Skip to content

Category: Random Thoughts

Best, Iris

As a child, I remember writing letters to grandma, having them carefully proof-read by my mom, and then copying them onto “real” paper before sending them off. Each letter was signed “Love, Iris” in that wobbly block writing of mine. In fact, that’s how I signed all of my correspondence. And it worked pretty well when I was writing to my family and friends, though not so well when I was writing to a new friend who had just fallen in love with me. (The feeling was not entirely reciprocated, so let’s just say that there was some confusion about my intentions. But it only took us about ten years to get that one cleared up…)

But then I graduated and got a job. I remember staring in some consternation at my very first out-going email as a professional librarian and wondering how in the world to sign off. “Love” just didn’t seem right when I was explaining off-campus database access to a faculty member. I’d seen “Cheers,” so I typed that one in, just to get the feel of it.

It didn’t feel like me. I wasn’t even quite sure what it meant. “Thank you” didn’t seem to work when I was providing a service rather than receiving it, and “Sincerely” was way to formal for me, though I did try it out, just to see. And closing with only my name sounded far too abrupt.

I wanted to sound professional yet also approachable, cheery, un-stuffy, and maybe even a little bit fun. That’s a lot to ask of a word or phrase followed by a comma.

After spending far too long trying various closing lines and becoming equally frustrated with the lack of options and my own obsession over getting this right, I finally typed “Best, Iris” and hit Send. “Best?” What’s that? Best what? Probably derived from something along the lines of “Best wishes to you and your family,” it’s definitely on the stuffy side. It tries to be hip by cutting off all the descriptive stuff and leaving the reader to fill in whatever he or she pleases. It’s even less descriptive than its slightly longer cousin, “All the Best,” which at least sounds more generous, though not any more enlightening.

But I was so relieved to have sent the stupid email without encumbering myself with either more or less affection than I meant, or sounding too earnest or too abrupt, that this abbreviated and incomprehensible closer has become my standard. I type it without even thinking any more, and it has graced the ends of dozens of emails a day for the last two years, varying only on those rare occasions when a more descriptive closer is absolutely necessary.

So if you get an email from me, scroll down to the signature. Your odds are pretty good that you’ll see this habitual signal of my capitulation to ethos over expression.

Best,
Iris

13 Comments

I’m Fine, Thanks

Ok, my last post was quite a downer, written in the heat of frustration. I stand my assertion that we need clearer terminology and selection processes, but like many other frustrations, this will not rule my life.

No, and my scary class tomorrow won’t rule my life either because, get this, it’s now two classes! Now I’ll do the part on finding foreign language and English language articles and books (including ILL and finding full text) tomorrow (in 45 minutes). Then next Friday I’ll teach proper citation (in-text, annotated, and regular bibliographies) for 20 minutes. This is instead of doing everything in 40 minutes! I’m SO pleased.

So for tonight I’ll sit back and figure out how to squeezing tomorrow’s class into 45 minutes. I think this will involve a handout that lays out how to get to the foreign language holdings in 4 databases and two catalogs (ours and WorldCat). It will also include an online guide. But beyond that, we’ll see.

(See, I told you I’d have things prioritized by tonight.)

5 Comments

Databases, eCollections, eResources, What?

So, I may not be writing much for the next couple of days. I was fine and generally on top of stuff here at work until this morning. Now, all of a sudden, I have back to back appointments all day and most of tomorrow morning, plus I suddenly have a new class for a new (never-taught-for-before) professor in a new (never-taught-for-before) department to teach tomorrow at noon. Oh, AND, we’re supposed to suggest purchases for the general collection sometime in the next few weeks (we normally only buy for the reference collection), and we’re in the midst of a high-velocity push to identify and trial databases.

Now, this isn’t a pity-me post. I’ll be fine. One way or another, by the end of today I’ll have prioritized my life again and gotten things moving smoothly along in my head. But what all of this highlights for me is that collecting electronic resources is hard. Very hard. I don’t know so much about the process that I can’t even ask for help, and when I do ask for help I know so little about what I’m asking for that it comes out all wrong and I keep being told the stuff that I already know rather than the stuff I don’t understand. Then I feel stupid, my helper and I have both run out of time, and I’m still no better off than I was to begin with.

