GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-05 > 1020286915
From: Kay Allen AG <>
Subject: Re: Off-Topic Reply to RE: On Douglas Richardson's new books
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 14:06:15 -0700
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <3CD0561B.FB6E3852@pacbell.net>
When I mentioned doing both, I was referrring to both writing and editing.
Kay Allen AG wrote:
> 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
> Medieval sessions at the various conferences draw big audiences. So it is a
> growth industry
> > 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?