Since coming to London, I’ve been trying new and exciting recipes.1 One of these, the focus of tonight’s post, is pasta in white sauce. There are a few reasons for this.
First, I like pasta. It’s a good comfort food and it’s hard to make badly. Second, I like milk based products. Third, I like being able to pretend I made something, more than just dumping something into a pot.
So, the recipe:
Ingredients:
Pasta
Butter
Cheese2
Flour
Milk
Salt
To Make Sauce:
Put approximately equal portions of butter and flour in a pan over medium to low heat.
Mix until it begins to brown.
Add milk and cheese.
Stir, adding more milk as needed.
Add salt to taste.
To Make Pasta:
Salt water.
Cook Pasta.
Drain Pasta.
Put Pasta in Sauce.
Serve.
Prereading note: I find myself beginning to put my words to the page1 as the time quickly approaches midnight. As a result, I apologize for any roughness in this posting.
Tonight, I had the wonderful fortune of seeing The Importance of Being Earnest at the Vaudeville Theatre. Overall, the show was enjoyable, though different from what I had expected.
What was2 a show of subtlety and wit became, instead, a loud and forceful and exuberant farce.
From the beginning, I should have known it would be so, as the curtain onstage had a quote from Oscar Wilde:3 “If one tells the truth, one is sure sooner or later, to be found out.” As the show begins, a piano and accompanying orchestra play loudly and beautifully, as the stage slowly lights, and the once opaque curtain becomes transparent. The curtain opens, and we get a chance to see Algernon playing the piano. From his first actions, it is clear that this will be a show, not of subtly implied innuendo, but rather over the top theatrics and staging.
The blocking was continuously adding a second thread to the show. At the beginning, when Jack and Gwendolen are flirting during the conversation, their blocking is theatrical and beautiful. In scene three, the three servants add another layer to the show, reminding us both of the existence of the stage behind us, as well as the motion of life.
The lighting was continuously sublime. As peaks and valleys in action happened, so too did the lights subtly do so. In the second scene, as the day progresses, the stage left light slowly rose from perspective, and the fog on the stage cleared as well. It was a beautiful way to suggest the passage of time. In the third scene, where we see the world from the other side, just a short time later, the sun is facing from stage right. The little details like that made this production eminently enjoyable
In my first year of college I gained1 the moniker of “bread guy.”2 Now, this was not an unforeseeable outcome. I baked3 bread almost every day, and tended to have the same problem: by the time I finish making bread,4 I don’t really want it anymore, since I would’ve been smelling it for the time it took to cook.5,6
This problem should have an easy resolution. I would just give it to my friends!7 Of course, sometimes my so called “friends” wouldn’t want to eat the bread I made.8
I know, It’s ridiculous to me too. Who wouldn’t want bread?
Nonetheless, I would need to get rid of the bread another way. My next step would be to find the people who occupy the hard to define mental space of people you know, but have no emotions attached to.9 Once I found them,10 I would also offer bread. That also didn’t have a 100% success rate, which hurt less.
Sometimes, I would just walk around campus and hand it out11 to whoever I saw, and sometimes I would just leave it in public spaces near people who volunteered to dispose of it for me. Nonetheless, I made a lot of bread and got known for it.
Now, the moniker served another purpose.12 The CS13 department14 at Grinnell College15was16 growing rapidly, so there were many students who might assume I was related to a member of the department.17 I assumed18 that being known as “slightly odd person who feeds us” was better than being known as “child of very odd, grumpy, and sarcastic person,” if only because I was being described as my own entity in the first.
But anyways, back to what’s important: bread. My recipe is adapted from this website’s book. I tend to make the dough in a 3 gallon ice cream container from Kilwins, as my family somehow acquired many of them. It exists below.
Basic Bread Dough:
Ingredients:
5 pounds flour19
8-9 cups water20
2 heaping tablespoons yeast21
2 lightly heaping tablespoons kosher salt22
Note: if making a second batch, if you leave the dough that is leftover in the container, you can skip the yeast.23
To Make Dough:
Add all ingredients together.24
Mix until it seems to be one coherent blob of dough.25
Cover, but not airtightly, and let sit at room temperature until doubled in size.26
Then, cover airtight27 for up to two weeks28 The longer you let it sit, the more sour it will be.29
To Cook:
Sprinkle flour on top of dough.30
Pull out a piece of dough the volume of bread you want.31
Generously coating with flour, gently fold it over itself until smooth everywhere except one spot.32
After placing the bread with the spot down,33 quickly score the surface of the dough with a razor blade, aiming for around half an inch deep.34
Put onto a stone in an oven preheated for around 30 minutes at 350 F35 with a stone and a baking tray36 inside, the tray beneath the stone.
Pour water onto the baking tray.37
Let cook until bottom is hollow when tapped, or properly golden brown.38
If in doubt, a few extra minutes never hurts, and often helps.39
Pull out and let cool.40
In my first year of college I gained the moniker of “bread guy,”41 Now, this was not an unforeseeable outcome. I baked42 bread almost every day, and tended to have the same problem: by the time I finish making bread, I don’t really want it anymore, since I would’ve been smelling it for the time it took to cook.43,44
This problem should have an easy resolution. I would just give it to my friends! Of course, sometimes my so called “friends” wouldn’t want to eat the bread I made.
I know, It’s ridiculous to me too. I would need to get rid of the bread another way. My next step would be to find the people who occupy the space of “people I have no feelings towards but am aware of their existence and believe they feel the same about me.”45 Once I found them,46 I would also offer bread. Sometimes, I would just walk around campus and hand it out47 to whoever I saw, and sometimes I would just leave it in public spaces near people who volunteered to dispose of it for me. Nonetheless, I made a lot of bread and got known for it.
Now, the moniker served another purpose. The CS48 department49 at Grinnell College50was51 growing rapidly, there were many students who might assume I was related to a member of the department.52 And, I figured being known as “slightly odd person who feeds us” was better than being known as “child of very odd, grumpy, and sarcastic person,” if only because I was being described as my own entity in the first.
So, bread. My recipe is adapted from this website’s book. I tend to make the dough in a 3 gallon ice cream container from Kilwins, as my family somehow acquired many of them. It exists below.
Basic Bread Dough:
Ingredients:
5 pounds flour
8-9 cups water
2 heaping tablespoons yeast
2 lightly heaping tablespoons kosher salt
Note: if making a second batch, if you leave the dough that is leftover in the container, you can skip the yeast
To Make Dough:
Add all ingredients together.
Mix until it seems to be one coherent blob of dough.
Cover, but not airtightly, and let sit at room temperature until doubled in size.
Then, cover airtight53 for up to two weeks54 The longer you let it sit, the more sour it will be.
To Cook:
Sprinkle flour on top of dough.
Pull out a piece of dough the volume of bread you want.
Generously coating with flour, gently fold it over itself until smooth everywhere except one spot.
After placing the bread with the spot down,55 quickly score the surface of the dough with a razor blade, aiming for around half an inch deep.
Put onto a stone in an oven preheated for around 30 minutes at 350 F56 with a stone and a baking tray57 inside, the tray beneath the stone.
Pour water onto the baking tray.58
Let cook until bottom is hollow when tapped, or properly golden brown.59
Note: I guess you can add extra water whenever, I just don’t because I’m lazy.
If in doubt, a few extra minutes never hurts, and often helps.
Pull out and let cool.
