I have this book called "Decade", which contains iconic photographs from 2000 through 2010 (don't get me started on which is part of what decade.
Anyway, I'm looking at a photograph of Ichiro standing on deck at Safeco Field for his first playoff game, which would be game one of ALDS against Cleveland on October 9 and I realize, I'm in this picture. It's pretty high resolution and you can see individual heads (not faces) all the way up into the stands, and the picture goes up to the height of our seats. So with a good magnifying glass, I could probably figure out which of the four people in our four seats I was.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Sunday, July 24, 2011
1971 in the New Classification System: Here we go!
1 .The first book is "The Book of Presidents," probably the best investment I ever made in a book. It cost $2.98. It covers every President from Washington to Nixon (well, through this very year, 1971), and it does it in good detail, especially but not only during their Presidencies. It would be almost impossible not to find a question on any year from 1789 through 1971. A "1". Will it be the only one in this game? (That's a double entendre, too).
A pause for a moment. Here's the thing about a "1": it really opens the mind. In The Book of Presidents, I saw that in 1971 Richard M. Nixon was proposing or signing into law a lot of things that "socialist" Barack Obama would never even think about asking for, like a 10% increase in Social Security. You see possible question you might get in other sources for the year. Possible themes for the entire game. Good stuff. Start your game with a "1". End it with a "1", too, because where the heck are you going to find a bonus otherwise?
2. 2008 NFL Record & Fact Book. New source, kind of hard to use. There is a short chronology that does go year by year, and then there are bunches of year by year records, playoff records, team-versus-team records. Not user friendly. I give it a "4". Sparse or boring indeed.
3. Republic of China Yearbook. It has a surprisingly comprehensive chronology, even though it's not only a chronology. I give it a "3". Here's why it's not higher: this is the year the U.S. started warming relations with Red China. There is one entry that relates to that, and one about the opening of a new freeway in Taiwan. That's all.
4. Oregon: A Chronology & Documentary History. The goddamned Oceana state series. The 1970 "fact" is the population from the Census. 1971 isn't much better. The very definition of a "6", because this one skips a lot of years.
5. A History of War at Sea. It's the girl with the curl. When it is good it is very, very good, and when it is bad it is horrid. Not really horrid, just not there. There are either naval battles in a year of there aren't. Darn you, Pax Britannica! So, a "5."
6. Art Censorship. A "3". The title conveys what the book is about, there are entries for most years, but sometimes you don't know what they're talking about because the censored artist is forgotten now. Which may be because the censorship was successful or because the artist wasn't very good.
And to prove it's a "3", I had to look something up to make the answer accurate (though in fairness, the book ends in 1971 and the remainder of the story wasn't known at the time of publication).
7. Chronology of Ukrainian-Canadian History. I know, you all have one of these on your bedside tables. Or you want my copy because you've been looking for this for years and years and years. This is your "4". Lord knows who these people are or why anyone would sit still for a trivia question about them.
8. The Kennedys: A Chronological History. A solid "1". I once wrote an entire game from this book.
9. Milwaukee: A Chronological & Documentary History. As bad as the state Oceana series is, the city series is that good. A solid "2", and only not a "1" because there are some sparse or missing years.
10. Billboard Book of No. 2 Singles. A really true "1" in the sense that it educates me in the context of each record; it's not just a list. And what I don't know about music can fill many books. This one included.
11. Flickers. A "2" , because there is literally only one entry per year, but it's in depth. The subtitle will tell you what it is: "An Illustrated Celebration of 100 Years of Cinema."
12. Chronology of Texas History, volume II. This is a solid "3", better than the Ocean series, but for some years there is a simple recital of the creation of ten or more Texas counties and their county seats or the chartering of five railways without context.
13. Atlanta: A Chronological & Documentary History. We've been here before. Another "2".
14. San Francisco Almanac. A nice chronology, a solid "2".
15. Disaster Canada. Another new one. It's got an index that isn't in quite chronological order but easy to follow. Not all years covered, but then a good article on each one that is. So a "5".
16. A Concise History of the Middle East. Yet another new one. Sort of a "4" as a chronology, because the chronology it provides is sparse, but if the text also covers the year (and they don't match), you can find good stuff.
17. The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network & Cable TV Shows. This well-illustrates the difference between "a good reference book" and "a good chronology." This is one of the all-time great reference books, containing the cast and a snarky description of every TV show ever. But the chronology aspect is minimal: a short chronology of TV innovations, a list of Emmy winners, a list of Nielsen top shows and graphically displayed prime time schedules. It's hard to classify. It could be a "2" because the information is all in there; it could be a "4."
18. Books of the Century. A "1". Many entries for each year, all in-depth.
19. Becoming a People: a 4000 year gay and lesbian chronology. A solid "3", particularly in early years when "well, we think this person was gay because we have no evidence she wasn't and she lived with a woman" describes many of the entries. Still, some good stuff and very comprehensive.
20. A Chronology of Noteworthy Events in American Psychology. Damn, this should be a "1", but it's a "3." Why? Because for some years, particularly in the early 20th century, half or more of the entries in a particular year record someone's birth. That wasn't an event in American Psychology.
21. Century Makers. It's articles on inventions in chronological order, but not all years covered. So it's a "5." Have you figured out that a "5" is better than a "4", except it's not reliable to take off the shelf and know you can use it? That's the problem with this book; I've actually had to put it back because it skipped the year I last tried to use it for.
22. American Women in Sport. A solid "3". Lots of names early in the century it covers (starting in 1887) I've never heard of and have to look up somewhere else.
23. 20th Century Hockey Chronicle. A fine source, covering each year in depth with explanation. A clear "1".
24. Almanac of Liberty. Basically a "3". It's a history of the U.S. military, but as histories of the U.S. military go, it's not one of the best.
25. Sixty Years of Hollywood. Also a "3", but a "4" might even be justified for some years. For this year, for instance, it considers the only movies that were of interest were "Carnal Knowledge" and "Summer of '42". Really.
