I especially like the anthology because it refuses to stay within expected academic confines. Often, when a field of study branches either into or out from another, it becomes curiously conservative (we can be even better academic theory-weenies than you). It is as if, in asserting diversity, marginalized scholars feel compelled to adopt the language of the oppressor. Or, perhaps those who make the best mimics are the ones who get recognized. Suddenly there is the call for a canon, a tradition, and whatever the cause, what results are nearsighted useless turf wars that neither serve to advance diversity, nor present any alternatives to marginalization.
Enke's selection refuses to do this. In fact, her selection seeks to avoid the appearance of overarching theory, or even agreement. And what follows is not rabble and chaos, but a deeper sense of shared, if not purpose, respect and sentiment. Enke trusts not simply her writers' ability to express themselves, but also their ability to look sideways and forward to places where there are still no answers, and the resonances that result are far more challenging and thought-provoking than any slapdash, predictable platitude.
