(no subject)
Jan. 20th, 2010 12:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
skygiantsI have just recently decided to do some reading up on pre-Columbian America, for reasons that are not important at this time. The important thing is that I suck at research. (No, really; there are reasons I decided to write my undergrad thesis on little-known YA novels, and one of those reasons is "look, no one else has ever written any academic analysis on them before anyway! SO NYAH.")
Susan Gillespie's The Aztec Kings: The Construction of Rulership in Mexican History was the first book to come in at the library for me. I brought it as my airplane reading for Denver in the theory that if I spent hours with it on a plane and no other entertainment I would have to pay close attention to it! In practice what ended up happening is that I slept the whole trip in both directions. But anyway, I have finished the book. Research-wise it was not that helpful; it is trying to deconstruct some assumptions about the cycle of Aztec kings and the generally accepted story of the Conquest by pointing out that most of the 'history' we know was certainly affected and mythologized post-Cortez, which I definitely believe! However, I am not sure that "well, I think it actually worked THIS way because . . . THAT'S HOW IT WORKED IN POLYNESIA!" actually convinced me of her alternate hypothesis either. Or all the very complex patterns that were based off of one reference in one source matched up with a different reference in a different source, out of the ten or twelve primary sources extant.
Anyway. That is one method of research: read all the way through a book very fast and see what sticks with you. Other methods involve: reading through books one by one and taking five million notes on every little detail; reading through books bits and pieces at a time, keeping separate note files, and forgetting to ever actually finish said books; doing frantic last-minute research by looking in the index for important keyword and stuffing down quotes that seem like they might be relevant. I have tried all of these research methods and none of them are ideal for me, but this is probably because I suck at research! I live in hope that one day I will actually get better at it, though.
So my question for you guys today is: how do you research? What works best for you?
(And also, do you have any good nonfiction recs for books about pre-Columbian America?)
Susan Gillespie's The Aztec Kings: The Construction of Rulership in Mexican History was the first book to come in at the library for me. I brought it as my airplane reading for Denver in the theory that if I spent hours with it on a plane and no other entertainment I would have to pay close attention to it! In practice what ended up happening is that I slept the whole trip in both directions. But anyway, I have finished the book. Research-wise it was not that helpful; it is trying to deconstruct some assumptions about the cycle of Aztec kings and the generally accepted story of the Conquest by pointing out that most of the 'history' we know was certainly affected and mythologized post-Cortez, which I definitely believe! However, I am not sure that "well, I think it actually worked THIS way because . . . THAT'S HOW IT WORKED IN POLYNESIA!" actually convinced me of her alternate hypothesis either. Or all the very complex patterns that were based off of one reference in one source matched up with a different reference in a different source, out of the ten or twelve primary sources extant.
Anyway. That is one method of research: read all the way through a book very fast and see what sticks with you. Other methods involve: reading through books one by one and taking five million notes on every little detail; reading through books bits and pieces at a time, keeping separate note files, and forgetting to ever actually finish said books; doing frantic last-minute research by looking in the index for important keyword and stuffing down quotes that seem like they might be relevant. I have tried all of these research methods and none of them are ideal for me, but this is probably because I suck at research! I live in hope that one day I will actually get better at it, though.
So my question for you guys today is: how do you research? What works best for you?
(And also, do you have any good nonfiction recs for books about pre-Columbian America?)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 05:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 06:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 06:06 pm (UTC)I'm reading it now and loving it. Plus there's a HUGE bibliography at the end for further reading suggestions.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 06:14 pm (UTC)- actually, thank you for reminding me, because I forgot to put it on my library pull list. IT IS GOING ON THERE NOW. :D
Methodologies!
Date: 2010-01-20 06:15 pm (UTC)In sum, I chase down every reference and argue with it! But, um, I am paid to do that...
I don't know any particular pre-Columbian sources--s'not my field--though I would recommend reading the diaries and journals of the various conquisadores once you've had your fill of the earlier materials--some of them are remarkable in the information (and understanding) they convey, others not so much. The fail is simultaneously enraging and laughable, and certainly quotable! (Yes, I am recommending these huge and boring books just to get you to insult them wittily in your Livejournal!) Some are available in translation, even, though I think an embarrassing amount have only been translated once in the last 200 years if at all...
Re: Methodologies!
Date: 2010-01-20 06:22 pm (UTC)Also, this is a.) massively impressive and b.) why, in the end, I could not be an academic. However, I definitely need to make greater use of the databases I can actually access!
HA. I will take that under advisement! *giggling* (It is true that reading huge and boring books is way more fun when you are mentally composing LJ-snark about it in your head . . .)
no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 06:22 pm (UTC)"Consider Tisquantum, the 'friendly Indian' of the textbook. More than likely Tisquantum was not the name he was given at birth. In that part of the Northeast, tisquantum referred to rage, especially the rage of manitou, the world-suffusing spiritual power at the heart of the coastal Indians' religious beliefs. When Tisquantum approached the Pilgrims and identified himself by that sobriquet, it was as if he had stuck out his hand and said, Hello, I'm the Wrath of God. No one would lightly adopt such a name in contemporary Western society. Neither would anyone in seventeenth-century indigenous society. Tisquantum was trying to project something."
