Stop obsessing about biblioblogging

This has been pointed out by others (e.g. Stephen Carlson and Jim Davila) but it's worth another mention in spite of the fact that I had said that I would myself stop posting on this topic. Chris Weimer posts the following:

"Biblioblogging", "Femiblogging" and Blogdom

The post includes lines like "Personally I find the whole debate quite ludicrous" and "What is all this nonsense of being a club/association/whatever?" and "Honestly, folks, I don't see all the huff about this?" I feel a little chastened by some of Chris's remarks but in agreement with much of the post. Just a couple of minor points:

". . . At the SBL conference, for some reason I'm not exactly sure of, there was a biblioblogging session . . ."

It was because I was asked to put the session together, and was happy to do so. In fact the request came from two places, the SBL organizers, who wanted to find a space where blogging could be discussed at the meeting, and the CARG steering committee, who thought it would be a useful topic to discuss in their section. Perhaps we would have been better off not to have used the specific term "biblioblogging" (I wrote the title and blurb for the section), but I think it was a great idea to have a session to discuss blogging in our area. Why not? One of the most enjoyable sessions I've been to at the SBL, also one of the worst attended, was in 2002 (Toronto) on e-lists, in which I got together a panel to discuss e-lists in our area. Same reason: why not? It was also all white, male, and even had some of the same panelists as the blogging session three years later, and I think we also talked then about the lack of female e-listers. I've been thinking a bit recently about the comparisons between the e-lists and the blogs (e.g. in my Biblioblogger interview) and I find the some close comparisons -- comparatively few mainstream scholars, a good number of independent scholars, graduate students and so on. One difference is that no one ever (successfully) tried to create a collective name for e-lists in areas connected with academic Biblical Studies.

There's just one area where I think Chris misses it a bit:

Why are there not more female bibliobloggers? Does it really matter? Are we really going to quibble over whether results come from a male or female? In biblical and general antiquity studies, males dominate the field. Since blogging is merely an extension of a field, perhaps the problem lies deeper.

Of course it matters that there are not more women bloggers in our area, and not because we are more or less inclined to listen to an opinion depending on the gender of the author, but because none of us presume that males have a monopoly on intelligent discourse in our area. Given that males are dominating the blogging field in our area, and in an even higher proportion than they are dominating the academy more broadly, there are far too many female voices that we are not hearing. The issue became serious because the claim was being made that we male bloggers are in some way not just a symptom of the problem but also the cause of it, albeit inadvertently, by naming, including and excluding. My concern (e.g. mentioned here) is that our inevitable concern about the issue has the wrong result -- it unduly problematizes something that we are unlikely to be able to do anything about, and which we may make worse by the way we potentially isolate.

In the Footsteps of Jesus, Episode 3 (Rome)

The third part of In the Footsteps of Jesus was broadcast at 8 pm GMT today (I managed to catch it live today, from my office at Duke). As usual, you can listen on-line if you missed it. At this stage, the website is showing the wrong URLs for transcript (broken) and episode (link is to part 2), but the main Radio 4 website has the correct link:

In the Footsteps of Jesus, 5 December

Today's is set in Rome and features a lot of Gerald O'Collins and snippets of Tom Wright and Bart Ehrman, among others.

NT opening at Regent

On Bob's Blog, there's an opening at Regent College, Vancouver advertised:

REGENT COLLEGE, an evangelical graduate school of Christian studies located in Vancouver, British Columbia, invites applications for a position in New Testament with expertise in Pauline studies to begin on 1 September 2006. The deadline for applications for the position is 31 January 2006. The criteria for this position are more fully described at the following web address: http://www.regent-college.edu/about_regent/employment.html. Applications along with curricula vitae should be sent to: Dr. Donald M. Lewis, Academic Dean, Regent College, 5800 University Blvd, Vancouver, BC Canada V6T 2E4. While we welcome all applicants, in accordance with Canadian immigration requirements, priority will be given to Canadian citizens and permanent residents of Canada.

