On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 06:15 PM, Ruhlen, Rachel Louise (UMC-Student) wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ken Padgett [mailto:kpadgett1 at cox.net] >> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 4:37 PM >> To: dragaera at dragaera.info >> Subject: Authors and their produce >> >> >> It occurred to me as I was devouring The Paths of the Dead, >> that an Author might be a bit ambivalent about his works >> finally being released. I am sure there must be a feeling of >> great satisfaction, especially, as seems to be the case here, >> when the Readers find the fruits of his labor to be sweet. To >> the left, after the Author has spent some months or years (or >> decades in the case of some Historians)toiling over his >> manuscript, that sweet fruit is consumed in mere hours, >> leaving the Reader with (if I may mix the metaphor) an >> unquenchable thirst for more. How does this delicate calculus >> of satisfaction of a job well done against the thunderous and >> immediate calls for the next work balance in the Author's >> mind? Perhaps if the Author would deign to comment, I would >> cease to wonder and move to, if not knowledge, at least >> cessation of wondering. > > Hrm. I think it's enough I was able to underrstand the above, without > trying to talk in it. I can write scientific papers which is nearly the > same thing. (Nearly, in the sense that Paarfi uses it.) Speaking of > which, I wondered if the publication of a book is similar to the > publication of a scientific paper. It all begins with the experiment. > After much labor, usually involving tearing one's hair out (literally > in > the case of a fellow student of mine who has a habit of twisting her > hair when she's worried, which actually leaves a bald spot), and > shedding tears and blood (as the mice bite you), one finally gets some > exciting data. It is exciting not only in its own right, as it confirms > something previously not known or only suspected, it is all the more > exciting because after months, or even years, of frustrating ambiguous > results and that evil stuff "method development", it is the first (but > hopefully not the last) actual data. All that remains is to write it up > and publish it, right? Wrong. Usually it can't be written up until you > are sure of the results, which means you have to repeat it, and if you > want it published in a *good* journal you also have to repeat it in > different ways, so as to confirm that the finding is not an artifact. I > imagine this is analogous to the revising & polishing of a novel. Then > you can actually write it. Not all the excitement is lost because at > any > point after the initial data, you can begin presenting your data at > meetings, in the form of posters or short seminars. Now I have > something > written and am waiting on just one tiny last bit of data to be > collected > before I can submit the paper. Hopefully the tiny last bit of data will > be what we have every reason to expect it to be, and I won't have to > actually rewrite half the paper, but can slip it in where it belongs. > Then we can submit the paper, it will hopefully be accepted although > not > likely without revisions, and after months sending it in, revising it, > sending it around to all the co-authors for approval, revising it, etc, > it will finally be published. This, by the way, is data I mostly > collected 3 years ago (except for that one bit I'm waiting on). > Oh. That sounds like a rant. Well, I feel better! > Rachel > If I may say so myself, excuse me for speaking completely out of turn, for I am but an ill mannered Teckla from beyond the City, I would enjoy having new vistas opened for inquiry if the Author speaks the fruits of his mind, for I am taken to wonderment and relish any chance to further my skills in this delightful task. --- "We cannot accomplish great things - just little ones, with great love." -Mother Teresa