Not sure who here will enjoy this, but my latest review for Strange Horizons... kind of eviscerates a mess of an academic book? A work of literary analysis attempting to fit science fiction into a #History of #Philosophy that Hegel and Lukács applied to other narrative forms?
My review at least gives a taste of academic writing, & explores the perils of publishing pressures for academics. Never mind the bollocks (er, academese): sometimes analysis *is* junk.
#SFF #Books
http://strangehorizons.com/non-fiction/science-fiction-and-narrative-form-by-david-roberts-andrew-milner-and-peter-murphy/
I will add, though, that I think more everyday readers should know how much academic writing is junk - because when people like J Peterson rise to prominence, much is made over any "serious" writing credentials they have (like an academic publishing credit). Maps of Meaning is absolute crap - but a lot of folks don't have the background necessary to recognize how many flaws exist in the work *and* the flaws in academic publishing that allowed it to get through in the first place.
@Armchaircouch
Great question. I discuss that in the review, by explaining what narrative studies is, & the kinds of insights we can gain by looking at the structure of storytelling.
In this case though, the authors tried to extend the work of an early 1900s literary philosopher without challenging his premises. And... they essentially cobbled together a book of loosely related conference papers.
This is common to academic writing that serves primarily to keep up a prof's publishing credits.