Also not dead (or, addenda to a post on doing research at a teaching institution)

I have a lighter load than Dr. Crazy (3/3 instead of 4/4), but what she says still applies.  To add:

1) Although I wouldn't quite say that "I seriously don’t care where I publish," it's true that the Fear and Loathing of Book Collections that appears to be prevalent in humanities departments at a number of research universities doesn't apply here.  I like book collections: I can come up with a proposal for an article (doing that right now, as it happens) targeted for a book with a very specific focus, and then work on something that I know will appear (er, eventually).  My college is happy that I'm publishing, and isn't particularly worried about publishing in PMLA vs. publishing in an edited collection.   

2) I suspect that I would have a very difficult time doing my type of work at a research-oriented institution.  I'm not theory-oriented and usually work on literary-historical topics that a) don't interface well with the canon and b) often require me to spend more time with the history of religion than with literary criticism.  (If I were a medievalist, this wouldn't be so much of a problem.  But I'm a Victorianist.)  Moreover, as I've said here before, Victorian religious fiction frequently resists theoretical approaches developed on canonical texts (narratology being a notable exception). 

3) Dad the Emeritus Historian of Graeco-Roman Egypt, whose CV runs over thirty pages long despite spending his career at Cal State Los Angeles, has more than once argued that scholars at teaching schools need to be more attentive to the process of developing a recognizable scholarly niche.  Now, granted that my niche is not precisely what he had in mind (come to think of it, when I started, it wasn't precisely what I had in mind), but it does compensate for some of the problems attendant on being at a teaching school (lack of prestige, less to no money, less impressive resources available, etc.).