Comments and suggestions welcome
Acknowledgments
This essay is a conscious echo of Robert A. Day's book,
How to write and publish a scientific paper, which was
first published in 1979 by the MIT Press. That book was one of the
first to address the practical needs of the graduate student and
recent Ph.D., rather than the advanced undergraduate.
We have written this essay to help English literature graduate students and people early in their professional careers to understand the world of academic publication. We have chosen to describe what we consider "the best" of the more traditionally styled literary criticism. While note discouraging experiments in other forms, we have agreed that these are beyond the scope of this essay. Most of what we say is as objective as possible. However, we have biases which we hope will show throughout these pages.
We are generalizing about current issues in writing about English-language literature in journals published in North America and Great Britain. While some of what we say might be relevant when the literature of other nations is the topic, or when journals from other countries are the vehicle, we have not tried to stretch out beyond the limits.
Section 1
What is Writing about Literature?
People write publicly about literature in order to help their colleagues and students understand the literary works themselves, the context of their creation, or the diversity of their reception, or all three.
Often writing about imaginative texts is the occasion for more general arguments about the current or future nature of society, the location and use of political power, the definition of right action or virtuous thought. Not surprising. Most literary works address and dramatize these issues, and most artists consciously see themselves as talking about and improving the human condition, questioning the meaning of the cosmic and terrestrial universes, and trying to figure out how the individual and society interact.
And there's art. Except in the most economically strapped times, most cultures with a system for distributing written texts or reciting oral ones have allowed time for the production and enjoyment of texts which go beyond the simple exchange of information. Aesthetic pleasures, whether intellectual or emotional, are what attract ordinary readers to linger over and value certain texts over others, and celebrating or accounting for those pleasures occupy the critics' attention or at least stand silently in the background while other issues are discussed.
Section 2
Origins of Modern Writing about Literature
The artist, the text itself, the reader, and contexts of writing and reading have variously come in and out of fashion over the past two hundred years. It is important, however, to recognize that some approaches continue and thrive despite the current fashion. The most obvious topic of ongoing interest since the early nineteenth century has been the biography of the artist, and this is the only genre which achieves any sort of popular appeal.
Section 3
What is an Article about Literature?
Most articles are sustained arguments about an important issue, question, or problem in the study of literature. They usually have an identifiable, single focus; that is, they have a "thesis." Their audiences are the relatively small group of specialists in a topic, an author, a text, or a historical place and time - the specialists have advanced degrees in English (or, occasionally, American studies), or they are candidates for those degrees.
Articles are about ten printed pages long (some 20 pages of double-spaced manuscript, plus a few pages of notes). They appear in periodicals which are published three or four times a year; each issue is some 150 pages long, and each will thus contain six to ten articles. Most journals are circulated chiefly to research libraries (with a North American base line of 500) and to a far lesser degree to individual scholars (no more than a couple of hundred). A very few journals are a benefit of membership in a professional society, but even then the membership itself is rarely more than a few hundred.
Some journals publish much shorter articles, often called "Notes," which can be from 2 to 6 printed pages long. A very few will publish articles of 20 to 40 printed pages long.
Section 4
How to Prepare the Title
The first thing a reader sees is the title of your article. Actually, most potential readers will only see your title in a footnote, the MLA Bibliography (in print or compact-disk linked to a computer).
So, you should think carefully about your title, and consider revising it as your ideas develop. If you can, show it to a friend or colleague and see if she or he can guess what your article is about.
Titles can have a "clever part" and an informative part, separated by a colon. The former is optional; it can be a phrase from the texts you are writing about; it can be pious or ironic; it can even be funny. We wish that people would pay more attention to the informative phase in their titles so that an outsider can know what your topic is. Consider using this template:
Remember, the rhetorical goal of the title is to get specialists to find your article. As you know, everyone is busy so a general or cryptic title is more likely to be overlooked than it is to be taken out on the off chance that it might be relevant.
