Thanks for the reply, Chris. I particularly found this comment of yours to be exceptional:

"Christopher I. Lehrich" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

To top it off, I don't think that really good academics, as a rule,
choose their fields strategically. You choose your dissertation topic
that way, sometimes, especially when your committee is hostile or
controlling, but you choose your field because you like it. Personally,
I still get a kick out of wandering into a library and digging through
books about demonology. And if mainstream academia thinks that makes me
a weirdo, then I have one obvious option: publish so powerfully that
they sit up and take notice. That takes a while, but it does provide a
good incentive. Adversity can be a useful thing.

-- This approach to tackling a hostile environmen! t is to be commended; frankly, because it's so rare. I don't often hear the strategy of Excellence invoked against an oppressive environment, yet it's a superior approach because you get the double-benefit of overcoming adversity while enjoying the hell out of it.

Your reply also illustrates the value of having a significant opponent. Most people spend their lives avoiding adversity, rather than gaining an understanding about how they might profit from it.

> Chris, I notice that you also do quite a bit of writing on RPG game
> theory in which you intersperse actual magical theory and history, is
> that right? Have you found that to be any kind of buffer for you, or
> is it just a natural extension of your personal interests? In other
> words, have you found that writing about arcane magical theory in the
> context of RPGs is more acceptable among your peers?

Yes, I do write about this stuff. It's a hobby, and it's ! very useful to
me professionally, but not for the reasons you mention. I'll explain,
because it might be helpful to you or others here.

As a theorist, the #1 problem I face is that nobody really understands
the majority of the theories they kick around. Some people just limit
their usage, some avoid theory entirely, and a few unfortunately just
try to fake it. The people who really get it are quite rare.
Furthermore, I find that relatively few of those who really do get it
are capable of explaining it well to people who don't. This becomes a
self-perpetuating cycle, and it's largely responsible for the
still-common use of the word "theory" as a pejorative in a number of
disciplines. And, as a theorist, I hate this.

So I think that a big part of my job is to explain theory, however
intricate and difficult, extremely clearly. That's a lot of work. So I
try it out on multiple audiences. In my courses, I teach peo! ple like
Levi-Strauss, not simply because they're important and brilliant but
also because it requires me to explain these people clearly. In writing
about RPGs and theory, I do the same thing for a quite different
audience. I figure that if I can explain to a big classroom of freshmen
and a vastly disparate group of gaming hobbyists how _bricolage_ works,
I'm well on the way toward making this crystal-clear to my academic
readers. It also gives me practice explaining things in prose.

-- Very interesting, and it makes sense. Thanks for indulging my curiousity.

As to RPGs or whatever as a buffer, well, no. I think this is probably
rather worse than studying magic: I mean, Frances Yates studied magic,
and she was OK, but gaming is obviously geek silliness. (I hope it's
clear I don't agree with this.)

-- Actually, "geeks" run the world today. Talk about reversal of fortune.

All of which comes around to! your first question. Is this the most
strategic, intelligent way to land a great job in this field? Hell no.
That's okay, though, because it's fun.

-- Indeed! Thanks, Chris.

Caelum

Chris Lehrich

--
Christopher I. Lehrich
Boston University

-----------------------
occultimatum.blogspot.com
www.squidoo.com/oam
www.nahualli.com

Yahoo! Mail
Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.