Should I explain my remark about cultural studies? It is somewhat of a mantra in my field right now. Conservatives resist it. I'd like to resist it without being a conservative. I never thought the close readings of critics in my field were very astute or interesting, so that is not what I want to preserve. There is an association of scholars of literature who want to preserve literary studies as such. Perloff is a member. I wouldn't feel comfortable there either. I see the need for cultural history written by literate if not literary scholars (usually formerly literary scholars). What happens when you train people to be cultural critics, who don't have a literary formation? Then you get essentially illiterate cultural history.

I shouldn't have explained it.