I am annoyed because I had a rejection by two peer reviewers and it's not that any of the points either of them make are wrong but there's a joyless pernickety quality (Why wasn't x y or z cited in this article which is already 10,000 words?) to everything they said

Like there seems to be this real misery in academia often - a total lack of interest in playing with ideas and thought - over an obsession with citing things. And so sometimes, you just want to ignore all the work on William Godwin and the gothic because it's boring

You don't have a special reason for it, you can't prove a good reason why you want to ignore it, you just want to do something fuckin' different and all they can say is "why didn't you cite this that and the other?"

Romanticism people are particularly bad for this. Are there any actually interesting Romanticism journals? Is there such a thing as academia which isn't interested in the endless citation game above all else?

& I get it, this is how this stupid game works and lots of people are very happy and think they're doing something important when they play it, but GOD how I wish for something different sometimes: play, throwing caution to the wind, fucking citation, getting excited about ideas

Anyway if anyone can recommend me a Romanticism journal where the reviewers and journal are more interested in ideas than the citation game, hit me up!

Sometimes I just don’t really feel cut out for academia because I disagree so entirely with how the entire system operates

Especially when I think of them failing Benjamin’s habilitation for basically being too interesting and not reverential enough to what came before