Read on Twitter
In response to the #RaceB4Race collective’s clarion call for more equity in scholarly editing processes, we outline some of the ways in which we try to solicit, encourage, nurture, and promote the excellent work being done by precarious, BIPoC, or Early Career Researchers. (1)
Today’s case-study is Sujata's cluster on “Shakespeare and African American Poetics” in B&L 7.2 (2012), created in collaboration with the _Langston Hughes Review_ (LHR), an attempt that both worked – we received a couple of terrific essays, which we published – and didn’t work(2)
(why did we receive so few essays, none of them from writers who openly identified as BIPoC, precarious, or Early Career?).
From its inception, B&L has solicited readers’ reports from specialists in both Shakespeare Studies AND in the field of appropriation (3)
From its inception, B&L has solicited readers’ reports from specialists in both Shakespeare Studies AND in the field of appropriation (3)
For example, for an essay about Shakespeare and Emily Dickinson we went to early Americanists as well as to Shakespeareans; for an essay about Shakespeare in stained-glass windows we went to architectural historians as well as to Shakespeareans). (4)
We have not changed this practice: we still reach out to specialists beyond Shakespeare Studies for expert review.
So, although Sujata is a passionate Morrison fan, (5)
So, although Sujata is a passionate Morrison fan, (5)
she knew that her enthusiasm to create a cluster on Shakespeare and African American poetics did not qualify her to evaluate work in African American Studies. She reached out to the editors of the LHR to ask whether they would be interested in collaborating with us. (6)
They were, although they were not able to promise space in their print journal for Shakx essays, for obvious reasons. We agreed that both journals would promote the Call for Papers, that the LHR would “second” its readers to us,(7)
and that B&L could use the LHR name on the published cluster.
We circulated the Call for Papers among our networks, including to authors who had previously published essays with us and authors who had published on EM Critical Race Studies, but we received only two essays, (8)
We circulated the Call for Papers among our networks, including to authors who had previously published essays with us and authors who had published on EM Critical Race Studies, but we received only two essays, (8)
Adam Meyer’s investigation of the fraught representation of Shakespeare’s Shylock in the work of African American writers, and the late Chris Roark’s argument that Toni Morrison's _The Bluest Eye_ lyrically integrates African American musical traditions with Shakespearean (9)
appropriation in _The Bluest Eye_ in order to critique _Hamlet_ – and by extension, Western tragedy. Because of its sensitive topic, Adam Meyer’s essay elicited lengthy email conversations among a board member from the LHR with expertise in African American Studies (10)
(and who identifies as Black), an expert in Jewish and Shakespeare Studies (and who identifies as Jewish), the author, with Christy and Sujata as intermediaries to protect each person’s confidentiality and allow them to speak frankly. (11)
We sent Chris Roark’s essay to a board member of the LHR and to a board member of B&L. Both essays received what we call a “yellow light”: our readers felt this was important work that needed to be published and were enthusiastic, but had suggestions for revision. (12)
Adam was able to make his revisions quickly, but Chris had a relatively heavy teaching assignment and needed another summer to polish his work. Sadly, Chris passed away at the age of 51, just months before his essay appeared; we are still grateful for the grace of his widow, (13)
who signed our publishing agreement at that terrible time, and also that B&L was able to promote the scholarship fund established in Chris’s memory.
Lessons learned: I wish we had received more submissions, and in particular submissions from Black-identified scholars. (14)
Lessons learned: I wish we had received more submissions, and in particular submissions from Black-identified scholars. (14)
At the same time, we have to accept that Shakespeare is – rightfully – a tiny, tiny part of the world of African American Studies and that it might have been more appropriate for me to have framed the cluster as something like “Methodologies from African American Studies” (15)
or (how we might do it today) “Black Feminist Methodologies and Shakespeare.” If we were doing this now, I would also circulate the call on the #MELUS listserv, write to the editors of the _CLA Journal_, _Callalloo_, and other journals in African American Studies personally, (16)
and. reach out personally to authors who had NOT published within Shakespeare Studies, and to Early Career Researchers (and now that Twitter is “a thing”) deploy social media more widely. (17)
Finally, we would vastly extend the time-line (we now think it takes at least two years to create a good special cluster or special issue). (18)
Diversifying any organization, scholarly, community, or institutional, takes decades – and persistence. We are glad to be attempting this work with our authors, readers, reviewers, and editors. (19)