Seriously, how much more attention would we all have paid to American History if that sort of thing were in the books?
Re: Methodologies!
Date: 2010-01-20 06:23 pm (UTC)Re: Methodologies!
Date: 2010-01-20 06:25 pm (UTC)*_* *_* *_*
(Back-alley research library access transactions: WAY BETTER than dealing drugs.)
no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 06:27 pm (UTC)I forget, have you read Lies My Teacher Told Me? I kind of can't imagine that you haven't, it is so highly up your alley!
no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 06:30 pm (UTC)But YES! I have read "Lies", and what a FANTASTIC book that is. It...makes me laugh that growing up my father used to say: I love history. The answers never change.
true story.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 06:33 pm (UTC):DDD ISN'T IT JUST.
. . . ahahahahaha. (Well, it's true in a way? They never change because there are no answers! ONLY MORE QUESTIONS. Um.)
no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 06:51 pm (UTC)I can happily dissect prose and poetry for days and write lots of things about it, but having to dig through other people's work to find anyone who thinks like me is hard.
That's one reason that my thesis almost broke me, talking about Pindar's poetry was just a little part of it.
Though I do like reading non-fiction for fun sometimes but gah articles in Classics make me want to run away from Classics so fast.
Currently I'm reading a book called Double Fold about newspaper preservation and the author is annoying me, its interesting but he needs to get off his soapbox.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 06:58 pm (UTC)I feel like a lot of nonfiction books kind of come with implicit soapboxes. Sometimes they are sympathetic soapboxes, and sometimes even when they are sympathetic you eventually feel the need to eyeroll at them.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 07:11 pm (UTC)Fiction is its own world and doesn't have weird jargon in it. Though so far the stuff I'm having to read in my classes is pretty interesting.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 07:18 pm (UTC)For fiction, though, I tend to go with the read everything through very fast and see what sticks approach, because it's more important to me that I come up with something that plausibly could have happened based on the background info I've read than writing something that actually did happen. Also, if it's something historical, I find it more helpful to read primary sources than secondary ones.
My research methods, let me show you them.
Date: 2010-01-20 07:19 pm (UTC)For all of these, I type in a general idea of what I'm looking for and see what pops up on the first three pages. So for something like, say, 'Welsh devolution 1979', I start to skim Google Scholar and see where the hits are coming from and who is doing the writing (I see you there, Parliamentary Affairs!) -- and then I take a few notes and find some likely books or articles that might help. Once I get a few books together, I skim their introductions and read the footnotes to keep building my source list. This is, of course, only if I don't have immediate access to the more hardcore databases where I can be a lot more specific in my searches.
One thing I can also suggest? Search the Internet for course syllabi and reading lists. Not all of them will be helpful, but it's one of the fastest ways to build a source list of starting points.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 07:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 07:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 08:09 pm (UTC)I have five books to read, three classes to study for, an
no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 08:12 pm (UTC)I use a lot of Google Scholar/Book as well! As much as it might be the ban copyright, it sometimes helps I can read through a chapter or so of a book online and know if it will be useful to me ("You're quoting WHO??? YOU ARE UNTRUSTWORTHY NOW!!"). Then, after I've compared some sources and theories, I make my notes from there. I need a wide net of information because someone is wrong, I just need to figure out who is fashionably wrong this week.
I have just looked up this book and am devouring what I can at my desk. I want to read more about this! I got lucky and got to study under a professor that was dedicated to the subject in uni and learn a lot about how everything we learned about early America was wrong, wrong, wrong, but mooooore! *adds to own library list*
no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 08:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 08:40 pm (UTC)(I totally agree on primary sources feeling more useful than secondary.)
Re: My research methods, let me show you them.
Date: 2010-01-20 08:42 pm (UTC)Reading footnotes in order to build a source list is definitely a habit I need to get into - I keep seeing interesting things in source lists, and forgetting to write them down, and then forgetting what they are.
. . . that is an AWESOME and helpful tidbit. Thank you!
no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 08:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 08:46 pm (UTC)Ooooh, cool! TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK AND DISCOVER. (I am totally picking your brains when you come down next month.)
no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 08:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 08:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 08:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 08:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 08:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 08:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 09:03 pm (UTC)Once we actually had the sources, I mostly used those skinny post-it notes to flag the things I found while reading and thought would be helpful. (We ended up printing some of our sources out, or making copies or whatever, so I highlighted a lot too. But only on these! Not on the library books.)
no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 09:10 pm (UTC)(Unrelated sidenote: I was always so pleased when I got books out of the library that had notes and highlightings in them. Not for cheatery purposes! I just find it hilarious. I think my favorite was the copy of Frankenstein that had polite, scholarly, thematic notes all the way through, and then one "AUGH THIS IS SUCH A STUPID DECISION! OF COURSE SHE IS GOING TO DIE!!!!" and then back to polite, scholarly, thematic notes.)
no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 09:30 pm (UTC)Although, my version doesn't have the 'New Revelations' bit, just the 'Americans before Columbus'. Not sure if they'd be different editions, or just wacky American vs Australian titling.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 09:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 09:52 pm (UTC)I remember he very middle ground about the entire subject but also fascinated. Email me for more specifics? I can try and see if I have any of those primary sources still at home!
no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 12:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 05:48 am (UTC)