Catching Up

I’m rather surprised to find how long I’ve left this blog. There have been times when that might have reflected inactivity, but in the last year or so I’ve actually been getting underway again. Perhaps it’s because I’ve only recently recovered from having finally caught COVID that I’m taking stock a little, and recognising signs of some return to engagement.

 

It may in fact appear that I’ve been rather productive, as I’ve revisited some older projects for conference papers and online talks as well as finally publishing a couple of pieces of rather long gestation. I returned enthusiastically to ghostlore for the recent International Society for Folk Narrative Research conference, and will be presenting an expanded version of this for the Folklore Society later in the year. This year should also finally see publication of a chapter I wrote while recovering from surgery on metaphor in academic and vernacular discussions of ghosts. While that publication is still ahead, it is very much a conclusion to several years’ work.

 

An earlier paper for the Folklore Society’s excellent Open Voices: Folklore for All, Folklore of All conference also saw a return to ghostlore, combined with one of my other current preoccupations, disciplinary history and its ongoing reception. As I began that paper, ‘There is a spectre haunting folklore – the spectre of folklore itself.’

 

For British folklorists, and English folklorists specifically, there are many historical and historiographical issues still to be addressed, especially under conditions where interest in folklore has never been greater. How do we deal with the legacy of the weaker periods in our disciplinary history? What is that legacy? That was one of the drivers behind my interest in the prolific and fascinating Violet Alford. Over a (too) protracted period I’d spoken about her many times, with the result that pretty much everyone involved in folklore in Britain had chipped in at some point. Whatever deficiencies still remain in my arguments, those contributions strengthened what I wrote, which was finally published in Folklore. I’m hugely grateful. This is a collaborative process.

 

The other area where I’ve been trying to trace the legacies of some more doubtful British folklore studies – Murray and Frazer in particular, who remain powerful poles of attraction outside academic scholarship – has been through representations in popular culture. I followed up my Western Folklore article on Folk Horror with a chapter in this collection, tracing similar themes and representations in a 1930 crime novel.

 

I haven’t quite said my last word on this subject, but that’s still work in progress.

Clearing the decks in this way does allow me to sharpen my focus on such works in progress, as well as on projects which are not so far advanced. It’s a nice feeling.