GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-05 > 1020286274
From: Kay Allen AG <>
Subject: Re: Off-Topic Reply to RE: On Douglas Richardson's new books
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 13:54:51 -0700
References: <d4.16cecdb5.2a01a40f@aol.com>
Again this is a misinformed statement. Writing articles for journals concerned
with one's outside interests is an acceptable pastime. What unfortunate
repercussions could there be, especially if one is covering one's academic
responsibilities. And I have not seen where you could prove that his is not the
case. Last time I looked, it was a free speech issue.
Editing a journal is also an acceptable outside vocation or avocation. I do not
know of anyone who does both.
Academics like to make money just like the rest of us hoi-polloi, so I doubt
that they are anti-commercial. This would appear to be a gratuitous
generalization which I do not believe will stand up to scrutiny.
I believe that David has grown the subscription list since he inherited it, and
will continue to
pursue growth for it.
If medieval gen is not profitable, crud such as RFC would not thrive. GPC also
published MCS and AR. They would not have done so, if it did not make them
money.
Medieval sessions at the various conferences draw big audiences. So it is a
growth industry
:-)
K
wrote:
> In a message dated 5/1/02 12:47:09 PM, writes:
>
> << Ken, I must disagree with this statement of yours: >>
>
> If I am wrong, my apologies ... academics should have hobbies -- but running
> journals and writing dozens of articles per year on subjects outside the
> specialty that one is paid for has to have some repurcussions. Also,
> academics are notoriously anti-commercial -- which is not an advantage if one
> could support a group of writers by being a little more business oriented and
> making these publications profitable. I suspect that medieval genealogy can
> never really be profitable enough to appeal to the masses, so this is all
> beside the point, no?
This thread: