Read on Twitter
I am annoyed because I had a rejection by two peer reviewers and it& #39;s not that any of the points either of them make are wrong but there& #39;s a joyless pernickety quality (Why wasn& #39;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& #39;s boring
You don& #39;t have a special reason for it, you can& #39;t prove a good reason why you want to ignore it, you just want to do something fuckin& #39; different and all they can say is "why didn& #39;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& #39;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& #39;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
