Office #: Crown Center 434-C
I am a film scholar who trained as a literary scholar. When I say "film" scholar, I mean nothing snooty. I've learned by studying some of the most culturally debased genres to love individual films (or movies or videos) from all cultural sectors. So if a week goes by without me seeing an art movie, a Hollywood blockbuster, and a totally trashy exploitation movie, I feel incomplete.
In my spare time, I paint, take photos, and make collages--and I write, write, write.
I like to build a rapport with my students so that I can keep their attention and impart my deep love of writing, literature, and film. I build my courses around action. If the course is a writing course and the aim is to improve a student's ability to write, I make sure that student is writing, revising, and helping others do the same all the time. I used to think this was easy; I no longer do.
I can be goofy in class. It's usually borne of enthusiasm for whatever subject I am teaching that very day. I think there is a value to an instructor who feels engaged enough, comfortable enough, to be goofy in class. (Memo to self: write a paper about the pedagogical value of instructional goofiness.)
As a writing instructor, I trained in a program designed by Peter Elbow--so, quite helplessly, I've retained some of his stress on community and engagement. Not a bad thing, I think, especially for someone who was otherwise trained as a very conventional lit PhD.
PhD, American literature. SUNY Stony Brook.
BA, English and History, Cornell University.
I like to study how cultural things are connected to other cultural things. For example, in my recent study of film genres, I've shown how the art-cinema idea is present everywhere throughout the film world, whether this means the high-art world of the avant-garde and the postwar art film or the low-art world of softcore videos, rape-revenge movies, and so on. I have never adopted a particular theoretical orientation, although my recent work tends to adapt both feminist theory and biocultural theory when investigating the very difficult terrain of exploitation cinema.
My research on American literature is much more traditional, focusing on literary aestheticism and writers like Edgar Allan Poe, Vladimir Nabokov, and Gilbert Sorrentino. I like to tell my students that my head is postmodernist but my heart is helplessly modernist. (If my lesson that day was effective, they get it.)
"Reconsidering the Body Genre: Rape-Revenge and Postfeminist Softcore as Biocultural Phenomena." Alphaville: A Journal of Film and Screen Media 7 (2014). Online.
Theorizing Art Cinemas: Foreign, Cult, Avant-Garde, and Beyond. U of Texas P, 2013.
"Peckinpah, Rape, and Female Characterization." Post Script 33.1 (2013): 34-48.
"No Start, No End: Auteurism and the Auteur Theory." Film International 12.6 (2013): 37-55.
"The Rape-Revenge Film: Biocultural Implications." Jump Cut 54 (2012). Online.
"Toward a More Valid Definition of 'Pornography.' Journal of Popular Culture 45.3 (2012): 457-477.
"Art Cinema as Institution, Redux: Art Houses, Film Festivals, and Film Studies." Scope 18 (2010). Online.
Soft in the Middle: The Softcore Feature in its Contexts. Ohio State UP, 2006.
"Sex is Dangerous, So Satisfy Your Wife: The Softcore Thriller in its Contexts." Cinema Journal 45.3 (2006): 59-89.
"An Oneiric Fugue: The Various Logics of Mulholland Drive." Journal of Film and Video 56.1 (2004): 25- 40.
Casebook Study of Gilbert Sorrentino's Imaginative Qualities of Actual Things. Editor and contributor. The Dalkey Archive Press, 2003. Appeared as a special issue of Review of Contemporary Fiction 23 (2003): 7-125.
"'Benito Cereno': No Charity on Earth, Not Even at Sea." Leviathan: A Journal of Melville Studies 2.1 (2000): 83-103.
Aestheticism, Nabokov, and Lolita. Edwin Mellen P, 1999.
For a more complete listing of publications, see my Google Scholar page.