have been from the best Ancient History PhD programs that don’t reside Inn classics (e.g., UNC-CH and Michigan).
I'm genuinely surprised to hear that homosexuality in antiquity is seen (by some) as something that won't fill up. I guess I teach at a different sort of institution!
At a large R1 here (~15 faculty members in Classics) and I can say that when we offer classes dealing with homosexuality in antiquity (they’re offered every 3-4 semesters due to low interest) the enrollment never gets higher than about 15. Our offerings of Myth, The Age of Alexander, Fifth Century Athens, Ancient Technology, etc.. tend to have enrollment filled (110) and often numerous offerings per semester of these bread and butter courses. ...These courses, as well as those on Women, Homosexuality, etc.. all qualify to meet University requirements for Gen Eds. For whatever reason, undergrads (here anyway) have no interest in what have been called “boutique” courses.
For what it’s worth, we’re in a major US city in the northeast, have a very diverse student body, and we are a top-tier University. We’ve been bothered by the lack of interest in such courses and even have 2 faculty members whose research focuses on Women/Sexuality. Our grad offerings do well (average 6 for enrollment) but still are less than any other grad courses (average 12-15) which can focus on very narrow topics (e.g., Epigraphy, Provincial Administration, Late Roman Child Emperors).
The faculty that teach the courses on Women and Homosexuality are professors who are very popular with undergrads and whose other classes fill quickly. It really is an interesting matter. At the end of the day, every institution is different and a class that overfills at one may not even meet enrollment minimums at another. For us, at least, it’s sadly fitting to categorize courses on Women or Sexuality as “boutique” courses, though we all wish such wasn’t the case.
Oh, I'm sure homosexuality antiquity generally involves lots of people getting filled up!
Anyway, I agree with 8:51. In all my experience, from my time as an undergrad, through an MA, then PhD, and now t-t--all at different universities in radically different parts of the country--I never witnessed a class on gender and sexuality in ancient Greece and Rome that didn't have a high enrollment. I think that it might be a bit much to have separate classes on women and homosexuality, but it seems that when they're combined and it's billed as gender and sexuality or the like, this type of course seems to do fine. The poo-pooing of such courses by FV's resident MCGA chuds is to be expected, and of course they are wrong.
Whether or not it gets deleted, it made me chuckle. And lest someone think I'm homophobic, just two nights ago I chuckled at a similar line in a heterosexual context in a major motion picture.
Ummm if you're a Classicist who is offended by a joke as mild as the one above, you're probably in the wrong field. Greeks and Roman's trafficked in far worse, in case you didn't notice.
I think the point is that if you can't stomach an incredibly tame joke like the one 9:32 posted, how the hell can you handle the humor in actual Greco-Roman art and literature, which is often violent, misogynist, and homophobic? I'm an art/archaeology person and I've lost count of the vase-paintings and sculpture where the threat of actual rape is used as a comedic device.
Is this how FV is going to go out? With people getting their knickers in a twist and having conniption fits over a rather tepid joke? Spare me the shrill and hysterical histrionics. That sound you hear is the world's tiniest violin being played as I fetch a fainting couch and smelling salts for all those here with such oh-so-delicate sensibilities who've got a case of the vapors.
I honestly don’t think that FV will actually be shut down. It’s far too important and significant to just be discarded on account of a few trolls. I think we’ll see it hang on at least another year as the Servii give it one last chance. ...maybe that’s wishful thinking, but I hope my inclination turns out to be true.
Hello! Does anyone know more about the Michigan librarian position? Is there currently someone in a temporary library role whom they may be looking to hire? Someone who has a 1/2 appointment or something?
Our field really is beginning to lose it. Here is part of the conclusion from Emily Wilson's new BMCR review of a new "Odyssey" translation by a South African scholar, that is intended for a South African (and presumably African) audience, and uses local vocabulary: "Setting all my inevitable quibbles and disappointments aside — all of which must be taken as the partisan observations they inevitably are — Richard Whitaker deserves to be applauded for a translation of the Odyssey that provides an excellent corrective to the Eurocentricism of most Anglophone classical translations, including my own." Are we now so hating of our field's European origins that a South African translation of Homer provides a CORRECTIVE to Eurocentrism, rather than being a fresh and intriguing ALTERNATIVE to the extant translations, which is what the review overall shows it to be?!?
I swear, I have not once written the initials MCGA on this forum, and despise the person or persons who repeatedly make that pitifully lame joke, but seriously, we really do need to make classics great again, if English translations of Homer that use English vocabulary and are informed by European culture are somehow incorrect.
When I read that review yesterday, I was appalled that the editors of BMCR let it go through. Wilson’s review is a perfect example of what an academic book review SHOULD NOT BE and it directly violates the rules set out by BMCR.
(1) Wilson uses ad hominem attacks against Whitaker by demonizing the author’s race, gender, and age (“Like almost all translators of Homer into English over the past century, he is an elderly white man”).
(2) Wilson repeatedly attacks Whitaker for not writing the book that she would have written (“Like all English translations known to me, except my own, he euphemizes Homeric slavery to a large extent”); (“Firstly, unlike most translations – but like my own and that of Peter Green, forthcoming 2018 – he sticks to the same number of lines as the original”); (“Whitaker's version, here and in general, is adequate, but has a disappointing flatness... In my own version, I broke up the clauses to make sure that it is obvious, as it is the Greek, that the fall of the woman and the fall of the husband are distinct but intertwined (ἀμφιπεσοῦσα... Ï€Îσῃσιν): to retain the parallelism, without creating meaningless ambiguity”), followed by a 15 line quote of how she would have translated the scene in question!! As if that were not enough here, Wilson then decides it’s appropriate to talk a bit more about her own translation that she just showcased by adding that “I resorted to using two verbs for a single participle, making the woman "fall to wrap her arms" around him, to try to capture the mirroring of husband and wife (both are falling), and the difference: for a moment, but not for long, the woman has the power to act, to surround her dying husband with herself.”
(3) Wilson takes the review as an opportunity to consistently speak of herself, as seen in some of the above-quoted lines, but at times she takes this even further, where we find very unprofessional self-glorifying moments (“I have felt similar frustrations over the coverage of my own translation of the Odyssey, which has frequently been labeled "A Woman's Odyssey" (Mary Beard)—rather than, say, an iambic pentameter Odyssey. My gender has been assumed to predetermine all my literary and scholarly choices. But in fact, the cases are not entirely alike. There is no "women's dialect" of English, although linguists have searched hard for it.”)
These are just some of the examples; feel free to read it for yourself and come to your own conclusions. For me, and for my colleagues who have also read it and were very disappointed that BMCR editors let this go published as such, it will be used to show our own grad students precisely what one does not do for a scholarly review. So, for that, thank you, Emily. Your review will serve a very important (though surely unintended) purpose.
thanks for this. I, too, just went to read the whole thing and cannot understand how it was cleared for publication by BMCR. ...I guess if you're a tenured Ivy prof they tend to not really proof them as much (?) assuming that all is well.
I'm an assistant prof at a SLAC, so I won't have grad students to whom I can show this review as a model of 'what not to do' but I have sent the link to some colleagues at other institutions who, while not in Classics, can use this review as a great teaching tool for their grad students.
...I think that, aside from the rule-breaking of BMCR here, what I find so shameful is the self-congratulatory tone throughout and her insistence of her own greatness.
Not that I'll ever be a tenured prof at Penn, but if I were, I'd be embarrassed for the whole department on account of this.
I just finished reading Wilson's review on the BMCR, and I didn't see the unprofessionalism described by others here. Euro-American translators face certain issues in translating an ancient Mediterranean text and its cultural institutions into text and institutions comprehensible to their readers. In her own translation, Wilson tackled these issues from a perspective that attempted (I think successfully) to give a view of Homer's language that did not depend on some Euro-American cultural baggage (e.g., on slavery and gender relations) imposed by other translators (almost all, as she correctly notes, white and male). Her experience with translating the Odyssey is the basis for her criticism of some aspects of Whitaker's work and praise of others. If she hadn't addressed her efforts in her review, the review would have been less informative -- and probably many of the critics here would be attacking her for a lack of full disclosure.
I'm not sure why anyone's BMCR review, no matter how objectionable, would reflect poorly on its author's entire department. Try to have some perspective, people.
I agree that it was a bad idea for Wilson to review a competing translation (arguably, however, less problematic than her student's BMCR of a different one released last year, which did not have the merit of at least being open in its partiality). The review itself annoys me because it's just so much repetition of her own, already well-aired, ideas about how to translate Homer into contemporary verse. As readers of her twitter know, she is not exactly charitable to other translations, and trades on the rhetoric of authenticity and fidelity when it suits her criticisms of others' attempts, while abandoning it when it doesn't. In the review, for example, she criticizes Whitaker for retaining the syntactic structure of the original in the long passage she quotes, an overly solicitous attitude that comes at the price of clarity in the English, while praising herself for more literally rendering such words as anthropos and dwme.
At the same time, this is probably just the review you would want if you are going to commission rival translators to review each other's work. Yes, it is probably more negative than what many others would have written. That's not a surprise, because it is written by someone who has just done much the same. Consider how rival textual critics review one another and Wilson looks like a positive saint. Her review discusses Whitaker's translation choices in a fair way, explains why she did things differently, and assesses the new translation's place against its rivals. Who is better placed to do that?
Also, 10:55, if you find the factual observation quoted in your first point to be "ad hominem" and "demonization" I'd say you probably set out with some prejudices of your own.
There is no place to mention the race, gender, or age of a scholar in a review. The review is to be of the content of the work not of the person. As such, Wilson's comment most surely is ad hominem.
She finds it necessary to make that statement in order to set the tone for the review, which in no way sees the translator being white, male, or elderly as a positive aspect, but instead as a negative factor that readers of the review should be aware of. She unquestionably demonizes the author on account of his race, gender, and age--three things that he cannot change.
It is never acceptable to bring these attributes into discussion of someone's work. What that line underscores is that Wilson entered her review of the work and assessment of the translation with deep prejudices with regard to what those attributes mean about the content and quality of the translation.
...Would it be appropriate, for instance, to begin a review of a Clifford Ando monograph by stating that "the author is a middle-aged Asian" ? Surely, it is not.
Wilson is guilty of an ad hominem attack and she does demonize the author on account his race, gender, and age.
After all this hub-bub I decided to read a review about a "new" translation of Homer. First off, who the fuck cares. Can we as Classicists stop with the Homer and Virgil for a bit? Aren't there other texts and authors that are worthy of study and/or updated translations? What about Cassius Dio? Pliny the Elder? Herodian? or the Historia Augusta? All texts that haven't been touched since the prohibition era.
no, let's just keep regurgitating Homer and Virgil again. We so desperately need even more translations of them.
...being said, after reading Wilson's review, I have to say that it is a bad review. And though I don't care if she was critical of his work or him as a person, Wilson does little more than self-promote herself and her own work, all while acting as a martyr. Her review was preachy and flat and goes to show just how pedantic and sad our field has become.
Honestly, Wilson's own translation isn't anything to get excited over. When it was published I recall people being absolutely giddy with excitement that someone with lady parts translated the Odyssey. Moreover, a translation by Peter Green was recently published, which means that all other translations of the Odyssey for the next 20-30 years are superfluous.
It’s a sad day when the reigns of Hadrian to the Tetrarchy rely on the same sources that philologists flatly ignore. Syme did some work on the HA, of course, but nothing philological. And if any Hellenists are looking to get a publishing deal and to be the standard reference for generations, offer us a philological commentary on the works of Cassius Dio and Herodian.
The sources 5:23 mentioned aren’t obscure, rarely used sources but are monumental ones and those that are the ONLY ones for most of the late second and all of the third century.
...put down the Aeneid and Iliad/Odyssey and do the field a favor.
This quote caught my attention as well: “I have felt similar frustrations over the coverage of my own translation of the Odyssey, which has frequently been labeled "A Woman's Odyssey" (Mary Beard)—rather than, say, an iambic pentameter Odyssey. My gender has been assumed to predetermine all my literary and scholarly choices. But in fact, the cases are not entirely alike. There is no "women's dialect" of English, although linguists have searched hard for it.”)
Anyone paying attention will know that this translation was promoted as the first translation by a woman in, like, ever. This was the publisher's deliberate marketing strategy (http://books.wwnorton.com/books/978-0-393-08905-9/), and obviously it was a good one, since the book has received a significant amount of attention in the media for this reason. So I was quite gobsmacked to read a complaint about this translation being labeled as the very thing that Wilson and her publisher have labeled it. (Just Google "Emily Wilson + Odyssey + first woman" and you will see what I mean. From the start, this was marketed as a woman's "Odyssey," and both parties have become richer for it.)
Well, that's sort of the point, right? It's fine to write and easy to find anodyne reviews that don't really say much of interest or originality about the book and that check off all the boxes you can predict just from its title. Whatever you think of her translation, her public persona in its wake, or her review, at least Wilson's says things about Whitaker's version that go beyond pablum.