Biblioblogs Blog of the Month

The NT Gateway blog has the privilege this month of a special feature on Biblioblogs.com:

Biblioblogs: Blog of the Month: December 2005

Thanks to Brandon Wason and Jim West for the interview.

Post: Warden of Tyndale House, Cambridge

The ad below is courtesy of Dr Andrew Clarke:

Warden / Director of Tyndale House, Cambridge

Applications are invited for the post of warden/director of Tyndale House, Cambridge. Tyndale House has an internationally recognised reputation as a leading library and residential centre for biblical research. It was founded in 1944 in a spirit of loyalty to the historic Christian faith and is the research division of the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship. It has close links with the University of Cambridge, including a formal association with St Edmund's College and a collaborative relationship with the Faculties of Divinity and Oriental Studies and the University Library.

For further particulars and an application pack, see
www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Post-Application

Plagiarists' Editorial Fatigue

On Gypsy Scholar Jeffery Hodges has some fascinating reflections on student plagiarism, utilizing some of my own academic work on editorial fatigue in the Synoptics:

By altering some words and deleting others, my student hoped to obscure the stolen material. This trick might have worked -- if I didn't have Google to track down phrases. Even with Google as an anti-plagiarist tool, the student might have gotten away with the plagiarism by altering more words.

Inevitably, though, Goodacre's principle proves its value, for somewhere in the paper of even a clever plagiarist, editorial fatigue sets in, and the plagiarist slips, allowing a telling phrase from the original to remain. In this particular case, the phrase, as noted above, was: "could not lead to large scale duplication."

In fact one of the things that made me realize the value of editorial fatigue as a possible way of telling the direction of dependence was seeing it in student essays. I remember a student in one of the first classes I taught in Birmingham in 1995 copying a paragraph from Sanders and Davies's Studying the Synoptic Gospels in which reference was being made to something Sanders and Davies had previously discussed but the student had not.

Jeffery's discussion about plagiarism is useful and interesting, and draws attention ot the value of Google as a tool to catch student plagiarists. I have used it the same way myself and have frequently been able to convict students on the basis of searches done via Google. I remain concerned about several things, though, in the student plagiarist culture:

(1) It's easier to catch the weak plagiarists who betray their sources all too quickly because they do not think to hide or know how to hide the distinctive phrases of their sources. But how easy is it to catch the better plagiarists, who can see the distinctive, Google-friendly phrases in their source material, and who change words but not sentence structure?

(2) On-line plagiarism is so easy to do that, as Jeffery points out, it is relatively easy to catch. But does this mean that some of our students are getting away with book-plagiarism all the more easily? If someone plagiarizes Sanders, Crossan or Wright, you can bet that we'll be able to find it. But if they plagiarize Howard Clark Kee, are we going to spot it?

(3) Does our satisfaction in discovering the on-line plagiarists mask us from seeing the students who have paid someone $75 to write their essay for them, or who have pulled their essay from a model stock essay for which they have paid $25 access? Google is not going to spot those, and however much we might suspect, are we going to be able to convict?

One of the things that this convinces me of is the importance of maintaining examinations as a key element in undergraduate assessment, however much students might prefer the take-home essay. In my courses at Duke, I have a variety of assessment methods in the same course, but with at least 50% going in as examination, one of the advantages of which is the confirmation that this element cannot have been plagiarized.

Addendum: I was once faced with a situation in which we had two very similar essays, but one was inferior to the other. A colleague argued that he thought the worse essay had been copied from the better essay. I found myself arguing that both had been copying from a hypothetical lost source, to the amusement of several other colleagues present at the examiners' meeting. A means of resolving the situation was suggested: we get both students in and interview them separately. And it turned out that I was wrong: there was no hypothetical third source. One student confessed to having copied from the other, and the other student admitted to having lent their work to the other, and was very annoyed that the other student had copied their work. The moral of the story: is it (a) Don't hypothesize unnecessary documents or (b) it'd be great if we could interview Matthew and Luke?

Update (Monday, 21.18): Jeffery has a great follow-up, Netting Plagiarists.