My freshman year of college, I was nicknamed “the bread guy,”60 Now, this was not an unforeseeable outcome. I baked bread almost every day, and ran into my usual problem with baking bread. By the time the bread would be finished cooking, I wouldn’t really want to eat it anymore, since I would’ve been smelling it for the time it took to cook.61
So, I would need to get rid of it somehow. Thankfully, instead of just setting it on fire,62 or otherwise wasting it, I would give it to friends. Of course, sometimes my so called “friends” wouldn’t want to eat the bread I made.
I know! It’s ridiculous to me too. So, I would need to get rid of the bread another way. Generally this meant finding the random people you know that you wouldn’t consider friends63 and offering them some fresh baked bread. Sometimes, I would just walk around campus and hand it out64 to whoever I saw, and sometimes I would just leave it in public spaces near people who volunteered to dispose of it for me. Nonetheless, I made a lot of bread and got known for it.
There was a motive behind getting this nickname. I knew that, since the CS65 department66 was67 growing rapidly, there were many students who might assume I was related to a member of the department. And, I figured being known as “slightly odd person who feeds us edible home made food” was better than being known as “child of very odd, grumpy, and sarcastic person,” if only because I was being described as my own entity in the first.
So, without further ado: my basic bread recipe. It is adapted from this website’s book. I tend to make the dough in a 3 gallon ice cream container from Kilwins, as my family somehow acquired many of them.
Basic Bread Dough: Ingredients:
5 pounds flour
8-9 cups water
2 heaping tablespoons yeast
2 lightly heaping tablespoons kosher salt
To Make Dough:
Add all ingredients together.
Mix until it seems to be one coherent blob of dough.
Cover, but not totally, and let sit at room temperature for a time lasting between: just barely doubled68 or up to 2 weeks.69
The longer you let it sit, the more sour it will be.
To Cook:
Sprinkle flour on top of dough.
Pull out a piece of dough the volume of bread you want.
Generously coating with flour, gently fold it over itself until smooth everywhere except one spot.
Putting that spot down,70 quickly score the surface of the dough with a razor blade, aiming for around half an inch deep.
Put onto a stone in an oven that has been heating for around 30 minutes at 350 F71 with a stone inside, and a baking tray72 beneath it.
Pour water onto the baking tray.
Let cook until bottom is hollow when tapped, or properly golden brown.73
If in doubt, a few extra minutes never hurts, and often helps.
Pull out and let cool.
and lost↩︎
the nickname apparently spread outside of my friendgroup(s), and when I’ve mentioned that I used to bake a lot of bread, I’ve had college friends exclaim “Oh! So you were the bread guy!” and then express displeasure over having missed meeting me until I became boring. (Dear Mom, I apparently was cool)↩︎
I really feel like the past tense of bake should be “boke”↩︎
or a lot of things if I’m being honest↩︎
apparently many people feel the opposite about these sorts of things↩︎
no, despite the fact that I’ve made upwards of 50 gallons of bread (because how else would you measure bread dough?) I still don’t know how long it takes to cook. It led to a problem this summer↩︎
Yay friends!↩︎
and wow it hurts the ego↩︎
I really hope that’s a group of people others have in their mental spaces↩︎
or messaged them↩︎
more often when I made little breads (which are objectively adorable)↩︎
yay for forethought and multiple advantages↩︎
Computer Science↩︎
I really hope I’m using the right nomenclature here, I wouldn’t want another snarky musing written about me↩︎
Best school in Iowa(the best state)!↩︎
is?↩︎
not incorrectly↩︎
foolishly↩︎
yes, one bag of flour. I cook on the principle of “needing more than two tools to measure everything is a sign of poorly scaled recipes”↩︎
depending on humidity and how long you plan to let the bread sit↩︎
or not. It’s yeast, it grows. The more you add the faster it grows. The less, the slower↩︎
wow that’s such a vague measurement. I guess slightly better than “enough” but really, just add enough that the dough tastes right.(Disclaimer: I’m not responsible for injuries resulting in dough consumption). Apparently raw flour is dangerous. But, what’s life without a little danger?↩︎
also your dough will start more sour, which if you want that is good↩︎
should I have said: add all ingredients to container? Eh↩︎
blob is a very technical term↩︎
because buildup of pressure can mean your house being covered in dough. According to many sources, that’s a bad thing↩︎
or not if you’re lazy↩︎
I assume you could go longer, but you know, it’s bread dough, it’s pretty easy to tell when it’s gone bad↩︎
duh↩︎
it makes me feel so cool↩︎
i.e. loaf size, roll size, big loaf size, small loaf size, big roll size... (I’m not the best at knowing the size of things)↩︎
it’s hard to explain but easy to do↩︎
generally on parchment paper↩︎
the most fun part↩︎
no C because I don’t use metric when I bake↩︎
I recommend one you don’t particularly care about↩︎
which is why no to the caring↩︎
if you grab the loaves enough the heat stops hurting↩︎
don’t take that too far and just leave for 3 hours. Once it starts looking browner than gold it’s almost certainly done↩︎
mmm, bread↩︎
the nickname apparently spread outside of my friendgroup(s), and when I’ve mentioned that I used to bake a lot of bread, I’ve had college friends exclaim “Oh! So you were the bread guy!” and then express displeasure over never having met me. (Dear Mom, I have made friends)↩︎
I really feel like this should be “boke”↩︎
apparently many people feel the opposite about these sorts of things↩︎
no, despite the fact that I’ve made upwards of 50 gallons of bread (because how else would you measure bread dough?) I still don’t know how long it takes to cook. It led to a problem this summer↩︎
I really hope that’s a group of people others have in their mental spaces↩︎
or messaged them↩︎
more often when I made little breads (which are objectively adorable)↩︎
Computer Science↩︎
I really hope I’m using the right nomenclature here, I wouldn’t want another snarky musing written about me↩︎
Best school in Iowa(the best state)!↩︎
is?↩︎
not incorrectly↩︎
or not if you’re lazy↩︎
I assume you could go longer, but you know, it’s bread dough, it’s pretty easy to tell when it’s gone bad↩︎
generally on parchment paper↩︎
no C because I don’t use metric when I bake↩︎
I recommend one you don’t particularly care about↩︎
which is why no to the caring↩︎
if you do it enough it stops hurting↩︎
the nickname apparently spread outside of my friendgroup(s) even, and when I’ve mentioned that I used to bake a lot of bread, I’ve had college friends exclaim “Oh! So you were the bread guy!” I promise it’s real↩︎
no, despite the fact that I’ve made upwards of 50 gallons of bread (don’t ask why that’s my measurement) I still don’t know how long it takes to cook. It led to a problem this summer↩︎
which happened once, and was a complete accident↩︎
I really hope that’s a group of people others have in their mental spaces↩︎
more often when I made little breads (which are objectively adorable)↩︎
Computer Science↩︎
I really hope I’m using the right nomenclature here, I wouldn’t want another snarky musing written about me↩︎
is?↩︎
approx. 4-8 hours↩︎
don’t ask how I know↩︎
generally on parchment paper↩︎
no C because I don’t use metric when I bake↩︎
I recommend one you don’t particularly care about↩︎
if you do it enough it stops hurting↩︎
There are some recipes I make mostly as an excuse to make others. Among those is toffee. Nowadays, I mostly1 make toffee when I’m making chocolate toffee cookies.2 This is not a recipe for the cookies,3 but only for the toffee.
Now, you may notice the preface of “nowadays” for how I make toffee lately. At first, I made toffee for its own sake. The first time I made it, I made it for one of my older brother’s friends. What follows is the fruit of my painstaking4 trials into making toffee.