The fact that controversy has arisen around Wilson’s review does not mean that she has done a good job. If 1:47 tends to believe that breaking BMCR’s establishes rules, using ad hominem attacks, and stirring up one’s fellow classicists all while self-promoting and pandering equates to a good review, then classics really is in a sad state.
Wilson’s self-absorbed review sounds as if Trump wrote it.
Been off FV for a while, came back and there’s this BMCR issue. Gave it a read and I have to say that it’s rubbish. A review shouldn’t be attacking a book because it’s not how you would have written it, but should be about the content. With translations, there are many ways that a single line could be translated; you cannot make everyone happy. The real question should be ‘is anything erroneous with the translation’ which there was not. Wilson just didn’t care for some his word choices; none of which were wrong (at least those that she highlighted in her review).
I’ve not heard of Wilson prior to this but I imagine she expects we all have and that we all are so eagerly awaiting *her* proper translation.
Lastly, her rationale for her odd translation choices that she feels justified in throwing in our faces are flimsy and, in some cases, quite imaginative and fanciful.
...as another observation, look how pathetic our field is. Here we all are arguing about how how the 128th English translation of Homer is unfairly assessed by the bitter 129th translator of Homer. ...and we wonder why our field is falling apart.
Surely you don't really believe reviewing a translation should be solely or even significantly concerned with looking for errors. In any case, I congratulate you on successfully ignoring all classics-related news and social media for going on eight months or so now, if you've never heard of Wilson's Odyssey translation.
Not 2:53 here, and I can say that I’ve heard of Wilson before but only on account of the fact that I went to UPenn for my undergrad. Haven’t heard her name mentioned since then, though I tend to stay away from Eidolon and I don’t give two shits about Homer anyway. So, don’t be that surprised if other classics folks (particularly historians or archaeologist) pay little or zero attention to the umpteenth translation of fucking Homer. It is, in my opinion, laziness to be the 200th asshole to translate an ancient source. As noted above, if Philologists really want to put their skills to work for the field, do work on the sources that NEED fresh assessment and translations:
Cassius Dio Pliny the Elder Herodian Historia Augusta
...Philologists, please, put down the fucking Homer and Virgil and actually help the field. If such aims don’t motivate you, look at it like this: given that 100-120 years go by in between translations of the above mentioned (important) sources, YOU will be THE scholar or record for some time, rather then being just another asshole in the circle jerk writing about the fucking Odyssey.
4:31, I can't disagree. But some people like to translate poetry, and you only list prose authors. So might I suggest a compromise, and that people produce a full English translation of the Greek Anthology and all those other epigrams in various collections? And what about one for Latin epigram by various authors? That would be FAR more useful for researching and teaching than another Homer translation. And, I would argue, it would be a greater challenge.
Everybody with generous and thoughtful suggestions about what other people should be doing with their time:
1. You grasp that Classicists don't mainly work on translating things, and that the things they do translate they are translating chiefly for lay readerships, not for each other, yes? And that there is a general and textbook market for translations of things like the Odyssey or Herodotus or tragedy or Ovid because (some) normal people have heard of and enjoy reading those things, whereas there is no market for Herodian or the elder Pliny because nobody knows who they are and almost nobody would enjoy reading them if they did? And that a press might greenlight a new Odyssey in order to get five percent of the Odyssey market but wouldn't do so for one hundred percent of the Historia Augusta market, because there isn't really a Historia Augusta market, because practically the only people who give two shits about the HA, for all its charms, are professional historians of the Roman empire, most of whom aren't going to need to consult a translation at all, and the remainder of whom will probably be happy with the Loeb? I mean, are you asking for these translations because *you* want them? Whom is the envisioned efflorescence of Herodian translations meant to serve that the Loeb will not?
2. If whiling your days away translating Pliny the Elder and the Greek Anthology is such an awesome idea, then, you know, why don't *you* do it? Why go on the Internet and piss and moan and tell other people they should be doing it for you? And why put your brilliant scheme out here where we can steal it? You could be "THE scholar or record for some time, rather then being just another asshole," as a wise person once said. Really, how can you pass up this golden opportunity?
Hey, 7:10, I'm the one who mentioned the "Greek Anthology." I have indeed thought of doing it, though only selections. Something I might get to in a decade, and if someone beats me to it I will not rend my garments and wail at the top of my lungs. But we as a field do need a complete translation in paperback that can be assigned for Greek Civilization, Greek Literature, and several other courses, since one can hardly tell students to buy the 5-vol. Loeb set.
Not just for the sake of translations for translations sake as much as providing a philological/historical commentary. I think that most historians would be satisfied with a green & yellow of the above sources and aren’t necessarily looking for a Penguin of Herodian. Though I doubt you are aware, many classics courses could benefit from having an affordable modern translation of the above mentioned sources, rather than assigning undergrads to read scans of a Loeb from 1920 with its archaic language that bound to keep students from penetrating the material.
I'm an archaeologist. I knew about the Wilson Odyssey not because I care about Emily Wilson or am an opinionated devotee of Homer translations, but because:
- it has been prominently displayed in every bookstore I've been in for at least six months - classics people on social media have talked about it to death (no, I don't follow "classics twitter") - it has been reviewed and discussed in basically every (non-scholarly) venue for such things, including like four different articles in the New Yorker - it was moreover the subject of a lengthy, front-page profile and review in the New York Times that received about a thousand comments online from the "lay public"
If you've truly missed hearing about it, you are in a surely small minority of professional classicists (au sens large). I say this not to be snide, but to explain why people have been carrying on as if it were common knowledge.
7:10 is exactly right re demands for philologists to do such and such. Moreover, given the cultural impact and success Wilson's Odyssey had (however much you want to blame/credit the canny PR campaign on its behalf), it seems exceptionally, and almost hilariously, misguided to suggest that a translation of the HA would "help the field" (lmao) more than continuing to discuss what the broader world of letters and the classically-inclined public, such as it is, is interested in. The positivist, another-brick-in-the-wall-of-knowledge approach to scholarship ("stop working on Caesar/Homer/Vergil/other popular things, and work on my boring text to Help The Field By Making It Easier To Know More About It") is out of touch on this level at least.
Some good points, but the texts refered to above aren’t obscure in any way; they are all that we have for the reigns from Hadrian up through to the Tetrarchy. One can laugh at the importance of the HA, Dio, and Herodian but they are anything but trivial sources. They, while surely imperfect, are highly informative of an otherwise dark period of history and are deserving of appropriate philological study. Pouring over the same poems again and again, while it may make many philologists happy, leaves massive lacunae in the general scholarship.
Nobody is saying that Homeric studies are a wast of time, I think that the sentiment is that there’s hyper-focusing on a few authors that don’t really *need* as much as they’re receiving. Imagine if all Roman archaeologists refused to dig anywhere but the city of Rome or the Italian countryside, all while refusing (and laughing it off) to dig in Britain, North Africa. Europe, etc.. and say “if you want to see what’s there so bad, go dig it up yourself!
If the different branches of Claaaics refuse to listen to one another (which is what is coming through here), then we really are doomed. The degree of hostility to some of the above suggestions I find saddening.
Female historian here. I heard about the Wilson Odyssey, but rolled my eyes whenever I heard about it, I find it insulting that whenever a woman does something for the first time we all have to collectively cheer and act as if it’s so wonderful. It diminishes what is women do every day in the field if we continually find it necessary to hold a victory parade whenever one of us does something that’s really insignificant, which a 200th translation of Homer really is. It’s marginalizing to the rest of us women to act like this. I don’t ever want to be seen as a “female” classicist, but just a classicist. So long as we continue to high five each other whenever a woman is the first to do something, it’s rather difficult for us move to a world where gender is a non-issue.
What you think the field should do -- increase knowledge and its accessibility -- is fine for a research-oriented perspective. But parts of the field go beyond what is useful to other professionals. I would say that archaeology is actually just as you describe, if you make the appropriate shift from excavation to tourism: 99% of tourist dollars spent looking at ancient Roman ruins are spent in Rome and Pompeii, just as 99% of lay-public dollars spent on classical translations are spent on the literary canon. Even if you don't care to do that kind of thing yourself, criticizing scholars for engaging the general public is foolish, let alone doing so under the theory of serving the field's future. I'm not laughing at the historians you mention, but rather at the idea that what advances specialist knowledge is inherently beneficial to the field per se.
There's actually no such thing as "needing" work. Our field serves itself and it serves the public. If no one cares about textile production in Hittite Anatolia for a few generations, that just leaves more opportunities for the future. If everyone wants to read new Homer translations, it's fine that the HA is being neglected. That's not to say the distribution of interest is innocent or shouldn't be discussed. What's super awesome, in fact, is when unexpected texts or discoveries shatter what we thought the public was interested in--as with the ever-expanding catalogue of Landmark historians, for example (which may soon encompass the historians you want to see! and let me be clear: I'd love that too!).
Surprised that there isn’t a Landmark Tacitus on the horizon, speaking of the series; though, I assume that we’ll see it commissioned in the next 10 years or so. ...unless I’m horribly out of touch with what’s on deck for the Landmark series.
No inside info, but given how low the pay is and short the job term, if you’re not a UK citizen there might as well be an inside candidate, because they won’t take anyone needing a work visa for a 28,000 salary job.
I will say that I lose almost all respect for the classicists who write “Barnes & Noble” books. I know that I shouldn’t and I know that it serves an important function, but can’t help thinking of them as being hacks from that point on.
I think its alright to write a B and N book, so long as you maintain a record of peer reviewed publication. The unfortunate trend is once scholars start writing B and N crap, they find this more lucrative and give up on the hard but unremunerated work of producing scholarship.
I agree. Barry Strauss, Bart Ehrman, Mary Beard, etc.. have completely sold out
Michael Grant, though he wrote some absolutely amazing stuff that is scholarly (From Imperium to Auctoritas), really was the first to jump the payday bandwagon and just produced one popular history book after the other.
I don’t think it’s bad when scholars write textbooks, but there’s something about seeing a great name making B&N crap that make you think so much less of them. It would be like if Jimi Hendrix decided to put down his Strat and only play Guitar Hero, if Tiger Woods wanted to be a professional mini-golf player instead, if Gordon Ramsey started selling a line of TV dinners, if Rolex began only making digital calculator watches, etc..
Wow, imagine seeing Jimi Hendrix taking a break from a Guitar Hero to binge on some Gordon Ramsey TV dinner (Salisbury Steak, maybe) while watching Tiger Woods on ESPN 2 at the National Put Put Championship Game; but then, his digital alarm went off on his Rolex to remind him that Barry Strauss’s new bullshit book on the Trojan War goes on sale the next day at Barnes & Noble.
As a philologist, I wasn't too familiar with Michael Grant. Looked him up and was surprised that he wrote more than 70 books. Germane to the discussion here is this interesting snippet from the Times commenting on Grant's production of what we are calling 'Barnes & Noble' books (taken from his Wikipedia page):
"Grant's approach to classical history was beginning to divide critics. Numismatists felt that his academic work was beyond reproach, but some academics balked at his attempt to condense a survey of Roman literature into 300 pages, and felt (in the words of one reviewer) that "even the most learned and gifted of historians should observe a speed-limit". The academics would keep cavilling, but the public kept buying"
New T-T job just posted for Archaeologist/Ancient Historian. Pays between $95,000 and $113,000. I guess that kind of money is needed to get scholars willing to move to Australia.
@11:44 PM In the words of the late MJ, "you are not alone, I am here with you..." It's been a weird year. We should probably all fill out the counter to really flesh out what "0 : Lots" looks like. But I had a feeling things were looking bad when the Charleston entry said "nearly 70 applications" in mid or late April (whenever that was).
Nope. Can assure you that you are not alone. Currently finishing a postdoc, with book under contract, some respectable stuff published this year, and only one interview for a search that was cancelled in the end.
SUNY Stony Brook just announced their TT hire. Another ABD.
...this is a wild year, in that so few jobs are out there coupled with so many applicants AND so many folks who are ABD managed to get some of the very best jobs that came out. First year applying with PhD in hand; this has been a hell of a year to enter into the shit storm that is academia.
Hey, this is a safe space, right? Can I just say that a certain new translation of the Odyssey is an interesting and probably needed translation but it is AN Odyssey. And one pretty far from what I see in the Greek.
But the person who translated it has a vagina; it must be the best translation that has ever happene!
...until a transgendered, 1/2 black 1/2 Eskimo, Jewish, and disabled scholar does theirs. Then that will be the *ultimate* translation that can never be topped.
I agree that the value placed on the translation in question is ridiculous. I’m not too sure how much of the smugness of the new translation is from the author and how much is from the publisher. The latter, of course, wants only to create as much discussion in order to increase sales, the former, one would hope, places their emphasis on the merit of the work.
I’ve read The Odyssey more times than I care to count and really have no interest in reading it again simply because the new translation was done by a female. From what little excerpts I’ve seen, her choices for translation are bad, require a great deal of stretching the Greek, and would receive quite a poor grade if it were turned in as a translation assignment in a Greek course.
...much ado about nothing, if you ask me. Much of the press surrounding it is so overblown and pandering.
While I disagree with the manner of 1:22’s message, the sentiment is (sadly) accurate. We ought not place so much emphasis on what underrepresented category an author may fail into and how that aggrandizes their otherwise mediocre work.