26. Events in Telephone History. Really "events in AT&T history" but still basically a "1".
27. The Sporting Century. I think a "5". It doesn't cover every year, but when it covers a topic, it's two or three pages on the topic. This year's discussion of a rugby test match goes on for three pages before it gets to the test match.
28. National Geographic Eyewitness to the 20th Century. A pure "1". Lots of stuff. I need sources like this to fill in the stuff that people expect for a year.
29. Exploration & Discovery. This is a collection of New York Times front pages on the topic. What's really interesting is that often the exploration or discovery issue isn't the main headline on the page. So sometimes I'll steal something else that just happened on the same day. This was from when the New York Times was seriously the paper of record, so there is real reporting going on; this isn't your mother's USA Today. But every year isn't covered, so it's a "5".
30. Chronology of Canadian Military Aviation. An absolute "4". I mean, how many facts about Canadian military aviation, except during the two world wars, are likely to be of interest to anyone but a member of the Canadian military?
31. Encyclopedia of Horror Movies. A surprising "1". Here's the thing, except for the "7", which I haven't given out yet, these classifications are not meant to be an indication of how much I like the book, just how easy it is to use to write Flashback. A "1" I can pull off the shelf without looking at it and know I'll find a good question, whatever the year. A "7" I sometimes will pull off the shelf five times for five different games before I find a single fact I can use, and sometimes then I have to cheat a little. I am not particularly interested in horror movies, but this book is a total gem. It provides a full paragraph on every single horror movie made from the beginning until the year it was published, which provides not just information about the movie, but puts it in context of the genre. It cost me 50 cents at a library book sale. Compare it to the Oxford Chronology of English Literature, which you can find on sale for $300 some places (I paid considerably less for mine, but a lot more than 50 cents). It is just lists of books published in a year, with no context whatsoever, and sometimes it's clear that they took a broad interpretation of "published", as in "any edition of this book will be shown each time it's published without giving any reason why this edition was different from the last one." It's a sucky chronology, and this one is a great one.
32. U.S. Domestic Postal Rates. I guess this is our "7" except it doesn't really purport to be a chronology. But you have to hunt for facts based on dates among hundreds of tables. And not all years are covered. Is 1971? I'm looking. Yes it is. Hershey bar time? No, I worked out a better question.
33. Australia Through Time. A huge lovely "1". Australia makes good chronologies.
34. 100 Years in Photographs. I suppose this is a "5". This one at least has iconic photographs and is done by decades. I have other, similar, ones where there is maybe sort of topical coverage, and there might be 20 years without a single photograph.
35. Trudeau Albums. Another "5", and what I was talking about in the last entry. Topical, skips years. Also, it comes in a box, so it's pretentious as hell. Sort of like its subject.
36. The Beach Boys. A "1". This is one of those books where I can get lost reading it instead of finding a question and moving on. Which is a good thing unless, say, it's 4:32 and I'm trying to get the damn game written.
37. 100 Years of Federal Forestry. Another "6". As a "6", it's not bad, because it does cover a lot of years, but the stuff isn't in chronological order either.
38. Canada Curls. This is about men and women with brooms, not scissors and curling irons. It's a "5" or a "6". It has a chronology that is pretty comprehensive and interesting, but doesn't cover every year. So sometimes you're stuck with the year-by-year list of winners in competitions. And if you don't know what the Brier is, I can't help you. I have a very similar book on figure skating that has the same limitations. Only Nancy Kerrigan is more famous than Elisabet Gustafson, for some reason.
39. LBJ Chronology. We're starting a series of chronologies copied off the internet. They range all over the map. This one is a "4".
40. Leonard Bernstein Chronology. This one is also a "4."
41. PARC Historical Background. I take sources from anywhere; PARC is the Palestinian American Research Center. This is a "3" up to about 1948 (the year of the Nakhba, meaning "Catastrophe") and a "1" afterward.
42. Potato Then & Now. A "5".
43. Nicotine Wars: A Chronology. Another "5".
44. North Korea: A Chronology of Provocations. A surprising "1". For something put together as a report to Congress, this is damned good.
45. New Orleans & Mardi Gras Historical Timeline. A "4". There are years it just lists the names of Krewes at Mardi Gras. Zzzzzzz.
46. National Park Service Timeline. Definitely a "6". Sometimes it's just the name of a unit of the National Park Service even I have never heard of. And our main staircase in our house is covered in national park maps and posters.
47. The Northern Mariana Islands: A Political-Legal Chronology. The last of the printed chronologies. A "4". A good example of a hybrid, though. For years around the time the trusteeship status of the islands was in play, it becomes a "1".
48. Back to real books. "Crimes of the 20th Century." A lovely "2". I had to choose between Juan Corona and the question I actually asked.
49. Science: A History of Discovery in the 20th Century. A "1".
50. I Was There. This is a chronology of concerts. It's a "2" since there aren't necessarily concerts for every year, but they are covered quite impressively.
51. A Century of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences at MIT. An actual "3". A thing about "3"s, they sometimes will function like "1"s, meaning all the facts will be interesting. Sometimes not.
52. Historic Front Pages. These are from the Boston Globe. A "2". Nice print on them, I don't need a magnifying glass.
53. Big Town, Big Time. These are summaries of stories from the New York Daily News. Another "2", though less historical. On the other hand, for 1971 it made a better question.
54. El Al: Star in the Sky. A "3". Sometimes it just lists new equipment or routes. Marseille replaced Nice: nice!
55. Baseball Rookies Encyclopedia. A "1". Gives statistical leaders, a rundown of the important rookies (who sometimes weren't important as rookies) and then a chronology. Hard to miss something good.
56. Year by Year: 75 Years of Boeing History. Basically a "4". One fact per year, done in depth but some of them aren't all that interesting.
