I've been looking at some of my notes from the archives. In so doing, I've realized that my notes to myself are often cryptic, or in a sort of argot that I can assume might only make partial sense to anyone other than me.
Just as an example: You'll find in the spreadsheets where I keep track of files read, files to be read, descriptions of individual files that are derived from the archives' own finding aids.
There are often files that appear to contain documents on a number of issues, often completely unrelated in any sense other than that they appear to have been on the plate of a particular bureaucracy at the same time. If I see one of these catch-all files in the finding aid, there is no point in copying out its entire title: Either it appears to be of no use, and I move on, or it has one issue among several that seems interesting. However, I like to be able to note that this is one issue among many, so I'm not expecting an entire file and getting, in fact, a few pages within one.
The result are notes that look like this: "f.5, op. 32, d. 75: Dumptruck on ag., incl. corn and regional ag. depts."
Which would make no one but me, and can only be explained as a misquoted homage to the late Ted Stevens.
These are the things I amuse myself with.
No, seriously, I'm not completely insane.
Just as an example: You'll find in the spreadsheets where I keep track of files read, files to be read, descriptions of individual files that are derived from the archives' own finding aids.
There are often files that appear to contain documents on a number of issues, often completely unrelated in any sense other than that they appear to have been on the plate of a particular bureaucracy at the same time. If I see one of these catch-all files in the finding aid, there is no point in copying out its entire title: Either it appears to be of no use, and I move on, or it has one issue among several that seems interesting. However, I like to be able to note that this is one issue among many, so I'm not expecting an entire file and getting, in fact, a few pages within one.
The result are notes that look like this: "f.5, op. 32, d. 75: Dumptruck on ag., incl. corn and regional ag. depts."
Which would make no one but me, and can only be explained as a misquoted homage to the late Ted Stevens.
These are the things I amuse myself with.
No, seriously, I'm not completely insane.
No comments:
Post a Comment