I feel bad for all of the modest female classicists who may feel singled-out due to this. I never even thought of this before, but there was a comment made in here within the last week by a female who fell into this camp.
Nobody is complaining about women in Classics; only that some people treat scholarship produced by women as being sacrosanct just because it was composed by a woman.
@3:00,
I hope that you're being funny here. 2:42 clearly meant "the females" to be tongue-in -cheek. Even if not, male/female men/women are not derogatory terms and, as anyone who has ever read a text message before in their life can attest: one tends to read a particular tone to written words that may not be intended.
@3:02,
I wouldn't say Whitaker's version was hyped at all. It just so happened that it was mentioned here in secondary context. What was being discussed was Wilson's review of his work. No, Whitaker's version was not hyped one iota. And, to be a bit of a pain in the ass here, Emily Wilson is also a WASP. She comes from a very high society British academic family, was educated at Oxford and Yale, etc.. All that separates Whitaker from Wilson is their sex.
@1:22, Oh, for heaven's sake. (1) 'Eskimo' is a racial slur: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/04/24/475129558/why-you-probably-shouldnt-say-eskimo . (2) Heaping up marginalised identities in a tone of incredulity helps no one. Do you think such a person doesn't exist? Or, if they do, couldn't be a scholar? I have two of those identity markers; I know at least two other classicists who have four. (3) 'Transgender', not 'transgendered'. I realise you'll think all of this is some SJW getting worked up about language that means nothing, and that it proves your point, but you could hide your naked contempt a little better; it might help your point. I agree that Wilson's translation isn't great, and that the discussion of it through the lens of her gender is extremely dull. But if you were a colleague of mine I wouldn't trust you with my students.
3:38, I'm not the person who posted above, but you are claiming "naked contempt" without any evidence when you write: 'Transgender', not 'transgendered'. I realise you'll think all of this is some SJW getting worked up about language that means nothing, and that it proves your point, but you could hide your naked contempt a little better; it might help your point. I myself use "transgender" but did not know there was an issue until reading your post. But even if the post above should have known better, this is a relatively tame issue. Here is the explanation from GLAAD, as quoted on the "Transgender" Wikipedia page: "Problematic: "transgendered". Preferred: transgender. The adjective transgender should never have an extraneous "-ed" tacked onto the end. An "-ed" suffix adds unnecessary length to the word and can cause tense confusion and grammatical errors. It also brings transgender into alignment with lesbian, gay, and bisexual. You would not say that Elton John is "gayed" or Ellen DeGeneres is "lesbianed," therefore you would not say Chaz Bono is "transgendered." So it's partly a syntactical issue, and partly a legitimate issue, but not one that people can be blamed for not realizing on their own. (In other words, yes, I now see the argument about "gayed," but I'm so used to hearing "transgendered" that I never questioned the term. Am I a bad person?)
I'm taking the time to respond simply because I'm sick and tired of people, both here and in society as a whole, always jumping to the worst conclusion about another person. The poster who used "transgendered" was making a point that you may have found disagreeable, but you should not read into his/her use of "transgendered" contempt for people who are "transgender," any more than using Jews to make his/her point makes him/her anti-semitic. That ends up saying at least as much about you as the other poster.
4,546 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 4001 – 4200 of 4546 Newer› Newest»Ah, 11:51 you are cherry-picking but a single example of the group posted above. Come on. Someone else say something nice.
...says a triggered pearl-clutcher doing concern-trolling.
"...says a triggered pearl-clutcher doing concern-trolling." what a fine assemblage of contemporary argot.
Here's how I see it. I am now middle-aged. There is a core group of classicists 10-15 years younger than me doing outward facing work and trying to make a difference in the world (e.g. Pharos, Itinera, Sportula, Eidolon, etc) instead of just feeling sorry for themselves. On the other hand, there are a bunch of MCGA wackos who don't seem to stand for anything but petty nihilism, reactionary pessimism, or just cracking lame jokes.
Even if I don't agree with everything they say, do and believe, I prefer to be on the side of people who believe in things and believe that Classics can be a part of improving the world both for Classicists and others.
"...there are a bunch of MCGA wackos..."
I'm not convinced that there's more than one. One advantage of moving to a system where people have to log in is that it would take a lot more work for one person to look like more than one person.
There are a LOT more than one of us. MCGA!
I recently read a piece wherein a scholar contemplated whether or not Achilles was black, in response to the reaction of morons on the internet who got their knickers in a twist because there is a television show that has Achilles (and others) portrayed by black actors. Clearly the sort of people who are upset are the kind of philistines who don't know that colorblind casting has been a thing at least in theater for years.
Anyway, instead of writing the sort of response that kind of reaction merits, which would have been, "You are unqualified to comment on this subject. Go earn yourself a doctorate in Classics/ancient history/archaeology if you want to give your unsolicited opinion on this topic. Until then, shut up," the scholar went on a rather extended excursus on the blackness of various characters in Greek myth before concluding that, no, Achilles wasn't black. Nevermind that neither Achilles nor any of the other characters weren't real, but that's neither here nor there.
I suppose the whole point of my own long post here is that outlets like Eidolon are too willing to engage with fascists, racists, and other assorted human trash instead of just telling them to fuck off because they don't know what they're talking about. In either case they'll ignore what you have to say anyway and send you death threats, so why bother putting forth the effort beyond giving the middle finger?
Summary: I don't like lower class people and instead of chastising them, woke people should just ignore them.
@1:52, I thought that was a very interesting piece that examined how ancient perceptions of color and ethnicity engaged and did not engage. Plus, telling people to shut up because they lack proper qualifications has definitely not worked, both inside and outside of the discipline.
I enjoyed the article on Achilles a lot too, but I am inclined to agree with 1:52. See for example Sarah Bond, who simply pointed out that sculpture was painted in antiquity and that viewing the ancient world's aesthetic as one of white marble was a modern fabrication. She was savagely attacked online by people who had not a clue what they were talking about. Reach out a hand to these sort of people and you draw back a nub.
Another agree with 1:52 here.
Not to interrupt the Blachilles discussion, but I just heard that Yale had another weird that might be inside again? Anyone know anything about this?
The identity of the MCGA troll is a current topic of discussion in my cohort; we think we know who SHE (yes, she) is.
Did Yale run a listing of any kind, or are you suggesting it is so inside that there was no job listed, etc....
@4:42,
I don’t *think* that Bond was just saying that statues were painted in antiquity (we all knew this anyway), but was instead extending her point to imply that the Greeks/Romans were wildly diverse ethnically-speaking. While not entirely untrue, it is a bit of a stretch to imagine the Romans across the Empire looking *too* diverse. Without a doubt, if one could travel back in time and peer around at what Romans looked like, we’d be little surprised to see what we’d classify as “Caucasians” running around im togas. Yes, there would be a wide array of various ethnicities but unless one visited Mauritania or Syria, you’d not see too much variation.
The important bit to stress is that those in antiquity didn’t give a shit about skin color. They noticed it, of course, but didn’t care about it, as they didn’t draw conclusions about one based on it. Now prejudice existed, but it was cultural. If you wore a toga, spoke Latin, attended Roman games, etc.. you were a Roman. Period. If you take on Roman culture you were “one of us.”
So, did some statues of Romans have darker shades of skin tone? probably. Did it mean anything? No. So long as the painter chose a color that corresponded with a human skin tone, it was fine. I don’t believe that it mattered at all, so long as the end result looked like an actual human being. No different than if one today were paint a picture of a crowd of people; so long as they all have blue/brown/green eyes it didn’t matter what pigment you use as the artist—just don’t use bright red, pink, etc..
It’s our modern obsession with “race” that has colored (no pun intended) how we internalize ancient ideas about it.
"The identity of the MCGA troll is a current topic of discussion in my cohort; we think we know who SHE (yes, she) is."
Well, a bunch of you putting bars of soap in socks should work well. I saw it in a movie once. Just remember: cohort, discipline, God, country.
"Cohort", i.e. grad students?
GTFO you don't have a clue.
MCGA!
The only classicist I've ever met who I can imagine behaving the way that the MCGA troll behaves is a woman. We might be onto something.
Funny, I’ve had a suspicion for a while of who the MCGA troll might be and it is a he who also won a fairly prestigious job this season. Only speculating, but I know for a fact this person posts on this forum and I’ve heard him express some fairly shitty views in person. If those are the ones he cops to, who knows what he might say under cloak of anonymity. But perhaps the lesson is that there are several such trolls, which is pretty depressing.
Let the witch hunt begin! Who will be the first to offer a bounty?
Oh, and queue the SJW furor over the use of the term 'witch hunt'!
A troll, in the proper sense of the term, is a person who posts in a certain persona in order to mock that persona. Hence the MCGA troll does not believe anything s/he posts, but is simply pretending to be what s/he imagines an actual "MCGA" person would believe and say. So I would assume that the MCGA troll is actually a woke goodthinker in real life.
But that's not the definition of an internet troll. Though I hope to God you're right that this person is a left-winger, since I'd find that entertaining.
That's what spousal hires are. Kudos to FSU.
Anything in the rumor mill for the Fairfield position? (Sad circumstances to cause the opening. RIP Vince!)
Is UCLA moving on to its third choice candidate, or failing the search? Info welcome (as someone who applied, didn't get a campus visit, but is hopeful for next year!)
@10:18 are you saying a spousal hire is trolling? I'm confused
@11:53am prestigious TT or VAP?
If VAP, I think I know who you mean... a very venomous personality.
How dare you question the decision of an SC? They know what is best.
The number of high-profile failed searches this year is surprising and dispiriting. The number of excellent candidates is so high that no place should have a search fail.
@2:09 PM: are you kidding? Of course searches fail, especially when 2-3 schools are all fighting for the same candidates. The search becomes drawn out; months pass by.... by the time you realise none of your top 3-4 candidates are available (or suitable: a job talk / campus visit changes a lot), then it's too late to go down the list... I've never heard of a second round of campus visits. So, hey presto: a failed search.
2:09, while it seems logical that with so many excellent candidates there should never be a failed search, unfortunately that's not how it works on the ground. At my SLAC, for instance, we have to certify a list of 6 top candidates before we schedule on-campus interviews. We are not allowed, under any circumstances, for any reason whatsoever, to go down the list to number 7.
I know 6 seems like it would be enough. But on a SC I was on a few years back (not in classics; I was the outside member for a different humanities dept.), we were late in scheduling interviews, for various reasons including serious illness of one crucial SC member. Candidate 1 called us right after we'd certified our list and withdrew his application; he'd decided moving would be too disruptive for his kids. No problem, we still had 5 candidates. Candidate 2 scheduled a visit but then accepted another position before she came to our campus. All right, we've still got 4. Candidate 3 also accepted another position. Ulp. Well, we've still got candidates 4, 5, and 6. Candidate 4 came to campus and bombed spectacularly. Candidate 5, yes, accepted another position before our on-campus visit. Luckily, thanks be to all the gods, candidate 6 was spectacularly good and got the job.
But notice that this meant in the end we had only TWO on-campus interviews--we pointed that out to the Dean and asked to be allowed to bring Candidate 7 to campus, so that we'd have the normal 3 interviews. We were told absolutely no way. Once the list is drawn up, your 6 certified candidates are your entire pool, and that's that. Had Candidate 6 bombed, or taken another job, we would have had a failed search.
Now, obviously this was a perfect storm of bad luck. But it's the kind of thing that can and does happen. And when the adminstration's rules are as rigid as ours are, there is quite literally nothing the SC can do about it. Believe me, we argued and pled and begged, and pointed out that all we were asking for was the 3 on-campus interviews that are normal; we weren't asking to bring in a 4th candidate, for instance. We might as well have been talking to a wall. It was maddeningly frustrating, and horribly bad luck for candidate 7 (though of course s/he never knew about it). But that's what happened.
This discussion puts me in mind of the scene in "A Beautiful Mind" explaining Governing Dynamics: all these places are going after the equivalent to the hot blonde and therefore cannot all succeed, whereas if they all ignored her Classics job candidate equivalents and went for the ones who are a bit less appealing they'd all be able to hire someone. And someone quite good, because there are plenty of top-notch people who are not tip-top-notch.
The scene, for those of you who haven't seen the movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ITWl7CBzSA
Another SC member from a SLAC here, just chiming in to substantiate 5:24's descriptions of the process. My school is even worse. We're only allowed to certify 3 candidates. If we don't get any of those 3 for whatever reason, it's an automatic failed search. Our department is a foreign language one with Classics rolled in. One year when we were looking for an Italian language scholar, our first visit was beyond terrible (as in the candidate didn't prepare anything at all for their job talk or teaching demo), and the other two accepted jobs elsewhere. More than 150 people applied for that job, and I have no doubt that most of those we interviewed would have been great. But we had to call a failed search anyway.
