Authorial intent

Last night, Dad the Emeritus Historian of Graeco-Roman Egypt asked me if I listed this blog on my CV.  Well, no, I responded.  Leaving to one side the occasional guest appearances by cats, annoyed Vulcan captains, and GLADOS, I've never considered anything I've written here to be more than notes towards a final scholarly product.    As I pointed out here, for example, a post on Walter Scott's The Monastery had to be entirely revised, reworked, and just re-ed in general before it could function in the context of my book chapter.  My blog prose tends to drown in parentheticals, qualifiers, and other stylistic tics that require stern discipline; moreover, I frequently...ah...express my opinion of certain texts more strenuously than is generally considered appropriate in academic discourse.  If I ever get around to writing an article about Florence; Or, the Aspirant (because, believe it or not, it does have literary-historical interest, if your literary-historical interests run to my kind of thing),  it's highly unlikely that I will spend the entire essay bewailing my plight.  Granted, one's tolerance becomes strained after spending too much time with angelic evangelical children who address other characters as "Mr. Jew," but articles are not the place to gnash one's teeth over a self-inflicted burden.  That's what you use blogs for, no? 

But this judgment call is getting a little tricky, because some of my blog posts are now showing up as citations in scholarly journals.  In particular, the Rules for Writing Neo-Victorian Novels, which have even put in an appearance on someone's syllabus.  Obviously, being cited is a Good Thing (and looks nice on one's annual report), but...if I'm going to note that my post is turning up in the scholarly literature, does that mean that I should also note the blog as well? Even with cats, annoyed Vulcan captains, and Glados?

Comments

[Benjamin L Clark]

Yep. Do it. Shows savvy.

[Sherman Dorn]

You're a public intellectual. Your blogging over the years is the equivalent of writing a (free) book for a general audience in the form of an informal memoir and set of semi-essays. It's not a research monograph, but it's professor-type stuff. Take that, Russell Jacoby!

[Vance Maverick]

You could claim credit for the individual post (under Occasional Pieces, or some such rubric) without stressing the blog as such.

[Amanda Phillips]

Let us know how you decide on this question, please. I imagine many of us are pondering a very similar issue.

[Ben Brumfield]

Perhaps there's a section of your CV you could mention it that's not a Publications section? As a programmer in industry, I'm neither an academic nor familiar with CVs, but certainly the equivalent activities for me (non-work related software projects and such and volunteer activities) deserve mention on my resume under their own section.

Whether or not it's intended, your blog accomplishes public outreach. I found it through your personal postings about building library stacks in your house. However, your researchy posts on sectarian literature have given me a context to understand the writings of Robert Hugh Benson, which I'd been mystified by for years. As someone who hasn't taken an English course since high school, I doubt I'd have encountered that otherwise, and am quite grateful for it.

[sharon]

Yes. Get it in there.

(I'm genuinely astounded to learn that it isn't already or that there should even be any doubt about it.)

[William Patrick Wend]

Yep, it should absolutely be there. Especially because the way you blog is a great model for scholarly blogging.

[zhiv]

No doubt put it in there. Your blog is outstanding, and the quirks you're concerned about and admitting are minor and endearing. People can easily differentiate between the high quality of your professional academic work and the more casual and personal efforts on this blog. But it's a substantial part of who "you" are, and there's no reason why people can't or shouldn't know about it. And of course it's also a fantastic resource.

It reminds me of having a meeting with Roger Daltrey to appear in a film as an actor. We received his "acting C.V.," along with his headshot; he might have brought it in himself. It had a relatively substantial list of his acting appearances. It was a traditional C.V. in every respect. At the very bottom, under a title that said "Music," it said, simply, Lead Singer of The Who.

Just a little tag like that, down at the bottom, might work: "Blogs as The Little Professor." And I also want to mention just one of the many invaluable features of this blog, which is the thorough analysis and reviews of literary adaptations to film and television. They're not quite as formal as they might otherwise be, but they constitute a substantial body of work.

[Brooke]

For me, the nearest professional analogue to my blogging would be presentations I offer at church (I'm in biblical studies) or at teaching colloquiums. In these non-peer-reviewed venues, I mean to be responsible and professional, but also informal, speculative, even occasionally off-topic.

I don't yet know if that means my blogging should be a part of my official in-house promotion reviews, or a part of my CV. But, if so, it would likely be associated with "service" more than with "publishing."

[Reynolds Potter]

No question: include it. You've got the savvy to decide where on your CV/Resume. Plus it's a noteworthy accomplishment.
As for "cats," didn't really hurt T. S. Eliot did it?