Exciting! News?

[trinityofone]

Things have been really hectic at work, so once again I have very little idea what's going on with the rest of the world. But! Thrillingly, our first preview copies of my first issue of the magazine arrived yesterday. My name in the masthead: YAY! And quite a few stories by me, several of which don't entirely suck: DOUBLE YAY! It's the September/October issue (of Hollywood Life, okay? There, I said it, excitement overrides paranoia) and it'll be available soon! Buy it Leaf through it at the newsstand when you can!

Speaking of accomplishments, I don't know if I've ever mentioned this, but my father has for more than a year been working on a documentary about artist Edward Biberman. I've seen the final cut, and it's fantastic; he's now submitting it to festivals. He also has a website that just went live: Check it out here! See? Pretty! Cross your fingers for him, okay? =)

I've recently become addicted to LibraryThing—siriaeve's fault, natch. It's a website that lets you catalogue your books online. I have 1010 listed so far, and I'm stopping there for now because I'm too afraid to touch all the books in my closet. I thought I'd start playing with the review function next; are there any titles you'd particularly like to see reviewed? I've marked everything I've read with the tag "read"—creative, I know. And that's about half of them. I'm not sure if that's good, or pathetic.

ANYWAY. Speaking of books, I finally got the prizes for the SGA Bulwer-Lytton contest mailed out last week—sorry for being so slow. And doubly sorry: once I got to the post office, I realized that I didn't actually have liviapenn or wolfshark's addresses. Can you guys e-mail them to me (again)? I'll make another trip to the post office on Saturday.

And...that's it, I guess. For a post that was supposed to be all Exciting! News! this was very dull.

ETA: Oh, and I just remembered that I am supposed to be interviewing a violinist named Joshua Bell soon. Does anybody know anything about him? (I am, of course, about to do my own research, but I'm curious about your opinions, whether you've heard of him, etc.)

Comments

[siria]

I have, uh, three biographies of Jane Austen, two separate editions of her letters, two separate copies of her juvenilia/Sanditon, a couple of different volumes of Austen lit. crit., and the Making of the 1995 A&E/BBC adaptation.

In comparison, you're fine.

And hah, ISBNs. I have found that my besetting sin seems to be buying obscure historical biographies which date to a time before people knew the love that is an ISBN. Why don't more people have obscure autobiographies of 17th century outlawed English priests? I ask you.

[trinityofone.livejournal.com]

Yes, but you actually like Jane Austen. You are a Jane Austen fan. I mean, we're not talking about the number of U2 or Neil Gaiman things I have, but about Helen Keller—who's lovely, don't get me wrong, but in whom I have a passing interest at best. Not enough to justify THREE BIOGRAPHIES.

And you should see some of the other stuff I have under the tag "bizarre"...

Re: ISBNs: I actually had the same problem with a lot of books. Library of Congress numbers came in handy occasionally, but for other things I had to search by title, publisher, and year, and others I still haven't been able to enter at all. Not to mention the fact that for a lot of books, I apparently have the one really obscure cover that no one else has. And I refuse to use substitutes! We're going for full realism here!

...I need help.

[siria]

Ah. That does make a slight difference, yes.

*looks at tag* ... Trin, I'd ask? But I honestly don't want to know. (Why are they watching us?)

I have no idea what Library of Congress numbers even look like. Thankfully, searching Trinity's catalogue does bring up a lot of stuff that amazon.co.uk doesn't have, especially the older stuff; but even TCD doesn't have everything.

The cover thing is also really frustrating. I... may have caved so far as to scan and upload a cover for my copy of Malory's Tales of Arthur. I'm still searching for others.

I know it may come as a shock, but I think we are both slightly anal, Trin.

[trinityofone.livejournal.com]

Why are they watching us?

Maybe they're bored?

I'm much more "WTF, Trin?" over the fact that I still have the two terrible, self-published novels written by one of my ex-boyfriends. Ew.

I would totally follow your lead with the scanning thing if I had a scanner. Us? Not anal at all! *g*

[siria]

But I think I am very boring. I mean, the most exciting part of today was the time I spent playing Bloc Party very loudly and jumping up and down on my couch (yes, I'm 12, why do you ask?). Why would they want to watch that?

See, what you want to do is keep the two very bad self-published novels. They will come in useful for blackmail purposes later, should said ex-boyfriends ever acquire money, or a social standing which they wish to protect.

[furina-1975.livejournal.com]

*****More than you ever wanted to know**********

Library of Congress Call numbers look like this:

QA169.B68 2004. The letter, or letters let you know the general subject. QA is math, the number in this case would let you know the specific subject or type of math. These are standard, if you have LOC number that first part (QA169) will be correct for that book everywhere. The cutter number (B68) is not standard, unless you buy bibliographies from the LOC. In the case of the library I work in they are applied by Catalogers according to very specific rules. In most cases the letter part is the first letter of the author's last name. The year is, obviously the publication date. I think that outside of the Library of Congress and college libraries that they are not used much. I prefer them to Dewey call numbers but that is just me.

[siria]

Hee, that is very helpful, thank you. We really don't use them over here, but now I will know what will await me should I ever go to school in the States.

ISBNs

[spankys.livejournal.com]

I hate to break it to you guys, but they're (whoever "they" are) adding 3 more numbers to the ISBN. Yes, they will be 13 numbers instead of 10. In new books, there is often both isbns listed, but pretty soon there'll only be the 13 digit ones. Ah, progress!