First of all, I hate the attitude that some academics I’ve come in contact with have, that in order to consider oneself an academic, everything one does, thinks, and says must be Serious. Because that is just ridiculous. People who take that attitude are just boring. And you are not boring, Jana.

Your flower photos and “rambling observations”, which I often don’t find rambling at all by the way, show that you are a whole person, and that you are not just focused solely on one narrow aspect of life.

I’ve also got to add that I deplore the idea that academic writing must be dry to be acceptable. In that connection, I’m just beginning to reread “Life: A Natural History of the First Four Billion Years of Life on Earth,” by Richard Fortey, a paleontologist. He writes, on page 25, in explaining his approach to his book:

“And where my own experiences with people or places will serve to bring the process of investigation alive then I shall make diversions, the better to illuminate the way forward. Scientists are supposed to eliminate their personal voice, which no doubt works admirably for technical journals, but such spurious objectivity jettisons an awareness of much of what makes the process of discovery exciting, interesting, and informed with the whole inventory of our frailties and virtues.”

How much more applicable this is, I think, to your work in history, which in some senses really amounts to a cataloging of “our frailties and virtues.”

Well, I don’t know how much relevance my musings on this are, considering that I’ve only earned a BA and haven’t (yet) been in a position to go on to grad school. But I offer my thoughts for whatever they are worth.

Maybe it’s really the magic of Sitemeter, knowing there’s an audience that might actually (gasp) talk back? So much academic writing in print, you know maybe a handful of people will definitely read it, a few more might skim through, and the rest, who knows? Online, you know what your traffic is…and where they are, and how long they stay, etc.