Call for Contributors

As the little blurb up above says, this blog is a form of outreach (I think) intended to discuss both manifestations of medievalism in contemporary culture but also, and perhaps more importantly, the continuing relevance of the study of the Middle Ages (broadly defined) to today's world. I hope, eventually, this blog will also serve as a bridge for medievalists to talk about their ideas in other forms of media as well, radio, print, TV, etc.

Moreover, it was always intended as a group blog and not just my own perspective -- something more along the lines of the great In the Middle. To that end, I'd like to issue a call for contributors to this blog.

Essentially, this would mean that the interested party (or parties) would post irregularly to this blog on topics related to its main themes. Ideally, contributor(s) would be fellow professional medievalists, although that would include those in grad school or others who have advanced training but aren't currently academics. If interested, even just on a "trial" basis (yours, not mine -- I'm not trying to "audition" people), please email me at mgabriele AT vt DOT edu. Anonymity will be zealously protected, if so desired.

Thoughts, comments, suggestions, are of course welcomed below too.

UPDATE: As this post moves down, the call for contributors will remain on the right side of the main page. --->

Papal Medievalism

Papa Benedict XVI is returning the Vatican to Gregorian Chant. Along with the apologia (without the apology) for the Templars, the conference he organized to essentially defend the crusades, and his use of the Byzantines, this pope has a thing for the Middle Ages -- and not in a good way.

Pseudo-Review of Beowulf

I was going to post a sort of review of the movie (yes, I saw it opening night, though that wasn't my idea) but kind of like Dr. Virago, I really just don't want to -- though not for her reasons. I actually kind of liked the movie. It had this weird relationship to the text, in which it was oddly faithful and oddly divergent. That's of course fine for a movie-ization, I think. My opinion is that it's kind of ridiculous to go in there looking for something that (more-or-less) literally translates something onto the screen. It just can't happen. Take it for what it is. And now, off my tiny little soapbox.

So, some random-ish thoughts:

• Generally, the CGI was amazing, although most of the movie I thought I was watching a video game come to life. Seriously, I felt like I should have a controller in my hands. But, at points, they were able to convincingly recreate men on screen. I mean, it was literally jarring for me to see what absolutely looked like a real actor up there.
  
• The movie's portrayal of Grendel has a lot to do with John Gardner's novel, Grendel, methinks, as the monster comes across quite sympathetic. I also liked how they played up the filial relationship between Grendel and his mother. I also kind of liked the weird Olde Englishe/ modern English that Grendel and his mom spoke. It worked well to differentiate them from the men, as older, more ancient, products of another age in some way.
  
• It was also just funny at parts. There's a scene in Heorot that reminded me of a scene at the end of the first Austin Powers movie.
  
• The insertion of Christianity was a bit odd and heavy-handed though, especially the burning crosses that come crashing down (repeatedly).
• The most interesting thing for me though, and this goes back to my "watching a video game" comment, was how much I felt afterwards that I had stumbled into some guy's adolescent fantasy -- a real cross between a graphic novel and a video game, which is exactly what this movie is. But I don't mean that condescendingly at all. The sex and the violence. The strong men doing brave things with swords and brawn (certainly there in the poem), slaying monsters, jumping off of things and on to things, and being "conflicted" by what they're doing. The kind of "pithy" philosophy undergirding it all. The handsome men lusting after, even being seduced by, beautiful women. And those men's inability to resist. (Seriously, Wiglaf, even after everything that's happened?)

Any other thoughts?

UPDATE: Dr. Virago now has a full review up. I don't agree with everything she says but she's definitely right about the role of women in the poem (see also my much briefer thoughts above).

UPDATE 2: Dr. Nokes now has his (very-detailed) review up.

Medievalism Has Arrived

Novel set in Middle Ages now the current pick for Oprah's Book Club. Of course, lots of people have read Ken Follett's The Pillars of the Earth but lots more will read him again soon.

Hat-tip: Mediev-L

Update: Oh yeah, and the Beowulf movie opens today.

The Meaning of History

Jonathan Jarrett has an interesting post that meditates on what it means to be an historian (or what it means, more generally I think, to study the past). I love this kind of stuff -- these kinds of questions. I've dealt with some of these questions before but first let me too give a shout-out to PhD Comics:

And the debate continues...

