Rejection letters, correspondence, and miscellanea from the otherwise empty annals of the Journal of Universal Rejection.

Search This Blog

Monday, March 7, 2011

Readers Reject I: Gombrichian text-subject relationship(s), as it relates to the nihilism of mathematical malfunction revealed in the Journal of Universal Rejection

Dear reader: We are starting a new series called Readers Reject.  In this series we will (with the author's permission of course) post a cover letter or abstract and invite you the reader to craft a rejection letter.  (To those worrywarts who believe JofUR is violating its core principle, rest assured these cover letters / abstracts are not being published in JofUR, but in Reprobatio Certa.  Indeed our essential law is being intensified: the author is receiving extra rejection from a wider community.)

Our first Readers Reject abstract is below.  Please post your rejection letters in the Comments section.  After one week, the Editor-in-Chief shall announce the winning rejection. 

Gombrichian text-subject relationship(s), as it relates to the nihilism of mathematical malfunction revealed in the Journal of Universal Rejection

by Peter Wallis

Abstract submitted for consideration of Journal of Universal Rejection, Febuary, 2011

Derrida said of deconstructionists who deconstruct popular media (eg Seinfeld, et al) that they should "read something academic." Thus he put what one might call a lower limit on deconstruction - lower, being only defined as lower or read as lower by the system in which this deconstruction takes place. The Journal of Universal Rejection (JoUR) extends this line, and actively deconstructs the idea of a high text, which is "academic" - the idea of an academic text as a whole. In doing so, the JoUR reveals the fundamental flaw in all reasoning, by creating a system in which no mathematics can function. Gombrich, in his own work, reveals the nature of the text (for him, mostly painting) and its transformative nature through the division of high art and low art by umbra and penumbra of subject-text relationships, in form as in fact. The JoUR reconfirms the Gombrichian idea that art has as its end a transformation of the seeing act, and even of the underpinnings of this act, while at the same time deconstructing all boundaries of quality and quantity of high art and low art, of umbra and penumbra, of subject and text, and thereby, long sentences which try to evaid understanding through the imposition of interior clauses, not excepted, reveals a nhilism which has always surrounded the heart of the academic-capitalist construct.


  1. Pretentious IlliterateMarch 7, 2011 at 10:17 PM

    Dear Peter,

    I assume that your underlying intent, like Socrates in Plato's "Meno", is to reduce the general reader to a state of aporia with the question of what reason is. If so, then you are to be congratulated (as was Socrates by Meno) by being likened to a "torpedo fish" which stuns its victims. Have you thought about reformatting your submission as a Socratic dialogue? I believe this would bring readers to aporia much less traumatically; of course, a suitable analog to anamnesis would have to be provided. Also, ditch all the nonsense about Gombrich.

    Looking forward to your corrected submission.

  2. Dear Peter

    Many thanks for your submission, which has of course been rejected out-of-hand. Please be assured that the following comments had no bearing whatsoever in this decision and should not be taken to imply that your submission was read or in any way understood.

    1. You certainly got off to a good start by mentioning Derrida and Seinfeld in the first sentence! I'm a big fan of both, naturally.

    2. I was confused about how you propose to position the relationship between Gombrich and JoUR. Although it clear that the Journal in some way deconstructs notions of high/low in academia, it is by no means obvious that the Journal 'reconfirms the Gombrichian idea that art has as its end a transformation of the seeing act', and you did not provide any clues about how you plan to show this.

    3. Is there really a nihilism at the heart of the 'academic-capitalist construct'? Many would argue that this remark is so generalised as to be virtually meaningless. And have you considered the possibility that the Journal in fact runs counter to this? In its policy of universal rejection, the Journal is, paradoxically perhaps, an affirmative force, uniting and equalising and allowing virtually no scope for disagreement and contention. (The exception is in marginal forums such as this blog itself, which do permit academic discussion, and thereby change the nature of the Journal itself. Consider a Derridean treatment of this.)

  3. Dear Peter,

    First, let me assure you that it has been a great pleasure not to read your submission. It was sent to 42 independent reviewers, covering an extremely diverse expertise ranging from Mechatronics (I don’t really understand what that is but the name sounds really great!) to French Cuisine. None of these renowned experts felt competent to evaluate your work. However, scientific quality, or the lack of it, has never been a criterion to not publish in JofUR. There is plenty of evidence for this in the archives of the journal.

    As a consequence, we are pleased to confirm that your submission is rejected. If you feel that a rational justification for this rejection might help you coping with it, then here is one: you do not provide any statistical analysis.

    Please, do not submit a revised version of this work, our decision is irrevocable. However, I do hope that in the future you will send additional interesting manuscripts for rejection.

    Best dismissive regards