Ingredients:
1/2 cup salted butter
1/2 white granulated sugar
1 dash vanilla
Directions:
Put butter in large sauce pan (at least 6x the volume of the butter) over low heat.
When butter is mostly melted, add sugar and vanilla, and mix until well incorporated.
While cooking, it should expand to a much larger size. When it does so, continue stirring until it reaches hard crack,5 or, once you’ve made it a few times, until the aroma and color is correct.
Pour into a well greased sheet pan
Let cool until solid.
Break into pieces.
Serve however you intend to.
When I was younger, one of the first recipes I taught myself6 was toffee. Now, this was not an unprompted decision. A friend of my brother remarked on the expense of it, and after looking at the price, I thought it unreasonable, given how simple the recipe is. And, after much experimentation with other recipes, I’ve found one that works for me. Here it is:
1/2 cup salted butter
1/2 white granulated sugar
1 dash vanilla
Put butter in pan over low heat.
When butter is mostly melted, add sugar and vanilla.
Cook, stirring occasionally until it begins to grow in size.
Continue cooking until when you drop a little into a glass of room temperature water, it cools to a hard, crunchy ball,7 then pour onto a greased sheet pan.
Let cool until solid.
Break into pieces.
When I was a young lad,8 I learned how to make toffee. Now, this was not an unprompted decision. One of my brother’s friends really liked toffee, and I learned this when I received an email from a candy company.9 He asked me how much it would cost to purchase some, and I thought the price looked ridiculous. When I looked up the recipe, it seemed simple enough to make. And, it is!10 So, a recipe for Toffee:
1/2 cup salted butter
1/2 white granulated sugar
1 dash vanilla
Put butter in pan over low heat.
When butter is mostly melted, add sugar and vanilla.
Cook, stirring occasionally until it begins to grow in size.
Continue cooking until the correct color, then pour onto a greased sheet pan.
Let cool until solid.
Break into pieces.
read: exclusively↩︎
because sometimes I’ll start making toffee and realize what I’ve done. The only solution is cookies.↩︎
but one is probably forthcoming↩︎
read: really delicious↩︎
Wikipedia suggests that means 295-309 F, or 146-154 C. If you drop it into a glass of water, it should form hard balls or threads that snap, rather than bending.↩︎
as opposed to being shown↩︎
hard crack↩︎
my father took me into the city↩︎
I never know how much background information to give, but this feels like the wrong amount↩︎
Yay!↩︎
I couldn’t think of anything to write today. But, I was listening to a lot of music today, so I thought I’d try to make a mixtape. The theme is inspiration, specifically academic inspiration.
Front Side:
Anthem by Harry Chapin
Anything I’m Not by Lenka
Corner of the Sky from the Pippin (New Broadway Cast Recording)
Country Dreams by Harry Chapin
Cover of the Rolling Stone by Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show
Dammit Janet by the Rocky Horror Cast
Dancing Queen by ABBA
Don’t Stop Believing by Journey
Back Side:
Grey Seal by Elton John
A Hard Day’s Night by the Beatles
Heartbeat (It’s a Love Beat) by the DeFranco Family
How Far I’ll Go from Moana
It’s Still Rock And Roll To Me by Billy Joel
Kelly the Boy from Killane by the High Kings
Livin’ On A Prayer by Bon Jovi
Long Goodbye by the Nadas
Mo Ghile Mear by Celtic Thunder
Explanation: Like Chapin’s protagonist, who’s “looking for an anthem”, I start by searching for motivation to start a paper. But, within seconds of writing a paper, I realize that it’s hard to be “Anything I’m Not”, and I’m hoinh to procrastinate. I’ll go find my “Corner of the Sky” to hang out at until I have the motivation to work. While in the “Country(,) Dreams” of avoiding responsibility come into my head. But, if I want to make it “On the Cover of the Rolling Stone”, I’ll need to get to work, and “Dammit Janet”1 I can’t think of anything. I just want to be “Dancing (to) Queen”, not writing this paper. But I know that if I “Don’t stop Believing” and write this paper, I might have time to go out.
I can’t really work “Grey Seal” in here, but it’s a good next song. As I look at the clock, unsure of whether the 6 is an AM or PM, I realize it’s been “A Hard Day’s Night”. And, as the deadline approaches, our heart may start pumping out of control. But, if we remember that “Heartbeat (It’s a Love Beat)” you can tell yourself that it’s not panic, it’s love of the topic.
As the paper continues, I often wonder “How Far I’ll Go” in trying to finish the paper. What’s the tenuous connection I hope the professor won’t latch on to.
Each paper and assignment is still somehow different from the one before. But, as Billy Joel points out, “It’s Still Rock And Roll To Me”. Every work is different, but the same in principle.
“Kelly the Boy from Killane” is just a bop.
As I’ve mentioned a lot so far, as a deadline draws near, students often feel nervous, like they’re “Living On A Prayer”. And, as we look at the work we have left in the semester, and the time left to do it, we may have to say a “Long Goodbye” to our friends until the work we all have is resolved.
But, we have hope that we’ll make it through. “Mo Ghile Mear” is a song of hope, so it seems fitting to end the list.
As I’ve mentioned in many other posts, I like music. So, I decided that I would make a mix tape today. Cassette tapes apparently hold 60-90 minutes of music, so that seems like a good length to shoot for. I’ll assume 30 minutes per side, since I’m feeling unambitious.
Next I need a theme. I think today’s theme will be inspiration. It’s the point in the semester where it seems that inspiration is needed.2 Of course, inspiration comes in a variety of places. So, I’ll start with “Anthem” by Harry Chapin.3 I’ll follow it with Lenka’s “Anything I’m Not”.4 5 Next is “Corner of the Sky” from the Pippin (New Broadway Cast Recording) 6 Following that will be “Country Dreams” by Harry Chapin.7,8 Next: “Cover of the Rolling Stone” by Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show.9 After this: “Dammit Janet” by the Rocky Horror Cast.10 Of course, I would be remiss if I didn’t throw some ABBA in, so next is Dancing Queen.11,12 Continuing the theme of powerpop from older generations’ childhoods, “Don’t Stop Believing” by Journey.13
Backside: “Grey Seal” by Elton John.14 It was so tempting to put another Harry Chapin song here,15 but instead, “A Hard Day’s Night” by the Beatles.16 And: “Heartbeat (It’s a Love Beat)” by the DeFranco Family.17 Following that, “How Far I’ll Go” from Moana.18 Next: since I realize I’m missing Billy Joel, “It’s Still Rock And Roll To Me”.19 “Kelly The Boy from Killane” as performed by the High Kings follows this.20 Returning to nostalgia I have no right to have, “Livin’ On A Prayer” by Bon Jovi.21 And, following that, a song by an Iowa group,footnoteyay! “Long Goodbye” by the Nadas.22 Finishing off the playlist, “Mo Ghile Mear” as performed by Celtic Thunder.23
Time to give the playlist a24 listen, then revise/add comments. To begin: I started with Harry Chapin’s “Anthem,” because it has a strong driving beat, which helps focus, and it has lyrics that I appreciate. Also, the background instrumentation feels much sparser than most of his songs, which I appreciate.
Anything I’m Not follows, as it too has a strong pulse. Unlike Chapin, Lenka has25 a much more cheerful outlook. The song ends with an idea of escaping, and becoming free, which fits in so well with the next song.