Section 5
How to List the Authors and Addresses
Decide on your "professional" name and use it consistently in all your publications. Your publications will develop a following, and people should be able to track your work down when they search through bibliographies.
Initials don't reveal gender, for whatever positive or negative effect that might have on reviewers or readers. As noted below, many journals have an anonymous reviewing process which means that your name will only appear in the published article.
Give your university as your "academic affiliation" even if your are a graduate student. If you complete your degree or change jobs between the time your article is accepted and printed, use the new address if the editorial process permits. Believe it or not, your department gets "credit" in the higher levels of the university for what you publish. A street address implies that your are an independent scholar without formal academic affiliation. We believe it is "good form" to use an academic address even if you are not a full-time member of the faculty.
If your article involves collaboration, you will need to decide on the order of names. Three alternatives are frequent - the "senior" author first, the person who did most of the work first, or alphabetical. Decide on this beforehand if possible and don't get too sanctimonious about how hard you worked.
After everything is done, all of the authors should agree on a written statement of who did what. This should be in the form of a letter "To whom it may concern," but aimed at a department chair. One way to explain the work is to say who did the research, who drafted which sections, and who was chiefly responsible for substantive editing.
Section 6
Presenting Literature
These three sections make a somewhat artificial distinction among the other voices that are typically presented in articles about literature - the literature itself, writers of literary theory, and critics and scholars. We recognize the complexity surrounding the terms and concepts. By quoting someone's words other than your own are you presenting a text, an author, a stage in culture? By quoting are you showing reverence for the past or for genius, or are you colonizing and expropriating another person or group? But there is a practical reality which is generally agreed to - To the Lighthouse, Lacan, or Kermode fall, for most readers, into different categories.
A given article might present all three kinds of voices, for different effects and purposes, or it might just present one, as in a study of a totally neglected or brand new literary work or in part of a "purely" theoretical dialogue.
Presenting literature, very obviously, takes a single literary text or a group of texts as its focus. Consequently, for the discussion to be effective (and possibly even important) it must allow the interpreted text to speak for itself. The critic’s interpretative strategy (the ‘theory’ which informs her approach), whether stated or unstated, should provide a filter through which the literary text is viewed.
In terms of the writing, this means that you should quote liberally from the primary text. Paraphrase can be effective, and even unavoidable, but even more effective is the use of the author’s own words to illustrate the critical argument. Secondary sources should be invoked to illuminate what is, ostensibly, already present in the literary text. There are myriad ways that you can approach the text; what is important is that you, by allowing the text to speak, show the inexorability of your interpretation.
You should assume that your readers are quite familiar with the literary works you discuss, especially if those works have become famous either by being popular (Dracula) or by being written about frequently (King Lear). As a student you have been implicitly told to demonstrate your knowledge of and familiarity with the literary works; this rehearsal is not necessary in an article - your knowledge is assumed. Shakespeare experts know where to turn to find the mad scenes, the confrontation with Goneril, and Cordelia's death, so brief allusions will bring the full context to their mind.
If your topic is not famous, it is often acceptable to quote or paraphrase more extensively to give the reader the "flavor" of the text. In this setting, your writing might be a bit more like a good book review, with, for example, a paragraph or so of narrative and a couple of dialogue exchanges in a discussion of a novel, or several poetry passages which illustrate technique and contents you wish to explain. You may need to summarize the plot or the character alignments or other contexts which will become obvious once the text becomes better known.
The standards generally accepted by news reporters are relevant. You should not willfully misquote or misrepresent the text or its author. That author should be able to read what you have written and, even if she or he disagrees with your conclusions, say, "Yes, that's what I wrote." (Alternatively, if you are trying to make points at the author's expense, you should at least be aware of what you are doing.)
