In Medias Res

2 0 . 2 ] Editor’s Column: In Medias Res HAT HAVE I LEARNED DURING MY YEAR AND A HALF AS EDI- tor of PMLA? Now, at the midpoint of my term, I thought WI might reflect on some of my hopes and hesitations about the editorship and think about what, from the submissions to PMLA and from the process of its publication, we might glean about impor- tant trends in literary studies and the humanities more broadly. Two things have delighted and frustrated me, in particular: the workings of the peer review process, on the one hand, and the disciplinary and subdisciplinary boundaries that inform our writing and teaching, on the other. On these issues and on their relation, I have some good news and some less good news to report. When Rosemary Feal called me two years ago to ask whether I would be interested in serving as the editor of PMLA, my first reac- tion was trepidation. How could I ever feel qualified to evaluate essays representing the enormous range of fields and approaches in our profession? Why would I even want to spend so much time reading essays that in no way related to my own work? I had edited and co- edited several collections and special issues of professional journals, and each time I vowed “never to do it again,” to spend the time and energy on my work instead. At the time of this invitation, moreover, I was nearing the end of a leave year and far from finished with my project. And, being absorbed in my own work, I had developed just enough psychic distance from the institution to be able to interro- gate the standards I and others were applying. Wouldn’t the PMLA editorship draw me deeply into an institutional frame of mind, dic- tating standards and decisions that might not be mine? Clearly, the journal was at an excellent point in its history, its submissions up, the review process efficiently organized and run, [ © 2005 by the modern language association of america ] 32 322 Editor’s Column [ PMLA interesting special-topic issues in the pipeline. a great deal of energy on peer review, and we Colleagues I spoke to even admitted reading generally read one another’s work with atten- PMLA more than they had in the past, ex- tion and generosity, writing evaluations that cited by its new look and some of the recently range up to several single-spaced pages. It’s added special features. Carlos Alonso, who not that we don’t impose our own standards was then the editor, described the Editorial and even, sometimes, our own prejudices, and Board meetings to me as the most intellec- it’s not that we don’t sometimes get impatient tually intense and provocative discussions with what we perceive to be the mistakes of I would ever participate in. The anonymous others. We are, for the most part, extremely submission process, particularly, ensured that demanding readers. But most of us also be- the deliberations focused on the work, not on lieve in revision, and we want to see the essays reputation, politics, or personality. we read meet very high standards indeed. To It was the prospect of these conversations that end, we are willing to scrutinize them and perhaps the eternal student in me that with enormous care, posing tough, provoca- made me throw caution to the wind. When tive, and productive questions to them. It is again might I have the chance—no, the obliga- rare for me to receive a letter of critique that is tion—not only to read in detail about, say, Lope not constructive as well as incisive. And those de Vega, Milton, Auden, Alejandro Morales, of us who submit our work are most often and Oliver Sacks in one sitting but also to con- open to critique and suggestion and willing sider debates about the linguistic turn, disability to revise, cut, reorganize. At its best, the peer studies, trauma studies, constructions of mascu- review process is a multistage conversation linity, religion, politics, and aesthetics? I would about the article’s subject among a number know what’s going on in the humanities, what of scholars who have high investments in that the hot issues were, how different fields were subject and its broader implications. defining and redefining themselves and the ob- Essays are submitted by MLA members jects of their inquiry. I would be able to regain across the United States and abroad, by gradu- some of the breadth that after several decades of ate students, independent scholars, and col- teaching and writing in one’s own disciplinary leagues in every rank on the tenure track. In locus one inevitably loses. And the teacher in the last five years, 1,342 regular essays were me was intrigued as well. Here was my chance submittted to PMLA (not including invited to learn what makes an article truly compelling, pieces), and 67 of them were published. Fifteen a knowledge that was sure to help me with my of the published authors were full professors, own writing and with my teaching as well. eleven were associate professors, twenty-six were assistant professors, twelve were graduate Indeed, I have learned a great deal not just students, and four were scholars in other ranks. from reading the articles but from the practice Forty were men and twenty-eight women. of evaluation itself, although I have regretfully Each essay submitted to PMLA is read also had a hand in declining a great number anonymously by a minimum of two and as of essays. I have even seen articles declined many as ten readers. Many are revised two or that, had I been able, I would have wanted to three times, and some of those may, in a final publish in the journal. The process is certainly assessment, still be declined by the board. The not foolproof. But virtually each of the arti- first two or, in disputed cases, three review- cles the journal declines is accompanied by ers generally represent the immediate field of helpful, engaged readings and by useful and the article. If they recommend it, it goes to the at times very detailed suggestions for revi- less specialized readership represented by the sion. Our colleagues, I quickly learned, spend Editorial Board. The board meetings I have 2 0 . 2 ] Editor’s Column 323 chaired have indeed included some of the most Having just chaired my seventh Editorial stimulating discussions I have ever partici- Board meeting, I find I still cannot easily pre- pated in. It is rare to find pure agreement on dict how an essay is going to fare in discussion. the board, but, contrary to a common miscon- I often do not even know how, at first reading, ception voiced to me recently by a colleague, I I feel about it myself. Invariably there are top- have also not found that we decline work that ics that interest me in particular, others I know is innovative, risk-taking, or controversial in much less about. As I reread submissions, other favor of the safer essays on which we concur. criteria emerge. It is not enough to address a And although board members may apply quite topic that “should” be covered in PMLA: that divergent standards to the essays before them, topic must provoke a productive, coherent ap- reflecting disciplinary preferences and preju- proach and argument. It is not enough to read dices, in addition to personal ones, I have not a text by applying a certain theoretical frame- by and large found that those differences have work to it, as many of us learned or have taught caused the final decisions to favor some fields students to do. What is PMLA looking for in over others. Still, these are two issues about an essay? colleagues and students have asked which we need to be most vigilant. me. I find that some essays engage me imme- At our best, we consent to suspending our diately through their lively writing style, or the sometimes strong and categorical judgments forceful way in which they raise the questions long enough to listen to one another’s opin- they wish to explore, or the broad range of re- ions. As one board member put it at our last sources they deploy to address their questions. meeting, “If some of these very smart people They might be anchored in a text or the work find something of great interest in an essay, of a writer I have never read, but they evoke there must be something there, and I want to that text or work or its period with an intensity hear what it is.” Some essays provoke long and or a passion I find infectious. They foreground heated arguments, at the conclusion of which, its relevance for me, here, now, by exhibiting if things go well, we roll up our sleeves and fig- what—intellectually and politically—is at stake ure out, together, how the author might be able in the inquiry. They think through theory, to respond to some of our objections in revis- practice theory, but do not exhibit theoreti- ing the paper. There is not one moment dur- cal knowledge for its own sake. They tell me ing those discussions when I do not imagine a story, the story of a mind working through a myself in the author’s position. I oscillate from problem, probingly, suggestively, with author- vowing I will never put myself through such a ity and openness at the same time, inviting me demanding process to envying the attention to join in the exploration with them.

Load more