Warning: this post wallows in shameless and tedious introspection, with a dollop of malice near the end.
Colby Cosh tells us how much he misses manual typewriters. I don’t even miss the electric ones. If word-processors had never been invented, I would never have written anything substantial. I tend to be hopelessly obsessive about revising my work, not to mention a fairly inept typist, and could never finish anything of any size.
Since word processors were invented, I’ve published about four dozen articles on classical literature, mostly short and fairly technical. They average around 3 ½ pages as published, include lots of untranslated Latin and Greek, and are mostly on narrowly-defined topics -- strictly for specialists, in other words. Most took years to finish, and I’ve got dozens more in process at any one time, plus several ideas for possible books, none of which is anywhere near finishing. Of course ‘in process’ can mean a two-sentence summary of an idea that would take two or twenty or two hundred pages to defend properly.
Anyway, I had been word-processing for quite a few years and was on my third computer (of four so far) when I first noticed that Microsoft Word has a ‘Properties – Statistics’ function which calculates a ‘Revision number’ and a ‘Total editing time’. This would have been around 1995 or 1996. In my usual desultory way, I had been working on an article on a couple of passages of Seneca off and on for the previous couple of years. I was still shocked when I saw the counts: I had spent just over 1000 minutes (16+ hours) on a 2000-word paper, which is not too bad, but was already up to revision 146. I tend to open a file, change a few words, then close it, open it the next day, and change some of them back. By the time this particular paper was refereed and revised for publication it was up to version 154.
Of course, my main reason for blogging is that I have plenty to say on various topics, and was sick and tired of wasting time polishing up letters to editors that are then ignored or butchered. However, I also started blogging to try to develop fluency and good (every-day) writing habits, with the idea that it might help in finishing some longer scholarly articles, perhaps even a book or two one of these years. It's somehow easier to let go of something if I know I can always go back and change it later, and the fact that Google will preserved copies of the unedited version somehow doesn't seem to damage my self-confidence.
So how am I doing so far, after just over a year of blogging, and just under a year of really prolific blogging?
There have been quite a few accomplishments:
Perhaps I'm just feeling negative, but these accomplishments (for which I am very grateful) are balanced by various disappointments:
The result of all this is general discontent or at least restlessness. I have no intention of shutting down this blog, but I have been considering possible new directions. Possible additions for this blog or a 'spinoff' blog:
As always, only more so, suggestions are welcome.
Posted by Dr. Weevil at January 01, 2003 01:20 AMIt's no accident that advice columns are the most widely read part of the newspaper after the funnies. "Ask Dr. Weevil" would be popular with me at least. In fact I already sent you a question, which may have got lost in your great mail purge of 2002. My girlfriend is keen, for some reason, to sew a motto, in Latin, on some throw pillows. So what we want to know is, what's the Latin for, "This house has no motto"?
I would gladly tip for answers to this and other such questions.
Posted by: Aaron Haspel on January 1, 2003 03:24 AMMore Classics, less flinging shit at forgettable nitwits. I may be in the minority thinking the former is more compelling, but you'd flesh out your niche a lot more. The Internet is shrill enough already.
Posted by: Evan McElravy on January 1, 2003 10:47 AMI agree with Evan. 4 is my choice. I was stupid enough to bypass my opportunities to study the classic languages when I was younger. Is there an Easy Latin online?
Posted by: Janis Gore on January 1, 2003 02:44 PMI would agree that an "Ask Dr Weevil" feature would do well -- and that the exposure of trolls could profitably be played down.
By the way, if you wish to pay back that unpleasant Antipodean, why don't you recommend Said's Orientalism? Some books are their own reward. . . .
Posted by: Cronaca on January 1, 2003 03:20 PMI would like to add my opinion to those who came before in saying I'd love to see more from your fields of expertise. “Ask Dr. Weevil” is a wonderful idea, and you would only have to address those questions that interest you and pass the lazy-student smell test. Personally, I’d be interested in knowing the origins of various mottos used by States and other institutions. The Classical world is fascinating to many non-scholars, and I’ve found your musings and instruction entertaining, informative and quotable. It’s always fun when you slap down someone that requires a beating, so feel free to respond when provoked, though. All in all, I look forward to passing the year in your company.
Posted by: Rob Ritchie on January 1, 2003 05:25 PMI like both "Ask Dr. Weevil" and the classical essays. Your blogroll is a testament to the ability and willingness of bloggers to take on simpletons, but erudite and thoughtful explorations of the classical world are somewhat thinner on the ground. More importantly, though, do what you most enjoy; if writing brings you pleasure, it will show through no matter what the topic.
Happy new year!
Posted by: Jakub Rehor on January 1, 2003 06:42 PMInteresting ideas.
Maybe you could call the Noam blog the 'Chomskynomicon'
Posted by: MonkeyPants on January 1, 2003 10:42 PMChange nothing, we love you as you are Weeve.
Posted by: Robin Roberts on January 1, 2003 11:43 PMI'm with you on the advantages of the word processor.
I learned typing my Sophomore year in high school, 1973, years before personal computers. My only goal was to be able to type my own papers in college.
One thing about the Royal 440 manual; it was built like a tank, and if somebody really got critical of your work you could always throw it at him.
My favorite freshman Latin pun was always "Semper Ubi, Sub Ubi". No one else thinks this is funny.
Posted by: Tassled Loafered Leech on January 2, 2003 12:43 PMMaybe there is has been no response to Mr. Vogt's request because, though we loathe his ideas, we have no real desire to see Noam's books burned.
As to preferences for teh future direction of your fine, erudite blog, well, I did ask you about the best antonym earlier today, so I guess that means I'd go for door number 3.
Posted by: charles austin on January 2, 2003 09:27 PMSorry I haven't answered the questions in the first and third comments: feel free to bug me if I don't do so on Sunday when I get back to town.
Posted by: Dr. Weevil on January 3, 2003 12:25 AMYou have quite a dilemma: You already spend too much timer blogging yet you want to blog on even more things. My advice:
Give in to blogging. It can take huge amounts of time but if you enjoy it what more can you ask?
Give up fisking and otherwise noticing Leftist idiots. They are not worth your time.
Cheers
Posted by: John Ray on January 4, 2003 06:45 AMIt's perhaps a tangenital point, but I'm a bit tired of leftists responding to any expression of patriotism by Dr. Johnson's line, "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels."
By "patriotism" he means a specific contemporary English political tendency. It bespeaks massive ignorance of Dr. Johnson to think that he would have regarded expressions of feels for England as only approprirate for scoundrels.
Posted by: Alex Bensky on January 5, 2003 12:35 AMA common retort by Leftist is the "but have you read [x]?" (in this case, Chomsky) to which I have several replies, depending on mood-- "I don't have to call a psychic hotline to know they are all a fraud", "I haven't read 'Mein Kampf' in the orginal Arabic either" and "I don't have to taste shit to figure out I shouldn't eat it it." are some.