Warning: Constant ABSPATH already defined in /home/wordsend/public_html/wp-config.php on line 29

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/wordsend/public_html/wp-config.php:29) in /home/wordsend/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wordpress-mobile-pack/inc/class-wmp-cookie.php on line 50
work – Page 11 – Words' End

the mind’s eye is

No, there’s more nuance to it. And, lucky you, I feel like spilling it all over my blog.

This is me at one of my more negative moments. The other end of the spectrum can be just as intense. But right at the moment, things are pretty bleak over at words’ end.

I’ve been thinking about feminism. It’s hard not to these days, really. Jill is this awesome, shiny, curly-lock’ed powerhouse of a blogging theorist and head of her department, and writes on feminist topics to do with both politics and with her work. The misbehaving posse are eloquent and on point without coming across as gratuitously bitter, by which I personally am inspired. Hanna is kicking all kinds of arse as a Debian developer and advocate for women in computing.

Humanities computing is by no means a boys’ club. I don’t have any actual statistics, and it’s likely that men do outnumber women in the field, just like most (any?) other academic fields. But I’ve never felt shut out because I’m female; and certainly there is no lack of role models to follow.

Ethan and I talk about gender, its physiology and its politics, quite a lot. In him I have found the kind of feminist I hope every man – and woman – would be. He is well read and astute in general, and his interest in evolutionary biology has led to some very interesting conversations about how gender differences have evolved, how they’re expressed in other animals, how different human societies deal with them.

(As an aside, have you ever read Shanshan Du’s Chopsticks Only Work in Pairs? It’s a great read. The Lahu have their problems, but they’ve got the gender stuff worked out.)

OK, so do we all agree here that men and women are different? Because we are, right? In many, many respects. A tiny change in physiology (and it really is tiny, all things considered) results, in most of us, in different attitudes, different… orientations. In most of us. Lately gender identity has come to the political forefront, and we’ve discovered that it’s not quite so black-and-white.

I am most decidedly female. Perhaps a little more outspoken than some, perhaps a bit harsh at times, but a woman. I watch myself behave in ways that have been pegged as stereotypically female, and find that this is where I want to be.

So, here’s where I want to be: I want to be secondary.

Seriously. I want to be someone’s assistant. I make a good administrator. I am happier making sure that things run smoothly than I am writing papers. This bothers me on a fundamental level.

It’s possible that these are years of being a student speaking: I’m tired of being a student. Even now, on a leave of absence and with a “real job,” I’m a student and will need to write a dissertation by something like May of 2007. I’m sick of writing papers, because I don’t feel like expressing new opinions. Doing research is absolutely equivalent in my head to proving myself – to professors, to colleagues, to myself. I hate it. I hate the insecurity, and I hate even more my conclusion that this insecurity is not the result of The Man puttin’ me down. Nobody’s been putting me down. Nobody but me.

There’s a conflict here: most of me doesn’t feel put down when I think of a life as a mother and keeper of the homestead, possibly working part-time making food for people or pulling espresso shots (both being alternate-reality dreams of mine, that I will quite possibly pursue when I retire… or sooner). Most of me has been actively developing this aversion to putting myself on the line, proving myself to anyone. A large part of me wants to only ever do for money what I already know how to do, and doesn’t want to learn anything new.

For money. That’s a crucial thing. I don’t think I could stop reading, ever. Learning new things, fiddling with XSLT, finding cool ways to keep my occasional students of Italian excited about the language, all these things are great. As long as I choose to do them.

Classic, huh?

The feminist in me is all up in arms because of this. I’m capable of More Than That. (What in the seven hells does that mean?)

Goddamnit, I love humanities computing. I love my current job. I love gradually getting a wider and wider perspective on the wonder of human communication via language. The parallels between us and people who lived hundreds, thousands of years ago are often unexpected and always great fun to discover. So why am I periodically so torn up, why do I want to hide and never tell anyone who professionally matters to me what I’m thinking? Why am I terrified of this?

The cards are stacked in my favor, here. Ever since I decided not to pursue the Italian Studies PhD any longer I’ve been happy in academe. It’s been home. The papers I’ve given have mostly failed to suck; my boss has recently called me a dynamo to a third party; my doctoral committee have been very supportive of this unorthodox track of a PhD in humanities computing. Gosh darn it, that oughta count for something.

I’m going to finish this two-year gig, and immediately after that I’ll finish the PhD, and these things aren’t true because I’m feeling the need to prove something. They’re true because I want to do this.

But I’m terrified, and am tired of being so scared, and every time it comes back it’s stronger and harder to deal with. A large, visceral part of me is screaming every time I realize that I’ve put myself out there and seem to have no energy to see it through. The fact that this happens more often when my hormones are all out of whack is only important to a point, since (a) this isn’t an absolute correlation, and (b) the hormone jumps don’t make any of this shit less real.