Apparently the scuttlebutt the next year when we advertised again was that we were terribly disorganized, toxic, and all other such things because of the failed search, and people were angry that we didn't hire. I wish I could have emailed all the remaining candidates we interviewed and begged them to apply again. Alas, none of them did, probably figuring that we didn't want them. Luckily we hired a good person the second time around, but I think folks should be aware of situations like this. If you applied for a job and a search fails without you getting a campus invite, definitely apply again the next year, especially if you got a first round interview. The SC may well have been hoping that candidates like you applied again.
many thanks to the SC folks for their candid comments! this is why FV exists :-]
Food for thought:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4644075/
Apparently there are people with STEM qualifications who work on what is every year a major topic of discussion on FV.
Hasn't anyone told them that the Search Committees make the best decisions SIMPLICITER?
Congratulations to everyone who graduated/will graduate this month! Whether or not you landed a job in the field, finishing the PhD is a great accomplishment in its own right. Congrats!
Yes to 9:12 AM! And to anyone who decided to leave while ABD or with an MA, you made the right decision for you and that should also be celebrated.
Yes! As someone who only landed a job after I finished my Ph.D., don't give up yet if you don't have anything and are about to graduate. It can happen!
Anyone have suggestions for finding adjunct work?
@3:46,
Very little exists for Classics. Check out Higheredjobs.com and look under their humanities section. Sometimes applicable jobs appear for Classicists (comp lit; myth; rarely Latin).
Adjunct gigs are avenues where folks with a “history” PhD have a distinct advantage over “classics” PhDs.
Has anyone heard from Fairfield? It isn't on the classicswiki. Last chance for hope and all that.
5:27,
Fairfield has been on the Wiki for a a few days now (I added it).
I wouldn’t expect word to be out for at least another week. For what it’s worth, Fairfield is also my last remaining job prospect. Best of luck to us all.
:)
70 applications for College of Charleston in mid-April is a scary thought...
For finding adjunct work, here's one method if you have the ability to potentially wait for a while for this to bear fruit: investigate every university, college, and community college within whatever distance you can/are willing to commute. Find out what departments offer classes you could teach (Classics, History, PoliSci sometimes has ancient history or Latin courses depending on the institution, Art History, Art, Languages and Literatures, etc.), then send your CV and a brief, polite email to the chairs of those departments explaining who you are and that you are available to teach xxx classes in their department should they have need. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, sometimes they'll send your name to someone they know at another institution, and sometimes (especially due to institutional budget cycles) you'll end up not having anyone offer you anything for 6 months to a year, but this is one option if you're geographically restricted and want to find academic work in the area. Also, a lot of smaller and/or non-Classics programs will never advertise through the SCS, so this is one way to start getting connected to people in your area.
Our department needs one-course lecturer fill-ins all the time. Keep your CV on file with your local department -- and show up to their events, eh?
I got some of my first positions by cold emailing department chairs in any department I could teach in (English, Modern Languages, Classics and History) at every college, Community and otherwise, within reasonable driving distance of Chapel Hill, where I was living at the time.
You have written (or are writing) a PhD dissertation in a Humanities field. You can teach literature courses, you can teach college writing for which there is always a need.
As someone who adjuncted at various places for more years that I care to recall, due to personal circumstances that restricted my ability to move for a job, I second everything the previous posters said. I would just add that most institions will NOT advertise part-time adjunct positions with the SCS or anywhere else. They normally don't need to. The only way to find adjunct work that I know of is to do precisely what others have suggested -- let any and all departments in your area (however you define that) know that you are available and eager to teach. Obviously, your chances are better if you're within commuting distance of a major city with many institutions.
I eventually got a tenure-track job so I haven't adjuncted for the past few years, but I think the situation with finding adjunct work hasn't changed. Don't expect adjunct work to be advertised anywhere. You have to seek it out.
I'm starting a 2 year VAP in August and thought I'd ask for some advice from more senior members of FV about how "in touch" I should be with the department over the summer before the semester starts.
Is it expected for me to do my own thing over the summer -- to enjoy some time off after submission of dissertation, to catch up on some reading, to return to papers I had put on the back burner while dissertating -- and not to be in touch with the department? Do some faculty members see a lack of communication from an incoming VAP over the summer as a sign of an uninvolved colleague? Just wanted to get a sense of how involved I should be virtually before actually moving to campus... Thanks in advance for any thoughts!
Man, what a disappointing year (1st year with PhD in hand). I’ve had a good amount of 1st round interviews (4 T-T; 3 VAP) but zero campus invites and zero job offers. I’m sitting here waiting on 2-3 late-game VAPs, but I have no sense of optimism. I keep hearing people on FB talking about being stuck in “VAP hell” but to me being employed at all sounds like a dream come true. ...not sure how much company I have in the “complete failure” category along with me, but it really is discouraging to have been passed on all the way into late May.
2:12, as one who has held multiple VAP/lecturer positions, I'd say that you can do your own thing this summer and not feel more communication is expected of you. Of course, if you have valid questions -- about the move, housing, ordering books, etc. -- then don't keep them to yourself, but don't send e-mails or phone just for the sake of it.
Yes, as someone else with many VAPs, having a VAP contract is not like having a girlfriend/boyfriend. You don't have to call all the time. Respond promptly to their requests, but otherwise make the most of your summer.
Over the summer you really don't want to be Chester in the Spike-Chester dynamic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVNHcob3oJg
Too late.
do we really need FV when we've got the liverpool listserv for all our MCGA needs?
We've entered the last stretch here...will FV die and will we let Donna Zuckerberg reign unopposed as the online neoliberal Queen of Classicsdom? A despot after Xerxes'own decadent Oriental heart, come to crush the spirits of the good and free people?! I say no! MCGA now, MCGA tomorrow, MCGA forever!
Original adjunct poster here: thanks all! Much appreciated.
Wealth does what it wants, the poor do what they must.
MCGA!
FV forever!
I'm not sure DZ and the Eidolon gang are capable of Thucydidean realpolitik.
This is my first hearing about the Liverpool listserv, and just taking a quick look, it's easily more of a headache to navigate than FV.
Perhaps worthy of discussion?
https://twitter.com/kataplexis/status/998450010646773760
The Dinosaurs are roaring on the Liverpool listserv! They are partying like it's 1899! MCGA!!!
Re: the Twitter post above:
Honestly, as someone who has lived in both the States and several European countries, I think that part of the problem is that America is so sexually repressed and puritanical that it breeds a preponderance of perverts and predators.
That said, I thought the person in question was being accused of Daddy Cruel-style perversion, but instead it seems that it's their work that is problematic and that they misrepresented what their presentations would be about. I think that refusing to ever use a person's work because they're a pervert or criminal is a bit silly though. I recall people debating the same when Daddy Cruel was outed, and Aunt Lydia even wrote a piece in Eidolon about it.
No, 1:43 p.m., that long series of tweets by the poor man's D.Z. is not worth discussing here. It has nothing at all to do with FV's core mission and is about someone who was discussed here several weeks ago.
If you want to discuss it then just tweet back at "The Microcosm."
This was my first year on the job market with PhD and I have a few questions.
First, I’m an ancient historian (History PhD; Classics MA; Classics BA), with PhD from a top-10. I applied to positions both in Classics Departments and History Departments. There was a sharp divide in my response. For History Dept T-T jobs I had Skype interviews for 6/7 and for History Dept VAPs I had Skype interviews for 3/4. ...For Classics, I had 0 Skype requests for 12 T-T and 8 VAP jobs. Let me repeat, zero. :/
So, what I’m wondering is, if I ever happen to get a VAP gig at a Classics Dept (and therefore am able to prove what ought to be already obvious—that I can teach Latin and Greek) will that be enough to open doors or is having a History Dept PhD an insurmountable hurdle ?
I find this boggling, since my BA and MA are in Classics (and from good schools) and I hope that it is known by Classics faculty that literally EVERY History Dept PhD has to be fully capable and competanat in their respective language. Are Classics folks really *that* snobby?
Second, is it normal to have not secured a VAP on your first year out (I was offered a continuation of my sitting adjunctship, at least)?
Thanks in advance.
:)
Fully capable and competenat [sic] at languages is not the same as being deeply trained in philology. Sorry.
Oh, come now. There are plenty of people with Classics Ph.D.'s who aren't as deeply trained in philology as they should be, since they went the theory route. A well-trained ancient historian should at least be their match in Latin and Greek classes.
I'm also an ancient historian and had nearly the opposite experience this year (I say nearly because you had way more interviews! well done). I didn't get the slightest hint of interested from any of the History department jobs--all my interviews were with classics departments. I have done an unusual amount of legwork to show that I am a trained philologist. Perhaps more important, my work is pretty legible to classicists while also being utterly unlike the outmoded "here's How It Actually Happened, based on my common sense intuitions about lost sources" school of ancient history. I ultimately didn't get any offers (for different reasons in each case, I think) so I don't have any brilliant insight to offer you, 5:08. But what I would say in answer to your implicit and explicit questions is that, (a) yes, if you get a VAP in a classics department, I would expect future applications to be taken much more seriously; (b) you say it "should be obvious" that you can teach L & G, but have you? do you have any experience doing so? (perhaps in your MA program?) I've said this before on this forum, but if you've never taught Greek and Latin, why would you expect to be taken seriously as someone who can do those things when there are so many other people applying who have? It's not "snobby"; it's realistic. I think this is probably the biggest factor in what happens on the otherwise-baffling ancient history job market--a lot of search committees are going to wonder if you can really teach what they want you to teach. (For various reasons, I've never taught history, so it's not a surprise that I didn't succeed in history departments (even though I am a historian).) (c) the fact that you were so successful at getting interviews in history departments seems extremely encouraging to me, even though, like me, you came up blank. I don't know what your current adjuncting situation is, but if you are eager to get a job in a classics department, it would be good to get some language teaching. Otherwise, it seems that you are already a strong candidate. I wish you the best in getting that first "real" job--the hardest to get, it seems.
@6:00,
But by the same standards a “Philologist” should never be hired in a History Dept, since being familiar with historical sources and having a sense of the culture and socio-economic world of Greece and Rome is fat different than being deeply trained in History. A French professor or a German professor shouldn’t be teaching courses in a History Dept on the French Revolution or the rise of Hitler, yet some tend to imagine that a Latinist or Hellenist are somehow capable to do it all. ...this is a major flaw within Classics: overblown egos of the all-mighty philologists who feel that an 18th Century academic model applies today.
Second, the fact that you pointed out the typo of 5:08 (I imagine he/she was using their phone to thype) just underscores the arrogance and snobbery so deeply embedded within Classics.
@5:08,
You ARE capable of teaching undergrads how to decline amo, don’t let 6:00 fool you. Also, as an ancient historian I imagine you can offer a great deal of USEFUL commentary to a direct reading course, which, as we all know, tend to be laden with pedantic questions about “why is this in the dative and not the accusative?” or asinine comments like “ooh, this line from Cassius Dio is deliberately mimicking this one obscure line from Pindar that I’m aware of, let’s jerk each other off and talk about that for 10 minutes rather than actually discuss the actual material that the author is talking about.” God forbid we discuss *historical context* when reading an ancient source.
To answer your question, a soft yes. Once you can show that you can teach Freshmen about declensions and conjugations (because it’s soo complicated), you’ll be able to market yourself as Classics Dept worthy. Some might be still think that it’s not enough (see 6:00), but it will at least open up many more doors.
Best of luck.
'Also, as an ancient historian I imagine you can offer a great deal of USEFUL commentary to a direct reading course, which, as we all know, tend to be laden with pedantic questions about “why is this in the dative and not the accusative?” or asinine comments like “ooh, this line from Cassius Dio is deliberately mimicking this one obscure line from Pindar that I’m aware of, let’s jerk each other off and talk about that for 10 minutes rather than actually discuss the actual material that the author is talking about.”'
This might be the greatest comment in FV history. As an ancient historian I am starting a slow clap for saying what all of us think about certain philologists.
Clap....Clap...Clap..Clap..Clap
@6:37,
YES!! 100% this!
6:29 again. I hate to say it, but by so contemptuously dismissing exactly the kind of expertise that some "philologists" consider basic, you are only demonstrating why some ancient historians continue to struggle on the classics job market. Also, by carving off history as something that only YOU can teach, you make it more difficult to explain why the lamguages aren't something only THEY can teach.
@8:02,
I think the point being made was more that: if only philologists can teach Latin/Greek (the point made by 6:00), then only Historians should be teaching history. Underlining a stark double-standard that exists.
IMO, undergrad Latin van be taught by one with an MA in classics and PhD in Ancient History; Greek is best left to philologists at all levels past 101/2; More advanced graduate Latin courses should be taught by philologists. ...Archaeology should be taught by archaeologists. ...history *can* be taught by *some* non-historians at the 100-level, but it’s foolish to have a classics PhD teach any history course at the advanced undergrad or grad level. ...I’m sure not everyone will agree with me in this.
I don't know if that's the point 6:00 was trying to make, but I read it as pointing to the existence of a space between "knows Latin" and "is qualified to teach Latin [at all levels]." I would continue to emphasize that even if you believe philologists enforce double standards in the treatment of specializations, looking for evidence of past success in language teaching is not one of them.
@6:00,
Does one really need to be “deeply trained in philology” in order to teach first or second year Latin? I concede that in order to properly teach graduate-level Latin it’s best for the prof to be a Philologist and not a Greek archaeologist.
