breaking the champagne bottle

I'm not exactly a diary-keeper by nature. I can attest to that by the dozens of abandoned journals and diaries of various quality that I didn't even fill a quarter of the way. And while blogging and keeping a diary aren't exactly the same thing, I'm still wondering if I can keep up a blog any better than I could actually sit still long enough to write even one page in a journal.

Here's to hoping. If all else, here's to a memorial to procrastination.

Anyway, aside from a disclaimer about my utter lack of commitment to anything ever, this blog is kind of a storage place (at least in intention) for writing purposes, storage of all things historical, and a musing platform. If it can fulfill even one of these purposes, I'll actually find it in myself to be proud of it. I write fiction of several stripes, I'm an archaeology student, and I can't keep my head quiet for two minutes. You would think blogging would come naturally to me in this case, but it doesn't. Maybe it will.

I'm going to try to be as unpretentious as possible in this. I've read blogs aplenty that spend about 90% of their time on exposition of a topic, throw out a few thesis buzzwords, and then finally get to the bottom enough to scrape at it. I don't want to be a Snooty McSnotwhine about anything that I write, because admittedly, and not meaning this in a boohoo-poor-me sense, I'm not a master on any particular subject or thing. I like writing because I find it fun. Some topics in history make me happy. I'm a simple creature and if this blog ever becomes something I can return to repeatedly, that's going to become ridiculously clear.

This is, in essence, a totally self indulgent thing. I'm a chatterbox by nature. I infodump like someone's paying me to do it. I'll talk anyone's ear off about something I'm interested in. And in the end, I just really like to write. This might as well be the place to cover all my bases and keep my pleasure centers happy.

So, here's to maybe or maybe not doing this on the regular. Oof.

Comments

  1. Randall OsczevskiSeptember 27, 2017 at 7:21 AM

    The entry for Sarah in the 1841 census gives her age as 45, not 65. The down stroke of the 4 extends below the line, as does the down stroke in the 9 farther down the page. Ages were often estimated by the census takers. If she died in 1854 at age 61, she would have been 48 during the 1841 census.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ACReynardSeptember 28, 2017 at 6:47 AM

      Thank you very much! I've corrected this in the original post!

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Two and a Half Years Before the Mast: A Second View on the Hartnell Family - Part 1

Image
Two and a half years ago, I wrote my very first Franklin Expedition-related post about John and Thomas Hartnell . For the most part, it was meant to be elementally biographical; a side use was as an on-hand compilation of virtually everything I knew about the Hartnell family up to that point. It was a very exciting thing for me, as I had never really taken my own turn in the realm of academia aside from class-assigned essays and the like. That post was a preliminary foray into something I ended up hardly being able to fathom. If I had known then how far that one little thread of research would taken me, I'm not sure what my reaction would have been—screaming, probably. My intent isn't to bore anyone with a VH1-esque 'Where Are They Now?' recap, aside to say that since September of 2017, study of the Franklin Expedition has saturated my entire life. I can claim some incredible friendships (Alison!! Shannon!!!!) and had some fantastic adventures to some far-flung place...
Read more

Mummy Monday #1: Franklin Expedition Ice Mummies

Image
[WARNING: In-depth discussion of human remains along with relevant images, some of which may be disturbing.] In the electric hustle of the mid-1980s, there weren’t many eyes turned toward the loneliest corners of the Canadian Arctic. It was a forward-momentum period, caught up the 20th century’s mach-speed technological progress and cultural change. In all of this movement, it took something quietly monumental to turn heads toward the past and look, quite literally, into its eyes. The world looked into three 140-year-old graves in permafrost, and found three sets of eyes wearily looking back. Their names were John Torrington, John Hartnell, and William Braine. In Victorian society, they would have faded into the backdrop of the social tapestry. One was a working-class petty officer, another a former shoemaker that had recently joined the Navy, and the third a private in the Royal Marines. In their world, they were perfectly ordinary—but it was their deaths that mad...
Read more

hide and seek with a ghost; the non-fictional biography of john hartnell, and the fiction to come

Image
Creating a fictional character is something of a mad science. You feel a little bit like Victor Frankenstein at times, looking down at your patchwork creation that is a little bit of one thing you've seen, a little bit of another. You see some of your friends in this character, some of your enemies, something you saw on TV or read in a book. Your character becomes what you want it to be, and sometimes what you don't. But in the end, this character is yours. You can do what you'd like with them to a degree.  Writing about an actual person might just be a lesson in futility, in comparison. I sometimes wonder if it's easier for some people than others, writing out detailed biographies and combing through letters and records in musty libraries and archives. In this case, there's some line to follow that's been set out long before you even began your work. There's a timeline, although not always definitive, and there's major events throughout the timeline t...
Read more