Tyndale House Summer School

I am grateful to David Instone-Brewer for emailing with details of another excellent looking summer school to be run by Tyndale House (eg. see 2005)

------
Institute for Early Christianity in the Graeco-Roman World
Summer School, June 19- Aug. 4, 2006
Tyndale House, Cambridge UK

Essential Sources for the Study of the New Testament

Dates: June 19 - Aug. 4th, 2006

June 19 - July 1: Field trip in Greece & Turkey
July 3 - Aug 4th: Tyndale House Research Library

Accommodation is at Tyndale House, which has self-catering facilities and students have rights to eat at the University of Cambridge’s Graduate Centre.

Closing date for applications: 15th February. Successful applicants for the course will be advised within two weeks of this date.

The cost of the course is £2250 covers, breakfast, lectures, tuition and accommodation costs on the archaeological tour and the five weeks in Cambridge, plus estimated £250 travel expenses for the field trip. A non-refundable deposit of £200 is required on notification of acceptance for the course.

Airfares and travel costs will be the responsibility of the students. These include return fares to London for overseas students. These should not be booked without first consulting the Director for the exact departure dates and group travel.

Course credits can often be arranged for up to 9 semester units. Once we have received an application the Director will negotiate with your institution, explaining the syllabus and the uniqueness of the course in detail, in order to secure these credits.

Application Form

Please fill in the following and return via email or post:

PERSONAL DETAILS:
Title(s):
Forename(s):
Surname:
Date of Birth:
Nationality:

ADDRESS WHERE YOU CAN BE CONTACTED:
Full postal address:
Phone:
Email address:

NEXT OF KIN:
Name:
Full postal address:
Phone:
Email address:

QUALIFICATIONS:
College qualification(s) already attained
(Qualification and name of institution):

Course(s) in progress (Name of institution, Title of
qualification aimed for):

Classes in your present course relating to Biblical
Studies:
(only list those which you will have completed by the
time of the Summer School)

REFEREES:
Two academic referees (at least one at your institution)
Names and Email addresses:
----

Review of Biblical Literature Latest

Latest from the SBL Review of Biblical Literature under the NT heading, and just a short selection this time:

Barnett, Paul
The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years after Jesus
Reviewed by Martin Albl

Barnett, Paul
The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years after Jesus
Reviewed by Mark Fairchild

More comments on Footsteps

Further to previous posts on In the Footsteps of Jesus, I noticed this nice comment in yesterday's Herald:

. . . . Meanwhile Edward Stourton, whose passion for scholarship comes shining through in his new series, In the Footsteps of Jesus (Radio 4, Monday), wraps his elegant diction in discreet affability. (I say, one’s lost one’s RP, Anne Simpson).

And in this week's New Statesman a really glowing review:

Radio - Rachel Cooke
Rachel Cooke
Monday 28th November 2005

. . . . This is a brilliant documentary series, one so thoroughly researched it is impossible not to feel a sense of engagement with it. I loved the papery sound of what, after all, are extremely speculative, not to say inward-looking debates (these fellows have hearts that flip over on hearing a new translation of a single Aramaic noun). But the programmes also have another ingredient: faith. For every cool offering from an academic, we hear an answering call from an intelligent believer. For the intelligent believer, the stones and the texts are in dialogue, not mutual opposition, and it was this notion that, at times, elevated In the Footsteps of Jesus, with all its facts and measured argument, to the realm of the spellbinding . . . .

Wow! Now that's an encouraging review.

Clippings Folders

Rubén Gómez comments on his Clippings Backlog and asks "Am I the only one . . . .?" No, it's at least me too. I have dozens in my clippings folder. Gems from all over the blogosphere, all sorts of interesting bits and bobs I wanted to mention and comment on. If you're thinking, "I wonder why Mark never commented on that brilliant post of mine", well, now you know. Of course one way round such things is the solo-blog, in which you only publish your own materials, don't link to others, don't have a blog-roll, but those are often the least interesting sorts of blogs.