We will not here address the thorny question of what constitutes ‘theory,’ but rather attempt to sketch out the most salient features of a theoretical discussion. We begin with the assumption that a theoretical article, whether it be from a feminist, Marxist, or post-structuralist perspective, is an article which foregrounds a methodology which can be used to interpret social formations as well as literary texts. However, the theoretical discussion has a self-reflective quality: its object of study is theory itself.
Because of its self-reflective nature, the theoretical article demands a large range of references which demonstrate your command of the theoretical literature. It is rare - if not altogether unheard of - for the young professional or graduate student to engage in unmotivated theorizing. You can do that when you attain a Derridean guru status. For the time being, you must show that you are conversant with the prevailing theoretical arguments. Think of the theoretical discussion as your entry into an ongoing conversation.
Unlike a discussion which takes a literary text as its object of interpretation, a theoretical article does not depend so heavily on direct quotation. Paraphrasing a theoretical position is sufficient, unless the language of the writer under scrutiny is essential to your argument. You may even be able to gesture in an appropriate direction simply by mentioning a name, e.g., "Derrida," despite the fact that most famous theoreticians have had long, complex, and often contradictory careers. What matters is not how you cite the major theoretical players but that you acknowledge them.
We identify two common forms that the theoretical discussion takes. In the first, you identify a problem that the theoretical literature has not adequately addressed. After identifying the specific problem and reviewing the relevant literature, you proceed to stake out your position, to locate yourself in the conversation. Once your theoretical article is published, you become another voice in the dialogue. If your article is significant enough, you will become one of those voices with which other theoreticians must contend. Your theoretical pronouncements will most likely, at some point, be found wanting, but take heart, for this affords you another opportunity to enter the conversation.
The second type surveys the contemporary theoretical terrain. In this article, you review the work done in a particular theoretical strain (over a period of five to ten years). The discussion does not attempt to resolve any specific problem, but rather to illustrate the general tendencies in the field. This does not, however, preclude you from pointing out both the strengths and limitations of the contending positions.
You might wish to consider how subtle you want your reading of theory to be. At some stage it might become counterproductive or reductionist to show that famous marxists are actually elitists, or that writers of novels are actually sincere social historians.
Section 8
Presenting Criticism and Scholarship
A freestanding discussion of criticism will largely consist of a review of existing commentaries and will concern itself less with what is said than why it is said. That is, the discussion is primarily interested in investigating how the interpretive history of a literary text (revealed through a survey of changing critical positions) reflects social or intellectual transformations. Its focus is on the reception of a text or an author. We believe that a review of criticism will involve more direct quotation than a review of theory . This is owing to the fact that critical language often presents insight into the intellectual or social exigencies of a historical moment.
Criticism is often presented as a prelude or motivator for a discussion of literature. This writing can take the form of a history of interpretations. Depending on your temperament and that of your predecessors, this could involve searching for a gap, taking sides among contesting forces, or continuing a fruitful dialogue.
A discussion which focuses on scholarship (we define this as authors' biographies, textual history, letters, and other putative facts about textual production) is not concerned with reception but with the evolving nature of primary research. It will either review the state of the scholarship or add to it through the introduction of hitherto unknown documents. Since primary documents are essential to such a discussion, quoting "primary" documents is typical and desirable.
Section 9
How to Cite the References
You should probably use the Modern Language Association documentation guidelines as documented in The MLA Style Manual by Walter S. Achtert and Joseph Gibaldi. This uses parenthetical references in the text with the author's name and page number, and an alphabetical "List of Works Cited" at the end of the article. This format is easy to type with a word processor. If you use another system, such as the Chicago Manual of Style, Linguistic Society of America (LSA), American Psychological Association (APA), use it consistently.
When you submit an article, do not spend extra time trying to match the style of the journal - just use the system you are familiar with. If the journal prefers a different system, its editors will tell you after your article is accepted. We know of no instances where an otherwise worthy article was rejected because of the citation format.
Section 10
How to Keyboard the Manuscript
If you can, use a word processor. If you use a word processor, use a laser printer (not dot matrix) for sending out your article. If you must use a typewriter, buy a new ribbon for the final version. MLA calls for a 1" margin on all sides.
