A Farewell to Daniel Bashing

[Guest]

Oh, get out of here with this crap. My God. How deep do your stupid vendettas run?

It's always interested me that Mike Quinn is, by far, Scratch's most notable area of emotional sensitivity. I would imagine that there's something autobiographical in it, but I don't know (and am only mildly curious) what it is.

Quinn's Mormon publications have spanned different disciplines--from his biographical work on J. Reuben Clark, to his sexuality studies book (why, If I recall correctly, he worked briefly at USC), to the "Magic World View" and Hierarchy books. This stuff about a "narrow focus" is totally, spectacularly incorrect.

It doesn't matter whether he does Mormon prosopography or Mormon biography or Mormon sexuality or Mormon narrative history or Mormon institutional history. It's still Mormon studies. That is, I'm confident, how a hiring committee would look at it.

And why would you say this? I mean, the "Civil War" is "narrow" as a topic. So is Shakespeare. So is the Bible.

But they're all far, far more mainstream.

Do a lot of publications in that field mean that a person *should* be un-hireable, as you suggest?

I'm simply being realistic. This point has, really, nothing to do with Mike Quinn personally.

The bulk of your own publications are devoted to Mormon topics. Does that mean that you would/should be un-hireable on the academic job market?

My Mormon publications would most likely not help me land a job at a non-Mormon university, no.

Further, what your'e saying here implies that Mormonism, as a subject, is so narrow as to not provide a scholar with enough material for sufficient publication.

That's not even remotely my point, and I don't believe it to be true. There's plenty of work to be done in Mormon studies.

The question is whether somebody specializing in Mormon studies will find it as easy to get an academic appointment at a typical college or university as somebody specializing in something with more broad appeal.

If that's the case, I hope you send a memo to Don Bradley, who, If I recall correctly, intends to aim his career in the direction of purely Mormon-related research and publication. (And isn't that Chris Smith's focus, too?)

[/quote]
I wish them well in their studies. But focusing on a non-mainstream area poses a potential obstacle to employment.

That's simply the way it is.

[_Kishkumen]

I wish them well in their studies. But focusing on a non-mainstream area poses a potential obstacle to employment.

That's simply the way it is.

Indeed.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Liz, as far as I know, the world of historians regards Mike Quinn as the pre-eminent scholar on Mormonism.

I doubt that that's true. I think that the palm right now would almost certainly go to Richard Bushman, who has a truly distinguished record of teaching at eminent universities and of publishing with preeminent presses.

On his heels would probably be Terryl Givens, who has published a series of very well received books on Mormonism with Oxford University Press.

And Grant Hardy is a rising star.

In another sense, Jack Welch has been prodigiously prolific, and is active virtually everywhere.

Mike Quinn certainly has competition, to put it mildly.

the only people who think that there is any real problem with him as a scholar are the Mopologists, and the people like Ira Fulton, who help to blackball him from positions that would further his work.

That's not true. Professor Klaus Hansen, for example, a scholar in Canada who reviewed Quinn's "same-sex" book for the FARMS Review, can't be considered a "Mopologist" or an apologist by any reasonable standard. He's an inactive unbeliever.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Was your Islamic work "mainstream" when you wrote your dissertation, Dan? What does that even mean? What percentage of recent assistant professor hires, I wonder, were made on the basis of whether or not the candidate's publications were sufficiently "mainstream"?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Although I am partly responsible for the many twists and turns of this thread, I would ask that we remain on topic and not go onto tangents about Ira Fulton, Mike Quinn, and what have you.

Okay. Thanks.

[_Kishkumen]

I would venture to say that it has been easier to get a job as an Islamicist than a Mormon historian for some time now.

Hey, but I am just guessing here.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Was your Islamic work "mainstream" when you wrote your dissertation, Dan? What does that even mean? What percentage of recent assistant professor hires, I wonder, were made on the basis of whether or not the candidate's publications were sufficiently "mainstream"?

Most by far, I should think.

Medieval Islamic studies as a focus was a bit out there, but not too far. There are far more schools interested in teaching Islamic studies than in teaching Mormon studies.

And, of course, I was and am qualified to teach Arabic language and literature from basic to advanced levels. Which is, as a matter of fact, how I earn my living. I only rarely get to do purely medieval things.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Just out of curiosity--- What percentage of Richard Bushman's publications are devoted to Mormonism?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Was your Islamic work "mainstream" when you wrote your dissertation, Dan? What does that even mean? What percentage of recent assistant professor hires, I wonder, were made on the basis of whether or not the candidate's publications were sufficiently "mainstream"?

Most by far, I should think.

That's bogus, Dan. Or, can you offer up a workable definition of what "mainstream" means for the various members of your department? Would they all agree? If so, then you must be working in a department that's unique in U.S. academia.

Medieval Islamic studies as a focus was a bit out there, but not too far. There are far more schools interested in teaching Islamic studies than in teaching Mormon studies.

And, of course, I was and am qualified to teach Arabic language and literature from basic to advanced levels. Which is, as a matter of fact, how I earn my living. I only rarely get to do purely medieval things.

Well, thanks for proving my point.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Liz, as far as I know, the world of historians regards Mike Quinn as the pre-eminent scholar on Mormonism.

I doubt that that's true. I think that the palm right now would almost certainly go to Richard Bushman, who has a truly distinguished record of teaching at eminent universities and of publishing with preeminent presses.

On his heels would probably be Terryl Givens, who has published a series of very well received books on Mormonism with Oxford University Press.

And Grant Hardy is a rising star.

You consider all of these people "historians"? I don't think you can really fault the work of any of these people, but I'm sure you realize (hence some of your earlier comments) that the TBM status of these people will, generally speaking, render their work problematic in the eyes of the "mainstream". That's why, e.g., Jon Krakauer cited Quinn, rather than Bushman, Hardy, or Givens. It's why Larry McMurtry gave Bushman's RSR a lukewarm review.

In another sense, Jack Welch has been prodigiously prolific, and is active virtually everywhere.

Really? I know that he's published something like 500 articles for FARMS. But that poses (to put it mildly) a rather significant problem.

the only people who think that there is any real problem with him as a scholar are the Mopologists, and the people like Ira Fulton, who help to blackball him from positions that would further his work.

That's not true. Professor Klaus Hansen, for example, a scholar in Canada who reviewed Quinn's "same-sex" book for the FARMS Review, can't be considered a "Mopologist" or an apologist by any reasonable standard. He's an inactive unbeliever.

Is Hansen conservative and/or against homosexuality and/or same-sex marriage?