For those who don't use Bloglines, the Clippings Folder is the place you put those blog posts (of others) that you want to save for later, to comment on when you next have a moment. But as Rubén points out, that time never seems to come. For me, it's a little like photocopying an article and not reading it, or downloading an article onto your computer and not reading it, or video-ing a television programme and not watching it. Somehow the act of clipping, photocopying, downloading or video-ing makes you feel less bad about not dealing with the item.

Bob's blog

It's a great pleasure to welcome Robert Derrenbacker to the blogosphere:

Bob's Blog

Stephen Carlson Interview Archived

The radio programme featuring Stephen Carlson talking about Morton Smith's invention of Secret Mark, Keeping the Faith, is now available in an on-line archived version, either downloadable MP3 or a Real Audio stream:

Keepin' the Faith

In the Footsteps of Jesus II

The second episode of In the Footsteps of Jesus was broadcast last night on Radio 4 at 8 pm GMT and is available on-line:

In the Footsteps of Jesus: Jerusalem

You can read the transcript; the link to the listening URL was not working earlier on, so try this URL. Today's episode features David Neuhaus, John Dominic Crossan, Larry Hurtado, Tom Wright, Geza Vermes, David Rosen and me.

Update (9.48): the URL for listening to the series at the main link above is now working.

Stephen Carlson on the radio on Secret Mark

A reminder that Stephen Carlson is on the radio right now on Keeping the Faith (6 pm, Eastern Time) and you can listen on-line at:

Listen to Will

Quick -- tune in while you can!

Update (19.23): a most enjoyable programme, a full hour on the topic, and unlike much radio it went at a leisurely pace so that there was time for the details to come through. I couldn't catch it all, unfortunately, with supper to cook, beds to make etc., but what I caught was good. One good point that I found it useful to have spelled out was the extent to which Smith disdained the fact that scholars often do not check their references; they don't do the kind of thorough research they should, something that explains the planting of the M. Madiotes clue. Highlight: Steve Shoemaker asks Stephen what Morton Smith would have thought about his book and Stephen replies: "I hope he would have said: 'Good job!'"

Identity, Schmidentity @ Deinde

I am grateful to Paul Nikkel on Deinde for articulating some of his concerns in this post:

Identity Schmidentity: Questioning the biblioblogdom

I'd like to add a few comments on specific points:

I think the more important point to explore is the question of identity and whether the biblioblogging community has an interest in creating an identity that perpetuates the framework and power structures found in the "real" biblical studies community.

My thoughts here would be that I don't see any such interest. On the contrary, the bibliobloggers are largely rebels who do not conform to the norms of the "biblical studies community". The conversations are not limited to those with tenured academic appointments; the bulk of biblioblogdom is populated by independent scholars and graduate students and one of the joys of the scene is its fundamental democratic impulse. In this respect, it imitates the better e-lists, which have the same democratic ideal in which it is the academic quality of the post that is the guide. So I'd say that far from perpetuating the framework and power structures in the "real" biblical studies community, we are counter-cultural, risky and rebellious. Paul later writes:

In some ways I doubt that the creation of a group identity was avoidable, however I am cautious about institutionalizing the group as the voice of biblical studies...and certainly that is part of the purpose of naming and identity.

I don't think that anyone has in mind biblioblogs becoming "the voice of biblical studies". On the contrary, you'd get a pretty skewed impression of the field if you only read the biblioblogs. In fact, as mentioned above, the biblioblogs, like blogs in general, are very often voices from the margins rather than the mainstream.

As Yasmin wrote in her post referenced above, "The problem I found was not so much with their demographic per se, but I was concerned with the low self-awareness that they had towards their position of power. " There needs to be a sensitivity or at least openness in questioning what is occurring within this group identity, protesting that access to blogs is equally open to all ignores the question of why this is not reflected in biblioblogs by placing the blame on those who are not involved (after all if access is open to all it must be their fault that they are not in dialogue).