If the journal calls for anonymous submissions, don't try to subvert its request. You might add a separate page with the article's title, your name and current (academic) address for the convenience of the editor. If you can use your name, give it and your address at the top of the first page, single spaced, upper-left corner. In that situation, if your word processor permits, use a running footer or header with your last name.
Number every page. Number every page.
Type everything double-spaced, and use a 10-point (pica) or 12-point (elite) font. If your word processor permits, use italics (rather than underlining) for book titles. Italics and boldface for emphasis should appear rarely, if at all.
Section 11
Including Visual Materials
Articles about film and those which link visual art and literature may include photographs or other reproductions. You should look at recent journals in your area to see if they have any pictures - many literary journals simply don't have the facilities or the money to handle anything but text. (Desktop publishing may overcome tradition, but most systems are only comfortable with computer graphics, not high resolution photographs.)
For sending out the manuscript, it is generally adequate to include clear xerox copies of the illustrations. These should be on separate pages, one to a page, with your name and the article title on the back (unless the journal uses anonymous reviewing). The illustrations should be numbered consecutively and each should have a title and appropriate bibliographical information about its source. Insert the phrase "Illustration #__ goes about here" centered on the page just after the relevant paragraph in your text.
The most convenient way to capture frames from a moving picture is with the videotape version. You will need to go to a professional studio, perhaps at your university, which has equipment that can hold a steady, stop frame. The image on the screen is then photographed on 35mm film at a long exposure. You probably cannot get a good image on home VCR equipment because it probably won't hold the frame cleanly enough for an adequate photograph.
You should find out, before you send out the manuscript, whether there will be any technical problems in getting a professional, glossy photograph of your illustration, since most publishers will place that burden on the author. A xerox of a picture from a book simply won't do.
If you expect to use illustrations frequently in your academic career, take the time to learn about the technology and aesthetic standards. Talk with the people who teach photojournalism, or those who design visual materials for a medical school, or visit a professional printing operation. Ask these colleagues about what you should read to become familiar with current trends.
By the way, graduate schools and departments will often pay for producing illustrations. Give it a try.
Section 12
Where and How to Submit the Manuscript
Where: If your article is well-written and contributes knowledge to the field, publication or rejection may hinge upon where you choose to submit it. With a few hours of journal investigation, you can select the most appropriate publication(s) for your particular manuscript. As you examine the journals which publish in your field, read at least half a dozen articles from the last few years. If there is an editorial policy, examine it carefully for statements or hints concerning the interests and theoretical slant of the readership.
You might make up ranked a list of three or four appropriate journals with addresses so you can ship your article out immediately if it is not accepted.
Although publication in the widely circulated, general journals may seem more prestigious, submissions addressed to the particular interests of a small group of professionals will have the best chance of publication in one of the smaller, specialized journals. In most departments, the fact of publication early in one's career is a significant professional gesture; the perceived prestige of most journals will not be unanimously agreed to among your future or current colleagues.
Most journal editors discourage multiply submitted manuscripts. Although it is time-consuming to wait months for an editorial decision before sending your article to another publication, you will avoid the embarrassing situation of having to withdraw a submission after it has been accepted.
If you do not hear from the editor within a reasonable time (three or four months after submission), it is acceptable to write to the editor concerning the status of your submission. Editors are used to such requests; they often speed up the process for an acceptable manuscript, and they almost never lead to an out-of-hand rejection. If no decision is made within six or seven months, you may want to inform the editor that you are withdrawing your submission, particularly if you have another market in mind.
How: Send the requested number of copies with a brief cover letter. The letter should include the title (in case the letter and manuscript get messed up in the journal's files), but you need not argue for the virtues of the article, nor summarize its contents. It is a courtesy, but not a necessity, to address your letter to the editor as listed in a current issue of the journal.