...but, as noted above, it’s not awfully difficult to run through amo/amas/amat with freshmen for anyone who has an MA in philology as well as a PhD in ancient history. Remember that most programs require PhD candidates to demonstrate doctoral-level competency in big Latin and Greek in order to progress through said program; additionally, you CANNOT undertake a proper dissertation or do competent research without being able to work through the languages.
FWIW, I feel that many Classics Depts (at least for VAP jobs) are a bit out of touch with reality if they feel that someone like 5:08 can’t teach first or second year Latin.
Competency in *both* Latin... ^^^^
12:10 wrote:
"FWIW, I feel that many Classics Depts (at least for VAP jobs) are a bit out of touch with reality if they feel that someone like 5:08 can’t teach first or second year Latin."
From my experience on several SCs, I'd say this has it exactly backwards. We would be hesitant ever to hire someone with no experience teachng either language (and no, being competent in reading the ancient languages is not evidence that you can teach them), but we would be willing to mentor a new T-T colleague with no experience in teaching the languages if that person was very strong and a great fit for our program in other areas. We could give that person a couple of years to settle in and then move them into taking on some of our language teaching.
But we would never consider hiring someone without language-teaching experience for a one-year VAP that included teaching languages. For a VAP, the dept. needs someone who can step in and cover existing courses for one year. When the market is glutted with people who have already taught both languages for several years, it would be insane for us to consider handing language classes over to someone who hasn't taught languages yet. Remember, a VAP will only be with us for one year -- we can't invest a lot of mentoring time for someone who won't be around after that year, and we can't risk bad language teaching (and we are ALL bad at it the first time we try it, which is why the first time should be in grad school with supervision) for a year.
This isn't "snobbery". It's recognizing that language pedagogy is difficult, that everyone makes a lot of mistakes the first time they try it, and that we have a responsibility to our students to hire the best teachers we can find for them, especially when those teachers are temporary. It makes sense to accept a rocky start at teaching for a t-t hire who'll be with us for many years. It makes no sense to do that for a VAP.
"There are plenty of people with Classics Ph.D.'s who aren't as deeply trained in philology as they should be, since they went the theory route."
I dare say, as a philologist who has theoretical training, that the "theory route" produces professionals who can teach more and to a broader audience.
5:01 AM summarizes the VAP teaching issues quite nicely. I'll add that teaching Latin well enough *to attract Classics majors* and prepare them for the advanced levels of language study is a hell of a lot more difficult than simply running through amo/amas/amat.
Picture a Classics department at a SLAC with 25 students enrolled in Latin 101. The department might expect to gain 3-4 majors out of that group once they've finished the intro level, perhaps 5-6 in a good year with an exceptional instructor in front of the class. If they roll the dice on a VAP candidate with no language teaching experience and that person completely bombs, they might only get 1 (or zero) majors out of that group. A bad (or even mediocre) teaching performance at the 100-level can have repercussions for years, including cancelling 200- and 300-level classes due to low enrollment.
Was 6:37 PM's "You ARE capable of teaching undergrads how to decline amo" meant as a joke? I'm guessing not, but the error does tickle me.
Terminology aside, I doubt you historians would be happy if I said "I don't see what's so hard about teaching Roman History-- anyone can hand them a list of the dates that each emperor reigned." Some of you sound equally flippant when you talk about teaching Latin.
Teaching Latin is not hard. I may be a rare bird, but I'm one of those archaeologists who was trained first in the languages, so I can and have taught Latin up through the graduate level. Greek, however, I'm not comfortable teaching beyond the intermediate level. In my estimation this is where you definitely want a seasoned philologist.
A lot of good discussion here.
Let me add that all that I happen to have major issue with is that philologists are often applicants and successful T-T hires for ancient history jobs in a History Department; this is very wrong in my opinion and this is the double standard: philologists claim the ability to be able to teach IT ALL, but historians, archaeologists, etc.. can ONLY teach THEIR stuff.
A large reason why philologists land T-T jobs in History Departments is because the SC for a History Department is not going to have any other ancient specialist on it, and most often will not even have a Medievalist. So, it's a group of modern historians who have no clue (to no fault of their own) what a 'Classics' degree really entails; i.e., they have no clue that a Harvard classics PhD may have a freshman-level understanding of history and historiography. All they see is "Harvard" and "PhD in ancient something-or-other" and that's enough. It's a real shame that folks who may have a deep background in classical philology (as OP said they did) with a BA and MA in Classics, then pursued a PhD in History yet they face an uphill struggle to get hired for T-T jobs in History Depts who are seduced by fancy pedigree and ignorant of candidate ignorance, AND they themselves are considered worthless to a Classics Dept simply because they dedicated their PhD studies to Classical History and not Classical Philology.
One solution would be for (larger, at least) Classics Departments who put out ads for T-T hires for Greek or Roman historians to, I don't know, maybe only expect them to teach history courses, much like most archaeologists never teach a Latin/Greek course nor are expected to at most R1s.
@11:19,
Something that most Classics Departments fail to recognize is that it is NOT Latin or Greek classes that have the most potential to recruit new majors, but Roman and Greek history courses taught by really good profs. This is why many History Departments are opening up new lines for Ancient (all of the Humanities are struggling to keep up enrollment) as a means to recruit new History majors, knowing that these courses fill up immediately and are attractive to a broad audience.
Classics Departments, on the other hand, are doubling-down on a 19th Century academic worldview of "languages first" and then sit there wondering why the field is dying.
Change the perspective. Offer a great deal of ancient history and classical civilization courses to fill classes up and to promote interest, and have the Latin and Greek take a back seat. Leave the Latin/Greek there for serious majors who want to pursue Classics further but take it off the pedestal. Offer 1 or 2 Latin 101 course a fall and use the other slots to teach courses that offer BROAD APPEAL to a wider audience of undergrads. You'll see enrollment jump up, and you'll end up recruiting more majors from that who then will want to take language courses as well.
My PhD institution (a top-10 R1) offers 4-5 Latin 101s in the fall and has only hyper-specialized (and often SJW-ish) classical civ courses that only perpetuate the problems of declining enrollment. This same Dept bemoans how it is dying and how it can't fill classes up. Over the years the Hitory Dept has stepped in and offers many history courses (2 new ancient hires) that fill up within a week of registration with 220+ undergrads, while Classics can't get more than 6 undergrads to take a course on homosexuality in the ancient world (the course was slashed before the semester began due to low enrollment).
Whether we like it or not, history courses on Rome, Greece, Alexander, Ancient Warfare, etc.. will have lines of students wanting to take them, while boutique courses on The Underprivileged Classes in Antiquity; Women & Feminism in the Ancient World; Greek and Roman Mathematicians; and the Topography of Athens, etc.. are far too selective in their audience appeal.
I don't get why it's "SJW-ish" to run these courses. Make your argument about how they're too specialised for low-level undergrad courses, sure...
11:41,
Every Classics dept. at every SLAC I'm aware of is already doing precisely what you suggest. In my own 2.75 person dept., we offer one section of 1st-semester Latin and Greek each year, and one section of 2nd-semester; we offer Intermediate in the Fall only, and teach upper-level languages as uncompensated overloads. We also offer at least four large Classical civ courses a year, five when we can manage it. Courses in Ancient Philosophy or History -- taught in those depts. -- count towards the Classics major. It's not exactly a new idea that Civ. classes are where you find potential majors whom you can then interest in languages; most SLACs and many state universities have been operating on that assumption for at least the past 30 years. Nor do the higher enrollments in Civ. classes escape the notice of Deans. In our case, the only reason we're allowed to keep our very small language classes going is because we pay our institutional "dues" with courses on Myth, Gender, Tragedy, Art, Epic, etc. etc. and we set the enrollment caps for those at 30, which is considered a huge class here. The type of dept. you describe that foregrounds language almost to the exclusion of civ. and history courses is an increasingly rare bird. (By the way, we'd dearly love to add an ancient historian to our dept. but cannot, because in our college's organization the ancient history courses are taught in the history dept.)
@1:25,
I think she/he was referring to the homosexuality course and the women course more than that on mathematicians or topography.
It's not wholly inaccurate to refer to courses that deal with modern social issues like underrepresented racial groups, the gay community, or Women's studies as being in the camp of SJWs. These are courses that tackle social issues of antiquity using a modern lens that only exists on account of SJWs in the first place; could you imagine any of those courses being offered at any institution in the 1920s? ...No. Can you imagine these courses being offered today, in the wake of generations of social change and very active SJWs? Most definitely.
...But, you're de-railing the point that 11:41 was presumably making, which is that Classics Depts, who already are a specialized group, ought not make themselves even further isolated and more hyper-specialized if they want to remain alive.
I don't think it's derailing to question the idea that courses dealing with 'modern social issues' are because of 'social justice warriors', a phrase used to imply that it's only histrionic identity-politics online mobs that care about these things. Or do you think homosexuality and women in antiquity shouldn't be studied at undergrad level?
At my undergraduate institution there used to be a course called "Roman Decadence," which I took. A great title for drawing interest. It proved to be purely a literature course, reading Petronius, Apuleius, Seneca, and several others. The professor who taught it is long retired, so you may all go ahead and steal it, if you want a title that will catch the eye.
I wasn't the SJW poster above, and have no objection to departments having courses on women or on homosexuality (or a "women and gender" combo), or on race in antiquity, but if departments bet too heavily on these they might be giving up potential enrollments by not having more varied courses, and courses with a broader appeal. Do departments really need to teach about women in antiquity every year, or even every semester (as I have seen done)? With gays and lesbians representing just 3-4% of the population, the combined number of gay and straight undergrads who care enough to take a course on ancient homosexuality simply will never be as great as those interested in ancient athletics, ancient battles, ancient religion, ancient politics, and so on, and therefore to me this seems a course that should not be taught more often than once every four semesters. Race in antiquity, too, is unlikely to appeal to more than a small percentage of students. If departments are healthy and have good enrollments they have the luxury of offering these courses with a more narrow appeal in order to feel that they are doing some good, just as they have the luxury of offering ancient medicine or some other topic that is worthy but without broad appeal, but if they are struggling to attract students then they might be shooting themselves in the foot by narrowing their appeal in the name of a good cause.
(I will add that the wild card is when courses count for some graduation requirement, and I suspect that some of the success these so-called SJW courses do have is due to this factor. But I'm speaking of courses on a level playing field, i.e. if students are choosing solely based on subject matter without being steered towards one or another by the university's/college's rules.)
@1:57,
If enrollment isn’t there, no, don’t offer courses on homosexuality or Women’s studies in antiquity. If you want Classics to survive the 21st century, it’s more important to keep ourselves viable to an already Humanities-targeting and STEM-friendly administration.
Courses on the Roman army, Alexander, and Christianity in the Roman World can fill up a 200+ room, so until Classics reaches a position of strength again, let’s not do boutique courses at the undergrad level.
Courses on the Roman army? I teach a Roman history survey course, and that is already usually 75% male students. Imagine what the percentage would be for a course on the Roman army!
@3:47,
Irrelevant. Numbers of seats filled is all that matters to admin. FWIW, every time (6 years now) that I’ve taught Roman History, it’s been essentially 50:50. I’ve never had a class that was noticeabley scewed with regards to gender. [at a large R1]
At my institution, our course on Women in Antiquity had such large enrollments and so long of a waitlist that we had to add a second section and eventually split the course into Women in Greece and Women in Rome. Both courses continue to be filled every year (usually capped at 150 or 170 depending on room size). The majority of students are usually women, but we get plenty of male students too. I hardly think this counts as a "boutique" course.
4:23, 2:57 here. Are those courses meeting one or more crucial graduation requirements? As I indicated above, any course can fill up if it lets students check off a box needed to get their degree, especially if it's a requirement that's only met by a small number of courses each semester.
I'm not one who thinks of "Women in Antiquity" as boutique, whereas "Homosexuality in Antiquity" most certainly is. But those numbers you describe suggest graduation requirements are a factor, or an especially popular professor. Quite possibly both.
Here is a fun story involving graduation requirements. I once had a VAP at a large state university where I was allowed to teach a specialized course in my area of research (what would be called "boutique" by at least one of you) but as a giant lecture course, and since my department could not have the subject approved by the university and included as an official offering it was instead offered under the aegis of a catch-all, reusable subject with some generic name like "Topics in the Ancient World." And since my department did a lousy job of getting the word out, the students had no way of knowing in advance what they were enrolled in, unless they had spoken to me or a colleague. But more than 400 of them were there on the first day of class because the lecture course was one of those meeting a graduation requirement (World Cultures, or something like that). For kicks, on that first day I asked for a show of hands to see how many students knew the specific subject of the course, and only three hands out of 400+ went up.
And I'll bet a number of them would have stayed if I had called an audible and changed the subject to something far less interesting, such as having my lectures consist solely of reading through the names on the Karanis Tax Scroll (the ancient equivalent to reading from the phone book, I've just decided). At least 100 would have stuck around no matter what, just so they could graduate that May.