I also don’t think that there’s clarity in our profession about e-collections and “databases.” The terminology speaks to our general fogginess on these notions. “Database” isn’t descriptive at all. Even our content management system is database-driven, but we’d NEVER call that a database. So if my department is supposed to recommend databases, and these come out of an eResources budget, who’s looking at the online newspaper collections, and should those be paid from the same budget?

So far, it seems like everyone thinks somebody else is looking at e-collections of journals and newspapers. People in my department haven’t really had them on our radar because we think of them as serials (and we collect for reference), and people in other departments think that we’re looking at them because they’re just like (and often bundled with) these “database” things (which my department does play a role in evaluating and recommending for purchase). And so far, when my department is asked to approve or deny renewal for things like MLA International Bibliography and Sociological Abstracts, other things like Nature online or Science online also crop up in the lists of “Databases” that are up for renewal. These are not the same thing. At all.

And were does something like JSTOR fit in? There are more and more collections that offer the option to buy the content outright, and then pay yearly access fees. Where do these fit? How do we decide if they’re “Databases” or not?

Basically, I’m confused by the whole process of evaluating and choosing databases, and this confusion is only amplified by my confusion over what exactly I’m evaluating in the first place. Add to this that I only do this very rarely (like, maybe once a year), and you get a confused librarian who feels stupid because she has to relearn the process every year because a couple thousand reference questions, a couple hundred student appointments, and a few dozen classes have pushed all of what she learned last year clear out of her scull.

But now I’ve got to stop letting my brain run in circles around these unanswerable questions and get down to the business of building a drop-dead gorgeous class from scratch while I also meet with a few students (one of whom wants to find out about getting an MLS after graduating from here).

4 Comments

5 Library Heroes

I’ve been of several minds about posting this. I read a ton of amazing blogs by people I respect and admire. I know my aggregator’s feed count doesn’t compare with a lot of other people’s, but it’s more than enough to keep me busy, most days, and if you’re in my aggregator, you’re definitely one of my heroes. I’m pretty ruthless about weeding out feeds that I don’t actively look forward to viewing every morning before breakfast, every day when I get the chance, every evening after dinner, and every weekend. So my five blogs list is more about personal connections than about professional value (which is not to say that these have no professional value, of course).

So here they are in what I’d call chronological order:

  • Meredith Farkas: I met her by accident at CIL 2006 when we were both part of a group that famously defected from a dine around without realizing that this might cause our dine around host some difficulties with the restaurant. I had no idea who she was, but people were talking about her blog the same way my fellow English majors talked about Shakespeare. So when I got back to my hotel that night I Googled her, read most of her blog all in one sitting (yes, I was up very late), and decided to figure out this “aggregator” thing I’d heard people talk about so that I could keep up with her. And she’s continued to impress me with her thoughtfulness, genuineness, and kindness.
  • Walt Crawford: I’d been blogging for about a month when he popped into my comments and said really nice things. (I’m a sucker for people saying really nice things to me.) Then mid way through this year of blogging, he did the same thing when I was having blogging doubts. He’s even mentioned me a couple of times in C&I, putting my name right next to the names of other bloggers I respect no end! And you’ve gotta love a guy who takes both the content and the look of the printed word so seriously.
  • Steve Lawson: I’d been reading his blog for a few months when all of a sudden he popped on IM one day to relieve my workplace isolation (all my co-workers were at ALA). Good thing he couldn’t see as I tried to collect myself off the floor and reacquaint my jaw with the rest of my scull! It was my first total fan-girl experience. And the rest is history, as they say. I’m constantly learning how to blog by reading what he writes. He’s got the tone and voice that I aspire to. And beyond that, he’s just a good friend to me.
  • And speaking of friends, Mark Linder has become quite a good one. And he’s almost always online, so when I’m frustrated or lonely or bursting with news that I just need to tell someone, he’s the one I bug.
  • Dorothea Salo: I’m not an IR person, or a systems person, or anything like that. (We all know how much trouble I have grasping basic HTML and CSS. Evidence of ignorance.) But Dorothea’s authorial voice keeps me coming back for more, no matter the content. I’m equally happy listening to her talk about the weather or about mysterious tech-ish script-ish things that I don’t understand at all.

So that’s five, though there are about 10 times that many that I could have included. And I promise not to get this sappy on all of you again (at least, not any time soon). If you don’t like it, blame Walt for getting us all started. :P

7 Comments