You do not need to indicate your status as a graduate student, professor, etc. If someone cares, she might look in the MLA Directory; if you're not a member of MLA, she will still send your work out for review.
Please believe us, any sane editor will be just as proud to provide a forum for promising young scholars as for established emeriti or emerita. The quality of your work, not your academic seniority, will determine your success.
Address the envelope to the editor of the journal at the editorial office address (usually given inside the front cover) which may differ from the business or circulation address. Typically you will also include a self-addressed, stamped envelope with enough postage to cover returning the manuscript (alas!). Most journals are run out of academic departments on a very tight budget, so saving on stamps is important.
Section 13
The Review Process (How to Deal with Editors)
The primary motivation of editors is to produce an issue of the journal on a regular schedule with excellent articles which will be read by an interested group of your colleagues. They do not see their chief task as being to turn down manuscripts.
When your manuscript arrives at the editorial office, it is initially screened by the editor or an assistant (possibly a graduate student). Those manuscripts which clearly are not within the scope of the journal are often rejected at this time. Until this happens several times, you should not take this action as a reflection on the quality of your article. While it is disheartening, you should certainly not take it as a reflection on your potential as a scholar.
Those manuscripts which look at all promising are sent out to two or more reviewers (or readers), who are usually professionals specializing in or with knowledge of the subject of your article. A few journals use members of their editorial boards (listed inside the cover or on the opening pages) as their first-line reviewers; most use lists of competent and reliable reviewers with their areas of expertise. You cannot necessarily infer from lists of board members whether or not they are involved in the regular operations of the journals - some boards are developed chiefly to indicate the intellectual scope of the journal.
Although editors generally would like a response within a month or six weeks (longer over the summer), reviewers are unpaid volunteers with their own teaching and writing responsibilities. In other words, it may be several months before the editor receives the reviewers' advice to "publish," "reject," or "publish with revisions." After the reviewers have responded, the editor makes the final decision.
If the article is to be published, it will more often than not be returned to you with suggestions for revisions. Consider these suggestions carefully, and incorporate them as you see fit. Some of the reviewer's questions or comments may be addressed in a footnote rather than in the body of your paper - quite appropriate, for example, if you are asked to take a particular scholar's work into account. Return the revised article to the editor as soon as possible; you could consider including a cover letter which goes through the substantive suggestions and says which ones you have accepted, modified, or rejected (with reasons).
It is acceptable and appropriate for you to telephone the editor if you do not understand what he or she wants you to do. At this stage, the editor is clearly on your side; she or he hopes to publish your work, and is not looking for excuses to reject it.
Section 14
The Publishing Process (How to Deal with Proofs)
After you send out the article with final revisions you may get a postcard or letter which acknowledges that it was received. This may say when it will be published.
More often than not, however, the next thing you will get is a printed version of your article which has been edited and proofread. You might get "galley proofs," which include two or three pages' worth of text on a long sheet of paper, or "page proofs." Proofs might arrive within a month, or a year, or anything in between - if you're anxious, drop the editor a brief note about six months after the final version went out. You will have two weeks or less to return this to the publisher or else they will print the warts and all. Publishers are on enormously tight schedules. If you'll be on vacation, get someone to check your mail or let the publisher know your forwarding address.
What is supposed to be going on at this stage is that the publisher is faithfully representing your final typescript. You need to check on this. Find someone who is patient, and who is a much better speller than you are. Xerox the proofs and put the originals aside. Read from your manuscript slowly, indicating paragraphs, punctuation, and any other visual features. Have your colleague tell you about any differences and flag them in the xeroxed proofs. At your leisure, go through this version and decide which marks need to be transferred to the proofs you will return to the publisher.
The editor (or the publisher) may have marked up the proofs with corrections they spotted in their proofreading process. Go to a dictionary or the The MLA Style Manual to see what the special symbols mean and see if they are what you'd like. You may also see questions addressed to "Author" or "Au." Answer them in the margins or typed on a separate sheet of paper (with the page number clearly indicated).
