The Extratextuals

Yesterday, I saw a link to advice against editing a collection. I was about to type a few words of response either at the original post or where I saw the link, but instead found myself with more I wanted to say. So here we go. See, I’ve co-edited three collections and am currently working on a fourth. I’ve gained a heck of a lot from the experiences, professionally and personally. Consider this post a defense of the oft-maligned edited collection, with pictures of some really good ones to further make the point.

~

~

Let me start, though, by agreeing with the injunction not to edit a collection if you really think of it as a substitute for publishing work that you have written yourself. Edited collections won’t get you tenure or promotion by themselves, and they take time and energy, so if you have very limited reserves of each, you would be better advised to spend them elsewhere.

However, if you’re paid full-time to be an academic, unless you work a 4/4 load with lots of advising hours and you’re a slow writer, or unless you’re not working full-time, you very likely do have extra reserves. Which means that telling someone not to edit a collection because you could instead be writing a journal article is kind of like telling someone not to watch television because it’s important to read books: the fallacy lies in thinking you can’t do both. All three of my edited collections were compiled while I was writing monographs and journal articles.

As for tenure and promotion, I’ve seen numerous people across the humanities get tenure at top notch schools with the formula of one book + a strong selection of journal articles + another large project. That “other large project” is sometimes a second monograph (written or in progress), but it can also be an edited collection. Even directly, therefore, edited collections do and can matter – they aren’t fetishized as are monographs or articles at leading journals, no, but they still matter. Read more…

Academic Job Market, book reviews edited collections, editing

One of the most important things to realize about grad admissions is that most programs don’t so much reject candidates as they accept other ones. In other words, the point isn’t merely to make it past some arbitrary line of acceptability, beyond which the program thinks you’re good enough. The point is that the program has to want you and you specifically. Related to this point, you should also realize that resources are usually limited: some programs take only those they can fund, yet even those that take more have limitations set by class sizes, available professors, etc. Thus, decisions are bound to be highly competitive. For example, Media and Cultural Studies at UW received over 130 applications each of the last two years, but accepted seven (5%) and four (3%) students each year respectively.

Your job, therefore, is not simply to be good enough – you need to fit the program, and you need to submit materials that will make the program truly want you. Take heart, though, because this also means that a “rejection” from a school is likely more a sign of them wanting other people that year than it is a rejection of you. So many factors can go into these decisions: perhaps the program is lop-sided in one way and is making a concerted effort to tackle that this year; perhaps you’re applying to work with profs who already have too many grad students; perhaps they simply have less spots this year; or perhaps you look great and the committee realizes this, but they also realize that you’d be better served by others (certainly, each year, we don’t accept numerous people who I fully expect to be producing brilliant work in the years to come, and I’m sure that I’ll be reading and greatly admiring work by those who we “rejected”). Read more…

Grad School academia, Grad School, media studies, PhD

There are too many universities with grad programs. Some have no clue what they’re doing, other than making money. But here’s the thing you need to know: it is very hard to get a good job with a PhD from a second or third tier program (unless, of course, your supervisor is the acknowledged expert, and is regarded as a first tier program in and of herself or himself). Competition for academic jobs is such that even lower end universities can and do limit their search for job candidates to those educated at the better institutions. So make sure that you ask around about the good programs. I’m not going to list them here, since I’d undoubtedly miss a few and get flak for it, but also they vary according to what you want to do: I’d highly recommend one school for one topic, and warn you to run for the hills rather than go there for another topic.

Indeed, as much as US News and World Report rankings and such may have you thinking about good schools, make sure you look into which are the good programs. Some great name schools have really awful programs in certain areas, or no program. Meanwhile, though I’m struggling to think of a great program in a bad school, many similarly-ranked schools will differ massively in the quality of their programs. Ask the professors whose work you find most like your own, or at least who know what your work is best, where they’d recommend. Look at the scholars who you’re quoting and reading and admiring and find out both where they’re teaching and where they did their PhDs (though remember that some of the older profs may’ve been with a program in a different era). Read the course offerings and see if they speak to you. Find out what current grad students are researching, and see if that scares you off or excites you. Don’t bother with published rankings, since most are deeply flawed and limited (case in point: the National Research Council’s recent rankings of Communications programs in the US applied their social sciences rubric to several humanities-based programs, meaning that books that would have counted as 6 articles for those in the humanities counted as a single article for the programs in question, and other lunacies).