I would say here that the sensitivity is very much present among bibliobloggers. The very fact that we problematized the relative lack of female bibliobloggers indicates our awareness of and concern about the imbalance. If there were no sensitivity to key issues like this, I doubt you'd have seen such an interesting discussion in the biblioblogs over the last week or two. Instead of slapping one another on the back and congratulating each other on a job well done, many have in fact focused largely on the one major issue of "naming" that Paul brought up in the session. Paul also writes:

I would suggest that there is an interest in maintaining power structures and institutional influence found in the parallel "real world" biblical studies discipline which is reflected within the biblioblogs. The power of the blog is one that favours the marginalized and minority and it is these groups that have exploited the medium in most other areas. The power of this voice runs against a formal discipline interested in perpetuating power structures and ladders; and one way of de-stabilizing this threat is to co-opt it into functioning as a medium which supports the structure rather than undermines it.

I'm interested that Paul sees this at work in the biblioblogs because it runs so strongly counter to my own experience, on which see above.

Dr Claude Mariottini's blog

Claude Mariottini emails to let me know about his new blog:

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament
This blog is a Christian perspective on the Old Testament and Current Events from Dr. Claude Mariottini, Professor of Old Testament at Northern Baptist Seminary

Dr Mariottini has also recently returned from the SBL in Philadelphia and was in the audience of the CARG Biblioblogging session.

Death of the biblioblog?

(Cartoon courtesy Tyler Williams). Is it time to announce the death of the biblioblog? Tim Bulkeley on Sansblogue (and it was great to hear in the SBL biblioblogging session that it is in fact pronounced "Sonn-blog", French style, and not "Sanz-blog") is resigning from the biblioblogging establishment, with the following thoughts:

. . . By naming we create a group, by discussing who is in (and therefore by implication who is out!) we create exclusivity. This is no longer the spirit of Blogaria, and I regret my phrase at the session about a virtual common-room, because one of the things I've greatly valued about the virtual one (an advantage that all the "real" ones, even those that seek to be more open, fail to realise) is its openness, that you can chat to anyone there.

Meanwhile, Jim Davila has a great general post on Paleojudaica, and he includes the following comments:

For the record (and I really don't think this should need to be said), first, I -- and I'm sure all other "bibliobloggers" -- would welcome more females on the biblioblog-roll and I hope any considering opening a blog will take the plunge. Second, if you (whatever your gender) do start a blog having to do with academic biblical studies, I encourage you to write whatever the heck you want to on it and to make up and follow your own rules, and if one of us tells you to do or not do one thing or another, just take this as well-intended advice that you can follow, modify, or ignore, entirely as it pleases you. That's what I do.

Furthermore, Jim West suggests on Biblical Theology:

I've thought and thought about what Paul said and if I have him correctly, he was simply suggesting that the practice of "naming" can be at the same time an opportunity of "excluding". That is, to be sure, absolutely correct. For us to call ourselves "bibliobloggers", however, is meant not as an excluder (primarily) so much as a simple denominator. We certainly do "exclude" when we name . . . . .
. . . . In the same sense, then, "bibliobloggers" denominate themselves in order to be distinguished in practice from those who are blogging about politics or dogs or smoking or Nintendo or any of the other subjects found in the blog world.

Meanwhile, David Meadows, the originator of the term, has a helpful post on RogueClassicism from which this is an excerpt:

I think you're looking through the wrong end of the telescope guys (and a few gals) ... it's a label we 'outsiders' apply to you ... you needn't apply it to yourselves; kind of like Romans calling Hellenes 'Graeci'. FWIW, I tried to come up with something similar for my Classics colleagues and 'Classicoblogs' simply didn't have the same 'catchiness' as 'Biblioblog' and I suspect it's because I'm an 'insider' in that group (or like to think of myself as same, despite the title of my blog).

On Hypotyposeis, Stephen Carlson writes:

No matter what you call it, there still exists a community of bloggers who like to link to each other and discuss topics that could be discussed at an SBL meeting.

Of course, the key phrase here is "no matter what you call it". I don't think anyone is planning on stopping blogging, so it all comes down to what we call it, indeed whether there is an "it" at all. The fact that there have been discussions about what a biblioblog is, and whether or not individuals even think of themselves as bibliobloggers, shows what a loose confederation we are dealing with here.