Corner of the Sky is my favorite Pippin song, and one of my favorite musical theatre songs. Like many graduates of my high school, I have fond memories of watching our choir director sing this song at our senior choir concert. The song helps keep me focused when I really need to get work done.26 It speaks about finding where you belong, which the next Chapin song, “Country Dreams” does as well.
Unlike in the Pippin song, Chapin fully accepts that he’s given up on his dreams. But, he’s accepted that, and still keeps on trucking. Especially as deadlines approach, knowing that you’ve got something, even if it’s not what you want, is all you can sometimes ask for.
But, we still dream big, and so to do Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show’s in “Cover of the Rolling Stone”. Of course, once you’re at the top, there’s always something that can go wrong. A car could break down outside of a house, and you might need to go into a creepy house to get your way back to civilization.
Of course, that’s nonsense, but “Dammit Janet” from Rocky Horror Picture Show has the strong beat that we appreciated in the first songs, and speaks of Brad’s27 goal to achieve.
Next, “Dancing Queen” by ABBA starts with the line that students dream of during studies.28 After 20 minutes of concentration, I need something to lighten my spirits.
Of course, the next song, “Don’t Stop Believing” speaks to me every time I know I don’t have enough time to finish an assignment. Somehow, I’ll make it through. And there ends the front side.
In the time it takes me to switch our metaphorical cassette tape over,29 I need a quick and lively introduction. Elton John’s “Grey Seal” gives that to me. Then, since homework is still continuing, “A Hard Day’s Night” goes through my head when I’ve been inside a building working on an assignment, and am not sure which 6 the clock is pointing to.30 And, as the deadline approaches, our heart may start pumping out of control. But, if we remember that “Heartbeat (It’s a Love Beat)” you can tell yourself that it’s not panic, it’s love of the topic.
As the paper continues, I often wonder “How Far I’ll Go” in trying to finish the paper. What’s the tenuous connection I hope the professor won’t latch on to.
Each paper and assignment is still somehow different from the one before. But, as Billy Joel points out, “It’s Still Rock And Roll To Me”. Every work is different, but the same in principle.
There’s nothing special about “Kelly the Boy from Killane”, it’s just a motivational song.
As I’ve mentioned a lot so far, as a deadline draws near, students often feel nervous, like they’re “Living On A Prayer”. And, as we look at the work we have left in the semester, and the time left to do it, we may have to say a “Long Goodbye” to our friends until the work we all have is resolved. And, like any good playlist, it ends with hope. Specifically, hope that someone will come set us free. Here, “Mo Ghile Mear” stands in nicely.
for the purpose of this essay, assume I have a muse whose name is Janet↩︎
at least to me↩︎
3:56↩︎
3:18. Total time: 7:14↩︎
and apparently this mixtape will be in alphabetical order↩︎
2:57. Total time: 10:11↩︎
sorry, this may be a Chapin heavy playlist. I’ve been listening to a lot of him lately, so it’s on my mind↩︎
4:48. Total time: 14:59↩︎
2:54. Total time: 17:53↩︎
2:47. Total time: 20:40↩︎
one of the songs that I listened to for the 15:30 of continuous CPR I was to do↩︎
3:51. Total time: 24:31↩︎
4:09. Total time: 28:40↩︎
4:01↩︎
bonus points to whoever knows what song it is↩︎
2:33. Total time: 6:34↩︎
3:10. Total time: 9:44↩︎
2:43. Total time: 12:27↩︎
2:57. Total time: 15:24↩︎
3:29. Total time: 18:53↩︎
4:11. Total time: 23:07↩︎
3:06. Total time: 26:13↩︎
2:55. Total time: 29:08↩︎
minimal↩︎
to me↩︎
the alleged point of this tape↩︎
and later Janet’s↩︎
Friday night and the lights are low/looking out for a place to go/where they play the rock music↩︎
since I don’t know where I would find, make, and play a real cassette tape↩︎
if my mother is reading this, I always go to sleep promptly at 10:00 pm and wake at 8:00 am↩︎
Today, I had the great pleasure of seeing Wicked on stage. It was, as you might expect, absolutely fantastic. The stage was beautiful. The lighting was sublime.
Today, as you might have noticed, is Thursday.1 On Thursdays,2 I’ve kept meaning to go to a Baptist Church somewhere in London, but haven’t for a variety of reasons.
So, there’s a reason for me to be at the Baptist Church, and it isn’t that I’ve had a sudden change of faith. Instead, there’s an Irish Bagpiping group that meets there every Thursday night. They’re an Irish Bagpiping group in the sense that they play the Irish Bagpipes,3 not the “normal” Scottish Pipes.4 Uilleann Pipes are objectively better as an instrument in many regards. So, I’ve been excited to try them, but haven’t yet.
The first week I was here, they didn’t meet, as it was Summer vacation in London. The second was the same. Last week, I was locked out of my dorm, so needed to find a way back into it.5 And this week, some members of the group decided to do a movie night, so I attended that instead.6 Maybe next week?
Prereading note: while writing a different post,1 I ended up needing to deeply nest some statements. I realized2 that I had spent around equal time setting up the prereading note to actually writing the post, so I decided to just turn the note into its own post. As a result, that’s Draft 0. Also, since I needed to make sure my3 footnotes parsed, I relabeled Draft 2 as 2/3, since it’s unclear which is the correct term.4 Draft 4 remains as such.
Like many bad authors,5 I rely a lot on gimmicks.6 Also like bad authors,7 I blatantly stole my gimmick from someone else.8 If it isn’t clear from the eight9 footnotes I’ve already used, my gimmick is footnotes, and nested ones in particular. As I mentioned in a previous post,10 I can’t have nested footnotes.11 Instead, I12 use nested sets of punctuation.13 So, when I had a chance to expand the list of nested parentheticals14 I use, I was happy.15 So, my list of nesting symbols16 now goes: footnotes,17 parentheses,18 square brackets,19 then angle brackets.20 Unfortunately, after that, there are no more brackets21 that I can find,22 so23 I used short and long dashes,24 then two asterisks25 when I needed26 to go one layer deeper in my nesting.27 I don’t28 like the way that they look,29 so I hope I don’t need to nest my footnotes more than five30 layers deep.31 And, as I read through this draft,32 I did find that the different punctuation helped me to parse the statements slightly more easily. However, long and short dashes don’t quite look different enough for me to parse at first glance, so it’s a good thing I33 won’t need to use them often. Anyways, the 86 footnotes34 of the piece contain a total35 of 1415 words within its footnotes. That’s nearly 70% of the entirety of the words written.36 Whoops.
Like many bad authors,37 I rely a lot on gimmicks.38 Also like bad authors,39 I blatantly stole my gimmick from someone else.40 If it isn’t clear from the six41 footnotes I’ve already used, my gimmick is footnotes, and nested ones in particular. As I mentioned in a previous post,42 I can’t have nested footnotes.43 Instead, I44 use nested sets of punctuation.45 So, when I had a chance to expand the list of nested parentheticals46 I use, I was happy.47 So, my list of nesting symbols48 now goes: footnotes,49 parentheses,50 square brackets,51 then angle brackets.52 Unfortunately, after that, there are no more brackets53 that I can find,54 so55 I used two asterisks56 when I needed57 to go one layer deeper in my nesting.58,59 I don’t60 like the way that they look,61 so I hope I don’t need to nest my footnotes more than three62 layers deep.63 And, as I read through this draft,64 I did find that the different punctuation helped me to parse the statements slightly more easily.
