Working today.

Someone was actually booked in to use rare materials: - however, did not turn up.

We finally had one reader, who arrived well after my lunch-break.

(And on the subject of lunch-breaks, colleague and I agreed that half an hour, which is just about reasonable during normal circumstances, is really not quite long enough, with all the ( Read more... )

Not sure if I actually noted here that I did get Chapter That I Didn't Much Want To Write (even before Other Commitments Ate My Life) off by deadline, including suggested illos (subject is really not exactly visuals-friendly).

Have now got a reasonable draft of Text for Talk That I Still Feel I Was Illegitimately Enticed Into Doing - it needs, on ( Read more... )

I have been catching up with various things that came out while I was away or where only available in hardback, so not ideally suited for travel-reading.

( Joanna Russ, The Country you have Never Seen: Essays and Reviews )

Ten years ago, I wrote an article about an organisation, the archives of which I had catalogued, for publication in its journal, on its history and its archives.

In the most recent issue of its journal, there appears an article by another person on the history of the organisation, which is substantially based on mine. At first I thought they had ( Read more... )

Just over a week ago I posted the to-do list that had materialised on my return from US trip. I took today as leave to get caught up on it. It now looks like this:

- revision of the paper from the Belgian conference (for end of June). Started work on this: do not intend to put in massive efforts of rewriting, though will make some gestures towards ( Read more... )

Yay! Reader's report for Commemorative Volume says of my chapter 'well-written and thoughtful, and I learned from it', and makes no editorial suggestions. Wheee! (And have also knocked off already 1 report on journal article, so the pile gradually decreaseth.)

Maybe it's because I'm Ms Grouchypuss of late, but is this just me?

If you are writing an article which purports to be about texts by a specific individual, shouldn't you give more than a bare 10% (approx 2pp out of 20+) of it to, you know, discussing and analysing those particular texts?

Though there is a lot more wrong with the article than ( Read more... )

a) I don't seem to have the cold I thought was impending yesterday evening (though I was woken up unnecessarily early by an evil sinus headache, now dispersed, thanks to Sudafed Dual Relief MAX.).

b) The man did come to look at the gasmeter (this took all of 30 seconds).

c) And I have now added sufficient verbiage to my paper from the Belgium ( Read more... )

In spite of my Northern Line Hell.

The cold appears to have gone, leaving some residual catarrh and easily-irritated throat, but not that blah coldy feeling any more.

I have completed a (payment in prospect) book review. I enjoyed the book (Carl Rollyson, To Be A Woman: The Life of Jill Craigie) very much. May post about it sometime, as there was ( Read more... )

I'm completely boggled after an interchange today with an editor (or possibly editorial assistant type person) vis a vis an essay/article/thing (extended entry?) for an encyclopaedia I've done. It became clear that my understanding of what was required on the basis of my original exchange with the subject editor was a completely mismatch with what ( Read more... )