My guiding principle for deciding whether a conference session was good is whether it would be of interest to my blog readers. I believe that if a group of intelligent, curious people have no use for what you are saying, that’s a problem.
The session on anti-theory I attended would definitely not bore you. I hate conference talks where people drone on without ever lifting their eyes from their papers and use copious amounts of jargon to mask the weakness of their arguments. The anti-theory presenters did none of it. There were 7 people and each of them spoke for 7 minutes. The talks were fun and funny, intelligent and intelligible, useful and thought-provoking. Everybody poked vicious fun at the 1980s – 1990s with their “dead white men”, intersectionality, anti-colonialism taken to bizarre extremes, obsessive denouncing of hierarchies, and fear of reason and theory as oppressive, male, and Western.
I feel very intellectually invigorated. It was a great idea to come here.
Clarissa's Blog 
I love being at a good conference without a role. Having to present or interview job candidates or be interviewed are such distractions. Even just having to present is a distraction.
LikeLike
Theory must truly be on the ropes if even MLA sessions are making fun of it now. Which reminds me, happy 20th anniversary to the Sokal Hoax.
Do people in your subfield literally stand there and read their papers? That always sounded strange to me, but I guess it’s standard in many fields.
LikeLike
It’s only that pathetic strand of theory that makes everybody laugh. There is really great theory today that has nothing to do with that idiocy.
LikeLike