This is hillarious. Sqadratomagico writes:
In my book, I attempted to dismantle a then-dominant narrative within my subfield.
I recently was asked to review a dissertation prospectus for a national fellowship organization. In that prospectus, I am the dominant narrative. My name is cited in the context of that very phrase. This prospectus, written by an eager young scholar, is attempting to dismantle my work.
I find this terribly amusing.
It’s amazing the speed at which this happens. By the time we publish books, we’re lectured to by all-knowing graduate students and younger colleagues that our years of research, thought, writing, and re-writing were really pointless, since we’re just fonts of conventional wisdom telling everyone what they know already. Gee, I wish someone had told me this 10 years ago. Oh, wait! Someone did–lots of someones, in fact, except they said there’s no evidence whatsoever for my point of view and what evidence I had I was clearly misreading or misinterpreting, since everyone knows that women aren’t involved in war, so trying to analyze gender and war was ridiculous, impossible, absurd. What the hell was I thinking?
The one constant over the past 10 years is that I’m clearly an idiot whose scholarship is worthless either because it’s entirely imaginary or the most hackneyed of all conventional wisdoms. Now, lots of senior scholars who were protected by tenure ten years ago (when I was not) are writing about what I wrote about in my first book. How did that happen?