Post-Conference Report

Here's how it went:

Bad:

1. Didn't know anyone there on arrival, had nothing to do the day before it started, was bored.
2. Incisive comments on my paper made me realize that I still have a lot of reading to do before I can consider the research phase done (this despite how much I have drafted - a lot.)
3. Got two hours of sleep the night before I presented at 8:00am.
   

Good:

1. Paper was well-received. The above-mentioned incisive comments, particularly regarding my treatment of Sartre as a kind of looming caricature compared to Gorz, were very helpful.
2. Met a lot of nice people in my field. Was inspired to see how much interest there is in modern French intellectual history.
3. Met a gang of UCLA French history grads, one of whom was my co-presenter. Really nice, sharp, cool kids.
4. Did not die on the flights there or back, despite my strong belief that I would based on the turbulence.

There were a few moments during which I really got a taste of why some scholars are able to love what they do - the camaraderie of talking shop with smart people who know a lot about similar topics. That's the one thing I've missed at the UC to the SC - my cohort is full to the brim with brilliant kids, but none of them know a damn thing about what I study (and vice-versa.) I was also reminded of the basic fact that the average academic is a sympathetic, witty, fun person.

Finally, I will note that the younger scholars and grads were rocking some excellent fashion choices. I am going to start working on revised dapper outfits for the next conference based on my already-existing supply of vintage ties.

Now if I can just get reimbursed for the travel expenses...