Nalo Hopkinson reading

A note for my Montreal friends:

The Dragonroot Centre for Gender Advocacy presents a reading by science fiction author Nalo Hopkinson

Saturday, February 19 at 7 pm
at the de Sve Cinema (rm LB-125), Webster Library
Building, 1400 de Maisonneauve West

No, it doesn't say what she's reading from.

Nalo Hopkinson reading

A note for my Montreal friends:

The Dragonroot Centre for Gender Advocacy presents a reading by science fiction author Nalo Hopkinson

Saturday, February 19 at 7 pm
at the de Sve Cinema (rm LB-125), Webster Library
Building, 1400 de Maisonneauve West

No, it doesn't say what she's reading from.

Noodling

Yes, true is complex (as serenejournal put it today.

I know that part of my lack of interest in Valentine's Day is connected to my general lack of interest in organized/scheduled holidays the rest of the year. Another part is that it's too often used, not as a celebration of love, but as a way of making single people--and anyone whose life isn't in a neat heterosexual couple, for that matter--feel excluded. And, of course, it's a serious Hallmark Holiday.

Besides, I'm not thrilled with a cultural structure that makes it difficult for me to shop for chocolate--something I very much like--at certain times of year.

However, I wonder if my difficulty in time-binding, in remembering how long ago things were and sometimes even what happened after which, is exacerbated by, or shares a cause with, that dislike of tracking holidays and anniversaries and such.

copperwise posted about why she does like Valentine's Day, because it also pressures people to acknowledge their partners and lovers. There's some good discussion out of that, including a remark by rysmiel about not getting or doing romance.

And I'm not sure if I do or not, because there may be more definitions of romance than of love. Or as many (even if we discard the ones that are purely literary). If this post has a purpose, it's to remind me to return to some of these thoughts.

Noodling

Yes, true is complex (as serenejournal put it today.

I know that part of my lack of interest in Valentine's Day is connected to my general lack of interest in organized/scheduled holidays the rest of the year. Another part is that it's too often used, not as a celebration of love, but as a way of making single people--and anyone whose life isn't in a neat heterosexual couple, for that matter--feel excluded. And, of course, it's a serious Hallmark Holiday.

Besides, I'm not thrilled with a cultural structure that makes it difficult for me to shop for chocolate--something I very much like--at certain times of year.

However, I wonder if my difficulty in time-binding, in remembering how long ago things were and sometimes even what happened after which, is exacerbated by, or shares a cause with, that dislike of tracking holidays and anniversaries and such.

copperwise posted about why she does like Valentine's Day, because it also pressures people to acknowledge their partners and lovers. There's some good discussion out of that, including a remark by rysmiel about not getting or doing romance.

And I'm not sure if I do or not, because there may be more definitions of romance than of love. Or as many (even if we discard the ones that are purely literary). If this post has a purpose, it's to remind me to return to some of these thoughts.

I am good at what I do--and appreciated for it

My supervisor (for lack of a better term) found an alleged "cause and effect" exercise that was pure post hoc ergo propter hoc [1] and asked me to find something to replace it with. The constraint was that it couldn't be just anything, it had to be text from the section that this piece of the workbook is about. I found us a very nice one: the Montgomery bus boycott. So we not only have genuine cause and effect, we get to repeat and reinforce the lesson about racial equality and nonviolent collective action. Debbie was quite pleased when I brought the rewrite to her.

Then I got a "what's keeping this article?" email from my freelance copyediting client at ACM [2]. I explained why I'd asked her for a link to ACM's policy, and that I was now waiting on the author, and her return email assured me that next week would be okay, that they can if necessary hold the article until the following issue, and that she is "absolutely thrilled" that I found the problem and queried it.

I also fixed the answers to a "put these events in order" exercise: the text was clear, but the answers as written confused it badly. (We supply "annotations", containing correct answers or hints to them, for the teacher edition--sometimes it will be something like "Answers will vary, but should refer to X/show an understanding of Y": you can't know what the students will write in answer to something like "describe a tradition in your family.")
And, in a minor but pleasing moment, in verifying something about an exercise this afternoon, I noticed that a map had been mislabeled, with both Michigan and Minnesota identified as "MI" (which is the US postal abbrev. for Michigan; Minnesota is MN).

[1] Confusing sequence with cause-and-effect: it's the illogic of assuming that calling your sister caused it to rain because the rain started after you picked up the phone.

[2] My ex-employer. I also do some freelance proofreading for them, for a different publication and editor.

I am good at what I do--and appreciated for it

My supervisor (for lack of a better term) found an alleged "cause and effect" exercise that was pure post hoc ergo propter hoc [1] and asked me to find something to replace it with. The constraint was that it couldn't be just anything, it had to be text from the section that this piece of the workbook is about. I found us a very nice one: the Montgomery bus boycott. So we not only have genuine cause and effect, we get to repeat and reinforce the lesson about racial equality and nonviolent collective action. Debbie was quite pleased when I brought the rewrite to her.

Then I got a "what's keeping this article?" email from my freelance copyediting client at ACM [2]. I explained why I'd asked her for a link to ACM's policy, and that I was now waiting on the author, and her return email assured me that next week would be okay, that they can if necessary hold the article until the following issue, and that she is "absolutely thrilled" that I found the problem and queried it.

I also fixed the answers to a "put these events in order" exercise: the text was clear, but the answers as written confused it badly. (We supply "annotations", containing correct answers or hints to them, for the teacher edition--sometimes it will be something like "Answers will vary, but should refer to X/show an understanding of Y": you can't know what the students will write in answer to something like "describe a tradition in your family.")
And, in a minor but pleasing moment, in verifying something about an exercise this afternoon, I noticed that a map had been mislabeled, with both Michigan and Minnesota identified as "MI" (which is the US postal abbrev. for Michigan; Minnesota is MN).

[1] Confusing sequence with cause-and-effect: it's the illogic of assuming that calling your sister caused it to rain because the rain started after you picked up the phone.

[2] My ex-employer. I also do some freelance proofreading for them, for a different publication and editor.