items impersonal

[calimac]

1. Science fiction isn't supposed to predict the future, but I get a kick when journalism does. I found two examples in The New Yorker's new 1960s decade collection. One is in a 1965 profile of Marshall McLuhan. Among the wacky things that McLuhan has said, it reports, is that he has "predicted a happy day when everyone will have his own portable computer to cope with the dreary business of digesting information." Well, that happened.

The other is an interview that I'm astonished I'd never seen reference to before. It's of Brian Epstein, in New York in late 1963 on his scouting trip to make arrangements for the upcoming visit of what the article austerely calls "a group of pop singers called the Beatles" ("the origin of the name is obscure," it adds). Although nobody in America has yet heard of this group, they seem to be very popular in Europe. Epstein concludes the interview by saying, "I think that America is ready for the Beatles. When they come, they will hit this country for six." I don't know what that expression means, but I can guess, and that happened too.

2. A lot of my friends are posting papers at academia.edu. I have a reading account, but I've resisted the temptation to contribute to it myself, and the e-mail I recently got explains why. It says that 143 papers on academia.edu mention my name and then offers a link to "View Your Mentions." Only that's not what the link does. It takes me to a page where I can upgrade my membership. That's not what it says, of course. But any button on that page that says "Get Started" or "View Your Mentions" gives me the same popup where I can pay $99/year for the privilege of seeing what it just told me I could see without bothering to mention this charge.

It says it can find things Google Scholar can't. Maybe so, but as most of the mentions of my name on Google Scholar actually just mean that my last name - which is not unique, and is used by at least 3 other scholars, one of them much more prolific than I - and my first name, which is quite common, appear somewhere in the same paper. And I'm not paying $99 to find out if this is the same.

Comments

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

no ... I don't think so. There's nothing about scoring in the Hobbit passage, which was the aspect of cricket I said I knew nothing about. And as I read the passage, it can only be about cricket insofar as both it and golf involve hitting a ball with "a wooden club," which is still a better description of a golf club than a cricket bat. Then the head goes down a rabbit hole, which nicely evokes a golf hole-in-one but has nothing to do with cricket, where there are no holes.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I can't lay my hand on a copy of The Hobbit right now, but I'm pretty sure the sentence is approximately "hit for six and went down a rabbit hole." Translation into American would have been "hit for a home run." I know I didn't know just what it meant at the time, and it wasn't until Cheryl taught me how cricket is played that I actually got it.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Nope. Bullroarer "knocked their king Golfimbul's head clean off with a wooden club. It sailed a hundred yards through the air and went down a rabbit-hole" - that's what it says, and the annotated variorum edition confirms that's what it's always said. No such phrasing anywhere else in the book either. If you can find some unauthorized reprint which changed the wording, that would be astonishing and a great coup in Tolkien scholarship.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

It then occurred to me that it might have been in one of the author's draft versions, which have subsequently been published.

But no. This passage appears in the surviving fragment of what was apparently the very earliest draft of the story, which the author altered to add a reference to chess (!) - "in this way the battle was won by checkmate, and the games of Golf & chess invented simultaneously" (an alteration which did not appear in subsequent drafts), but still nothing about hitting anything "for six."