A pause for a moment. Here's the thing about a "1": it really opens the mind. In The Book of Presidents, I saw that in 1971 Richard M. Nixon was proposing or signing into law a lot of things that "socialist" Barack Obama would never even think about asking for, like a 10% increase in Social Security. You see possible question you might get in other sources for the year. Possible themes for the entire game. Good stuff. Start your game with a "1". End it with a "1", too, because where the heck are you going to find a bonus otherwise?
2. 2008 NFL Record & Fact Book. New source, kind of hard to use. There is a short chronology that does go year by year, and then there are bunches of year by year records, playoff records, team-versus-team records. Not user friendly. I give it a "4". Sparse or boring indeed.
3. Republic of China Yearbook. It has a surprisingly comprehensive chronology, even though it's not only a chronology. I give it a "3". Here's why it's not higher: this is the year the U.S. started warming relations with Red China. There is one entry that relates to that, and one about the opening of a new freeway in Taiwan. That's all.
4. Oregon: A Chronology & Documentary History. The goddamned Oceana state series. The 1970 "fact" is the population from the Census. 1971 isn't much better. The very definition of a "6", because this one skips a lot of years.
5. A History of War at Sea. It's the girl with the curl. When it is good it is very, very good, and when it is bad it is horrid. Not really horrid, just not there. There are either naval battles in a year of there aren't. Darn you, Pax Britannica! So, a "5."
6. Art Censorship. A "3". The title conveys what the book is about, there are entries for most years, but sometimes you don't know what they're talking about because the censored artist is forgotten now. Which may be because the censorship was successful or because the artist wasn't very good.
And to prove it's a "3", I had to look something up to make the answer accurate (though in fairness, the book ends in 1971 and the remainder of the story wasn't known at the time of publication).
7. Chronology of Ukrainian-Canadian History. I know, you all have one of these on your bedside tables. Or you want my copy because you've been looking for this for years and years and years. This is your "4". Lord knows who these people are or why anyone would sit still for a trivia question about them.
8. The Kennedys: A Chronological History. A solid "1". I once wrote an entire game from this book.
9. Milwaukee: A Chronological & Documentary History. As bad as the state Oceana series is, the city series is that good. A solid "2", and only not a "1" because there are some sparse or missing years.
10. Billboard Book of No. 2 Singles. A really true "1" in the sense that it educates me in the context of each record; it's not just a list. And what I don't know about music can fill many books. This one included.
11. Flickers. A "2" , because there is literally only one entry per year, but it's in depth. The subtitle will tell you what it is: "An Illustrated Celebration of 100 Years of Cinema."
12. Chronology of Texas History, volume II. This is a solid "3", better than the Ocean series, but for some years there is a simple recital of the creation of ten or more Texas counties and their county seats or the chartering of five railways without context.
13. Atlanta: A Chronological & Documentary History. We've been here before. Another "2".
14. San Francisco Almanac. A nice chronology, a solid "2".
15. Disaster Canada. Another new one. It's got an index that isn't in quite chronological order but easy to follow. Not all years covered, but then a good article on each one that is. So a "5".
16. A Concise History of the Middle East. Yet another new one. Sort of a "4" as a chronology, because the chronology it provides is sparse, but if the text also covers the year (and they don't match), you can find good stuff.
17. The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network & Cable TV Shows. This well-illustrates the difference between "a good reference book" and "a good chronology." This is one of the all-time great reference books, containing the cast and a snarky description of every TV show ever. But the chronology aspect is minimal: a short chronology of TV innovations, a list of Emmy winners, a list of Nielsen top shows and graphically displayed prime time schedules. It's hard to classify. It could be a "2" because the information is all in there; it could be a "4."
18. Books of the Century. A "1". Many entries for each year, all in-depth.
19. Becoming a People: a 4000 year gay and lesbian chronology. A solid "3", particularly in early years when "well, we think this person was gay because we have no evidence she wasn't and she lived with a woman" describes many of the entries. Still, some good stuff and very comprehensive.
20. A Chronology of Noteworthy Events in American Psychology. Damn, this should be a "1", but it's a "3." Why? Because for some years, particularly in the early 20th century, half or more of the entries in a particular year record someone's birth. That wasn't an event in American Psychology.
21. Century Makers. It's articles on inventions in chronological order, but not all years covered. So it's a "5." Have you figured out that a "5" is better than a "4", except it's not reliable to take off the shelf and know you can use it? That's the problem with this book; I've actually had to put it back because it skipped the year I last tried to use it for.
22. American Women in Sport. A solid "3". Lots of names early in the century it covers (starting in 1887) I've never heard of and have to look up somewhere else.
23. 20th Century Hockey Chronicle. A fine source, covering each year in depth with explanation. A clear "1".
24. Almanac of Liberty. Basically a "3". It's a history of the U.S. military, but as histories of the U.S. military go, it's not one of the best.
25. Sixty Years of Hollywood. Also a "3", but a "4" might even be justified for some years. For this year, for instance, it considers the only movies that were of interest were "Carnal Knowledge" and "Summer of '42". Really.
26. Events in Telephone History. Really "events in AT&T history" but still basically a "1".
27. The Sporting Century. I think a "5". It doesn't cover every year, but when it covers a topic, it's two or three pages on the topic. This year's discussion of a rugby test match goes on for three pages before it gets to the test match.
28. National Geographic Eyewitness to the 20th Century. A pure "1". Lots of stuff. I need sources like this to fill in the stuff that people expect for a year.
29. Exploration & Discovery. This is a collection of New York Times front pages on the topic. What's really interesting is that often the exploration or discovery issue isn't the main headline on the page. So sometimes I'll steal something else that just happened on the same day. This was from when the New York Times was seriously the paper of record, so there is real reporting going on; this isn't your mother's USA Today. But every year isn't covered, so it's a "5".
30. Chronology of Canadian Military Aviation. An absolute "4". I mean, how many facts about Canadian military aviation, except during the two world wars, are likely to be of interest to anyone but a member of the Canadian military?
