Comments on: Just because you read it in a book?

By: Barbara

Barbara — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:29:21 +0000

the “Old O’Connor Place”

It was “the Day ranch” — “just over into New Mexico, you’ll see the road, turn right, go a while — there are signs” — which turned out to be no signs naming “Day” but there was a “B” on it’s back (“Lazy B” as Justice O’Connor wrote, as we found out weeks later) found after several stops at quaint retail establishments to figure out where “Day’s ranch” was, then cattle grates and long winding dirt roads……. and then after about 5 miles a sign “turn left for that Arizona State Park where you can pick up fire agates” … then a freak snowstorm while we were in the desert … with residue de cow on the shoes …

Fun. We all got sick. But fun

By: Tozier

Tozier — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:17:46 +0000

Suzie:
Old farts. Mainly.

First step is the rockhounding books: Gem Trails of [State X], for instance, or Rockhounding [State Y] will tell you where the rock shops are, and give some indication of where to stop to talk to people. Then go and talk with the rock shop owners in the nearby small towns. The Mojave apache tears site we got from a book we bought in Las Vegas (of all places). And try small museums (for example, the little old fellow I chatted with in the museum near Safford AZ a few years back, who told us to go to the “Old O’Connor Place” for fire agates). The oldest park rangers—the ones with desk jobs in the interpretive center. Hueston Woods State Park in Ohio is full of rangers who don’t even know about the fossils; you need to ask.

Folks like me, increasingly.

Karen said:

“I want to live for 300 years and DO THIS.”

I’d better get my P2 clearance then, eh?

By: Karen Lofstrom

Karen Lofstrom — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:02:47 +0000

When we have processed enough books and magazines through DP, scholars will be able to do literature by year. Are we doing newspapers? That would help too. Imagine skimming everything published in London in 1872. Number crunching it. Finding patterns and then doing close reading.

I want to live for 300 years and DO THIS.

By: Suzie

Suzie — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:59:25 +0000

Yes, I know that the rock section of your entry was merely a preface to your main point, but please forgive me for getting stuck there…. HOW do you and your wife find out about those places in the first place? Before you ask for the specific directions. What gave you the clue they were there, that sent you down those dusty roads? And how can I find out about such places, too? (Your descriptions sounded fascinating and exciting, so I can presume I’m one of those people who hold similar ideas of what makes an entertaining vacation.)

By: Tozier

Tozier — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 21:32:14 +0000

I think I did in fact mean to say that it's random, as in a random variable. I didn't mean to imply that it's unfathomable. Much as biological selection leaves us thinking of "progress", the literature of the past that gets preserved tends to be thought of as "better" by some objective measure. Maybe a Spencerian one, even. There was a great piece in The Believer a few months back, about Virginius Dabney's lost mad novel Don Miff that I think touched on the same notion: It was a horrible book for 1886. It might've made a big splash in the 1990s, though.

By: Ken Muldrew

Ken Muldrew — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:13:53 +0000

I wonder if you meant to say, “The process of selection is inherently incomprehensible to those not imbedded within the culture that did the selecting”. I mean, they had reasons for their preferences; it’s just that historical contingency can turn on a dime, so to speak, so without an insider’s knowledge of the tastes and fashion of the times, a modern is left without any obvious way to reconstruct those motivations. Granted, we can use the trick of complexification (take a hard problem and make it much, much harder, so that we can solve it) and claim that selection was random, but where’s the satisfaction in that? Surely the whole point is to wonder who those people were.