When future scholars come to assess the humanities in our time, they will probably call it the age of buzzwords. Whereas previous generations of academics pledged allegiance to their intellectual heroes—Marx! Foucault!—that fervor seems to have shifted to catchy conceptual slogans. Anthropocene! Spatial Turn! New Materialism! Buzzwords dot conference papers and grant proposals, they ooze cognitive certainty, and those who chronicle our academic trajectory a few decades from now will surely wonder whether we really had a clear idea of what we were talking about. (Message to posterity: we were wondering about that, too.)Against this background, the guiding question of this roundtable is anything but tongue-in-cheek. The New Materialism is no longer a nascent intellectual current that has yet to reach conceptual maturity. We have a multitude of publications from a diverse and multidisciplinary group of scholars, and that provides us with fodder for a first assessment from the viewpoint of an empirically minded discipline. What are the approaches that matter for the historian's craft, and specifically for those who engage with the history of agriculture in one way or another? How does the New Materialism frame our understanding of topics, narratives, and intellectual goals? And what do we need to change in established readings, if anything? After all, agricultural history has never been nonmaterial because it's hard to imagine a nonmaterial agriculture—though a former Monsanto CEO once tried his best to suggest otherwise.The following interventions explore these questions with different case studies in mind and with different types of intellectual ambitions. Some scale the philosophical heights of the literature while others feel more comfortable with their feet on the ground (or, on a personal note, with their intellectual existence at sea). They engage with straw, ontology, and Robert Frost, among other things, and there is no obvious hierarchy. There is something unsettled and unrefined at the heart of the New Materialism debate, something that defies categorization and intellectual order. It is a bit like dealing with a monster that we thought was dormant for a long time—though monsters provide a poor metaphor owing to their inherent anthropomorphism. It would seem that, in engaging with the inherent power of the material, we are truly at the mercy of the elements.Going through these contributions and the literature that they survey, it seems that there is no obvious template for writing new materialist histories. There are a few paths that have been explored, there are recurring themes and challenges, but those who seek a checklist for their graduate seminars will come away disappointed. But maybe that is the entire point of engaging with the New Materialism? If matter really matters, we are reckoning with forces beyond our control, that lack a sense of human decency, and were around before the word. It is no small challenge to come to terms with forces of this kind. But if the following comments prove anything, it is that we need to try.This roundtable grew out of a session at the Agricultural History Society meeting in June 2021. Albert Way encouraged us to publish our views in the pages of Agricultural History and assured quick publication, though speed is a mixed blessing in academic endeavors and material flows alike. As you will see below, I had second thoughts about the circle of invitees when I penned my own comment. But even within the set boundaries, the following conversation may be inspiring and inconclusive in equal measure, and I trust that readers will find that an important insight in its own right. When it comes to the material, we are wrestling with a subversive force that will keep us on edge for the foreseeable future.