SLAC prof. here. My "Gender in Greece and Rome" class has been the most successful of all our classics-in-translation classes for the past decade and a half, consistently filling to wherever I set the cap, and with a waitlist of at least 15 students, every time it's offered. For context, a class of 20 is considered large here and 25--my usual cap-- is enormous. So a waitlist of 15 is significant. Since we're a small department the course is on a two-year rotation (as are almost all our in-translation courses), but every time I offer it I hear from students that their RA or older friend or someone has told them they MUST take this course, that it's one of the best courses at the college. Yes, it fills a distribution requirement, and some students are there just for that. But we have also gained several majors from it. Courses on gender are no longer just "boutique", if they ever were. They're bread-and-butter for departments like mine.
5:50 here again -- I should make it clear that ALL our classics-in-translation courses meet Humanities distribution requirements, not just the "Gender in Greece and Rome" class. This is fairly standard at SLACs, I think. So there is an "even playing field" in the sense that students need to choose two courses to fill their Humanities requirements, and among the possibities across Humanities departments, our Gender course is one of the most popular.
I'm going to hop onto a slightly older thread: who should be "allowed" to teach history, languages, archaeology, etc. To me, it very much depends on the person, not the degree or department.
I know historians who excel at the languages and have a keen understanding of archaeological methods. I know philologists with extensive fieldwork experience and a a deep knowledge of historiography. I know archaeologists well versed in history and who have won prestigious awards for their language pedagogy. I also know plenty of each (historians, philologists, archaeologists) who, like many, are only skilled in their chosen field. Sadly, I even know a good few (too many) who are mediocre or even bad at their specialty and downright abysmal at everything else. The full CV and life history should determine what someone has the knowledge to teach. It should not be just the name of the department ("Classics" or "History" or whatever) that granted their highest degree.
Teaching SKILL is an entirely different matter. It is true that many departments cannot afford to risk someone with no language teaching experience doing a poor job and effectively killing the language program for several years, as 9:15 AM yesterday commented. On the other hand, there are lots of people with PhDs in philology whose research is entirely philological and who have taught many language courses, yet are still bad language teachers. I have seen some of them in action and they can be just as detrimental to a language program as anything or anyone else; sometimes they are even more detrimental, especially when they believe that they are great educators and the students are to blame for poor evaluations, low enrollment, etc. Again, it all just depends on the individual.
So, let's stop with the bickering about jurisdiction and just acknowledge that some people are capable of working in multiple fields and teaching a broad array of content. If we think about it, we can all name a few. Is everyone capable of that? No. Still, should someone's language skills be discounted because his or her PhD is in History? No. Should someone's knowledge of historiography or archaeological field methods be discounted because his or her PhD is in Classics/philology? No. Speaking in generalities only works until you need practical application, such as assigning who will teach what in your department, at which point everything depends on the team of individuals available, not a list of program names.
9:17, that's all well and good, but how can SCs guess from CVs which historians might be able to teach languages? Especially for a VAP (as noted yesterday), the SC can't afford to take a risk on someone who has never taught languages before, in the hope that this candidate MIGHT be one of those super-talented individuals you mention.
What the SC can--and should--do when hiring for a position that requires language teaching (again, esp. for a VAP) is look at CVs and see who has experience teaching the languages. And then -- this shouldn't need saying, but probably does -- they should require candidates to teach a class as part of the on-campus visit. You are absolutely right that there are trained philologists who are lousy at teaching languages. I have seen several such disqualify themselves from VAP and t-t positions by making elementary errors in the Latin or Greek class they were asked to teach as part of their on-campus visit, by mumbling at the table and never engaging with the students, and so on. That's part of what the campus visit is for, to verify that candidates can actually teach the languages competently and effectively.
Here's to all of you with high enrollments in your women/gender courses! A model to emulate.
@10:14,
Are you referring to SLACs here? I ask because for every T-T campus visits that I ever had, as well as my colleagues, the campus visits were job talks focused on research capacity and trajectory, questions of pedagogy (if they ever came up) were during the first-round Skype interviews.
Also, VAP positions rarely have campus visits. Some may, of course, but most cannot afford the time or financial burden to fly out 3 folks for a VAP job. VAP jobs, as all of us with too many years of them under our belt can attest, are determined by the Skype interview and the Skype interview alone. ...One can expect a question or two about "how would you teach the lesson on, say, gerunds, gerundives, and gerund-replacing gerundives?"
..Sadly, many SCs will be dismissive of folks with a "History" PhD for both T-T and VAPs unless they have some teaching or tutoring experience with at least Latin. I can say, however, that once a History PhD can get a single year of Latin and/or Greek under their belt, any worries that future SCs may have will be largely gone.
I'd say that so long as the History PhD comes from a top school and has a proven track record of successful teaching (even if not in Latin/Greek), then it's not really much of a risk for even a small SLAC to take that such a candidate is qualified to be as equally effective an educator in the languages as they are in other material for which they are well versed.
11:57,
10:14 here. Yes, my only experience on SCs has been at an SLAC, but before I got my t-t here I had more VAPs than I care to remember, and most of them included a campus visit. Every campus visit I ever had (for VAPs and t-t jobs alike) included a teaching demonstration. That was a while back, but at my SLAC, at least, we do indeed do campus visits for VAPs. We don't bring out three; we bring the top candidate and if s/he does well, that's it, we make the offer. If s/he doesn't do well, we bring the second one, and the third one if necessary.
I know that some places don't require teaching presentations, but I still find it shocking.
SC member at a high-ranking SLAC here. We tend to invite 3 candidates to interview via Skype. We have perpetual VAPs and some years as many as 4, between full VAPs and Adjuncts. We’ve been very fortunate in that I don’t recall ever having any issues with our hires teaching the languages. Also, let me add that our interviews tend to be heavy on pedagogy, but we never have campus visits for our non-TT hires.
Also, let me add that we’ve often hired many History PhDs to be generalists here in our Clasics Department. Though, if memory serves, they were always candidates whose BA & MA were in Classics. Additionally, for what it’s worth, those with a History PhD have been from the best Ancient History PhD programs that don’t reside Inn classics (e.g., UNC-CH and Michigan).
^^... that don’t reside *in* Classics^^
apologies for my auto-correcting phone.
You were able to type all that on your phone?!? What are you, fifteen?
I'm genuinely surprised to hear that homosexuality in antiquity is seen (by some) as something that won't fill up. I guess I teach at a different sort of institution!
'a different sort of institution' is a euphemism i had not heard!
@8:51,
At a large R1 here (~15 faculty members in Classics) and I can say that when we offer classes dealing with homosexuality in antiquity (they’re offered every 3-4 semesters due to low interest) the enrollment never gets higher than about 15. Our offerings of Myth, The Age of Alexander, Fifth Century Athens, Ancient Technology, etc.. tend to have enrollment filled (110) and often numerous offerings per semester of these bread and butter courses. ...These courses, as well as those on Women, Homosexuality, etc.. all qualify to meet University requirements for Gen Eds. For whatever reason, undergrads (here anyway) have no interest in what have been called “boutique” courses.
For what it’s worth, we’re in a major US city in the northeast, have a very diverse student body, and we are a top-tier University. We’ve been bothered by the lack of interest in such courses and even have 2 faculty members whose research focuses on Women/Sexuality. Our grad offerings do well (average 6 for enrollment) but still are less than any other grad courses (average 12-15) which can focus on very narrow topics (e.g., Epigraphy, Provincial Administration, Late Roman Child Emperors).
The faculty that teach the courses on Women and Homosexuality are professors who are very popular with undergrads and whose other classes fill quickly. It really is an interesting matter. At the end of the day, every institution is different and a class that overfills at one may not even meet enrollment minimums at another. For us, at least, it’s sadly fitting to categorize courses on Women or Sexuality as “boutique” courses, though we all wish such wasn’t the case.
Oh, I'm sure homosexuality antiquity generally involves lots of people getting filled up!
Anyway, I agree with 8:51. In all my experience, from my time as an undergrad, through an MA, then PhD, and now t-t--all at different universities in radically different parts of the country--I never witnessed a class on gender and sexuality in ancient Greece and Rome that didn't have a high enrollment. I think that it might be a bit much to have separate classes on women and homosexuality, but it seems that when they're combined and it's billed as gender and sexuality or the like, this type of course seems to do fine. The poo-pooing of such courses by FV's resident MCGA chuds is to be expected, and of course they are wrong.
Servius,
Please delete the poor post of 9:32, who finds it acceptable to make a gay joke at the outset of his post.
Servius,
Please delete the poor post of 9:58, who can't take a joke even from a poster who supports what have been called 'boutique' courses.
Servius,
Please ignore all the hand-wringing prudes here who apparently can't appreciate a gay joke made by a gay man.
Sincerely,
9:32am
Whether or not it gets deleted, it made me chuckle. And lest someone think I'm homophobic, just two nights ago I chuckled at a similar line in a heterosexual context in a major motion picture.
Wow. It's astonishing to see how retrograde you all are.
Any info on Virginia? Have they filled the two positions yet?
Even the gay Classicists aren't woke. MCGA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's not retrograde, it's appreciating off-color humor. Catullus and Aristophanes are full of it!
Get with the program. They are Problematic Dead White Men. Area Studies for White People is sort of embarrassed about it.
Ummm if you're a Classicist who is offended by a joke as mild as the one above, you're probably in the wrong field. Greeks and Roman's trafficked in far worse, in case you didn't notice.
OMFG did someone just invoke their Greco-Roman right to tell gay jokes?
I think the point is that if you can't stomach an incredibly tame joke like the one 9:32 posted, how the hell can you handle the humor in actual Greco-Roman art and literature, which is often violent, misogynist, and homophobic? I'm an art/archaeology person and I've lost count of the vase-paintings and sculpture where the threat of actual rape is used as a comedic device.
I can handle the one because it comes from a dead culture that can't change.
The other is total BS because YOU have a choice to not act that way.
Is this how FV is going to go out? With people getting their knickers in a twist and having conniption fits over a rather tepid joke? Spare me the shrill and hysterical histrionics. That sound you hear is the world's tiniest violin being played as I fetch a fainting couch and smelling salts for all those here with such oh-so-delicate sensibilities who've got a case of the vapors.
I honestly don’t think that FV will actually be shut down. It’s far too important and significant to just be discarded on account of a few trolls. I think we’ll see it hang on at least another year as the Servii give it one last chance. ...maybe that’s wishful thinking, but I hope my inclination turns out to be true.
Hello! Does anyone know more about the Michigan librarian position? Is there currently someone in a temporary library role whom they may be looking to hire? Someone who has a 1/2 appointment or something?
If they're serious that Modern Greek poetry is a part of the job then I do not believe that they have an inside candidate.
Our field really is beginning to lose it. Here is part of the conclusion from Emily Wilson's new BMCR review of a new "Odyssey" translation by a South African scholar, that is intended for a South African (and presumably African) audience, and uses local vocabulary: "Setting all my inevitable quibbles and disappointments aside — all of which must be taken as the partisan observations they inevitably are — Richard Whitaker deserves to be applauded for a translation of the Odyssey that provides an excellent corrective to the Eurocentricism of most Anglophone classical translations, including my own." Are we now so hating of our field's European origins that a South African translation of Homer provides a CORRECTIVE to Eurocentrism, rather than being a fresh and intriguing ALTERNATIVE to the extant translations, which is what the review overall shows it to be?!?
I swear, I have not once written the initials MCGA on this forum, and despise the person or persons who repeatedly make that pitifully lame joke, but seriously, we really do need to make classics great again, if English translations of Homer that use English vocabulary and are informed by European culture are somehow incorrect.
Pretty sure our field could use some correctives to its Eurocentricism, if that's all it takes for you to flip out.
Nikias is out at USC. What does that mean for the two slots open in that department?
Is there a properly Irish/Scottish/Australian/American Odyssey translation?
MCGA!
@4:41,
When I read that review yesterday, I was appalled that the editors of BMCR let it go through. Wilson’s review is a perfect example of what an academic book review SHOULD NOT BE and it directly violates the rules set out by BMCR.
(1) Wilson uses ad hominem attacks against Whitaker by demonizing the author’s race, gender, and age (“Like almost all translators of Homer into English over the past century, he is an elderly white man”).
(2) Wilson repeatedly attacks Whitaker for not writing the book that she would have written (“Like all English translations known to me, except my own, he euphemizes Homeric slavery to a large extent”); (“Firstly, unlike most translations – but like my own and that of Peter Green, forthcoming 2018 – he sticks to the same number of lines as the original”); (“Whitaker's version, here and in general, is adequate, but has a disappointing flatness... In my own version, I broke up the clauses to make sure that it is obvious, as it is the Greek, that the fall of the woman and the fall of the husband are distinct but intertwined (ἀμφιπεσοῦσα... Ï€Îσῃσιν): to retain the parallelism, without creating meaningless ambiguity”), followed by a 15 line quote of how she would have translated the scene in question!! As if that were not enough here, Wilson then decides it’s appropriate to talk a bit more about her own translation that she just showcased by adding that “I resorted to using two verbs for a single participle, making the woman "fall to wrap her arms" around him, to try to capture the mirroring of husband and wife (both are falling), and the difference: for a moment, but not for long, the woman has the power to act, to surround her dying husband with herself.”