Like many bad authors,65 I rely a lot on gimmicks. Also like bad authors,66 I copy my gimmick from someone else.67 So, when I had a chance to expand the list of nested parentheticals68 I need, I was happy.69 So, my list of nesting70 now goes: footnotes,71 parentheses,72 square brackets,73 then angle brackets.74 Unfortunately, after that, there are no more brackets75 that I can find,76 so77 I switched to using two asterisks.78 I don’t really like the way that they look,79 so I hope I don’t need to nest my footnotes more than three80 deep.
Prereading note: Yay! I finally used more nesting.81 It now goes: Footnote,82 parentheses,83 square brackets,84 then angle brackets.85 Unfortunately, after that, there are no more brackets that I can find.86
which will be posted (and rewritten) next time that the situation is valid↩︎
about ten minutes in↩︎
nested↩︎
and I already have far too many footnotes↩︎
and hopefully some competent (since that’s a bar I’m not sure I would consider this post at) authors (writers?)↩︎
or at least one gimmick↩︎
as the title suggests, my father’s “Daily Musings”↩︎
nine including this (assuming no more drafts)↩︎
no, I have no internal consistency for which words are hyperlinked. In all honesty, it’s what feels right as I type the command↩︎
i.e. a footnote that has a footnote as its referent (the thing that sends you to the note [I think?]) or its reference (the thing you get sent to [or switch this explanation with the one above, if needed])↩︎
as mentioned in the linked post↩︎
which before today was limited to ([])↩︎
which isn’t really the right term, because I use more than parentheses↩︎
yes, the nesting of strings (references? I’m not really sure what the right word is here) is actually something I feel joy about↩︎
since I find a string of parentheses in in succession hard to read (like the example here(see (if not do you see yet?) how hard it gets?)(hopefully) demonstrates), but different shapes in succession (like this [or this]) easier (still not always easy though) to read↩︎
Like this! (ooh meta)↩︎
seen in the footnote above’s “ooh meta,” or in most of the prior (or the following [with some exceptions]) footnotes↩︎
I think they’re called square brackets (although they aren’t square [unless by square we mean Merriam Webster’s first definition <which, oddly, refers to the tool, not the shape>])↩︎
which makes no sense as a name (since all brackets have angles [other than parentheses I guess <although it could be argued that they just have a lot of angles -but that feels like needless pedantry –although I guess all pedantry is supposed to be needless **because of the word “excessive”**– that I don’t know enough math for->, but they’re not too important <unless you actually follow the convention of parentheticals -but not the convention of avoiding their usage->]. Wikipedia calls them “pointy brackets”[which is kind of funny], so maybe I should too) in my opinion↩︎
that I know (or at least strongly believe) are supported on the platforms I write and publish my work (if you can call it that)↩︎
maybe there’s a reason for that↩︎
as you might have seen↩︎
I know one of them is an “em dash,” but I’m not sure which↩︎
astereces? Given that it comes from Latin asteriscus, maybe not. CS people allegedly call them stars, which is much easier↩︎
read: wanted↩︎
if I were a bird, I would be so warm↩︎
didn’t, and likely will not↩︎
mostly because I feel like two asterisks feel less like a divider and more like two arbitrary characters↩︎
not including the footnote itself↩︎
wow five feels so much more freeing than three↩︎
hopefully↩︎
that number was changed at the very end of the (writing of the) piece to reflect reality, and does not include nestings↩︎
as above↩︎
ibid↩︎
and hopefully some competent (since that’s a bar I’m not sure I would consider this post at) authors (writers?)↩︎
or at least one gimmick↩︎
as the title suggests, my father’s “Daily Musings”↩︎
seven including this (assuming no more drafts[which was wrong])↩︎
no, I have no internal consistency for which words are hyperlinked. In all honesty, it’s what feels right as I type the command↩︎
i.e. a footnote that has a footnote as its referent (the thing that sends you to the note [I think?]) or its reference (the thing you get sent to [or switch this explanation with the one above, if needed])↩︎
as mentioned in the linked post↩︎
which before today was limited to ([])↩︎
which isn’t really the right term, because I use more than parentheses↩︎
yes, the nesting of strings (references? I’m not really sure what the right word is here) is actually something I feel joy about↩︎
since I find a string of parentheses in in succession hard to read (like the example here(see (if not do you see yet?) how hard it gets?)(hopefully) demonstrates), but different shapes in succession (like this [or this]) easier (still not always easy though) to read↩︎
Like this! (ooh meta)↩︎
seen in the footnote above’s “ooh meta,” or in most of the prior (or the following [with some exceptions]) footnotes↩︎
I think they’re called square brackets (although they aren’t square [unless by square we mean Merriam Webster’s first definition <which, oddly, refers to the tool, not the shape>])↩︎
which makes no sense as a name (since all brackets have angles [other than parentheses I guess <although it could be argued that they just have a lot of angles **but that feels like needless pedantry**>, but they’re not too important <unless you actually follow the convention of parentheticals **but not the convention of avoiding their usage**>]. Wikipedia calls them “pointy brackets”[which is kind of funny], so maybe I should too) in my opinion↩︎
that I know (or at least strongly believe) are supported on the platforms I write and publish my work (if you can call it that)↩︎
maybe there’s a reason for that↩︎
as you might have seen↩︎
astereces? Given that it comes from Latin asteriscus, maybe not. CS people allegedly call them stars, which is much easier↩︎
read: wanted↩︎
if I were a bird, I would be so warm↩︎
and no, I will not use em dashes, since I still don’t know whether ems are the long or short dash (- or –), or how long and short dashes differ. If I ever learn, I may incorporate them (whoops, the draft above disproves this)↩︎
didn’t, and likely will not↩︎
mostly because I feel like two asterisks feel less like a divider and more like two arbitrary characters↩︎
not including the footnote itself↩︎
or I can learn to use dashes and em dashes (ooh I could use both of those to get two more layers free [shoot I’m writing another draft])↩︎
and hopefully some good ones↩︎
as the title suggests, my father’s “Daily Musings”↩︎
which isn’t really the right term, because I use more than parentheses↩︎
yes, that is actually something I feel joy about↩︎
since I find a string of parentheses in order hard to read, but different shapes (like this [or this]) easier to read↩︎
Like this! (ooh meta)↩︎
seen in the footnote above “ooh meta,” or in most of the prior footnotes (or the following [with some exceptions])↩︎
I think they’re called square brackets (although they aren’t square [unless by square we mean Merriam Webster’s first definition <which, oddly, refers to the tool, not the shape>])↩︎
which makes no sense as a name (since all brackets have angles [other than parentheses I guess <although it could be argued that they just have a lot of angles **but that feels like needless pedantry**> but they’re not too important]. Wikipedia calls them “pointy brackets”[which is kind of funny] so maybe I should too) in my opinion↩︎
that I know (or at least strongly believe) are supported on the platforms I write and publish my work (if you can call it that)↩︎
maybe there’s a reason for that↩︎
as you might have seen↩︎
astereces? Given that it comes from Latin asteriscus, maybe not. CS people allegedly call them stars, which is much easier↩︎
mostly because it feels less like a divider, and more of just two random characters↩︎
not including the footnote itself↩︎
yes, that is actually something I feel joy about↩︎
like this! (ooh meta)↩︎
like the footnote above’s line “ooh meta,” (or like this [or any of the following explanatory footnotes])↩︎
I think they’re called square brackets (although, they aren’t square [unless by square we mean Merriam Webster’s first definition <which, oddly, refers to the tool, not the shape>])↩︎
which makes no sense as a name (since all brackets have angles [other than parentheses I guess <although it could be argued that they just have a lot of angles> but they’re not too important]. Wikipedia calls them “pointy brackets”[which is kind of funny] so maybe I should too)↩︎
maybe there’s a reason for that↩︎
Prereading note: this post was written as an assignment, so drafts 4-61 lack much of my snark and2 will read much more like an academic essay. In the final draft, I hope to have restored some of the charm3 that I tend to have in my writings.