Anyway, I think Jonathan's right that uncovering the past does reveal "truth" in some way -- it reveals something that happened to someone, somewhere, at some time. That, in and of itself, is important. Outreach is important too. I sure as heckfire want as many people as possible to know why the Middle Ages "matter." Maybe more people will buy my book (or books) someday but more people will want to take courses on the Middle Ages and we'll hire some more medievalists, even here at Virginia Tech.

But understanding the past does something else too. To paraphrase what Teddy says to Lenny (repeatedly) in the movie Memento, knowing the past will not only tell you about who you were but also informs who you are and who you will be.* The little tag-line on this blog ("Although long-dead, the people of the Middle Ages still have something to say.") isn't intended to be just fluff. Knowing about the Middle Ages tells us -- all of us -- something about who we are now and where we're going. And I don't mean that history's going to repeat itself, because it's not. What I mean is that understanding the past informs our identity, and not always in productive ways.

Doing history problematizes that memory.** Doing history makes us less certain and ultimately, I'd hope, more thoughtful about other ideas, letting us categorically reject some and willingly/ grudgingly accept others. For example, medieval history specifically tells us something about our notions of Europe, Christianity, violence, representative government, and the relationship between East and West, among (many) other things.

I love when people ask these kinds of questions and talk about this kind of stuff, not because it makes us, us who study the past, stand around in epistemological angst. Instead, I like these kinds of questions because it makes us think about answers, and I think we have some damn good ones that we can offer.


-----
*My thanks to C. Stephen Jaeger for inspiring me to look again at this film.
** I'm thinking here of the definitions offered in the excellent Keith Michael Baker, Inventing the French Revolution: Essays on the Political Culture of the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge, 1990).

"Protestant" Medievalism

"Re-enacting" the Lutheran revolution in Portland (near Louisville), KY, USA.

Article today in the Louisville Courier-Journal about a (n apparently) non-denominational Christian elementary school in Portland, KY that had a "hands-on" history day, transforming their school into Wittenburg, ca. 1517.

The kids came in "medieval" costume and apparently learned all about themes "key to Protestant faith," such as the 95 Theses, John Calvin's qualifications for a good wife ("'They seem like good qualities to me,' said Daija Anderson, 11, a sixth-grader. 'It's good to be chaste, economical, interested in other people's health and not to be fussy.'"), and wrote a code of civility for their classes. All in all, "'It really is an opportunity for the community to come together on the day it really happened and celebrate our religion,' Seay [a teacher] said. 'You can preach it in history class or social studies but until you put your hands on it, it's not really that real.'" [my emphasis] See also a gallery of photos here (all cute kids in cute costumes, although I do like the Christian pirate costume and the tin-foil hats).

When I first scanned this article, I was all prepared to launch into a glorified snark-fest about all this. But now I'm not so sure. I like the hands-on history stuff, especially for kids. At their age, of course, you're not looking for them to grasp the intricacies of politics, culture, society, and theology that underpinned the Reformation. And if you can get just 5-10% of them interested in the past -- and its importance -- then you're doing something good. It's really up to their secondary and post-secondary teachers to fill them in on the rest.

The thing that I still find problematic though is how such events are deployed to inform identity construction. Note how Ms. Seay talks about preaching (her word) the Reformation in her History/ Social Studies classes. It suggests that this is all being presented rather uncritically. The Reformation -- or better, THEIR MYTH of the Reformation, complete with direct confrontation between Luther and Pope Leo X -- becomes so foundational to their understanding of themselves that they can't escape it. Read the Portland Christian School's "About" webpage. Look at how they mix Luther and Calvin in their celebration and how they build off of their simplified ideas to construct guides for present-day living. It's all a mish-mash of theology and culture that would, I'd guess, have horrified Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, or even good ol' Pope Leo X. History indeed matters but not because we're still living in some mythologized 16th century. Context matters. It just does.

More Thoughts on Academic Blogging

2 interesting articles over at InsideHigherEd.com.

Pro-blogging
Anti-blogging

They seem, in many ways, intensely personal reflections on the place of blogging in their lives, yet they still have some interesting things to say. Note, however, that both are still grad students. I wonder how those articles would've been written by different levels of faculty -- adjunct, pre-tenure, tenured, etc.