An economic issue. Once the proofs exist, the placement of paragraphs on the page is fairly well fixed. Later changes requiring the addition or removal of one (or more) lines will cost the publisher money (and you might be charged for this). Whatever you would like to have the publisher do, try to make it "fit" within the confines of what you see on the page.
Should you quarrel at this stage? If the editor or publisher have stylistic preferences, such as undoing your split infinitives, being precise about which or that with nonrestrictive clauses, or converting roman to arabic numbers, it's probably not worth your worry. If the changes affect important parts of your meaning or if they strike at the heart of your style, use the same proofreading marks to indicate what you would like to have restored.
If you are in a real quandary, give the editor a phone call. Remember, she or he has a strong professional interest in making things work out, on time, and within budget.
Section 15
How to Order and Use Reprints
Aside from glory, vanity, a job, or tenure, you don't really get very much from publishing. The one material benefit is that you will usually get a couple of copies of the issue of the journal with your article in it and/or a handful of offprints, i.e., separately stapled-together copies of the article itself. Some journals let you pay for extra offprints in modest quantities (25, 50, 100). If you can afford it, buy 25 or 50. Over the years of your career, you will include them in job applications or in your tenure file and you will give them out to a few colleagues and your graduate students. If you're broke, you can get copies of the article into others' hands with the xerox machine.
Section 16
Writing your Article from Scratch
Think of your work as bringing together at least two kinds of voices - those from the literature itself and those from the critics. Try to define what you want to say in general, and, another voice, how you want to say it.
You might just write out your argument in outline or free text form. Or you might assemble what the voices tell you on notecards or in your word processor. Then, "all" you need to do is to put the two parts together. As you know, it's not easy and we can't tell you much about what's most important.
Try talking through your argument whenever you can. Call your mom; take the dog for a conversational walk; use a tape recorder or have your ideas videotaped.
Section 17
Revising a Term Paper
Journal editors can spot an unrevised term paper from a mile away. Your professors expect you to rehearse and parade your knowledge, and to make the paths to your discovery explicit. A term paper is always written for an individual ("What does she want?"), not for a group of experts, none of whom is paid to read what you write. Furthermore, unless you're an academic saint, the term paper was written quickly and revised lightly. Unless your professor is an academic saint, your best term papers were praised highly and briefly, perhaps only with "Superb work - should be published - A+" at the end.
What to do? You need to get a new perspective on your essay. Try to get your professor to reread it with an eye toward publication in a specific journal; maybe he or she can suggest an article in that journal which is similar in form or content for you to use as a model. Expand your view of your audience by imagining a scholar in your field who is ten years older or younger than yourself. This person is sitting by a swimming pool with twenty minutes to spare. She or he is preparing to teach a new graduate seminar next fall. What does this person need to know about your topic, and how are the best ways to get your points across? You don't need to show that you are an expert - you are an expert.
Section 18
Turning a Dissertation into Articles
Dissertations are usually made up of four parts. The first is an introduction to the domain of the topic - it poses questions or problems. The second is a scholarship review in which the student argues that no one has said what he or she will say. The third, the hardest, develops the thesis of the Thesis, that is, it says what the whole thing will answer or solve. The final part works out the proof itself in terms of the "data" from literature and criticism. Again, recall that we are using "literature" broadly enough so that it could include chiefly or only works of theory and criticism.
Unlike a term paper, dissertations do have a small but broadly defined audience in a committee which includes an "outside member." The adviser and chief readers do give extensive commentary, page-by-page, and they do request or require rewriting and revision. In most cases, the dissertation becomes a collaborative project.
What to do? There's really no "market" for scholarship reviews (the second part) in literary studies, unlike what obtains in the natural sciences or social sciences. This part is more of a display piece anyhow, without much sense of direction.