31. Encyclopedia of Horror Movies. A surprising "1". Here's the thing, except for the "7", which I haven't given out yet, these classifications are not meant to be an indication of how much I like the book, just how easy it is to use to write Flashback. A "1" I can pull off the shelf without looking at it and know I'll find a good question, whatever the year. A "7" I sometimes will pull off the shelf five times for five different games before I find a single fact I can use, and sometimes then I have to cheat a little. I am not particularly interested in horror movies, but this book is a total gem. It provides a full paragraph on every single horror movie made from the beginning until the year it was published, which provides not just information about the movie, but puts it in context of the genre. It cost me 50 cents at a library book sale. Compare it to the Oxford Chronology of English Literature, which you can find on sale for $300 some places (I paid considerably less for mine, but a lot more than 50 cents). It is just lists of books published in a year, with no context whatsoever, and sometimes it's clear that they took a broad interpretation of "published", as in "any edition of this book will be shown each time it's published without giving any reason why this edition was different from the last one." It's a sucky chronology, and this one is a great one.
32. U.S. Domestic Postal Rates. I guess this is our "7" except it doesn't really purport to be a chronology. But you have to hunt for facts based on dates among hundreds of tables. And not all years are covered. Is 1971? I'm looking. Yes it is. Hershey bar time? No, I worked out a better question.
33. Australia Through Time. A huge lovely "1". Australia makes good chronologies.
34. 100 Years in Photographs. I suppose this is a "5". This one at least has iconic photographs and is done by decades. I have other, similar, ones where there is maybe sort of topical coverage, and there might be 20 years without a single photograph.
35. Trudeau Albums. Another "5", and what I was talking about in the last entry. Topical, skips years. Also, it comes in a box, so it's pretentious as hell. Sort of like its subject.
36. The Beach Boys. A "1". This is one of those books where I can get lost reading it instead of finding a question and moving on. Which is a good thing unless, say, it's 4:32 and I'm trying to get the damn game written.
37. 100 Years of Federal Forestry. Another "6". As a "6", it's not bad, because it does cover a lot of years, but the stuff isn't in chronological order either.
38. Canada Curls. This is about men and women with brooms, not scissors and curling irons. It's a "5" or a "6". It has a chronology that is pretty comprehensive and interesting, but doesn't cover every year. So sometimes you're stuck with the year-by-year list of winners in competitions. And if you don't know what the Brier is, I can't help you. I have a very similar book on figure skating that has the same limitations. Only Nancy Kerrigan is more famous than Elisabet Gustafson, for some reason.
39. LBJ Chronology. We're starting a series of chronologies copied off the internet. They range all over the map. This one is a "4".
40. Leonard Bernstein Chronology. This one is also a "4."
41. PARC Historical Background. I take sources from anywhere; PARC is the Palestinian American Research Center. This is a "3" up to about 1948 (the year of the Nakhba, meaning "Catastrophe") and a "1" afterward.
42. Potato Then & Now. A "5".
43. Nicotine Wars: A Chronology. Another "5".
44. North Korea: A Chronology of Provocations. A surprising "1". For something put together as a report to Congress, this is damned good.
45. New Orleans & Mardi Gras Historical Timeline. A "4". There are years it just lists the names of Krewes at Mardi Gras. Zzzzzzz.
46. National Park Service Timeline. Definitely a "6". Sometimes it's just the name of a unit of the National Park Service even I have never heard of. And our main staircase in our house is covered in national park maps and posters.
47. The Northern Mariana Islands: A Political-Legal Chronology. The last of the printed chronologies. A "4". A good example of a hybrid, though. For years around the time the trusteeship status of the islands was in play, it becomes a "1".
48. Back to real books. "Crimes of the 20th Century." A lovely "2". I had to choose between Juan Corona and the question I actually asked.
49. Science: A History of Discovery in the 20th Century. A "1".
50. I Was There. This is a chronology of concerts. It's a "2" since there aren't necessarily concerts for every year, but they are covered quite impressively.
51. A Century of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences at MIT. An actual "3". A thing about "3"s, they sometimes will function like "1"s, meaning all the facts will be interesting. Sometimes not.
52. Historic Front Pages. These are from the Boston Globe. A "2". Nice print on them, I don't need a magnifying glass.
53. Big Town, Big Time. These are summaries of stories from the New York Daily News. Another "2", though less historical. On the other hand, for 1971 it made a better question.
54. El Al: Star in the Sky. A "3". Sometimes it just lists new equipment or routes. Marseille replaced Nice: nice!
55. Baseball Rookies Encyclopedia. A "1". Gives statistical leaders, a rundown of the important rookies (who sometimes weren't important as rookies) and then a chronology. Hard to miss something good.
56. Year by Year: 75 Years of Boeing History. Basically a "4". One fact per year, done in depth but some of them aren't all that interesting.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
A New Classification System
Just for the fun of it, and because I'd like to use this blog a little more, I thought I'd run through, in the next game, which is for 1971, a new classification system I'm cooking up.
It is purely subjective, based on how good a chronology the book is. Since the last one used letters, this one will use numbers. The lower the better.
1. Multiple good entries for each year covered. Not just "lots of good facts" but background and context about the facts. You could write an entire game from some of these.
2. In depth entries for each year covered, and always something interesting.
3. Many entries for each year, but not in depth. Lots of facts, but sometimes you might have to look something up to provide context.
4. Covers every year, or nearly so, but sparse or boring. I mentioned the Oceana state series; this is where they go. The entry might be "Joe Smith was elected governor and took office the following July 1." Golly gosh, who the hell is Joe Smith and why should I care?
5. Doesn't cover a lot of years, and skips a lot of years, but provides good information where it does do a year.
6. The same, only not such good information.
7. Isn't really a chronology at all. Has the title "chronology" or the subtitle "chronology" but should be taken up with the Consumer Protection Bureau (Elizabeth Warren, where are you when I need you?). Has some facts that are sometimes in chronological order, but often not, and a lot of facts that aren't associated with a particular year. The author needs a dictionary.