Most of all, think about who you’d like to work with. When I look at the applications to UW’s Media and Cultural Studies program, unless I think that a student would benefit from working with my colleagues and I, I will never pursue the application any further. Sadly, many applicants know simply that they want a PhD, but haven’t stopped to think that any given program will consist in large part of a small group of faculty, their courses, and the peers in the grad program there. Not only does this usually kill their chances of getting in – as I’ll discuss in the next post – but more to the point, it means they’d be miserable if accepted. You want and need advisors who will help you get where you want to go, not ones who are constantly talking about X when you don’t really give a damn about X.

The above paragraph may set an intimidatingly high bar to clear for some. So let me be clear that a good program will realize that not everyone who applies to their program has their ideas set in stone. Especially if you don’t already have an MA, and are applying straight out of your undergrad, you may still be fairly new to the field. You may have a very wide set of interests, which may make it extremely hard to work out who you want to work with. That’s all fine. What you don’t want, though, is to be applying somewhere where you’re already not a fit.

What other considerations should you take into account? Below I’ll consider the American picture first, then talk about the UK separately, since there are some important differences (I’m only discussing these two countries’ PhD programs, since I really only know these two countries’ PhD programs). Read more…

Grad School academia, Grad School, media studies, PhD

Last year when I was publishing my series on looking for academic jobs, I got some email requests from Masters students who were looking for PhD programs to expand the series to encompass that issue too. At the time, I wanted to go through another year of decisions for our own grad program at UW, so that I could make some notes on the whole process while it was happening. I’ve now done so and am ready to comply with those requests. So, if you know someone who wants to go to grad school in media and cultural studies, feel free to pass this on to them.

A key warning first, though: these are simply my suggestions and thoughts. They may not apply to other grad programs in media and cultural studies. They will almost definitely not apply, at least in total, to a lot of grad programs outside the field of media and cultural studies. And even if you’re applying to the Media and Cultural Studies program at University of Wisconsin, Madison, I’m not the only one who makes decisions, and I’m not speaking here for my colleagues, so please don’t see this as a How to Get Into Wisconsin document.

And a key request: I would love if some other practicing academics would chip in with their own two cents. Similarly, prospective candidates should feel free to fire questions my way (though please only send the generic ones via the blog. I won’t address personal issues and cases in this public venue).

I’ve broken the advice into three posts:

(1) Should you even go to grad school?

(2) Where should you go?

(3) How do you get in?

These aren’t strictly chronological, as you’ll find that some of my suggestions in the second post are directed towards those with several offers in hand, and hence to those who have already aced the third topic. But it’s a way to avoid a 6500 word blog post! Let’s start with the first one … Read more…

Grad School academia, Grad School, media studies, PhD

Whoops – I got busy for a while there. A long while! Let’s continue the lists, though, with my final entry. Honorary Mention to David Brent & Michael Scott, Chuck Bartowski, Larry David, Denny Crane, and Black Adder.

20. Greg House (Hugh Laurie), House

I’m a sucker for sarcasm, and Laurie delivers. I’m also not a huge fan of procedurals, and so whether it’s just me or not, I can’t help but feel that so much of his bile is aimed at the genre itself, and at the expectations of heroism, functionality, and so forth. If only the staff of Grey’s Anatomy had a date with Dr. House.

19. Hawkeye Pierce (Alan Alda), M*A*S*H

The womanizing is kind of pat and tiring, but behind it is a remarkable charisma. If people watched the show and did so for so long, I’d bet that a large reason is Alda’s ability to grab and maintain interest. He also managed to sell the hardship and tragedies of M*A*S*H with subtlety, never letting it become just another happy-happy sitcom even while being the source of such happy-happy-ness.

18. Dale Cooper (Kyle MacLachlan), Twin Peaks

MacLachlan manages a hard feat in Twin Peaks, playing his character in a way that makes him both a point of entry into the profoundly bizarre world of Twin Peaks, and someone who is no less profoundly bizarre in his own way.