I suspect that there is a misapprehension around, and that absent of it, the problem vanishes. In her interesting post, Yasmin Finch writes:

I must just note, all this debate is particularly interesting in light of the relatively relaxed style of blogging; the policing of the biblioblog seems to have a disproportionately high priority.

This is contrary to my own experience and observations. I don't think that there is any "policing" around that I am aware of, certainly none that is direct. Indeed, I would say that "the relatively relaxed style of blogging" also characterizes those writing blogs that focus on academic Biblical Studies.

This is not to say that I did not share some of the concerns voiced by Paul Nikkel in the SBL CARG Biblioblogging section, perhaps not least having seen all nine of us men on the panel that I put together (it's all my fault, you see!), and I think that what surprised me was the extent to which something so ad hoc and evolutionary was potentially coming out wrong. Perhaps it was useful to see the impression that the all white, all male panel created, even if it is true that no one was able to suggest to me others who should have been included on the panel. (Bear in mind that I was asked to put it together in February).

Where I would locate my own concern over the all-white-male pannel of last week's SBL CARG session would not be over the question of "naming", but rather over our problematizing the relative lack of female bibliobloggers. The very act of specifically drawing attention to this can isolate it as a problem that has the unwelcome effect of drawing attention to the gender of every new blogger on the block, who might thereby feel more isolated and self-conscious than they otherwise might have been. All I'd say in my defence as one of those who did problematize this would be that the alternative would have been worse: I dislike the thought of our gathering as an all-male panel and not even showing some concern about the lack of female bloggers in our area.

As an antidote to the entire discussion, Tyler Williams has the great cartoon above on Codex: Blogspot.

As my closing thought, I would say: Write your blog on what you are interested in, and if people want to read it, they will read it, no matter what categories and sub-categories it may be thought to fall under. Blog on what you want to blog on, read blogs on what you want to read, and let the blogosphere continue to evolve and develop in its own unpredictable and unique way.

Ralph on SBL

Ed Cook has a great post on the SBL:

Scattered Thoughts on AAR-SBL (Part II):

. . . . There's got to be a better method of absorbing new scholarship than listening to someone read a paper in a rapid monotone in a crowded, overheated room.

I quite agree.

I suggest, at the very least, these steps:
(1) Graduate students must submit to the session chairs a version of what they plan to present; if it's too long, it should be either rejected or returned to the applicant for revision. I say "grad students" because they were the principal offenders (although I hasten to add that I heard more than one excellent paper by grad students). The SBL should also provide training, either live or online, for those who wish to present at the annual meeting.

Great suggestions. In theory, all new presenters should submit their full papers at the proposal stage. But there is a problem with this. If you are looking at dozens of proposals, reading through dozens of full papers at submission is time-consuming. But I, for one, would be keen to see more quality control, and in the Synoptics section we have vetted full papers. An element of the problem, and this is something we have found repeatedly in hte Synoptics, is that we get a great looking proposal, with a good abstract, and it does not deliver on the day. But here, I think we could all learn from one another's mistakes and keep an eye out.

On the training, what a great idea!

(2) Each section or group should have its own website, where planning and organization can take place, including updates on the actual room location. Preliminary papers can also be posted there; or presenters can upload their handouts before the meeting.

Excellent suggestions. One of the things that has concerned me this year, and I have blogged on this, is the low profile for the sections and on-line papers (e.g. here). I don't know if I am being thick on this one, but I can't even find the general list of the sections and groups at the SBL.

(3) Insufficient use has been made up to now of recording or podcasting. It seems to me that there are plenty of low-tech options for recording and making presentations available after the meeting in MP3 or other formats. These could be made available on the section websites or through other means. This would help alleviate the problem of inattention (can one really listen to five papers in a row?), overcrowding (ever missed a paper because there was no room to sit down?), or scheduling (some of the sessions I was interested in took place at the same time as the CARG panel).