(3) Wilson takes the review as an opportunity to consistently speak of herself, as seen in some of the above-quoted lines, but at times she takes this even further, where we find very unprofessional self-glorifying moments (“I have felt similar frustrations over the coverage of my own translation of the Odyssey, which has frequently been labeled "A Woman's Odyssey" (Mary Beard)—rather than, say, an iambic pentameter Odyssey. My gender has been assumed to predetermine all my literary and scholarly choices. But in fact, the cases are not entirely alike. There is no "women's dialect" of English, although linguists have searched hard for it.”)
These are just some of the examples; feel free to read it for yourself and come to your own conclusions. For me, and for my colleagues who have also read it and were very disappointed that BMCR editors let this go published as such, it will be used to show our own grad students precisely what one does not do for a scholarly review. So, for that, thank you, Emily. Your review will serve a very important (though surely unintended) purpose.
Just went and read the whole thing. What a smug, self-satisfied waste of a review.
@10:55,
thanks for this. I, too, just went to read the whole thing and cannot understand how it was cleared for publication by BMCR. ...I guess if you're a tenured Ivy prof they tend to not really proof them as much (?) assuming that all is well.
I'm an assistant prof at a SLAC, so I won't have grad students to whom I can show this review as a model of 'what not to do' but I have sent the link to some colleagues at other institutions who, while not in Classics, can use this review as a great teaching tool for their grad students.
...I think that, aside from the rule-breaking of BMCR here, what I find so shameful is the self-congratulatory tone throughout and her insistence of her own greatness.
Not that I'll ever be a tenured prof at Penn, but if I were, I'd be embarrassed for the whole department on account of this.
I just finished reading Wilson's review on the BMCR, and I didn't see the unprofessionalism described by others here. Euro-American translators face certain issues in translating an ancient Mediterranean text and its cultural institutions into text and institutions comprehensible to their readers. In her own translation, Wilson tackled these issues from a perspective that attempted (I think successfully) to give a view of Homer's language that did not depend on some Euro-American cultural baggage (e.g., on slavery and gender relations) imposed by other translators (almost all, as she correctly notes, white and male). Her experience with translating the Odyssey is the basis for her criticism of some aspects of Whitaker's work and praise of others. If she hadn't addressed her efforts in her review, the review would have been less informative -- and probably many of the critics here would be attacking her for a lack of full disclosure.
I'm not sure why anyone's BMCR review, no matter how objectionable, would reflect poorly on its author's entire department. Try to have some perspective, people.
I agree that it was a bad idea for Wilson to review a competing translation (arguably, however, less problematic than her student's BMCR of a different one released last year, which did not have the merit of at least being open in its partiality). The review itself annoys me because it's just so much repetition of her own, already well-aired, ideas about how to translate Homer into contemporary verse. As readers of her twitter know, she is not exactly charitable to other translations, and trades on the rhetoric of authenticity and fidelity when it suits her criticisms of others' attempts, while abandoning it when it doesn't. In the review, for example, she criticizes Whitaker for retaining the syntactic structure of the original in the long passage she quotes, an overly solicitous attitude that comes at the price of clarity in the English, while praising herself for more literally rendering such words as anthropos and dwme.
At the same time, this is probably just the review you would want if you are going to commission rival translators to review each other's work. Yes, it is probably more negative than what many others would have written. That's not a surprise, because it is written by someone who has just done much the same. Consider how rival textual critics review one another and Wilson looks like a positive saint. Her review discusses Whitaker's translation choices in a fair way, explains why she did things differently, and assesses the new translation's place against its rivals. Who is better placed to do that?
Also, 10:55, if you find the factual observation quoted in your first point to be "ad hominem" and "demonization" I'd say you probably set out with some prejudices of your own.
@4:14,
(not 10:55 here)
There is no place to mention the race, gender, or age of a scholar in a review. The review is to be of the content of the work not of the person. As such, Wilson's comment most surely is ad hominem.
She finds it necessary to make that statement in order to set the tone for the review, which in no way sees the translator being white, male, or elderly as a positive aspect, but instead as a negative factor that readers of the review should be aware of. She unquestionably demonizes the author on account of his race, gender, and age--three things that he cannot change.
It is never acceptable to bring these attributes into discussion of someone's work. What that line underscores is that Wilson entered her review of the work and assessment of the translation with deep prejudices with regard to what those attributes mean about the content and quality of the translation.
...Would it be appropriate, for instance, to begin a review of a Clifford Ando monograph by stating that "the author is a middle-aged Asian" ? Surely, it is not.
Wilson is guilty of an ad hominem attack and she does demonize the author on account his race, gender, and age.
How dare you suggest that the author cannot change his gender?!!?!?!?!
Wilson doesn't attack or demonize Whitaker. Your whole line of criticism is tediously whiny.
After all this hub-bub I decided to read a review about a "new" translation of Homer. First off, who the fuck cares. Can we as Classicists stop with the Homer and Virgil for a bit? Aren't there other texts and authors that are worthy of study and/or updated translations? What about Cassius Dio? Pliny the Elder? Herodian? or the Historia Augusta? All texts that haven't been touched since the prohibition era.
no, let's just keep regurgitating Homer and Virgil again. We so desperately need even more translations of them.
...being said, after reading Wilson's review, I have to say that it is a bad review. And though I don't care if she was critical of his work or him as a person, Wilson does little more than self-promote herself and her own work, all while acting as a martyr. Her review was preachy and flat and goes to show just how pedantic and sad our field has become.
Honestly, Wilson's own translation isn't anything to get excited over. When it was published I recall people being absolutely giddy with excitement that someone with lady parts translated the Odyssey. Moreover, a translation by Peter Green was recently published, which means that all other translations of the Odyssey for the next 20-30 years are superfluous.
@5:23,
I agree.
It’s a sad day when the reigns of Hadrian to the Tetrarchy rely on the same sources that philologists flatly ignore. Syme did some work on the HA, of course, but nothing philological. And if any Hellenists are looking to get a publishing deal and to be the standard reference for generations, offer us a philological commentary on the works of Cassius Dio and Herodian.
The sources 5:23 mentioned aren’t obscure, rarely used sources but are monumental ones and those that are the ONLY ones for most of the late second and all of the third century.
...put down the Aeneid and Iliad/Odyssey and do the field a favor.
But wait, there were only 67 dissertations this year on Virgil!!
7:10 - right on the mark. This is real work that can and should be done.
This quote caught my attention as well: “I have felt similar frustrations over the coverage of my own translation of the Odyssey, which has frequently been labeled "A Woman's Odyssey" (Mary Beard)—rather than, say, an iambic pentameter Odyssey. My gender has been assumed to predetermine all my literary and scholarly choices. But in fact, the cases are not entirely alike. There is no "women's dialect" of English, although linguists have searched hard for it.”)
Anyone paying attention will know that this translation was promoted as the first translation by a woman in, like, ever. This was the publisher's deliberate marketing strategy (http://books.wwnorton.com/books/978-0-393-08905-9/), and obviously it was a good one, since the book has received a significant amount of attention in the media for this reason. So I was quite gobsmacked to read a complaint about this translation being labeled as the very thing that Wilson and her publisher have labeled it. (Just Google "Emily Wilson + Odyssey + first woman" and you will see what I mean. From the start, this was marketed as a woman's "Odyssey," and both parties have become richer for it.)
Any word on Fairfield or Providence?
Comparison might be made with this review of Whitaker's Iliad from several years ago:
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2013/2013-03-06.html
Well, that's sort of the point, right? It's fine to write and easy to find anodyne reviews that don't really say much of interest or originality about the book and that check off all the boxes you can predict just from its title. Whatever you think of her translation, her public persona in its wake, or her review, at least Wilson's says things about Whitaker's version that go beyond pablum.
The fact that controversy has arisen around Wilson’s review does not mean that she has done a good job. If 1:47 tends to believe that breaking BMCR’s establishes rules, using ad hominem attacks, and stirring up one’s fellow classicists all while self-promoting and pandering equates to a good review, then classics really is in a sad state.
Wilson’s self-absorbed review sounds as if Trump wrote it.
Been off FV for a while, came back and there’s this BMCR issue. Gave it a read and I have to say that it’s rubbish. A review shouldn’t be attacking a book because it’s not how you would have written it, but should be about the content. With translations, there are many ways that a single line could be translated; you cannot make everyone happy. The real question should be ‘is anything erroneous with the translation’ which there was not. Wilson just didn’t care for some his word choices; none of which were wrong (at least those that she highlighted in her review).
I’ve not heard of Wilson prior to this but I imagine she expects we all have and that we all are so eagerly awaiting *her* proper translation.
Lastly, her rationale for her odd translation choices that she feels justified in throwing in our faces are flimsy and, in some cases, quite imaginative and fanciful.
...as another observation, look how pathetic our field is. Here we all are arguing about how how the 128th English translation of Homer is unfairly assessed by the bitter 129th translator of Homer. ...and we wonder why our field is falling apart.
MCGA!
Surely you don't really believe reviewing a translation should be solely or even significantly concerned with looking for errors. In any case, I congratulate you on successfully ignoring all classics-related news and social media for going on eight months or so now, if you've never heard of Wilson's Odyssey translation.
@3:42,
Not 2:53 here, and I can say that I’ve heard of Wilson before but only on account of the fact that I went to UPenn for my undergrad. Haven’t heard her name mentioned since then, though I tend to stay away from Eidolon and I don’t give two shits about Homer anyway. So, don’t be that surprised if other classics folks (particularly historians or archaeologist) pay little or zero attention to the umpteenth translation of fucking Homer. It is, in my opinion, laziness to be the 200th asshole to translate an ancient source. As noted above, if Philologists really want to put their skills to work for the field, do work on the sources that NEED fresh assessment and translations:
Cassius Dio
Pliny the Elder
Herodian
Historia Augusta
...Philologists, please, put down the fucking Homer and Virgil and actually help the field. If such aims don’t motivate you, look at it like this: given that 100-120 years go by in between translations of the above mentioned (important) sources, YOU will be THE scholar or record for some time, rather then being just another asshole in the circle jerk writing about the fucking Odyssey.
What is it with Yale Ph.D.s? Daddy Cruel and the NAMBLA dude and now this....
?
Well? ...we're waiting
4:31, I can't disagree. But some people like to translate poetry, and you only list prose authors. So might I suggest a compromise, and that people produce a full English translation of the Greek Anthology and all those other epigrams in various collections? And what about one for Latin epigram by various authors? That would be FAR more useful for researching and teaching than another Homer translation. And, I would argue, it would be a greater challenge.
Wilson is a Yale Ph.D.
@6:39,
Ah. The post above made it seem as if another Classicist (from Yale) had some connection to CP
Everybody with generous and thoughtful suggestions about what other people should be doing with their time:
1. You grasp that Classicists don't mainly work on translating things, and that the things they do translate they are translating chiefly for lay readerships, not for each other, yes? And that there is a general and textbook market for translations of things like the Odyssey or Herodotus or tragedy or Ovid because (some) normal people have heard of and enjoy reading those things, whereas there is no market for Herodian or the elder Pliny because nobody knows who they are and almost nobody would enjoy reading them if they did? And that a press might greenlight a new Odyssey in order to get five percent of the Odyssey market but wouldn't do so for one hundred percent of the Historia Augusta market, because there isn't really a Historia Augusta market, because practically the only people who give two shits about the HA, for all its charms, are professional historians of the Roman empire, most of whom aren't going to need to consult a translation at all, and the remainder of whom will probably be happy with the Loeb? I mean, are you asking for these translations because *you* want them? Whom is the envisioned efflorescence of Herodian translations meant to serve that the Loeb will not?
2. If whiling your days away translating Pliny the Elder and the Greek Anthology is such an awesome idea, then, you know, why don't *you* do it? Why go on the Internet and piss and moan and tell other people they should be doing it for you? And why put your brilliant scheme out here where we can steal it? You could be "THE scholar or record for some time, rather then being just another asshole," as a wise person once said. Really, how can you pass up this golden opportunity?
Hey, 7:10, I'm the one who mentioned the "Greek Anthology." I have indeed thought of doing it, though only selections. Something I might get to in a decade, and if someone beats me to it I will not rend my garments and wail at the top of my lungs. But we as a field do need a complete translation in paperback that can be assigned for Greek Civilization, Greek Literature, and several other courses, since one can hardly tell students to buy the 5-vol. Loeb set.
@7:10,
You’ve missed the point.
Not just for the sake of translations for translations sake as much as providing a philological/historical commentary. I think that most historians would be satisfied with a green & yellow of the above sources and aren’t necessarily looking for a Penguin of Herodian. Though I doubt you are aware, many classics courses could benefit from having an affordable modern translation of the above mentioned sources, rather than assigning undergrads to read scans of a Loeb from 1920 with its archaic language that bound to keep students from penetrating the material.
