Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Sunday Comics

No, it's not Sunday. What's your point? Here's an untitled effort from Soon-to-be-Jaded Dissertator. (Click to make it big.)


Anonymous said...

woohoo! what a great statement from stbjd!

esp. the colored border.

you rock!

Anonymous said...

Why is the philosopher jacking off the manimal's horns? I'm so confused.

Sisyphus said...

Awwww, I was going to ask that you post pictures of Second Suitor and the goat ceremony, and here you are putting some up for me before I even got around to asking! How sweet!

Send me the link to the rest of the NSFW ones later, wink wink nudge nudge know what I mean?

Anonymous said...

Title: "Client 9 Pays $5000 for a Horn Job from a Philosopher-Whore"

Anonymous said...

it's a dilemma!

he needs a matador cape or something, too.

dr. moreau said...

(1) I wish someone would furiously jack me off too.

(2) I wish I had a penis for aforementioned jacking-off.

(3) Goats are hot.

Anonymous said...

So he's "taken the bull by the horns". What does that metaphorically mean? Applying? That's what it meant for me. Or has our robot-philosopher got himself a job here?

fellow grad student said...

somehow the manimal doesn't seem to excited or bothered by it.

Anonymous said...

Ugh. I think I preferred it when people were being mean to one another.

PAProf said...

Ok, I know that this is off-topic, but WTF is up with the Journal of Value Inquiry??? After FOURTEEN MONTHS and NO responses to my many (and, yeah, OK, increasingly hacked-off) emails to the Editor, I received a note saying my paper had been accepted. TWO MONTHS LATER I received a copy of my paper which had been completely assed up by some asshole editor. EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE had been altered, and pretty much every one had its meaning altered and spelling mistakes introduced. ("Flouishing" is not spelled "florishing", asshats, and "we" is not the same as "one".) I emailed the editor a few weeks ago--who I now think must either live in a cave or be in an irreversible coma--and I haven't heard anything back. Any advice? Do I just give up and pull the paper, wasting almost two years on it? I'm sure as shit not making the changes, but I think they're going to try to insist on them.

BTW, I'm a TT assprof who's published several articles before, and I've never experienced ANYTHING remotely resembling this crap. Anyone else have experiences like this with the Journal of Assclownery?

Anonymous said...

That's insane in the membrane.

Anonymous said...

I have an article in JVI. They have an enormous set of extremely arbitrary style guidelines that were imposed in three phases. The initial acceptance happened fairly quickly, but the editing took almost a year. If I'd known what the process was going to be like, I'd never have submitted to them.

Anonymous said...

Just got a PFO from Texas Tech, obviously from an HR bot:

"Thank you for your interest in the position of (74997) Assistant Professor in the
ASP05-Philosophy-Arts & Sci department at Texas Tech. Unfortunately, you were not
selected for employment in this position. Please do not let this discourage you
from applying for other positions that interest you.
Your application will remain
active for 12 months and can be updated during this period by logging on to and clicking Manage Application."

Lovely... as if something other than a philosophy job would get me to go to the hell on earth that is Lubbock, Texas.

Mysjkin said...

Fantastic comic!

On JVI: I think they changed publisher quite recently, which may be part of the explanation for the mess described above. They've always treated me very well, though. So I wouldn't generalize from the instance. I agree that they have extreme requirements on style, but mostly their suggestions are helpful (I think).

Anonymous said...

I don’t think that the problems with the JVI come from its publisher, since they’ve been going on for years, way before this change. Some years ago I had a paper spend around a year in limbo there, then get accepted, then get edited to death by the Editor in Chief who wanted me to remove all footnotes that referred to David Velleman’s work (why, I have no fucking idea) and also a entire paragraph because it contained the word “postmodern”. This all came with line-by-line alterations of what I’d written, none of which were conformed to the journal’s published style guide.

A friend of mine (a very senior person at a Leiterterrific school) was asked to contribute a paper to a Special Issue, did so, and received his paper back from the EiC with “What is all this stuff?” scrawled across his endnotes, and “This isn’t philosophy!!” written directly over some of his arguments.

None of this is helpful editing. It’s just someone being an asshole because they think they can get away with it.

I'm not publishing there again.

Anonymous said...

I too found the JVI editing to amount to the imposition -- by means of ample red pencil -- of a totally different style. Quite a few edits were helpful, the bulk were either stylistic or in keeping with some pedantic conceptual distinctions (the Platonic "the", which I just used, offends the editor -- but wait: a word cannot offend, only a person's action can offend...), and over a dozen "corrections" made the paper worse by forcing inaccurate solutions upon negligible problems.

Since I wanted the long-overdue article published, I narrowed my focus on a dozen sentences that had become unacceptable for reasons I could succinctly and confidently explain, and in each case I suggested not just reverting to my original, but a wording that retained my meaning while conforming to the editorial constraints.

Those counter-suggestions were all accepted, and I will say that I have gained sensitivity to a couple of my bad writing habits -- but it's still true that when I read the final piece, I hardly recognize my own voice.

Anonymous said...


"So I wouldn't generalize from the instance."

I've heard of other instances as well, and they do not include the editor treating anyone well. Unfortunately, they not include do not include "mostly" helpful "suggestions", but rather ridiculous, harmful requirements. Of course, a judgment of whether something is ridiculous or harmful requires details that anonymity prohibits. Maybe by "treated me very well" the commenter above meant 'accepted my paper for publication'.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 10.29 here:

"This all came with line-by-line alterations of what I’d written, none of which were conformed to the journal’s published style guide."

For "confirmed to" read "required by". My memory of this asshattery was pissing me off, and made me unclear.

Oh, wait--can memories piss one off, or just one's perception of them? Oh no--I used the word "one"! Revise, revise! "can memories piss us off, or just our perception of them?"


Anonymous said...

The Editor of the JVI is Thomas Magnell:

Is it just me, or does this picture just ooze smugness and self-importance?!