It is purely subjective, based on how good a chronology the book is. Since the last one used letters, this one will use numbers. The lower the better.
1. Multiple good entries for each year covered. Not just "lots of good facts" but background and context about the facts. You could write an entire game from some of these.
2. In depth entries for each year covered, and always something interesting.
3. Many entries for each year, but not in depth. Lots of facts, but sometimes you might have to look something up to provide context.
4. Covers every year, or nearly so, but sparse or boring. I mentioned the Oceana state series; this is where they go. The entry might be "Joe Smith was elected governor and took office the following July 1." Golly gosh, who the hell is Joe Smith and why should I care?
5. Doesn't cover a lot of years, and skips a lot of years, but provides good information where it does do a year.
6. The same, only not such good information.
7. Isn't really a chronology at all. Has the title "chronology" or the subtitle "chronology" but should be taken up with the Consumer Protection Bureau (Elizabeth Warren, where are you when I need you?). Has some facts that are sometimes in chronological order, but often not, and a lot of facts that aren't associated with a particular year. The author needs a dictionary.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Yes, there are sources I hate
There are three kinds of book that have the label "Chronology":
The first we can dismiss right away, they are "chronologies" only in the title sense. What they really are are discourses on chronology, usually biblical but sometimes archaeological. They are entirely useless for writing Flashback.
The second you know about: they are real books where the data is provided in chronological order by year or some other date (like by day).
The third are books that are called chronologies but are actually encyclopedias of facts, arranged alphabetically with the date data supplied with the alphabetical information. British railway chronologies are almost always done this way. You have to scan the entire list looking for a year. I should just not buy them, right, but usually you're buying something from abroad it would be cheaper to keep than return and anyway, I'm stubborn.
The worst one is the Chronology of Florida Post Offices. 91 pages of two columns alphabetically listing post offices.
I mean, who cares?
But I got a good question out of it for once.
The first we can dismiss right away, they are "chronologies" only in the title sense. What they really are are discourses on chronology, usually biblical but sometimes archaeological. They are entirely useless for writing Flashback.
The second you know about: they are real books where the data is provided in chronological order by year or some other date (like by day).
The third are books that are called chronologies but are actually encyclopedias of facts, arranged alphabetically with the date data supplied with the alphabetical information. British railway chronologies are almost always done this way. You have to scan the entire list looking for a year. I should just not buy them, right, but usually you're buying something from abroad it would be cheaper to keep than return and anyway, I'm stubborn.
The worst one is the Chronology of Florida Post Offices. 91 pages of two columns alphabetically listing post offices.
I mean, who cares?
But I got a good question out of it for once.
What were the odds?
I have a lot of books with titles that begin "100 Years of . . . ." But very few with titles involving 75 years.
So what were the odds I'd pull two books off the shelf (actually, one book off the table where I keep books I've never used before) that had these titles:
75 Years of America Reading
Three-Quarters of a Century at Washington
Someone else can calculate the actual odds, but the number of titles I have in my database with 75 or some variation thereof is three (the other one is "75 Years of Children's Book Week Posters", which I used two weeks ago.
So what were the odds I'd pull two books off the shelf (actually, one book off the table where I keep books I've never used before) that had these titles:
75 Years of America Reading
Three-Quarters of a Century at Washington
Someone else can calculate the actual odds, but the number of titles I have in my database with 75 or some variation thereof is three (the other one is "75 Years of Children's Book Week Posters", which I used two weeks ago.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
The Triumph of Randomness
A lot of time, when I announce the year for the game, some players will make comments asking when the "X" question will occur. The "X" question is based on someone's idea of a particular fact that is, in that player's mind, iconic for the year in question.
Well, here's another clue for you all, the "X" question may or may not be in the game. I do not, typically, scour sources looking for that iconic fact of a year, to make sure it's covered. A lot of the time, obviously, it will be covered, but a lot of the time it won't. Why? First of all, because I've done all the years of the 20th century multiple times, I may not have a new approach to a topic, so it won't come into the game. Other times, quite simply, it just doesn't come up as I read my sources. When I open a source, the first reasonable question for that year is usually what I come up with. I don't have time to be comprehensive, to read every possible fact in each of 46+ sources (sometimes as high as 100) that pertains to a year. So your X may just not come to my attention.
On the other hand, and this leads us to the topic for this post, sometimes I have no idea something happened in a particular year and the sources lead me to it. Right now, I'm writing a game on 1956, and I just found a really cool fact in a source called "The FBI's Ten Most Wanted List," a wonderful source because it goes through the list in strict chronological order. And someone was put on the list in 1956 that makes a great question. Someone else might have, too, but when I got to these guys, that was enough for me.
Well, here's another clue for you all, the "X" question may or may not be in the game. I do not, typically, scour sources looking for that iconic fact of a year, to make sure it's covered. A lot of the time, obviously, it will be covered, but a lot of the time it won't. Why? First of all, because I've done all the years of the 20th century multiple times, I may not have a new approach to a topic, so it won't come into the game. Other times, quite simply, it just doesn't come up as I read my sources. When I open a source, the first reasonable question for that year is usually what I come up with. I don't have time to be comprehensive, to read every possible fact in each of 46+ sources (sometimes as high as 100) that pertains to a year. So your X may just not come to my attention.
On the other hand, and this leads us to the topic for this post, sometimes I have no idea something happened in a particular year and the sources lead me to it. Right now, I'm writing a game on 1956, and I just found a really cool fact in a source called "The FBI's Ten Most Wanted List," a wonderful source because it goes through the list in strict chronological order. And someone was put on the list in 1956 that makes a great question. Someone else might have, too, but when I got to these guys, that was enough for me.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Another fact I can't use
Writing about 1936, I'm looking for a bonus in "The Thirties, Day by Day" and so since this is really going to work itself into one question, I present it here without elaboration:
Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll's famous fantasy, is bad for children, according to psychiatrist Dr. Paul Schilder of New York University. The tale, he professes, is one of subtly hidden "oral sadistic trends of cannibalism."I must have missed those. Or maybe one day I'll be ripping apart other humans with my mouth.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Okay, this is cool (and doesn't give any questions away)
I'm writing a game on 1936. I went through the pile of books I hadn't used and pulled up on that is dead on for 1936, entitled "The Tercentenary of Harvard College." You may not care, but the tercentenary of Harvard College was in 1936. Lots of material here. But that's not what this post is about.