The introduction might be worth a try in a journal which is interested in theory or opening up new areas of inquiry, If you have crafted this part with some care, you might be able to send it out just by erasing hints that you have subsequently tried to answer the questions you raise.
The dissertation chapters which show the relevance of your topic to specific works of literature are probably the most fruitful ones to develop. Once you pick out the demonstration that is most interesting to your research community, you then need to reconstruct the context defined in the first three parts (especially the third) as a very brief summary, perhaps five pages out of the twenty that will become the final article. If this move is successful, i.e., if you can get one article published you can later allude to it in your treatment of other literary works.
Section 19
How to Write a Conference Paper (and What to Do with It)
PMLA lists hundreds of conferences each year - from regularly scheduled, annual events to the highly specialized, small, and occasional events such as those which celebrate the centennial of an author's birth or death. In nearly all cases, the conference organizers will send you a "call for papers" which explains the themes and topics of individual sessions and gives the technical ground rules for trying to get on the program.
Academic conferences are broken into "sessions," one hour and a half or a quarter during which time three people give formal speeches which last 20 minutes, followed by a few minutes of question time. Session topics range from the very narrow, such as Woolf's correspondence, to the broad, such as modernism. The individual papers, predictably, are narrower than the topic.
The entrée for most conferences is the "abstract," actually a prospectus, of one or two pages (250-500 words with half a dozen footnotes). You say what you would like to talk about by dividing the space about equally between defining the context of your study and the results you have found. Your rhetorical goals are to persuade the conference committee that your topic is original and interesting, that you are an expert on the topic, and that you really will have something complete and definitive to say. You need to take the pose that your work has been completed; use past tense and have a confident tone. The odds of acceptance are usually pretty good (say 1 of 3 or 1 of 4), especially for smaller conferences. Huge, national conferences are harder to get into - thousands of submissions and only hundreds of sessions. MLA and the regional MLAs work with with predefined topics, which are fairly open to newcomers, and research groups, which may be closed to all but standing, senior professors (or "their" graduate students). CCCC uses anonymous reviews and the conference program is made up from the abstracts which get strongest approval.
Some conferences allow a group to propose a full session, with all three speeches represented in separate abstracts. Many such sessions involve a professor and two graduate students.
Yes, it is acceptable to submit the same abstract to more than one conference. In an absolutely pure academic world you should focus on different aspects of your topic for different "venues," in the very remote chance that some people will go to each conference.
Once your topic is accepted, you need to write your "paper." With the typical twenty-minute limit, if you read from double-spaced copy, you will have time for 9 to 10 pages. That's not much. Your main goal is to get information across. Your audience will be a few specialists who are interested in your theoretical approach or what you have to say about literary works and a majority of people whose main interest is in the implications of your remarks for their teaching. Unless your panel includes a famous person or two, or your topic is exceptionally timely (say Satanic Verses just after the death threat), the audience will be from 20 to 50 people. Conference programs are structured to be on parallel schedules, so people may walk out just before you begin to get to another session - don't take it personally; you'll be doing the same thing yourself.
If possible, try to get an informal forum to give a trial run of your paper at least a week beforehand, so you have time to finely tune your pacing. Resist the urge to talk as fast as possible. Also, prepare some sort of handout (1 to 5 pages) with your name, mail and e-mail address, title, and date. One or five of the people in the audience will sincerely wish to get a copy of what you read or will want to know more about your approach. The handout could include a bibliography, passages which you want to focus upon, or just an outline of your main points. You can nearly always count on having an overhead projector so bringing transparencies derived from your handout is often a good idea. [Lightbulbs burn out; the power can fail - have a contingency plan to work around the technology.]
A conference paper is often a fine beginning for an article. For one thing, it is complete and fairly polished. For another, in order to meet the twenty-minute time limit, you probably have had to cut out excellent material which can go into the more generous treatment of the topic which is typical for published work. Just one tip: be sure to check your revised and expanded speech to edit out any traces of its spoken context - "In concluding my remarks today…" betrays origins rather clearly.
