deflation, condensation, and the initial ego

Music: American Idol First, something that I've noticed that has always bothered me—somewhat unnecessarily—is the tendency of some of my friends and mentors to reduce themselves to a series of initials at the end of their missives. What may be intended as a gesture of humility can sometimes seem to me like a claim to self importance: hence, my own recent signature: D(Jx3), which I think is quite funny (it's short for another self-diminutive, DJ Joshie Juice, which combines one of my friend's early nick names for me, "Joshie"--thanks Laura--with a fruit drink name that I loved as a kid, Juicy Juice, with the street-cred address, "DJ," because, as Mirko says, anyone can spin records/mp3s these days). I wonder if, rather than getting the joke, if D(Jx3) reads to some like the very same self-important, tilde accompanied self-initialization that I want us to laugh at?

And my own brand of Joshie algebra brings me to Lacanian algebra, my fear of it, a revise and resubmit summons, and the graph of desire here to the left. In a couple of weeks the psychoanalysis seminar will try to make sense of this graph. Yep. I'm already terrified. But fortunately I did give us three weeks to work through it (and a book long explication of it by Van Haute titled Against Adaptation). I've also got to reckon with jouissance in print, which is something I fear as well.

See, I've been trying to publish this essay on the demagogic rhetoric/discourse/phenomenon of Huey P. Long, "Hystericizing Huey." Finally, after years of rejection, I have a "revise and resubmit." At their behest, I've detailed for some students the process of getting this thing to print, as a sort of window onto the publication process (for example, here's my explanation of how to read the editor and reviewers' letters and what I plan to do to revise). Here's the problem I'm now wrestling with: the theory turf war of the sympathetic. One large challenge for those who wish to do theory-oriented work in rhetorical studies is, of course, getting theory past the "apply or die" sentries, which usually means some gesture to a "text" or an "object" or something that gets "read." I've made my peace with that gesture and, frankly, think it's a good thing. But if one is fortunate enough to get an apply or die rhetoric type to go along for the ride (which is impossible), one also has to contend with the reviewer who claims a better or smarter reading of Your Favorite Theorist. I'm fortunate that, in this round of reviews, the reviewer whom I must please is giving me the opportunity to read Lacan like she does (and she may very well be righter than my preference for Fink's interpretations). In other words, I'm very thankful that I wasn't barred from the process because I didn't get my "desire" and my "jouisannce" right the first time. But this opportunity only happened after what seemed like countless rejections: those that said psychoanalysis is bunk, and those, sympathetic to the "cause," who said I was too stupid to read psychoanalysis correctly. Is it ok to be slow on the uptake? Is there room for us (in/for) theory? Will I ever get the opportunity to sign my emails JGG?