What this post is about is that I looked at my copy and saw something indicating that it was a "Gift" to whatever library I had obtained it from. And that library is . . . the Library of Congress. They considered it a duplicate, according to the stamp on it. But I have a Library of Congress book. How cool is that?
What this post is about is that I looked at my copy and saw something indicating that it was a "Gift" to whatever library I had obtained it from. And that library is . . . the Library of Congress. They considered it a duplicate, according to the stamp on it. But I have a Library of Congress book. How cool is that?
Friday, March 18, 2011
Great Facts I Can't Use
I'm writing a game on 1771, but the following fact appears in The Annotated Table of Universal Chronology, a beautifully preserved book I got for cheap on eBay (the embossing of the Royal United Service Institution Library is perfectly preserved on the title page, for instance).
Anyway, here is the fact, presented without elaboration. Next year, I'll do 1772 and we'll undoubtedly use this fact, so take note:
Caroline Matilda, Queen of Christian VII, of Denmark, arrested on a charge of incontinence, and afterward banished from the kingdom.
Anyway, here is the fact, presented without elaboration. Next year, I'll do 1772 and we'll undoubtedly use this fact, so take note:
Caroline Matilda, Queen of Christian VII, of Denmark, arrested on a charge of incontinence, and afterward banished from the kingdom.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
In my parents' lifetimes
Dad was born in 1926 and mom in 1928; they're still alive, thanks.
I'm writing a game on 1931, thus in my parents' lifetimes. I was looking in an old and trusted source, Variety Music Cavalcade, which lists all the top popular hits of any particular year, usually three or four pages of popular songs. One of those songs had what Wikipedia calls "among the most offensive songs of the Depression era." I won't print the lyrics, but the link is here. I will say that despite the offensive title and the first verse, the song indicates a degree of dignity and worth. YouTube has a version sung by Paul Robeson.
I'm writing a game on 1931, thus in my parents' lifetimes. I was looking in an old and trusted source, Variety Music Cavalcade, which lists all the top popular hits of any particular year, usually three or four pages of popular songs. One of those songs had what Wikipedia calls "among the most offensive songs of the Depression era." I won't print the lyrics, but the link is here. I will say that despite the offensive title and the first verse, the song indicates a degree of dignity and worth. YouTube has a version sung by Paul Robeson.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
1966: The Chickens Come Home To Roost
Readers of this blog, if there are any, will remember that while putting together the 1961 game, the first game of the year, I noted that I was making sure to leave a number of sources about the 1960s available for a subsequent 1966 game. Well, the time has come to write such a game, and the chickens are indeed coming home to roost. The main problem is the Beatles.
The Beatles?
Yes, the Beatles. Two seminal facts about the Beatles: their real period of activity was from 1963 to 1970. And lots and lots of people have written chronologies about the Beatles, mainly focused on the years from 1963 to 1970. Using our basic plan for the year--doing years that end in 1 or 6--you will note that only one year falls in the period from 1963 to 1970. That year is 1966.
Add to that a bunch of other things that fall heavily into that time period that can only be done in 1966 for this cycle (the Johnson administration, the Gemini program, the beginnings of the Vietnam War, the end of the really heavy civil rights period, the American Football League and a bunch of other pop groups), plus the plethora of books on the sixties we didn't use for 1961, plus a couple of oddities (something called "Report of the Chronicler" that deals with the years 1966 to 1968 and a Chronology of the U.S. Marine Corps I've had for years and years and didn't realize its third volume covered 1966 to 1969 and I'd never used it, plus a Facts on File yearbook for 1966, and by the time I had put only books focused on the period into my book rack, there wasn't much room left.
So 1966, the year of necessity. Not a lot of general sources outside the period, but heck, it's a year where a lot of things happened.
The Beatles?
Yes, the Beatles. Two seminal facts about the Beatles: their real period of activity was from 1963 to 1970. And lots and lots of people have written chronologies about the Beatles, mainly focused on the years from 1963 to 1970. Using our basic plan for the year--doing years that end in 1 or 6--you will note that only one year falls in the period from 1963 to 1970. That year is 1966.
Add to that a bunch of other things that fall heavily into that time period that can only be done in 1966 for this cycle (the Johnson administration, the Gemini program, the beginnings of the Vietnam War, the end of the really heavy civil rights period, the American Football League and a bunch of other pop groups), plus the plethora of books on the sixties we didn't use for 1961, plus a couple of oddities (something called "Report of the Chronicler" that deals with the years 1966 to 1968 and a Chronology of the U.S. Marine Corps I've had for years and years and didn't realize its third volume covered 1966 to 1969 and I'd never used it, plus a Facts on File yearbook for 1966, and by the time I had put only books focused on the period into my book rack, there wasn't much room left.
So 1966, the year of necessity. Not a lot of general sources outside the period, but heck, it's a year where a lot of things happened.
A Question You'll Never See
Nothing profound here, I just made a mistake and used a source I'd already used for a 2011 game. So here's the question:
Q: IN WHAT CITY WAS THE FIRST HOSPITAL NORTH OF MEXICO ESTABLISHED IN NORTH AMERICA?
A: QUEBEC
Interesting fact: the founder (in the literal sense, the person whose funds were used to create the institution) was the niece of Cardinal Richelieu. Anyway, the "illegal" source was The Book of Canadian Facts & Dates. Replaced by a question from Asimov's Chronology of the World.