17. Pee Wee Herman (Paul Reubens), The Pee Wee Herman Show

Simply put, is there any more fucked up character on television who is so enjoyable? A great hybrid between kids performer and drug-induced, crazed indy character, Pee Wee’s kind of awesome. Read more…

lists Al Swearengen, Ali G, Basil Fawlty, Cliff Huxtable, Dale Cooper, Dexter Morgan, Doctor Who, Don Draper, Eric Cartman, Eric Taylor, Greg House, Hawkeye Pierce, Homer Simpson, Jack Bauer, Kermit, Kermit the Frog, Pee Wee Herman, Stephen Colbert, Tony Soprano, Walter White, William Adama

Continuing on with my lists, let’s shift to leads:

~~

20. Pam Beesly (Jenna Fischer), The Office

In a show full of unreal characters, to even keep the semblance of a “realistic” style of camerawork requires someone identifiable, and that’s Pam. While almost everyone else is larger than life, Fischer does such a good job of being funny in a subtle, quiet way.

19. Mary Richards (Mary Tyler Moore), The Mary Tyler Moore Show

We can’t really have a top women on television list without Mary, can we? Mary Tyler Moore rocks, from The Dick Van Dyke Show onwards, and so it was nice to see her get to carry this show. She might just make it after all. Read more…

lists actress, actresses, Buffy Summers, Cathy Jamison, Charlotte Charles, Dana Scully, Edith Bunker, Jane Tennison, Kara Thrace, Lisa Simpson, Liz Lemon, Lorelai Gilmore, Lucy Ricardo, Mary Richards, Maude Finlay, Pam Beesly, Peggy Olson, Roseanne Connor, Sarah Silverman, Starbuck, Tami Taylor, Tara Gregson, Temperance Brennan

Continuing with my lists, below I tackle best supporting performance by a dude. Once again, there are some arguable distinctions between lead and supporting (which is John Locke?), but let’s get going all the same, shall we?

~~

Best Supporting Male

Honorable Mention to Duquan Weems (Jermaine Crawford) from The Wire, Kenneth Parcell (Jack McBrayer) from 30 Rock, Hank Kingsley (Jeffrey Tambor) from The Larry Sanders Show, BA Baracus (Mr. T) from The A-Team, Gob Bluth (Will Arnett) and Tobias Fünke (David Cross) from Arrested Development, Bill Haverchuck (Martin Starr) from Freaks and Geeks, E. B. Farnum (William Sanderson) from Deadwood, and Lee Adama (Jamie Barber) from Battlestar Galactica. It’s a deep category, as you can see. Read more…

lists Ari Gold, Barney Stinson, Benjamin Linus, Bubbles, Desmond Hume, George Costanza, Jed Bartlet, John Casey, John Locke, Manny Delgado, Niles Crane, Noah Bennet, Omar Little, Phil Dunphey, Randy Hickey, Roger Sterling, Russel Bell, Sawyer, Spike, supporting actors, Toby Ziegler

Who are the best characters on TV, past or present? A couple of years back, I wrote a post giving a personal top 50. That post has received more comments and readership than any other I’ve written. I still get complaints about omissions, sometimes with great suggestions, sometimes with awful ones. So I thought I’d give it another crack.

But this time I wanted to break them down into four categories, parsing out leads and supporting characters. Also, since my previous list waxed more decidedly male, I’m dividing these into genders too. I admit to struggling a lot more to eliminate men than women when making the lists. Maybe that’s because television writers on the whole haven’t done as good a job of creating female characters, maybe it’s because I’m personally more drawn to the tales of masculinity, or a bit of both.

Anyways, here’s the first of four. A caveat — I don’t intend this to be a master list, like the AFI Top 100 Films or something like that. It’s the characters that I like at this moment in time. Some aren’t here because I don’t watch that show, or never watched enough of it to allow them consideration. (And since I grew up outside the US, I don’t know a bunch of older shows). Some aren’t because, hey, it’s my list and I do what I want. I also had to draw some odd lines regarding who is a lead and who isn’t, though I usually defaulted to who the advertising treats as the lead. But please, tell me who you’d put on your own lists, and tell me when I’m wrong.