Energy always comes in the end, from someplace or another. But right now, I just want to hide.

Academe is a lonely place, but for better or worse it’s home. I’ve only got one life. How do I know the wisest way to spend it that will also make me consistently happy?

[Re-reading this, it occurs to me: among other things, what I actually want is acknowledgment on the part of Society At Large of the importance and relevance of my work to itself. Fat chance.]

Thought of the day.

From a mailing list I’m on, for your amusement:

“Compared to meditation, liturgy is like going to a monster truck show!”

I’m working: Wednesday afternoons I tutor, so they’re geeenerally longer days. This has been the week of (figuratively) beating myself over the head with the notion of “if you just start doing whatever it is you don’t want to do, chances are you’ll find it all kinds of fun.” No duh, but sometimes it takes a while to sink in again.

In other news, writing a paper with a co-author is more fun than writing it alone. More frustrating at times (timing, disagreements, what have you), but more stimulating, therefore more fun.

Thanks to mindlace, the flickr zeitgeist on my home page is full of wedding photos. *happy wiggle*

Design site/book

From Halley Suitt’s blog: check out Thoughtless Acts, a site/book concerning human-oriented design. Leaving aside the fact that it’s a Flash site (bleah, accessibility-wise), looks interesting.

work patterns

Most of us (I’ll hazard) have occasional issues with “productivity,” or “efficiency”. This is particularly felt in academe, programming and other fields where it’s nigh unto impossible to predict how long a task will take.

It occurs to me that “staying late at work” is a hostile opponent of “learning to work more efficiently.” This excludes cases such as “I had a doctor’s appointment in the middle of the day and am making up the absence” or “this is taking me longer than I thought, but I’m on a roll.” I’m talking about the feeling of “well, I’m doing something unrelated now, but that’s okay, because I can just tack on an extra hour or so at the end of the day.” If you-impersonal* are trying to become more efficient when it comes to your working hours, do not permit yourself to stay late. Slacking off? Still, get up and go home at a pre-determined time. Eventually the slow progress will catch up to you, and push you into more efficient working mode(s).

*of course, I’m talking about myself here :)

Printing presses and movable types

Did you know that Gutenberg invented neither the printing press nor (surprising to me) movable type?

I’m reading a pretty interesting article about the life cycles of texts. In an offhanded way, the author states at one point: “A great leap in the development of the text cycle was Gutenberg’s invention of loose type and his improved use of the printing press.” That presses had existed before, and that Gutenberg’s huge innovation was movable type itself, didn’t surprise me much (although I hadn’t thought about it before). What did surprise me was that he re-invented movable type.

Here’s a small part of what Britannica says on the topic: (please do not keel me Mr. Copyright, I’m a mere excited researcher sharing the goodness that is knowledge)

About 1041–48 a Chinese alchemist named Pi Sheng appears to have conceived of movable type made of an amalgam of clay and glue hardened by baking. He composed texts by placing the types side by side on an iron plate coated with a mixture of resin, wax, and paper ash. Gently heating this plate and then letting the plate cool solidified the type. Once the impression had been made, the type could be detached by reheating the plate. It would thus appear that Pi Sheng had found an overall solution to the many problems of typography: the manufacture, the assembling, and the recovery of indefinitely reusable type.

In about 1313 a magistrate named Wang Chen seems to have had a craftsman carve more than 60,000 characters on movable wooden blocks so that a treatise on the history of technology could be published. To him is also attributed the invention of horizontal compartmented cases that revolved about a vertical axis to permit easier handling of the type. But Wang Chen’s innovation, like that of Pi Sheng, was not followed up in China.

In Korea, on the contrary, typography, which had appeared by the first half of the 13th century, was extensively developed under the stimulus of King Htai Tjong, who, in 1403, ordered the first set of 100,000 pieces of type to be cast in bronze. Nine other fonts followed from then to 1516; two of them were made in 1420 and 1434, before Europe in its turn discovered typography.

Nifty!

To my Boston peeps

What better way to start off your Saturday (that’d be tomorrow) than a panel at the New England Modern Language Association conference, at which yours truly will present a scintillating paper on the Virtual Humanities Lab?

Seriously, it’s a great paper. It is totally accessible (not full of jargon), it’s fun to read, I imagine it’s fun to listen to, and it really is a great project. The session runs from 8:30 to 9:45am, which I assume automatically precludes 99% of the locals reading this from going, but it’s worth a try. Afterwards, you can go get caffeinated beverage of choice! Greet the day! Rah!… okay, I’m done.

If you’re interested in the rest of the session, go here and do a find for my name.

The Hyatt Regency Hotel Cambridge is that ziggurat-looking thing by the river, 575 Memorial Drive. We’ll be in a room called Thomas Paine A. It’s on the first floor.

