Blogging a blog

One of my sites that gets checked every day is IMDb. They quite often have interesting links and news items that an entertainment culture nerd like myself gets a kick out of. Today, I'm particularly enjoying this link: Cinematical Seven: Children's Books That Need to be Filmed Immediately. I have to admit that I haven't read 3 of the 7 (perhaps incentive to correct that...), but Cinematical gets major points from me for mentioning two of my favorite books from my childhood; namely Ghosts I Have Been and Jackaroo. I would love to see either of those on the big screen, and I'm really going to have to go read them over again, now. There might be some book-buying in my future. Hrm.

Anyway. Check it out! You might find something to read...

Under the radar catablogging

Alright, so I'm not officially blogging at work yet, but I'm just so excited by this particular item that I'm jumping the gun.
Mary : a fiction
[Wollstonecraft, Mary, 1759-1797]
London : Printed for J. Johnson, St. Paul's Church-Yard, MDCCLXXXVIII [1788]

This is the first edition of Mary Wollstonecraft's first and only novel before she went on to write A Vindication on the Rights of Women. Wikipedia calls this novel "an important development in the history of the novel because it helped shape an emerging feminist discourse." In checking the catalog for a Wollstonecraft bibliography, I came upon John Windle's Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin 1759-1797, which is a very nice and detailed bibliography, complete with transcriptions, collational formulas, and title-page facsimiles. Our copy is, sadly lacking the half-title, which Windle says is "required", but it does have the manuscript "correction" on page 178. I'm not positive whether or not a copy without the half-title is of a different edition, etc. but it seems as though the manuscript point would still indicate the first edition. Either way, I think this is pretty sweet, so sue me.

Random rare book revelations

So, post-RBS, I have (mostly unsurpisingly) lost momentum, but seem to have settled into what I think is an upward climb in terms of cataloging. Writing a policy is on hold because there's just too much prior information to be slogged through. I've had occasion to get my hands on some leftover 16th century items in the Dewey collection, so attempts are being made to get those cataloged in proper(ish) DCRMB format. Last week I felt as though I'd learned just enough to be dangerous -- this week I have felt quite inadequate, but it's getting better. I'm refreshing things learned in grad school, putting into practice things learned at RBS, and I think I'm starting to churn out some reasonably pretty records. I've learned that truly, most collational formulae are not that complex, that it's really fun/exciting to correctly identify printers' devices, and that 16th century French printers often used "lz" as a substitute for "k". I'm quite getting the hang of the whole "u/v" problem, but I must say that even when you know you're transcribing correctly, it's really frustrating to write down something as a "u" when in modern terms it would be a "v". And boy, do I ever need to learn Latin. I sort of know what words ought to look like, so I can usually tell what's missing with contractions, but it'd be nice to know what the words mean.

All in all, I guess I am feeling much more comfortable and confident about this gig, and that's worth a lot. Now then, this here book is not gonna collate itself. Once more into the fray...

Oh. I meant to make a note of the things that are still problematic. I am still very confused by 240s and 246s, still afraid of describing bindings, and don't quite get the concept of the order of 500 notes. I'm trying to remember to plug in 752s in OCLC, but apparently they don't transfer out. What I need to do is compile a list of the areas I'm doing and just make sure that my records go down the checklist. Hmm.

Purposefully vague

Isn't it funny how in just the right set of circumstances, some action from your past that you've never really questioned suddenly seems other than what it was? What's that Meatloaf song? "Objects in the Rear View Mirror May Appear Closer Than They Are". As though looking backwards suddenly makes one wistful, makes the past rosy, makes us forget what we really thought/felt and unconsciously remember it differently. Can't go back but wouldn't even if you could, so what's the difference?

How ridiculous.

Briefly

A few words to remind myself that I (might) have a lot to say and (definitely) have a lot to do following my experience at Rare Book School. Of first order, though, is actually getting home again, so signing off from hotel a la Charlottesville. Miles to go before I sleep...