Category Archives: NASSR

NGSC Statement Regarding NASSR-L

Dear Fellow Graduate Students,

I am posting the following statement of behalf of the NASSR Graduate Student Caucus.

“The NASSR Graduate Caucus echoes the statements made by the NASSR Advisory Committee and Executive Board regarding what has been occurring on the NASSR-L and supports their decision to disaffiliate from the listserv. We are working towards creating a more collegial space, both online and offline, for the Romantic graduate community. If you have any suggestions, or would like to contact the co-chairs directly, please email NASSRGradStudentCaucus@gmail.com. Please also keep in touch via Facebook (NASSR Graduate Student Caucus), Twitter (@NASSRGrads), and the NGSC Blog (www.nassrgrads.com).”

Interview with Atesede Makonnen

 

Atesede Makonnen is the winner of the 2017 NASSR Graduate Student Paper Prize. She is starting her second year as an English PhD student at Johns Hopkins University (MA in Shakespeare Studies, King’s College London, BA, Dartmouth College). Her research examines performance and race. Her winning paper will be published in the conference issue of European Romantic Review.

Continue reading Interview with Atesede Makonnen

NASSR 2017 Daily Recap: Sunday, Aug. 13

Storify Recap

goo.gl/i1AV1i

Stephanie Edwards’s Recap

Day four of the conference was, undoubtedly, the most exciting for me since it was the day of my own panel. Before my mid-morning panel, I heard some interesting and unique papers at “The Life of Things.” Brianna Beehler’s paper, “Frankenstein’s Doll: Production Narratives, Animation, and the Novel,” offered a really cool and fresh approach to reading Frankenstein as a doll narrative, with the Creature moving from doll to doll player. As a huge fan of Frankenstein, I was very excited to think about my beloved text in a new way.

Continue reading NASSR 2017 Daily Recap: Sunday, Aug. 13

NASSR 2017 Daily Recap: Saturday, Aug. 12

Storify Recap

goo.gl/vGGC8h

Stephanie Edwards’ Recap

Day three of the NASSR conference, for me, signaled the beginning of a shift in my conference-going interests. On Friday, I attended the roundtable on Romanticism after Black Lives Matter, a roundtable that I plan to discuss at length in my conference postmortem blog post. What is important in the context of day three, however, is how that roundtable influenced what panels I attended today. I decided this morning that I would attend all (possible) panels that featured a paper on a writer of colour or that dealt with issues of race. This decision not only enriched my overall conference experience but brought forth some of the most engaging papers and Q&A discussions of the week.

Continue reading NASSR 2017 Daily Recap: Saturday, Aug. 12

NASSR 2017 Daily Recap: Friday, Aug. 11

Storify Recap

goo.gl/72nGe6

Caroline Winter’s Recap

I started the day by chairing a wonderful panel on Affect and Economics. I was especially excited about this since I’m working on Romantic economics myself. It was lovely to hear about the work that others are doing in this area, and it made me wonder what became of New Economic Criticism? I’ve heard a lot of this kind of criticism pop up in various contexts throughout the conference, but we don’t seem to see it as a coherent strand of criticism, and I’m not sure why.

Continue reading NASSR 2017 Daily Recap: Friday, Aug. 11

NASSR 2017 Daily Recap: Thursday, Aug. 10

Every day during this year’s conference, one or more NASSR grads will post a recap of the day’s events. Many delegates are livetweeting, so we’re also using Storify to capture each day’s highlights.

Storify Recap

https://storify.com/EditrixCaroline/nassr-2017-day-one

Stephanie Edwards’ Recap

As a NASSR conference newbie, my first day of this year’s conference was a haze of drinking coffee, attempting to subtly read nametags, and writing feverishly in my notebook. Above all, though, today provided me with an overwhelming amount of generative and invigorating scholarship and a chance to listen to the exciting new work being done by many Romantic critics who I have admired for a long time. From this morning’s panel, “Plant Love and Vital Sparks: Materialism, Vitalism, and Erasmus Darwin,” in which paper topics ranged from the ambiguity of electricity in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein to the sexual politics of Blake’s amaryllis, to the panel that closed out my day, “Feeling/Less/Life,” where David Clark, Lubabah R. Chowdhury, and Jonathan C. Williams provided an absolutely fascinating discussion on the aesthetics of death, each panel I attended either increased my interest in an already-familiar branch of scholarship or alerted me to new areas and ideas that left me wanting to spend the night getting cozy with the MLA Bibliography.