Section 20
How to Write a Book Review
Reviewing books is not a major enterprise in literary studies; nevertheless, many journals devote a fair amount of space to reviews. On the one hand, reviewing a book gives you an opportunity to comment publicly on recent work; on the other, reading a book carefully and crafting a short review takes an unexpectedly long time.
Most journals which publish reviews are hard-pressed to find people to do the work. Often a senior colleague will recommend you to review a particular book for a particular journal - you might let her know about your interest. Some journals publish lists of "Books received"; it is quite legitimate for you to write to the editor and indicate that you would be willing to review one or two specific titles on such a list. At worst, you'll be turned down. If those books are already spoken for, you might get on a list for new books in the area.
If the editor wants you to do a review, you will get a copy of the book (which you may keep - that's your only material reward) and a deadline. Before you start, read several recent reviews from the journal. Look for (1) the balance between describing a book's contents and evaluating its message, (2) the level of detail reviewers attain in describing what they see, (3) the tone of graciousness or hostility, and (4) the length. These issues will help you decide how closely and how critically to read the book.
If it turns out that you are very angry or distressed by what you read, you should probably write out a frank and combative review. Throw that one out. Then write a more tempered essay and ask a "neutral observer" such as your office mate to advise you on whether you have been courteous while still getting your message across. As you might imagine, no matter how "bad" a book is, the author has still tried to do the best he can. As you cannot imagine accurately, the author might turn up later in your career, for example, as the chair of a search committee, or as a referee of manuscripts for a prestigious press, or simply as a human being with whom you must have dinner twenty years from now.
If you think the book is very good, just say that. Do not try to predict that it will become one of the most influential works of the next century. Your goal in writing the review is chiefly to advise your colleagues whether or not to spend several hours of their lives reading the book.
Section 21
Ethics, Rights, and Permissions
You know about plagiarism; when in doubt, and when you know, cite your sources.
The works of most famous authors exist in carefully edited, "standard" editions. Use that for any text that is central to your focus. If there are competing editions, use a footnote to explain your choice. While some reviewers are tolerant, many will dismiss a study out of hand if you rely on a poor edition. It is probably ok to use a convenient paperback for incidental comments, e.g., to quote Kate Chopin in an article on Milton. Why? Standard editions are attentive to accuracy; they are available in research libraries; and most other scholars use them.
Check your quotations. Between the time you first took notes and when you send out your article all manner of typographical errors wander into the manuscript. Sliding from a semicolon to a comma is very likely, but words get changed and whole lines get lost. Also, once a quotation gets into your manuscript, you lose interest in reading it closely, since you are worrying chiefly about what you are trying to get across. Checking quotations means going back to the book or article itself (or a xerox copy) - don't count on anything you have transcribed.
If you are pressed for time, you might use the delay between sending out the article and when you get the journal's response to do this.
You may need to get permission to quote long prose passages from novels, plays, and other literary works, or even a single poem or part of a song. Don't worry about this until after your article is accepted, and depend on the journal editor's judgment. Some journals will get permissions for you; others will make you do it.
By the way, graduate schools and departments will often pay for getting copyright permissions. Give it a try.
Section 22
Jargon and Technical Language
Despite a continual flow of pious invective against jargon in the natural and social sciences, literary studies have had a long tradition of using technical language. It's really ok - it's hard to think of ordinary-language equivalents of "Phyrrhic foot" or "chiasmus," or "euphuisitic prose." A commercial spelling checker with your word processor will let you know when your terms have gone beyond ordinary language - our machine ground into "problematize," "cathected," and even "historicist."
What might you do? Your use of appropriate, technical shorthand is a good way to indicate your membership in a critical or theoretical school. It is a sign of your being a professional. You might, however, help less experienced readers toward understanding your whole argument by briefly defining these terms the first time you use them.
The University of Minnesota is an equal
opportunity educator and employer.
© Regents of the University of Minnesota, 2003.