Another interesting suggestion. And so, finally, to the "biblioblogging" session:

— I enjoyed the Biblioblogging session, mainly because it was fun to see the actual human beings in meatspace who are responsible for the blogs I read daily. But here's a little two-part eyewitness test for you. (1) When the panel session began, what was the order of seating, starting from Mark Goodacre? My memory is that it was this: Mark Goodacre, Rick Brennan [sic], Stephen Carlson, Torrey Seland, Jim Davila, me (Ed Cook), Tim Bulkeley, AKMA, and Jim West. (2) When the question "How many here are bloggers?" was asked, what percentage (roughly) raised their hands? I feel that it was no more than 50%, but I believe Stephen Carlson has blogged that it was "almost everyone." Any other opinions?

On (1): yes, I think that's my memory. On (2), I would say 80%. I saw one or two indicating a half-way hover with their hands, i.e. they have a blog but don't update it regularly.

My first American Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving to American readers all over the world (including Jim Davila). I am very much looking forward to my first American Thanksgiving. It's great, for a start, not to be at work (hmm: does blogging count as work?). I am about to try to make my first ever pecan pie. Wal Mart had sold out of chopped pecans, so we had to buy a load of uncracked ones and go through and crack them one by one.

I have a great deal to be thankful for this year, a safe arrival in a new country, a lovely new home, a great new job, a great new school for the kids, new friends and the promise of happy things ahead.

Update (Friday, 20.05): the pecan pie was a success! Well, it wasn't fantastic, but it wasn't at all bad. And some even had second helpings (I made lots). I think I might be able to get used to American baking. The key seems to be: shove lots of corn syrup in there. And my own special suggestion: triple the number of pecans suggested in the recipe. Here's the rough recipe I used: Mamma's Southern Pecan Pie.

Update (Saturday, 14.35): Viola has more on our first Thanksgiving on The Americanization of Emily.

SBL Assorted Reflections

One or two additional general reflections, of varying degrees of importance:

(1) My move to the USA makes me even more conscious of what I (and many others) stand to lose when the divorce between AAR and SBL happens. The Duke reception featured many faculty and students past and present across the two societies; I met new colleagues there too, and won't do any longer after the divorce. Likewise old Birmingham friends -- a couple of my most enjoyable meetings were with AAR members, one at Birmingham and one who used to be at Birmingham. Is there anyone who thinks that the divorce is a good thing? I haven't yet met a single one.

(2) Why do people hover around the doorways of meetings? This annoying habit gives the impression, almost always incorrect, that the room is full, and it encourages other to join the loiterers. It discourages people to cut through the loiterers and go in to the room and find a seat. I say: make a decision and go in and sit down, or leave.

(3) Why do people put their papers and books and bags on seats when they can see that the room is nearly full? If there are 10 people in a 200 capacity room, fine: spread out! But if there are only 5 or 6 spare seats, keep the seat next to you free and then those who get past the loiterers in the doorway will have somewhere to sit other than the floor.

(4) Two and a half hour meetings are too long to go without providing a 5 minute break at some point for people to stretch their legs. If you are chairing a meeting, add a leg-stretch break.

(5) The timing within the sessions could often be more precise. Let's face it, a lot of people want to go to a paper here and a paper there, and vague timings, overrunning, etc., makes that more difficult.

(6) The SBL is an enormous meeting, and perhaps because of that fact one can take the organisation for granted. In spite of the odd problem here and there, in my experience there are only ever minor glitches. The meeting is superbly organized, and it struck me this year that we really ought to say thank you a bit more often. I suppose that because we can't put a face on the organizers, we often don't take the opportunity to praise them.

Update (Thursday, 10.13): (7) Let me add my agreement with this one from Jim Davila on Paleojudaica:

One last thing: this year was the most confusing I've seen in terms of publicizing where sessions take place. I am not sure it was a good decision to remove room listings from the main program book. I appreciate that this made it easier to update the room bookings online to note late changes, but even the downloadable PDF files (which I printed out) had a lot of errors. Next time I will know to ignore them and just go with the Annual Meetings At-A-Glance booklet distributed at the meeting, which did have accurate information.