Head-scratching Citations

As a scholar, of course I'm always curious if someone cites my work. I mean, I do work rather hard on my academic articles, so it's always nice to know that they're -- well, maybe not having an effect -- but at least being read. Since I've only been active a few years, there's not been much chance for anything of mine to have really infiltrated intellectual discourse, but I just checked my Google Scholar citations. . . .and one of them left me scratching my head.

 The article in question is "Ghostbusters is For Boys: Understanding Geek Masculinity’s Role in the Alt-right" for the journal Communication Culture & Critique. It's a communications journal, obviously, in APA style, and my name appears in the lit review section. Here is the citation:
This [alt-right] discourse becomes even more ludicrous when employed in the service of a fandom, as an examination of the comments on the Ghostbusters trailer demonstrates (Koh, 2009; Wise, 2016). [on p. 136 of the article]
 Two things are odd about this:

  1. Rather than quoting one of my articles, they're quoting a review of mine on a collection of essays edited by Christopher E. Bell, Wizards vs. Muggles: Essays on Identity in the Harry Potter Universe.
  2. I have no idea in hell what the authors are talking about.
Neither my review nor  the book in question have anything to do with alt-right discourses, and even the word "conservative" only comes up one (and this in a non-alt-right context). My references to fandom are tangential. There's no page number referenced here, either. APA doesn't require them for non-direct quotes, so it's impossible to check what the authors are referring to. The APA citation of my review doesn't even indicate my cited work is a review.

So this seems like a pretty clear case of two scholars citing an academic text they haven't actually read.** My moment of glory . . . dashed!

 To be fair, I should also point out that lazy citation doesn't necessarily mean that the authors' article is poor. It did, after all, appear in a peer-reviewed journal. This is more a "I'm waggingmy finger and tsking at you, professors!" situation.


----------------
** By the way, there's no shame in reading a review, finding a good quote taken from the reviewed book, and letting that inspire you to use a similiar quote . . . but you always always always consult the original source, and you cite that, not the review. Almost the only valid reason to cite a review, really, is when the reception history of a particular book becomes relevant to your argument.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Genre Fantasy Bestsellers through 1990

Image
I've been studying Keith Justice's Bestseller Index , which compiles information from two separate bestseller lists -- New York Times Book Review and Publishers Weekly -- up through 1990, and the results are ridiculously fascinating. For instance, you wanna take a stab at which SFF author has the most individual books appear on a bestseller list? No, it ain't Heinlein, Clark, Herbert, or Asimov. It's not even Terry Brooks or David Eddings. No, the answer is Piers Anthony . And even if you somehow pulled that name out of thin air, I guarantee you'll never guess how truly dominate Anthony was. Up through 1990, Anthony had more than double than number of distinct bestsellers than the next most frequent bestseller, Anne McCaffrey. Whereas Anthony had an astounding  22 different books appear on a bestseller list, McCaffrey had "only" 9.** Now, caveats. These numbers need to be taken with one (or two) grains of salt. For instance, although Anthony had 22 two dis
Read more

Thoughts upon Reading Tolkien's New & Expanded LETTERS

So, I'm reading through the newly expanded version of Tolkien's Letters. One thing I hadn't properly realized is that these letters were part of Carpenter's original manuscript back in 1981, but Carpenter had to cut them due to cost. Turns out that Carpenter had a pretty keen eye on what could bear cutting -- most of this new stuff isn't terribly interesting, but I discovered a few nuggets. VINDICATED!! (Me, sorta) Naturally, whenever you read new primary material, your first instinct is to check to see if anything contradicts something you've said in print ... especially biographically. Well, I've made three big "biographical" claims, and here's my sigh of relief: Concerning my claim that, in 1954, Tolkien and colleagues contrived to create CS Lewis's academic chair at Cambridge in exchange for them nominating EM Forster for the Nobel Prize. Nothing in  Letters  supports or contradicts this. In my recent article for  Notes & Queries ,
Read more

Uncovering CS Lewis's First Religious Poem

 So, with my article's official acceptance by the journal English Text Construction , it's time to let the cat out of the bag. Using a combination of metrical analysis and biography, I've ascertained with near perfect certainty the first religious poem C. S. Lewis poem ever wrote .... a short poem, "Sweet Desire," that scholars have never previously paid any attention to. This poem is firmly datable to early 1930, probably January or February is my guess, and given the poem's subject matter, it's clearly talking about CSL's fears and intellectual trepidation about becoming a theist and abandoning atheism for good. It's basically Lewis's version of Caedmon's Hymn . The full metrical details will have to await my article, but one interesting caveat on my claims to firstness. In my peer reviewer's commentary, they recommended I contact a CSL scholar named  Charlie W. Starr, who's been working on Lewis's handwriting for quite a lon
Read more