Diaries today are becoming more and more of a digital phenomenon. That is, people are deciding to record their thoughts on computers, rather than paper. This transition from analog to digital is not wholly uncontroversial.
Many people have a distrust of digital diary keeping. However, their objections almost always orient around the alleged fragility of digital diaries.
For those unfamiliar with the Internet, online storage can seem horribly fragile. Unlike a bound book, which can last indefinitely,4 digital diaries require constant upkeep. If written in a word processor, a blog5 post could become unreadable if the file format becomes obsolete or unused.6 But, most blogs are, as the name suggests, hosted on the Internet.
A second concern is that posts on the web may be pulled down or somehow become unavailable.7 The fact that two different agencies,8 both make constant backups of the Internet is seen as a lackluster response.9 And, unlike physical diaries, anyone can access any blog from anywhere and anytime, which frees the researcher from needing the funds to go to the specific library where a diary is held, or find a way to have a copy made. The copies are automatically made to every computer accessing the site.
Since these backups exist so widely, it is far less likely that we will undergo a similar loss to the burning of the Library of Alexandria or the burning of the linguistic library in Brazil.10 Had the files in the library been digital, they would have been hosted in a different site from the physical artifacts, preventing that horrible loss of knowledge.
That tragedy calls out the most important problem with preferring physical media over digital media. Yes, you can duplicate a physical document. If you don’t care about the exactness of the replicated document,11 it is a fairly trivial process12 to transcribe a backup.13 But, as the recent burning of the Brazilian library shows, even vitally important documents aren’t always backed up.14 The Internet, however, backs up everything.
And to me, the heart of digital diary and the Internet is reflected by this fact: neither promises permanence, only equality. Every work hosted on Wordpress, for instance, is equally likely to be there in fifty year’s time.15 The famous and forgotten will both exist in perpetuity. Therefore, to me, the arguments against online diaries, especially now, some 20 years after the first published arguments, are nothing except baseless fear of the future.
Diaries are becoming a digital phenomenon. That is, people are deciding to record their thoughts on computers, rather than paper. This transition from analog to digital is not wholly uncontroversial.
Many people have a distrust of digital diary keeping. However, their objections almost always orient around the alleged fragility of digital diaries.16
For those unfamiliar with the Internet, online storage can seem horribly fragile. Unlike a bound book, which can last indefinitely, digital diaries require constant upkeep. If written in a word processor, a blog17 post could become unreadable if the file format becomes obsolete or unused. But, most blogs are, as the name suggests, hosted on the Internet.
A second concern is that posts on the web may be pulled down or somehow become unavailable. The fact that two different agencies,18 both make constant backups of the Internet is seen as a lackluster response. O’Sullivan complains that “the Wayback Machine does not have word or subject search capabilities,”19, which would hold merit if not for the fact that physical diaries and libraries also lack subject search without the work of dedicated stewards. Additionally, blogs all have word search capabilities, as modern browsers contain that feature. And, unlike physical diaries, anyone can access any blog from anywhere and anytime, which frees the researcher from needing the funds to go to the specific library where a diary is held, or find a way to have a copy made. The copies are automatically made to every computer accessing the site.
Since these backups exist so widely, it is far less likely that we will undergo a similar loss to the burning of the Library of Alexandria or the burning of the linguistic library in Brazil.20 Had the files in the library been digital, they would have been hosted in a different site from the physical artifacts, preventing that horrible loss of knowledge.
That tragedy calls out the most important problem with preferring physical media over digital media. Yes, you can duplicate a physical document. If you don’t care about the exactness of the replicated document, it is a fairly trivial process to transcribe a backup. But, as the recent burning of the Brazilian library shows, even vitally important documents aren’t always backed up. The Internet, however, backs up everything.
And to me, the heart of digital diary and the Internet is reflected by this fact: they don’t promise permanence, only equality. Every work hosted on Wordpress, for instance, is equally likely to be there in fifty year’s time. The famous and forgotten will both exist in perpetuity. Therefore, to me, the arguments against online diaries, especially 15 years after the publishing of O’Sullivan’s article, are nothing except baseless fear of the future.
Diaries today are becoming more of a digital phenomenon. That is, more and more people decide to record their thoughts on digital displays, rather than analog records. However, this transition from analog to digital is not wholly uncontroversial.
Many people have a distrust of digital diary keeping. But, examination of these objections tends to show that they are rooted in either classism or appeals to tradition. They almost always find themselves orienting around the alleged fragility of digital diaries.21
And, for those unfamiliar with the Internet, online storage can seem horribly fragile. Unlike a bound book, which can last indefinitely, digital diaries require constant upkeep. If written in a word processor a blog22 post could plausibly become unreadable if the file format becomes obsolete or unused. But, most blogs are, as the name suggests, hosted on the Internet.
A second concern is that posts on the web may be pulled down or somehow also become unavailable. The fact that the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine23 or Google’s own caching system both make constant backups is seen as lackluster. O’Sullivan complains that “the Wayback Machine does not have word or subject search capabilities,”24, which would hold merit if not for the fact that physical diaries and libraries also lack subject search without the work of dedicated stewards.. Additionally, digital diaries all have word search capabilities, as modern browsers all contain that feature. And, unlike physical diaries, anyone can access any blog from anywhere and anytime, which frees the researcher from needing the funds to go to the specific library where a diary is held, or find a way to have a copy made.
Thirdly, since these backups are spread over many different servers, it is far less likely that we will undergo a similar loss to the burning of the Library of Alexandria or even the very recent burning of the linguistic library in Brazil.25 Had the files in the library been digital, they could have been more easily duplicated, and would have been hosted in a different site from the physical artifacts, preventing that horrible loss of knowledge.
That tragedy calls out the most important problem with preferring physical media over digital media. Yes, you can duplicate a physical document. If you don’t care about the exactness of the replicated document, it is a fairly trivial process to transcribe a backup. But, as the recent burning of the Brazilian library shows, even vitally important documents aren’t always backed up.
The Internet, however, backs up everything. Yes, we may not have a guarantee that this generation’s Beowulf will survive if not printed. However, even many of the manuscripts from that time are still gone.
And to me, the heart of digital diary and the Internet is reflected by this: they don’t promise permanence, only equality. Every work hosted on Wordpress, for instance, is just as likely to be there in fifty year’s time. The famous and forgotten will both exist in perpetuity. Therefore, to me, the arguments against online diaries, especially 15 years after the publishing of O’Sullivan’s article, are nothing except baseless fear of the future.
Diaries, like many written records, are becoming more and more of a digital phenomenon. That is, more and more people decide to record their thoughts on digital displays, rather than analog records. And, like the other forms becoming digital, the transition from analog to digital is not wholly uncontroversial.
For many reasons, people have a distrust of digital diary keeping. But, even a mild examination of most of these objections shows that they are deeply rooted in either classist thoughts or appeals to tradition. They almost always find themselves orienting around the alleged fragility of digital diaries, regardless of the factuality of these claims.26
For those unfamiliar with the Internet, online storage can seem horribly fragile. Unlike a bound book, which can last indefinitely, digital diaries require constant upkeep. If written in a word processor, for instance, a blog27 post could plausibly become unreadable if the file format becomes obsolete or unused. However, since nearly old computers are still functional, and old operating systems are constantly being ported to new machines, it is unlikely that we will ever have files that we truly cannot open. They may be difficult to interpret, but no more so than damaged manuscripts.