I'm an archaeologist. I knew about the Wilson Odyssey not because I care about Emily Wilson or am an opinionated devotee of Homer translations, but because:
- it has been prominently displayed in every bookstore I've been in for at least six months
- classics people on social media have talked about it to death (no, I don't follow "classics twitter")
- it has been reviewed and discussed in basically every (non-scholarly) venue for such things, including like four different articles in the New Yorker
- it was moreover the subject of a lengthy, front-page profile and review in the New York Times that received about a thousand comments online from the "lay public"
If you've truly missed hearing about it, you are in a surely small minority of professional classicists (au sens large). I say this not to be snide, but to explain why people have been carrying on as if it were common knowledge.
7:10 is exactly right re demands for philologists to do such and such. Moreover, given the cultural impact and success Wilson's Odyssey had (however much you want to blame/credit the canny PR campaign on its behalf), it seems exceptionally, and almost hilariously, misguided to suggest that a translation of the HA would "help the field" (lmao) more than continuing to discuss what the broader world of letters and the classically-inclined public, such as it is, is interested in. The positivist, another-brick-in-the-wall-of-knowledge approach to scholarship ("stop working on Caesar/Homer/Vergil/other popular things, and work on my boring text to Help The Field By Making It Easier To Know More About It") is out of touch on this level at least.
@9:59,
Some good points, but the texts refered to above aren’t obscure in any way; they are all that we have for the reigns from Hadrian up through to the Tetrarchy. One can laugh at the importance of the HA, Dio, and Herodian but they are anything but trivial sources. They, while surely imperfect, are highly informative of an otherwise dark period of history and are deserving of appropriate philological study. Pouring over the same poems again and again, while it may make many philologists happy, leaves massive lacunae in the general scholarship.
Nobody is saying that Homeric studies are a wast of time, I think that the sentiment is that there’s hyper-focusing on a few authors that don’t really *need* as much as they’re receiving. Imagine if all Roman archaeologists refused to dig anywhere but the city of Rome or the Italian countryside, all while refusing (and laughing it off) to dig in Britain, North Africa. Europe, etc.. and say “if you want to see what’s there so bad, go dig it up yourself!
If the different branches of Claaaics refuse to listen to one another (which is what is coming through here), then we really are doomed. The degree of hostility to some of the above suggestions I find saddening.
Female historian here. I heard about the Wilson Odyssey, but rolled my eyes whenever I heard about it, I find it insulting that whenever a woman does something for the first time we all have to collectively cheer and act as if it’s so wonderful. It diminishes what is women do every day in the field if we continually find it necessary to hold a victory parade whenever one of us does something that’s really insignificant, which a 200th translation of Homer really is. It’s marginalizing to the rest of us women to act like this. I don’t ever want to be seen as a “female” classicist, but just a classicist. So long as we continue to high five each other whenever a woman is the first to do something, it’s rather difficult for us move to a world where gender is a non-issue.
What you think the field should do -- increase knowledge and its accessibility -- is fine for a research-oriented perspective. But parts of the field go beyond what is useful to other professionals. I would say that archaeology is actually just as you describe, if you make the appropriate shift from excavation to tourism: 99% of tourist dollars spent looking at ancient Roman ruins are spent in Rome and Pompeii, just as 99% of lay-public dollars spent on classical translations are spent on the literary canon. Even if you don't care to do that kind of thing yourself, criticizing scholars for engaging the general public is foolish, let alone doing so under the theory of serving the field's future. I'm not laughing at the historians you mention, but rather at the idea that what advances specialist knowledge is inherently beneficial to the field per se.
There's actually no such thing as "needing" work. Our field serves itself and it serves the public. If no one cares about textile production in Hittite Anatolia for a few generations, that just leaves more opportunities for the future. If everyone wants to read new Homer translations, it's fine that the HA is being neglected. That's not to say the distribution of interest is innocent or shouldn't be discussed. What's super awesome, in fact, is when unexpected texts or discoveries shatter what we thought the public was interested in--as with the ever-expanding catalogue of Landmark historians, for example (which may soon encompass the historians you want to see! and let me be clear: I'd love that too!).
Surprised that there isn’t a Landmark Tacitus on the horizon, speaking of the series; though, I assume that we’ll see it commissioned in the next 10 years or so. ...unless I’m horribly out of touch with what’s on deck for the Landmark series.
Anyone know anything about the Oxford lectureship as far as if there's an internal candidate or quid pro quo in play?
12:55,
No inside info, but given how low the pay is and short the job term, if you’re not a UK citizen there might as well be an inside candidate, because they won’t take anyone needing a work visa for a 28,000 salary job.
@12:36 Yes!
@12:36,
I will say that I lose almost all respect for the classicists who write “Barnes & Noble” books. I know that I shouldn’t and I know that it serves an important function, but can’t help thinking of them as being hacks from that point on.
I think its alright to write a B and N book, so long as you maintain a record of peer reviewed publication. The unfortunate trend is once scholars start writing B and N crap, they find this more lucrative and give up on the hard but unremunerated work of producing scholarship.
I agree. Barry Strauss, Bart Ehrman, Mary Beard, etc.. have completely sold out
Michael Grant, though he wrote some absolutely amazing stuff that is scholarly (From Imperium to Auctoritas), really was the first to jump the payday bandwagon and just produced one popular history book after the other.
I don’t think it’s bad when scholars write textbooks, but there’s something about seeing a great name making B&N crap that make you think so much less of them. It would be like if Jimi Hendrix decided to put down his Strat and only play Guitar Hero, if Tiger Woods wanted to be a professional mini-golf player instead, if Gordon Ramsey started selling a line of TV dinners, if Rolex began only making digital calculator watches, etc..
Wow, imagine seeing Jimi Hendrix taking a break from a Guitar Hero to binge on some Gordon Ramsey TV dinner (Salisbury Steak, maybe) while watching Tiger Woods on ESPN 2 at the National Put Put Championship Game; but then, his digital alarm went off on his Rolex to remind him that Barry Strauss’s new bullshit book on the Trojan War goes on sale the next day at Barnes & Noble.
As a philologist, I wasn't too familiar with Michael Grant. Looked him up and was surprised that he wrote more than 70 books. Germane to the discussion here is this interesting snippet from the Times commenting on Grant's production of what we are calling 'Barnes & Noble' books (taken from his Wikipedia page):
"Grant's approach to classical history was beginning to divide critics. Numismatists felt that his academic work was beyond reproach, but some academics balked at his attempt to condense a survey of Roman literature into 300 pages, and felt (in the words of one reviewer) that "even the most learned and gifted of historians should observe a speed-limit". The academics would keep cavilling, but the public kept buying"
^^^ Learned a new word today ^^^
Cavil. verb. make petty or unnecessary objections.
New T-T job just posted for Archaeologist/Ancient Historian. Pays between $95,000 and $113,000. I guess that kind of money is needed to get scholars willing to move to Australia.
I've added it to the Wiki, but here's the link:
https://careers.archaeological.org/jobs/11097908/lecturer-in-archaeology-and-ancient-history
^note the exchange rate... thus it pays between 71K and 85K USD.
The weakest among us make the loudest complaints.
You're a PhD in Classics, and you've never seen the word "cavil" before? O sancta simplicitas . . .
I hadn't, either.....
Harvard PHD here and I have no problem also admitting that I’ve never heard of ‘cavil’ before today.
Today, I left this ridiculous field. What a sense of profound relief and joy.
What did you decide to do, 12:15?
I heard that Roseanne Barr was in need of a new agent as of several hours ago, maybe that's 12:15's new job!
Am I the only person lurking here who still does not have a job for the fall? ...Fairfield was pretty much all I had left, and that’s dead now.
@11:44 PM In the words of the late MJ, "you are not alone, I am here with you..." It's been a weird year. We should probably all fill out the counter to really flesh out what "0 : Lots" looks like. But I had a feeling things were looking bad when the Charleston entry said "nearly 70 applications" in mid or late April (whenever that was).
Nope. Can assure you that you are not alone. Currently finishing a postdoc, with book under contract, some respectable stuff published this year, and only one interview for a search that was cancelled in the end.
SUNY Stony Brook just announced their TT hire. Another ABD.
...this is a wild year, in that so few jobs are out there coupled with so many applicants AND so many folks who are ABD managed to get some of the very best jobs that came out. First year applying with PhD in hand; this has been a hell of a year to enter into the shit storm that is academia.
Hey, this is a safe space, right? Can I just say that a certain new translation of the Odyssey is an interesting and probably needed translation but it is AN Odyssey. And one pretty far from what I see in the Greek.
Is anyone else slightly baffled by it?
@12:23,
But the person who translated it has a vagina; it must be the best translation that has ever happene!
...until a transgendered, 1/2 black 1/2 Eskimo, Jewish, and disabled scholar does theirs. Then that will be the *ultimate* translation that can never be topped.
I agree that the value placed on the translation in question is ridiculous. I’m not too sure how much of the smugness of the new translation is from the author and how much is from the publisher. The latter, of course, wants only to create as much discussion in order to increase sales, the former, one would hope, places their emphasis on the merit of the work.
I’ve read The Odyssey more times than I care to count and really have no interest in reading it again simply because the new translation was done by a female. From what little excerpts I’ve seen, her choices for translation are bad, require a great deal of stretching the Greek, and would receive quite a poor grade if it were turned in as a translation assignment in a Greek course.
...much ado about nothing, if you ask me. Much of the press surrounding it is so overblown and pandering.
While I disagree with the manner of 1:22’s message, the sentiment is (sadly) accurate. We ought not place so much emphasis on what underrepresented category an author may fail into and how that aggrandizes their otherwise mediocre work.
I feel bad for all of the modest female classicists who may feel singled-out due to this. I never even thought of this before, but there was a comment made in here within the last week by a female who fell into this camp.
I see that we're back to complaining about the females...
@2:30 BTW Nice equivocation on whether "female" is adjective or noun... and don't give me any of that "substantive" shit either.
When even an Old WASP from South Africa writes a translation, it gets hyped, and so a female has to come in and shoot it down.
@ 2:42.
Nobody is complaining about women in Classics; only that some people treat scholarship produced by women as being sacrosanct just because it was composed by a woman.
@3:00,
I hope that you're being funny here. 2:42 clearly meant "the females" to be tongue-in -cheek. Even if not, male/female men/women are not derogatory terms and, as anyone who has ever read a text message before in their life can attest: one tends to read a particular tone to written words that may not be intended.
@3:02,
I wouldn't say Whitaker's version was hyped at all. It just so happened that it was mentioned here in secondary context. What was being discussed was Wilson's review of his work. No, Whitaker's version was not hyped one iota. And, to be a bit of a pain in the ass here, Emily Wilson is also a WASP. She comes from a very high society British academic family, was educated at Oxford and Yale, etc.. All that separates Whitaker from Wilson is their sex.
@1:22,
Oh, for heaven's sake. (1) 'Eskimo' is a racial slur: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/04/24/475129558/why-you-probably-shouldnt-say-eskimo . (2) Heaping up marginalised identities in a tone of incredulity helps no one. Do you think such a person doesn't exist? Or, if they do, couldn't be a scholar? I have two of those identity markers; I know at least two other classicists who have four. (3) 'Transgender', not 'transgendered'. I realise you'll think all of this is some SJW getting worked up about language that means nothing, and that it proves your point, but you could hide your naked contempt a little better; it might help your point. I agree that Wilson's translation isn't great, and that the discussion of it through the lens of her gender is extremely dull. But if you were a colleague of mine I wouldn't trust you with my students.
2:42 here. You are surely quite right that no one was complaining about women in Classics: all I see are complaints about the females.
I am a Jewish pan-gender one-legged Eskimo otherkin two-spirit, and I am working on my own translation of the Odyssey. Take that, Emily Wilson!
3:38, I'm not the person who posted above, but you are claiming "naked contempt" without any evidence when you write: 'Transgender', not 'transgendered'. I realise you'll think all of this is some SJW getting worked up about language that means nothing, and that it proves your point, but you could hide your naked contempt a little better; it might help your point. I myself use "transgender" but did not know there was an issue until reading your post. But even if the post above should have known better, this is a relatively tame issue. Here is the explanation from GLAAD, as quoted on the "Transgender" Wikipedia page: "Problematic: "transgendered". Preferred: transgender. The adjective transgender should never have an extraneous "-ed" tacked onto the end. An "-ed" suffix adds unnecessary length to the word and can cause tense confusion and grammatical errors. It also brings transgender into alignment with lesbian, gay, and bisexual. You would not say that Elton John is "gayed" or Ellen DeGeneres is "lesbianed," therefore you would not say Chaz Bono is "transgendered." So it's partly a syntactical issue, and partly a legitimate issue, but not one that people can be blamed for not realizing on their own. (In other words, yes, I now see the argument about "gayed," but I'm so used to hearing "transgendered" that I never questioned the term. Am I a bad person?)
I'm taking the time to respond simply because I'm sick and tired of people, both here and in society as a whole, always jumping to the worst conclusion about another person. The poster who used "transgendered" was making a point that you may have found disagreeable, but you should not read into his/her use of "transgendered" contempt for people who are "transgender," any more than using Jews to make his/her point makes him/her anti-semitic. That ends up saying at least as much about you as the other poster.
Post a Comment