As an aside related to Bell’s article, Dorothea asks at Caveat Lector, “What am I, chopped liver?”
If she were, that wouldn’t be so bad. I adore chopped liver. I used to make it, before I learned about cholesterol, and no, you can’t make good chopped liver without piles of schmaltz, preferably rendered by hand as a byproduct from home-made chicken stock. Chopped liver… some moist, yeasty caraway rye… a frosty-cold Dr. Brown’s… have mercy.
But if she means her blog is immaterial, no it isn’t. It’s an important blog, not that she needs me to say so. Also, as she points out, Dorothea and I have disagreed from time to time (including GormanGate); she’s an intellectually spirited person, and if we had the exact same opinions on everything we’d be Dolly and Molly the Library Clones, not two smart women. But I suppose XX-chromosome disagreements can be lumped under “bickering.” You know, what broads do.
Posted on this day, other years:
- A tale of two reviewers - 2016
- Help, I've fallen and I can't get up - 2010
- Linko de Mayo - 2008
- ALA Election Results - 2006
- Mena Trott on Blogging - 2005
- ABC Provides List, Video of "The Fallen" - 2004
- ABC Provides "The Fallen" - 2004
Well, hm. I’m actually more interested in what’s causing me to be overlooked than I am in any particular instance of overlookment. (Which is not a word but should be.)
The gender thing may indeed be one reason.
As I suggested in my reaction to McLemee two years back, CavLec’s refusal to focus purely on professional issues may be another. (Which, as I also suggested, may also imply a gender question.)
CavLec’s often-strident tone may be a third, which makes my overlookment and Bell’s niceness argument a beautifully ironic combination.
My newness to the profession may be a fourth, though I don’t find that overly compelling or likely.
Or there may be reasons I haven’t thought of. Got anything? I’m interested.
Most blogs (this one included) are a blend far beyond “purely professional issues.” In AcLand, I can’t imagine that really being an issue… or, wait, maybe it would be. Hmmm… though then, that spins the bottle toward gender issues again (in AcLand you may only speak of X; who decides? We, the ruling patriarchy, decide…).
Regarding your tone, I prefer to think of you as “direct and acerbic” (unless you are disagreeing with me, in which case you are “strident” or even “shrill”) (*ok everyone, that was a feminist joke, get it?*)
Heh. As if there was any doubt you haven’t met me in person. I am a lot of things, but after hearing me once, “shrill” is an impossible characterization. Speaking voice like bullfrog with megaphone. 🙂
Bottle-spinning: eeeeeeeeeeeeexactly. Respectfully suggest you look again at the academic biblioblogosphere, too. Varied-subject blogs really aren’t that common, especially in the upper echelons of readership. (There’s me, there’s you, and there’s… ??? Or maybe I just read the wrong blogs. That could be too.)
Respectfully ask, “upper echelons of readership”? Please clarify, thank you.
Guess I don’t count as a librarian anymore, then. 😛
(Sez me, the gefilte fish of the borderline biblioblogosphere)
Gefilte fish! Oy, how I love gefilte fish (being half-Jewish has its advantages… food culture is one of them). Especially handmade. I absolutely MUST get back to New York this year… I need deli, STAT!
Liz, you know you’re one of us 4Ever. I always laugh when people describe themselves as “former librarians…” as if there were some Ex-Librarian movement out there…
Jennimi: Clumsy way of avoiding “A-list,” which is a phrase I do not like, as it connotes a cliquishness that I don’t think actually exists.