A second concern is that posts on the web may be pulled down or somehow also become unavailable. The obvious rebuttal to this statement, namely the Internet Archive28 or Google’s own caching system is seen as lackluster. O’Sullivan complains that “the Wayback Machine (the Internet Archive) does not have word or subject search capabilities.”footnoteDiaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan p.71 That argument would hold merit if not for the fact that physical diaries lack search capabilities, and libraries holding them do as well. What searching methods are available come only when dedicated people add them.
However, the lack of searching capabilities is never seen as a flaw in traditional diaries. Unlike physical diaries, anyone can access any blog from anywhere and anytime, which frees the researcher from needing the funds to go to the specific library where a diary is held, or find a way to have a copy made. They can also search, since every modern web browser has search and find capabilities.
Additionally, since these files are spread over many different servers, it is far less likely that we will undergo a similar loss to the burning of the Library of Alexandria or even the very recent burning of the linguistic library in Brazil.29 Had the files in the library been digital, they could have been more easily duplicated, and would have been hosted in a different site from the physical artifacts, preventing that horrible loss of knowledge.
That tragedy leads to the third problem with preferring physical media over digital media. Yes, you can duplicate a physical document. If you don’t care about the exactness of the replicated document, it is a fairly trivial process to transcribe a backup. But, as the recent burning of the Brazilian library shows, even vitally important documents aren’t always backed up. What guarantee does a random, insignificant citizen of the world have that anything they write will ever be relevant to historians?
The most honest answer is that they don’t. Most likely nothing any given blogger has to say won’t be relevant. Nonetheless, the Internet protects and safeguards it. Yes, it is true that we may not have a guarantee that this generation’s Beowulf will survive if not printed. However, even many of the manuscripts from that time are still gone. The Internet makes it more likely that the unimportant words will live on.
And to me, that truly is the heart of digital diary keeping, and by extension, the internet. They doesn’t promise permanence, only equality. Every work hosted on Wordpress, for instance, is just as likely to be there in fifty year’s time.30 The famous and forgotten will both exist in perpetuity. Therefore, to me, the arguments against online diaries, especially 15 years after the publishing of O’Sullivan’s article, are nothing except baseless fear of the future.
Diaries, like many written records, are becoming more and more of a digital phenomenon. That is, more and more people31 are turning, not to their notebooks, but to their keyboards when they decide to put to paper32 what’s in their mind. And, like these other records, the transition from analog to digital is not wholly uncontroversial.
For many reasons, people have a distrust of digital diary keeping. But, even a mild examination of most of these objections shows that they are deeply rooted in either classist thoughts or appeals to tradition. They almost always find themselves orienting around the alleged fragility of digital diaries, regardless of the factuality of these claims.33
For those unfamiliar with the Internet,34 online storage can seem horribly fragile. Unlike a bound book, which can last indefinitely,35 digital diaries require constant upkeep. If written in a word processor, for instance,36 a blog37 post could plausibly become unreadable if the file format becomes obsolete or unused. However, since every currently obsolete file storage38 currently has an interpreter, it is unlikely that we will ever have files that we truly cannot open. They may be difficult to interpret, but no more so than damaged manuscripts.
A second concern is that posts on the web may be pulled down or somehow also become unavailable.39 The obvious rebuttal to this statement, namely the Internet Archive40 or Google’s own caching system is seen as lackluster. O’Sullivan complains that “the Wayback Machine (the Internet Archive) does not have word or subject search capabilities.”41 That argument would hold merit if not for the fact that physical diaries lack search capabilities, and libraries holding them do as well. What searching methods are available come only when dedicated people add them. Regardless of the search capabilities, the files42 still exist. Unlike the physical diaries, however, we can access43 any blog from anywhere and anytime,44 which frees the researcher from needing the funds to go to the specific library where a diary is held, or find a way to have a copy made.
Additionally, since these files are spread over many different servers, it is far less likely that we will undergo a similar loss to the burning of the Library of Alexandria45 or even the very recent burning of the linguistic library in South America.46 Had the files been digital, they could have been more easily duplicated, and would have been hosted in a different site from the physical artifacts.47
That leads to the third problem with preferring physical media over digital media. Yes, you can duplicate a physical document. If you don’t care about the exactness of the replicated document,48 it is a fairly trivial process to transcribe a backup.49 But, as the recent burning of the Brazilian library shows, even vitally important documents aren’t always backed up. What guarantee does a random, insignificant citizen of the world have that anything they write will ever be relevant to historians?
The fairest answer is that they don’t. Most likely they won’t be relevant. Nonetheless, the internet protects and safeguards it. Yes, it is true that we may not have a guarantee that this generation’s Beowulf will survive if not printed.50,51 But, we have a much higher chance that any thought of a random individual will be as accessible to future generations as that epic.
And to me, that truly is the heart of digital diary keeping, and by extension, the internet. They doesn’t promise permanence, only equality. Every work hosted on Wordpress is just as likely to be there in fifty year’s time.52 The famous and forgotten will both exist in perpetuity. To me, the arguments against online diaries, especially 15 years after the publishing of O’Sullivan’s article, are nothing except baseless fear of the future.
Diaries, like many written records, are becoming more and more of a digital phenomenon. And, like these other records, the transition is not wholly uncontroversial. For many reasons, people have a distrust of digital diary keeping. However, these objections are almost always classist, unreasonable, or Ludditical. They almost always find themselves orienting around the alleged fragility of digital diaries, regardless of the factuality of these claims.53
For those unfamiliar with the digital world, online storage can seem horribly fragile. Unlike a bound book, which can last indefinitely,54 digital diaries require constant upkeep. If written in a word processor, for instance,55 the blog post may can hypothetically become unreadable if the file format becomes obsolete or unused. However, since every currently obsolete file storage56 currently has an interpreter, it is unlikely that we will ever have files that we truly cannot open.
A second concern is that posts on the web57 may be pulled down or somehow also become unavailable. The simple rebuttal of the Internet Archive58 or Google’s own caching system is seen as lackluster. O’Sullivan complains that “the Wayback Machine does not have word or subject search capabilities.”59 That argument would hold merit if not for the fact that physical diaries lack search capabilities, and libraries holding them do as well. Regardless of the search capabilities, the files still exist. Unlike the physical diaries, we can access all of the blogs from anywhere with an internet connection, which frees the researcher from having to find the funds to go to a library where a diary comes from.
Additionally, since these files are spread over many different servers, it is far less likely that we will undergo a similar loss to the burning of the Library of Alexandria60 or even the very recent burning of the linguistic library in South America.61 Had the files been wholly digital, they could have been more easily duplicated, and would have been hosted in a different site from the physical artifacts.
That leads to the third problem with physical over digital media. Yes, you can duplicate a physical document. If you don’t care about the exact document,62 it is a fairly trivial process to transcribe a backup.63 But, as the recent burning of the library shows, even drastically important documents aren’t always backed up. What guarantee does a random, insignificant citizen of the world have that anything they write will ever be relevant to historians? The short and long answer is they don’t. Most likely they won’t be relevant.
Nonetheless, the internet protects and safeguards it. Yes, we may not have as good of a guarantee of this generation’s Beowulf surviving on parchment if it isn’t printed out.64 But, we have a much higher chance that the random thoughts of a random individual will be as accessible to future generations as that epic.