Q: IN WHAT CITY WAS THE FIRST HOSPITAL NORTH OF MEXICO ESTABLISHED IN NORTH AMERICA?
A: QUEBEC
Interesting fact: the founder (in the literal sense, the person whose funds were used to create the institution) was the niece of Cardinal Richelieu. Anyway, the "illegal" source was The Book of Canadian Facts & Dates. Replaced by a question from Asimov's Chronology of the World.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Funny Classification
I'm writing a game on the year 1637. New England's bad girl, Anne Hutchinson, figures in this year. But in "Famous First Facts", by Joseph Nathan Kane, a standard library reference (my copy is a library discard), Anne is classified as a "clubwoman." I suppose she might have clubbed certain New England men if given the chance.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
A just totally cool fact I couldn't use
I'm writing a game on 1951, but the book I'm looking at, "Illlini Legends, Lists & Lore", covers, naturally, academic rather than calendar years. So for the 1950-51 entry it mentions that the first coed cheerleaders for the Illini began on September 30, 1950, in a game against Ohio University. It shows a picture of the four comely coeds. Across their chests is not "Illinois" or "Fighting Illini." It's one simple word:
Cheer.
Cheer.
The Start of the Civil War Was Near . . .
The Civil War lasted from 1861 to 1865, which of course means there were five years, which is exactly our Flashback cycle. And there are a lot of chronologies of the Civil War that focus only on those five years. Which means (with some exceptions if I do 1860) that every year I have to use all the Civil War focused sources for the Civil War year game. This year's is 1861.
One of the sources, for obvious reasons, doesn't cover all five years. This is Stonewall Jackson Day by Day. Oddly, once he's dead, he doesn't seem to do much.
One of the sources, for obvious reasons, doesn't cover all five years. This is Stonewall Jackson Day by Day. Oddly, once he's dead, he doesn't seem to do much.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
My Favorite Source
I'll have something to say about the 1861 game in a bit, but I'm writing a game about 1986 and I realized that I was starting it with what I have long considered my favorite source of all. It is a book called "The Clothes Have No Emperor" and it's a comprehensive chronology of the Reagan years. What makes it my favorite source is that the author has the same sense of humor I do, and it never fails to give me a chuckle as I read it. And I have never, ever been unable to find a good question to use from it. It's not quite day-by-day, but it does have about 20 quotes or quips about every month that Ronnie was President, so the chances I couldn't find a fresh, interesting question for a year are pretty small. It's never failed me. The author is Paul Slansky. He's welcome to continue with something on the W. administration (actually, he did).
Writing the First Game of the Year: Aftermath
When I'm done, I print out the game to read to Marjorie (see a prior post).
Then I take the Query 3 file and rename it with the spelled out name of the game, "January 5, 2011 1961." I think add two fields, "Question No." (which gives me the autonumbered question numbers) and "Last Used". I have to turn on the last two fields from "Group by" to "Expression" because Access is the worst program in the world and gives me that toggle to a field whether I want it or not (and I never want it) and despite the fact that the moment the query is changed from Design View to View I will get an error message.
As I've been writing the questions, I've been filling in this field on the Books 14 database with "1/5/2011", only because I've been writing this blog, I've sort of lost my natural rhythm and I discover I've forgotten to do it about six times. So I fix that, and then change the type of query from "Make Table Query" (which records the autonumbered data) to "Select Query" (which turns that off). I save it again and I'm done.
I know the next game will be 1861 because Marjorie just gave me a great chronology on the Civil War for Chanukah. I won't post as much about that game.
Then I take the Query 3 file and rename it with the spelled out name of the game, "January 5, 2011 1961." I think add two fields, "Question No." (which gives me the autonumbered question numbers) and "Last Used". I have to turn on the last two fields from "Group by" to "Expression" because Access is the worst program in the world and gives me that toggle to a field whether I want it or not (and I never want it) and despite the fact that the moment the query is changed from Design View to View I will get an error message.
As I've been writing the questions, I've been filling in this field on the Books 14 database with "1/5/2011", only because I've been writing this blog, I've sort of lost my natural rhythm and I discover I've forgotten to do it about six times. So I fix that, and then change the type of query from "Make Table Query" (which records the autonumbered data) to "Select Query" (which turns that off). I save it again and I'm done.
I know the next game will be 1861 because Marjorie just gave me a great chronology on the Civil War for Chanukah. I won't post as much about that game.
Writing the First Game of the Year: Part Five
42. NASCAR Chronicle. Another B/C and no. 1120. An example of a source I'd never have bought if I weren't faithful to the idea that Flashback isn't "what Jeopchamp likes to ask about" but rather "stuff I could find for Flashback." Sure, I'd prefer a lot more baseball questions than NASCAR questions (and this is the only source I have devoted to NASCAR). But there will be NASCAR questions because NASCAR happens. So to speak.
43. Chronology of the Disability Rights Movement. A D, since it starts in 1817. This is the first of a series of printouts from the Internet. One always has to be careful about the Internet; I don't take Wikipedia's chronologies, for instance. I have, however, two file drawers of these, and they need to be burned, too. This is a good one, because it covers a lot of interesting issues all together. It's 1184 (and we're barbarians); a lot of them are between 900 and 1200, the heyday of printing off the Internet for me.
44. Chronology of Michigan Women's History. The files are kept in two alphabetical runs, A-Z and Chronology from A to Z. About 20% of all my sources begin with the word Chronology. No. 1054 and a D.
45. Chronology of the National Audubon Society. A C (since it covers 1899 to 1999). You'll get a lot of these sources in alphabetical order. What I do is to find a source that seems particularly relevant (most likely an A or a B but also one that I've been having trouble burning that might have a question for the particular year I'm writing) and I'll take all the other source that have questions for that particular year as well, unless the source is entirely repetitive of a book I'm using and isn't an A or B. Is that clear? This is source No. 826, by the way, the exception that proves the rule on when I printed these. This is an official chronology on the organization's website and it wonderfully covered every single year in its range (sometimes with facts that don't make great questions, but there's always something).
