Read on Twitter
@antipodeonline In 2018 Jason Con and Michael Ellenberg edited a book "Frontier Assemblages". My chapter review was brutal. I was not good enough for the edited series. My work was unclear, had no argument. This is the chapter review. What did I learn?
1/1 The experience was traumatic. I felt constantly singled out for being unclear. The communication with the editors did not help at all. Lesson: If you are editing a book, don't string along contributors and make them work on multiple revisions, and drop them last minute.
2/2 I have no idea who was Reviewer Two, but whoever you are, suck it up. My book is doing AMAZINGLY well. It is a text book across continents and the reviews are SMASHING. If any of you know Jason or Michael, do me a favour and pass on these notes.
3/3 Hopefully they can send my notes to Reviewer Two. But these reviews came in as I was working on my book manuscript. I nearly ended up not writing the book. It crushed me. While clarity and beautiful writing is key, who are we writing for?
4/4 Writing about differences (places, indigenous experiences, etc) also require widsom to read about differences. My experience with the Antipode edited book made me promise myself NEVER to waste my time with editors who are unable to guide their contributors. Period.
5/5 I am not taking rejections personally, but calling for a reflection about our role as reviewers/editors in the academy. This experience made me reflect on structural violence in the academy and the hypocrisy of reviewers and editors. Calling for diversity is not enough. Why?
6/6 The forms and structures of writing reflects experiences. Clarity and beautiful writing in the academy has been responsible, to a large extent, for keeping and reproducing racism, castesim, and class. Never forget Zora Neale Hurston's work was "unclear and lacked rigour" too.
7/7 The obsession about argument is exhausting. Arguing what? Are we allowed to write academic essays as dialogues? Is there no other method or form in the academy for scholars who don't want to "argue". What do you want indigenous scholars to argue about colonization?
8/8 What kind of argument and evidence based clarity, broken into word/structure bite/numbered and listed clearly do you want us to offer to the world? Unless we make it clear for the custodians and gate keepers aka reviewers, do we not "make it" as intellectuals?
9/9 And for these reasons and more, please add writings from other sources. Don't fall for superstar authors and academic divas and theoreticians enjoying the spotlight. Don't.