Continue reading NASSR 2017 Daily Recap: Thursday, Aug. 10

Call for Summer Bloggers — Deadline Extended!

As the academic year is winding down, we’re seeking bloggers for the summer months: June through August.

This blog is a space for graduate scholars of Romanticism to share their work, their ideas, and their inklings in an interactive forum. Posts should be relatively casual in tone and aimed at a broad readership, including our scholarly community and anyone interested in Romanticism studies.

Posts don’t have to be text-based. In fact, we encourage multimedia and creative contributions.

If you’re interested in contributing and can commit to writing at least one post per month over the summer, please send a brief introduction to yourself and your research interests to me (Caroline Winter) at winterc[at]uvic[dot]ca by Monday, May 17 (was 8th).

Caroline

NASSR 2016 – Progressive Pedagogies

One of the last panel slots of NASSR 2016 was reserved for a roundtable with contestants of the Romantic Circles‘s Pedagogy Contest, hosted by RC Pedagogies editor Kate Singer. This year’s competition featured these finalists:

In general, I was floored (and, to be honest, a little intellectually intimidated) by the pedagogical innovations on display yesterday. And while Wolff was unfortunately unable to present, I was excited that the remaining panelists and audience would have plenty of time for the presentations plus a vibrant lengthy Q&A discussion session to round off the entire conference. Here’s more:

Continue reading NASSR 2016 – Progressive Pedagogies

NASSR 2016 Rapid Response: Final Day!

Sunday’s Tweets about NASSR 2016 via Storify

So here we are, at the end of NASSR 2016, with all of us likely traveling across the U.S. and Canada this evening, or on our way across the Atlantic or Pacific, heading back to our home institutions. Hopefully we’re re-invigorated with an exceptional amount of insight, inspiration, and innovation that will carry into our research and teaching over this coming academic year.

For me, today’s panels provided a surprising amount of vim and vigor on this, the final morning of our annual conference. When I imagine the Sunday morning of any conference, I envision a small gaggle of weary academics dragging their feet and their suitcases to the free morning coffee buffet before plopping in their seats to process, with half-closed eyelids, the final papers that our poor presenters must still deliver after the three action-packed days. To my pleasant surprise, however, both rooms were animated, engaged, and quite lively! Here’s some of what I heard…  Continue reading NASSR 2016 Rapid Response: Final Day!

NASSR 2016 Rapid Response: Day Three

Saturday’s tweets about NASSR 2016 via Storify

Saturday at NASSR was a marathon day for me, starting with an 8:30 am seminar run by the brilliant Mary Favret. Cheekily titled “Affect: Enough Already!” the seminar examined the role affect studies has played in the field. Among other questions, Favret asked: What has a focus on affect taught us to see? What has it taught us not to see? What are the historical conditions (academic, political, socioeconomic) that have promoted the study of affect, and to what ends?

Over the course of the two-hour seminar, we grappled with the always difficult question of how different affect authorities (eg: Baruch Spinoza, Sylvan Tompkins, or Adam Smith) shape our understanding of what “affect” even means. Among other topics, we discussed the relationship of affect to excess, and the possibility of recycling or recuperating affective excesses. We also pondered the sometimes problematic ways affect gets attached to questions of freedom – freedom of individual feeling in particular – and the tacit assumption that affect has positive connotations, while “ideas” tend to be viewed negatively. And we addressed the way affect’s mobility can (sometimes troublingly) erase distinctions, as well as affect’s tendency to take material or embodied form, even as we often insist on its immateriality. We also asked how and why affect gets deployed, both in the literature we study, and in our own literary analysis.

Continue reading NASSR 2016 Rapid Response: Day Three