Now, without further ado: Read more…

lists Alma Garret, Calamity Jane, characters, Chloe O'Brian, CJ Cregg, Deborah Morgan, Elaine Benes, Gloria Delgado-Pritchett, Karen Walker, Kima Greggs, Laura Roslin, Marge Simpson, Miss Piggy, Neela Rasgotra, Olive Snook, Sharon Valerii, Snoop, Sue Sylvester, Sun Kwon, supporting actress, Trixie, Willow Rosenberg

In case you don’t know, there’s been a whole lotta protestin’ goin’ on in Wisconsin. Saturday was day five for me. For more on what’s behind all this, see these posts here at Antenna.

Here, though, I want to discuss the many pop culture-related signs I’ve seen at the protests, with an eye towards then thinking through what we’re to make of them. To some, they might seem frivolous, a refusal to take the event and issue seriously, and hence no better than the doofuses holding up pro-pot signs at the rally. I disagree.

But first, the signs (and costumes): Read more…

poster art AT AT, comedy, imperial walker, political fandom, protest signs, Scott Walker

Oh, blog, I’m sorry I’ve neglected you so. But I promise to get you back up and running this year.

Towards that end, since seeing TV By the Numbers‘ invitation to create an all-time-best primetime schedule (sorry, I’d add a link, but I’m struggling to find it now), and in honor of the NHL All-Star Weekend, I’ve been playing around with my own “team”. And now, I present version 1.0 to you, with caveats and comments to follow:

~~

Monday

8pm – The Amazing Race

9pm – Chuck

10pm – Buffy the Vampire Slayer

(a nice fun night, and a good way to start the week without too much doom and gloom, Buffy s.6 excepted. I like the flow, too, from international race to international man of mystery to tonally similar, fun, asses-must-be-kicked show)

~~

Tuesday

8pm – Battlestar Galactica

9pm – Mad Men

10pm – Deadwood

(getting more serious tonight, as you can see. BSG doesn’t quite fit the other two tonally, but I thought it necessary to have something with a little action and thrillerishness in it before slowing down for Mad Men. Plus I like that it’s “different time and place night”)

~~

Wednesday

8pm – The West Wing

9pm – Survivor

10pm – Lost

(too hard to resist putting Survivor and Lost next to each other. West Wing’s kind of stranded tonally, but so be it: CJ’s up to the task)

~~

Thursday

8pm – Bones

9pm – Dexter

10pm – The Wire

(crime and punishment night. I had to get at least one procedural in here, and Bones is worthy)

~~

Friday

8pm – I Love Lucy

8.30pm – The Cosby Show

9pm – Modern Family

9.30pm – The Office

10pm – All in the Family

10.30pm – South Park

(and you thought I’d forgotten comedy? It’s just on the weekend, by which point I’m ready for it. We’ve got family life night here, working up from the more quaint to the more screwed up)

~~

Saturday

8pm – Arrested Development

8.30pm – How I Met Your Mother

9pm – Freaks and Geeks

10pm – Friday Night Lights

(I like the progression from HIMYM to FNL, with Jason Segel and that style of comedy segueing very easily from HIMYM to F&G, and then the high school line taking us to FNL. Arrested can go anywhere, it’s that lovely)

~~

Sunday

8pm – The Muppet Show

8.30pm – The Simpsons

9pm – The Dick Van Dyke Show

9.30pm – Seinfeld

10pm – Pushing Daisies

(the block of half-hours is self-reflexive comedy, so I think there’s good tonal flow. Then why not end the weekend with wimsy?)

~~

General Comments

• I started with only network primetime shows allowed, since I was thinking of this as a network schedule. I opened up to allow cable scripted shows, but felt it would be too hard to consider cable nonscripted too, hence the absence of Man vs. Wild, River Monsters, Iron Chef America, etc.
• I also cut off at 11pm, hence the absence of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. For the record, though, they’re on every night at 11pm and 11.30pm on my schedule
• It’s a fairly contemporary-centered list, but when I got down to it, I realized that I’d much rather watch, say, an hour of Dexter than an hour of Quantum Leap, as much as the latter show was fun in its own way.
• Some decisions were also based around scheduling. Indeed, exercises like this require some savvy scheduling. DVR Era bla bla bla: still way more people watch off DVR.

~~

And now, let the abuse and recriminations begin. Or perhaps my long period of absence from my blog has lost all readers, in which case, let the crickets begin!

~~

lists best shows, scheduling