That truly is the heart of the internet. It doesn’t promise permanence, it promises equality. Every work hosted on wordpress is just as likely to be there in fifty year’s time.65 The famous and forgotten will both exist in perpetuity. And that, along with the different archiving methods, brings to the next point. This is the first time in human history where we can not only see what was written, but pinpoint to the exact second when a piece is written, edited, or deleted. Diary studiers point to the spread of the clock as a phenomenon leading to the rise of the diary and see this as a good change, and yet don’t feel the same way about the rise of digital media. To me, this is, especially 15 years after the publishing of O’Sullivan’s article, nothing except baseless fear of the future.
Diaries, like many written records, are becoming more and more of a digital phenomenon. And, like these other records, the transition is not wholly uncontroversial. For many reasons, people have a distrust of digital diary keeping. However, these objections are almost always classist, unreasonable, or Ludditical. They almost always find themselves orienting around the alleged fragility of digital diaries One common complaint about digital diaries is their alleged fragility.66
For those unfamiliar with the digital world, they can seem horribly fragile. Unlike a bound book, which can last indefinitely,67 digital diaries require constant upkeep. If written in a word processor, for instance,68 the file may become unreadable if the software becomes obsolete or unused. However, almost any old file system has seen some sort of official use, and so interpreters exist. It’s unlikely that we will ever have files that we truly cannot open.
A second concern is that posts on the web69 may be pulled down or somehow also become unavailable. The simple rebuttal of the Internet Archive70 or Google’s own caching system is seen as lackluster. O’Sullivan complains that “the Wayback Machine does not have word or subject search capabilities.”71 That argument would hold merit if not for the fact that physical diaries lack search capabilities, and libraries holding them do as well. Regardless of the search capabilities, the files still exist. It is far less likely that we will undergo a similar loss to the burning of the Library of Alexandria72 or even the very recent burning of the linguistic library in South America.73 Had the files been wholly digital, they could have been more easily duplicated, and would have been likely hosted in a different site from the physical artifacts.
That leads to the third problem with physical over digital media. Yes, you can duplicate a physical document. But, as the recent burning of the library shows, even drastically important documents aren’t always backed up. What guarantee does a random, insignificant citizen of the world have that anything they write will ever be relevant to historians? Even if it isn’t, the internet protects and safeguards it. Yes, we may not have as good of a guarantee of this generation’s Beowulf surviving on parchment. But, we have a much higher chance that the random thoughts of a random individual will be as accessible to future generations as that epic.
That truly is the heart of the internet. It doesn’t promise permanence, it promises equality. Every work hosted on wordpress is just as likely to be there in fifty year’s time.74 And that, along with the different archiving methods, brings to the next point. This is the first time in human history where we can not only see what was written, but pinpoint to the exact second when a piece is written, edited, or deleted. We no longer can question which draft of a manuscript is older.
hopefully↩︎
ibid↩︎
read snark↩︎
barring exposure to fire, water, or neglect, pestilence, degradation of ink, or simply just being lost↩︎
a neologism, short for “web log”↩︎
though MSDos(.? The old operating system emulator) existing does throw some doubt on that idea↩︎
not that diaries are ever burned or otherwise destroyed intentionally↩︎
the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine and Google↩︎
the fact that there is no similar analog equivalent remains unstated↩︎
I.e. the exact material, penmanship, and so on↩︎
though more effort than printing or backing up a digital file↩︎
or, heaven forbid, scan and upload it↩︎
all joking aside, I find it absolutely horrible that some languages are now completely gone from the collective human knowledge↩︎
barring the author deleting it↩︎
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan↩︎
a neologism, short for “web log”↩︎
the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine and Google↩︎
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan p.71↩︎
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan↩︎
a neologism, short for “web log”↩︎
a constantly updating archive of the internet↩︎
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan p.71↩︎
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan↩︎
a neologism, short for “web log”↩︎
a constantly updating archive of the internet↩︎
barring the author destroying it↩︎
especially in younger generations↩︎
that expression may not work as well here↩︎
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan↩︎
shoot, is this a capitalized thing?↩︎
barring exposure to fire, water, or neglect, pestilence, degradation of ink, or simply just being lost↩︎
an unlikely scenario, but one that is mentioned↩︎
a neologism, “shortening web log”↩︎
to the best of my knowledge↩︎
a much more believable scenario↩︎
a constantly updating archive of the internet↩︎
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan p.71↩︎
and physical remnants↩︎
almost↩︎
assuming an internet connection↩︎
if we accept ancient history as real↩︎
/hrefhttps://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2018/09/news-museu-nacional-fire-rio-de-janeiro-natural-history/Seen Here↩︎
given how cheap cloud storage is today↩︎
I.e. the exact material, penmanship, and so on↩︎
or, heaven forbid, scan and upload it to the internet↩︎
though the fact that the Library of Congress is printing out every tweet (for instance) makes this much less likely in my mind↩︎
not to mention the fact that we also don’t have many of the works from that time period, which may have been even better than Beowulf↩︎
barring the author destroying it↩︎
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan↩︎
barring fire, water, neglect, pestilence, degradation of ink, or simply just being lost↩︎
an unlikely scenario, but one that is mentioned↩︎
to the best of my knowledge↩︎
a much more believable scenario↩︎
a constantly updating archive of the internet↩︎
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan p.71↩︎
if we accept ancient history as real↩︎
I.e. the exact material, penmanship, and so on↩︎
or, heaven forbid it, scan it and upload it to the internet↩︎
though the fact that the Library of Congress is printing out every tweet (for instance) makes this much less likely in my mind↩︎
barring the author destroying it↩︎
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and Blogging Bloggers Who Blog Them↩︎
barring fire, water, neglect, pestilence, or degradation of ink↩︎
an unlikely scenario, but one that is mentioned↩︎
a much more believable scenario↩︎
a constantly updating archive of the internet↩︎
Diaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan p.71↩︎
if we accept ancient history as real↩︎
barring the author destroying it↩︎
Tonight I had the pleasure of watching Othello at the Globe Theatre. In a wonderful turn of events, I was a groundling.1 I was right next to the stage, and even leaning on it for the piece of the play after intermission.
Sadly, the set and lighting didn’t blow me away. The lights were fixed and immobile, and the set more or less was as well. What I can comment on, however, was the music.
The show began with natural trumpets,2 which was nice. Come the scene where Cassio becomes drunk, they are replaced with valved trumpets. Before the first intermission, they bring out the cornetti,
In the second act, the cornetti play lamentations as the piece falls to its tragic fate. The ending dance, however, returns with the beautiful jazz trumpeting. Other instruments included a lute during the drunk scene, played masterfully by Iago, drums and other percussion played by instrumentalists, and whistles.
Finally, as is requested by Shakespeare, there is singing. The drunken songs sounded drunk and merry. The whole cast song at the end was sung brilliantly.3 But, the song that struck me hardest was Desdemona and Emilia’s duet of the Willow Tree. They flowed between two part harmony and unisons flawlessly and beautifully. I stood entranced for the first4 time in the show. Nothing existed for me except the two flowing voices and the story they told.
And truly, that’s all that I can ask of a show. There was a moment where time stood still, and I found myself drawn, not into the story or characters, but simply into a place where I feel what the characters feel. Even in professional theatre, those moments can be hard to come by, but the cast brought me nearly to that point time and time again, and to the point in the soulful duet. But, as all good things do,5 it too came to an end.