As always on my teaching days, my attempts at research are pretty scattered. I’ve been gathering and skimming potential secondary literature, looking for something on post-mortem portraiture, but not really finding anything.

On Sunday I went to a bunch of lectures on literature and psychoanalysis. The highpoint was without question the lecture by the Nikolaj Frobenius.  His talk on the uncanny autobiography (basically a history of his engagement with the project that turned into Teori og praksis and Sønner av Norge) was so smart and interesting. He proved himself to be very aware of the theoretical issues at play in the project, as well as on recent theory. I was impressed, and was delighted to have many of my conjectures confirmed by the author himself.

Yesterday and today I spent some time proofing two articles that will be in print soon. I always like that last chance to clean up niggling details and make sure that things make sense, though often I’m left feeling bummed that the work isn’t better. Why is it so hard to analyze literature in a constructive way that really says something about a text?

Tomorrow I have the whole day at home, and am really hoping to make some substantial progress on the reanimating Ibsen article. I was really hoping to finish by the end of this month, but that self-imposed deadline is really creeping up (especially since I have a two-day seminar to go to Thursday and Friday, plus an extra seminar to teach next Wednesday in addition to my regular classes).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s