46. Chronology of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. A B, no. 864. And with 46 questions, we are an official game. Congratulations.
47. A Chronology of Significant Events in Duke University's History. A D and no. 1205. See comment on NASCAR Chronology.
48. Alabama Chronology. No. 1386 and a D. An easy year for Alabama questions.
49. Biographical Chronology of Senator J. Strom Thurmond. No. 911 and despite rumors to the contrary, a C not a D.
50. Boeing Logbook. A C. No. 1785.
51. Bing Crosby Day by Day. A C and the second longest chronology after Walt Disney Day by Day (which I actually paid for). I ran an entire game on Der Bingle, too. Something Bing and I have in common: affiliation with Gonzaga University. He is its most famous alum and the namesake of its library. I was on the advisory board of the Gonzaga Law School Commercial Law Center. I even have a little plaque. No. 935.
52. Brief Chronology of Arthur Miller's Life and Works. A B. Naw, it's really a C. But this is the center of Miller's career. The stuff he did in the 90s isn't of much interest. No. 1660.
53. Pop Culture. Back to actual books. A C. Totally wonderful source. No. 7. You can read this one from cover to cover and enjoy the whole thing.
54. The Complete New Yorker (on CD). Well, 8 CDs. A C. It's No. 760 the way Sci-Fi Movies succeeded to a duplicate Book No. I think I bought it in 2008. It's more user friendly than some of the other CD sources. I own.
55. Hawaii, 1959-1989. A B and No. 1285.
56. Bits and Pieces of Alaskan History, volume 2. A B and No. 294. Equal time for the 49th state. After all, I belong to the Alaska bar, not the Hawai'i bar. Alaska source material tends to be more user friendly than Hawaiian. This is a collection of human interest pieces, month by month for fourteen years after statehood. There is no comparable Hawaiian source. And, yes, I have volume one, too.
57. The 1960's. A B. Really. No. 1868. Except this is going to be No. 59, because it has a great bonus question. So, 57 will be instead The Timeline History of Baseball, which I'm pulling off the shelf because, incredibly, I didn't use a single baseball source this game. And this is 1961. Some stuff happened. No. 1447 and a D.
58. Facts on File 1961. The archetypal A. No. 2009. Usually used for a bonus, I will try to get something as close to December 31 as I can instead for the last "regular" question.
59. See 57. +
43. Chronology of the Disability Rights Movement. A D, since it starts in 1817. This is the first of a series of printouts from the Internet. One always has to be careful about the Internet; I don't take Wikipedia's chronologies, for instance. I have, however, two file drawers of these, and they need to be burned, too. This is a good one, because it covers a lot of interesting issues all together. It's 1184 (and we're barbarians); a lot of them are between 900 and 1200, the heyday of printing off the Internet for me.
44. Chronology of Michigan Women's History. The files are kept in two alphabetical runs, A-Z and Chronology from A to Z. About 20% of all my sources begin with the word Chronology. No. 1054 and a D.
45. Chronology of the National Audubon Society. A C (since it covers 1899 to 1999). You'll get a lot of these sources in alphabetical order. What I do is to find a source that seems particularly relevant (most likely an A or a B but also one that I've been having trouble burning that might have a question for the particular year I'm writing) and I'll take all the other source that have questions for that particular year as well, unless the source is entirely repetitive of a book I'm using and isn't an A or B. Is that clear? This is source No. 826, by the way, the exception that proves the rule on when I printed these. This is an official chronology on the organization's website and it wonderfully covered every single year in its range (sometimes with facts that don't make great questions, but there's always something).
46. Chronology of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. A B, no. 864. And with 46 questions, we are an official game. Congratulations.
47. A Chronology of Significant Events in Duke University's History. A D and no. 1205. See comment on NASCAR Chronology.
48. Alabama Chronology. No. 1386 and a D. An easy year for Alabama questions.
49. Biographical Chronology of Senator J. Strom Thurmond. No. 911 and despite rumors to the contrary, a C not a D.
50. Boeing Logbook. A C. No. 1785.
51. Bing Crosby Day by Day. A C and the second longest chronology after Walt Disney Day by Day (which I actually paid for). I ran an entire game on Der Bingle, too. Something Bing and I have in common: affiliation with Gonzaga University. He is its most famous alum and the namesake of its library. I was on the advisory board of the Gonzaga Law School Commercial Law Center. I even have a little plaque. No. 935.
52. Brief Chronology of Arthur Miller's Life and Works. A B. Naw, it's really a C. But this is the center of Miller's career. The stuff he did in the 90s isn't of much interest. No. 1660.
53. Pop Culture. Back to actual books. A C. Totally wonderful source. No. 7. You can read this one from cover to cover and enjoy the whole thing.
54. The Complete New Yorker (on CD). Well, 8 CDs. A C. It's No. 760 the way Sci-Fi Movies succeeded to a duplicate Book No. I think I bought it in 2008. It's more user friendly than some of the other CD sources. I own.
55. Hawaii, 1959-1989. A B and No. 1285.
56. Bits and Pieces of Alaskan History, volume 2. A B and No. 294. Equal time for the 49th state. After all, I belong to the Alaska bar, not the Hawai'i bar. Alaska source material tends to be more user friendly than Hawaiian. This is a collection of human interest pieces, month by month for fourteen years after statehood. There is no comparable Hawaiian source. And, yes, I have volume one, too.
57. The 1960's. A B. Really. No. 1868. Except this is going to be No. 59, because it has a great bonus question. So, 57 will be instead The Timeline History of Baseball, which I'm pulling off the shelf because, incredibly, I didn't use a single baseball source this game. And this is 1961. Some stuff happened. No. 1447 and a D.
58. Facts on File 1961. The archetypal A. No. 2009. Usually used for a bonus, I will try to get something as close to December 31 as I can instead for the last "regular" question.
59. See 57. +
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)