Does anyone in the academy read Saul Bellow?

The common perception of academia is that being a professor is a cushy life. This isn’t the post to debate that point, but it’s always stuck me that this observation elides a really important fact: getting a tenure-track job at a good university has become increasingly difficult over the years. A ratio of three hundred applicants to one faculty position is not unusual. So even if these are good jobs, there ain’t a ton of them to go around. This fact carries an even greater bite in the humanities. As tough as it may be to get hired in political science, it’s a cakewalk compared to getting a position in, say, English departments. I know far too many acquaintances who are whip-smart but drop out of academia because they picked the wrong department to get a Ph.D., and so their hiring market sucks eggs. The point is, those people who do manage to get the good jobs have to be pretty talented in their area of specialty. Which is a fact I keep reminding myself of this fact whenever I read about an academic saying something stupid about their subject in the mainstream media. Take for example, this Patrick T. Reardon story in the Chicago Tribune about why “relatively few college and high school courses study Bellow.” Here’s how Erin G. Carlston, an assistant professor of English at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, answered the question:

“The truth is I dislike Bellow so don’t teach him myself. I’d guess from informal conversations with friends that my dislike for Bellow is fairly widely shared among women scholars, at least. But it’s also highly idiosyncratic and all about gender and ethnicity, for me. “I’d say in a general way that most post-World War II literature by American white men strikes me as incredibly whiny. It’s trivial and narrowly focused, and they go on and on about how it’s the end of Western Civilization because they can’t get women to pick up their socks anymore. “Bellow, being Jewish, is less offensive to me on these grounds than [John] Updike and his ilk, for whom I have no patience at all — I mean, American Jewish men have actual cause to be insecure . . . and their relationship to power is much more complicated than it is for WASPs. “But he still fits, in my mind, with a kind of writing I think of as self-absorbed and trivial. There’s no real tragedy, no joy, no relish in humanity. It’s all kind of flat.”

The really appalling thing about this quote is that, according to Calston’s UNC web page, “Prof. Carlston’s research interests are in comparative modernisms and especially the intersections between sexuality studies and Jewish studies.” She’s also working on a book chapter that “looks at the way race, religious confession, and sexuality have been defined in relation to the modern, Western nation-state and notions of citizenship.” So it’s not like Bellow is completely irrelevant to her area of expertise. This would be the equivalent of me telling a reporter after George Kennan’s death:

The truth is I dislike Kennan so don’t teach him myself. I’d guess from informal conversations with friends that my dislike for Kennan is fairly widely shared among Jewish and minority scholars, at least. But it’s also highly idiosyncratic and all about ethnicity, for me. I’d say in a general way that most post-World War II grand strategy by American white men strikes me as incredibly whiny. It’s trivial and narrowly focused, and they go on and on about how it’s the end of Western Civilization because democratic publics in these countries are exercising more influence over foreign policy.

Carlston’s current research project is a “book-in-progress, Double Agents, considers literary responses to several major espionage scandals of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries.” This sounds pretty interesting, actually, and I hope it proves to be a path-breaking work on the subject. Because it’s banal statements like the one above that cause me to doubt the way my profession works in practice.