Food for thought

Was just talking to Cam Fraser, cool guy I met in Alberta at a graduate students’ humanities computing conference a few years ago. This is sort of a memo to self, but is also a great example of how THE INTERNET has changed the academic life. Multitask by chatting while writing a conference paper, get idea for a totally different thing, record it, go on. I *heart* these moments.

Cam: have you thought about bringing your cooking into your academic work?

me: Nnno. But it sounds like fun. How would you suggest I go about this?

Cam: boy, I have no idea.

me: drat.

Cam: Maybe something to do with bodies…

Cam: I’m thinking of the scene in “Woman on Top” where she’s smelling a chile and ends up cutting herself

me: hmmmm

me: Seriously, though: hm. Maybe I should take a look at how people (the *general populace*) procured and consumed food over the ages. It’s gone from a communal thing to a family thing and back so many times, I wonder if it’s correlated with the amount of cultural transmission that goes on.

Hmmm, indeed. Raw, but interesting.

fe.male

Just spent a few minutes in the car listening to today’s Talk of the Nation on NPR. The topic is, why are there so few female voices in political journalism? The answers are, of course, complex, and the issue extends far beyond political journalism.

And a thought occurred to me, as I’m writing a paper to present this weekend at a conference: I tend to quote men. It’s true. Like most other people, I have an implicit bias towards men when it comes to giving automatic credibility to expressed opinions or published research.

Not getting into the whys and hows of this issue, nor indeed into whether it’s a problem (after all, there is more writing authored by men in the first place). But I’m going to make a conscious effort to cite more women over the next few conference papers, and see what happens. I’m curious as to whether I can actually find enough such citations to get to a 50-50 ratio.

I want to be Grafton when I grow up.

Anthony Grafton, author of The Footnote: A Curious History, has also written Defenders of the Text: The Traditions of Scholarship in an Age of Science, 1450-1800. I’m reading the latter as part of some research into the history of knowledge.

As an aside: there is no article on the history of knowledge in the Britannica, nor is it a Library of Congress category. Wild! The LoC has “Learning and Scholarship — History of,” but that’s different somehow. I can’t put my finger on how, though. Anyone?

Back to Grafton. Here’s the beginning paragraph of one of the chapters in Defenders:

Joseph Scaliger encountered two supernatural beings in the course of his long and well-spent life. He saw one of them, a black man on a horse, as he rode by a marsh with some friends. He only read about the other, a monster named Oannes with the body of a fish and the voice of a man. Yet as so often happened in the Renaissance, the encounter with Art had far more lasting consequences than that with Life. The black man tried to lure Scaliger into the marsh, failed, and disappeared, leaving him confirmed in his contempt for the devil and all his works: “My father didn’t fear the Devil, neither do I. I’m worse than the devil.” Oannes, in the book that Scaliger read, climbed out of the ocean and taught humanity the arts and sciences. Devil Tempts Man was no headline to excite the Renaissance public; but Amphibian Creates Culture was out of the ordinary even in the sixteenth century.

Well, that’s a good way to get the reader’s attention. Grafton writes so engagingly! You almost forget that he’s a rigorous scholar.

So, arts + sciences = culture, huh? That’s an interesting implicit assertion.

Edit: Holy s**t! Okay, I was too excited about that paragraph above to read any further, otherwise this beginning of the second paragraph would’ve struck me as well: “The fish who gave us civilization appeared at the beginning of the account of Babylonian mythology and history written by Berosus, a priest of Bel, early in the third century B.C.” Oh, so now arts + sciences = civilization! I wonder if Grafton is just being cavalier, or subtly making an actual claim. Given that he’s brilliant, I’d have a hard time believing that this wording was unintentional.

Why I love what I do, reason 479.

Am reading the newly-published A Companion to Digital Humanities, edited by Susan Schreibman, Ray Siemens and John Unsworth and published by Blackwell. Whipping through more than reading, really: I’d recalled it from the library and it got recalled right back, so I only have until Monday and it’s almost 700 pages long. There’s tons of interesting stuff in there. Most of it is nothing new for me – the book reads like a primer – but the writing is excellent and there are some new ideas, and when I teach an intro to humanities computing class, this will likely be the main textbook. Um, if they come out with a version that doesn’t cost $165.

Speaking of excellent writing, here’s a bit from Carole L. Palmer’s “Thematic Research Collections”:

[T]he creators of scholarly collections will need to be a new kind of scholar, or team, with a distinct mix of expertise in at least three areas – the specific subject matter and associated critical and analytical techniques, technical computing processes, and principles of content selection and organization.

Both my job with the VHL and [especially] my dissertation for a PhD in humanities computing (!!) challenge me to develop along all of these lines. There are low points, to be sure, but the occasional bird’s-eye-view inspires and recharges me. This field is so… fun. How many people can boast an adventurous academic life? Unbelievable luck, right here.

css.php