The latest edition of the History Carnival is up and it's a very nice roundup of material. Aside from the folks I already have on my blogroll (Bennett, Jones, Muller, Orac), the history of Celtic Runes is a very detailed, but extremely contentious resource. That one will take some close reading, as it's openly challenging to the recieved wisdom in ways that strike me as ... ahistorical. Wrong, in other words. Bizarre, actually.
Oh, and I keep forgetting to mention that the Cliopatria Awards for history blogging are open for nomination for two more weeks. I don't think this blog's done anything worthy of mention there, but you're more than welcome to disagree and nominate me!
I did submit this to some of the usual suspects, so expect more carnival notifications soon!
And welcome to Orac's readers! Who could have guessed that the first 100+ visitor day I'd have in over a month would come from my new comment policy? Oddly, I'm also getting a noticable boost from the History Carnival, though I'm not mentioned. Apparently being the first, alphabetically, on the sidebar is paying dividends I hadn't considered. (Update: actually, I'm noted in the addendum with regard to the Celtic piece. That explains it!)
Welcome Carnival of the Vanities readers! If you found me, that means you read through almost the entire carnival -- and a fulsome lot it was -- and still had the strength to click through: Well Done! Host Dr. Charles notes that the right side of the blogosphere is somewhat over-represented, which is very common for some of the right-hosted but supposedly non-partisan carnivals like this one: I do hope more of my liberal blogging friends will realize how powerful the carnivals can be and will submit.
Also, Matt, at Pooflingers Anonymous has a Shakespearean edition of the Skeptic's Circle that rivals Orac's best Carnivals for style (and isn't bad for substance, either). I note, as well, that both Matt and Tigerlily have blogrolled me, which I find both heartwarming and highly odd....
Final Update (really!): The Carnival of Comedy (where I apparently rank just above failed suicide bombers) and the Carnival of Satire (where I lead off and get a "Hooot!" to boot) have now been posted. The fun is really underway now! All these links have actually pushed me up into TTLB's "Flappy Bird" category, though that will undoubtedly not last long. Still, it's kind of fun to be in quadruple digits instead of quintuple...
6 comments:
Don't give my hosting job too much credit... I'm going to have a hell of a time topping it next time as is...
You're very welcome for the blogrolling. Thanks for reciprocating.
P.S. The comment rules are great. I've seen several similar things pop up lately, so it seems you've started something.
My comment policy is a response to a particularly nasty blogwar (and perhaps even legal action) related to comment moderation: I'm not the only person who realized that we were a bit vulnerable in that department.
re: carnivals: It just amazes me, given the challenge of compiling and presenting blog material in the first place, how creative some of the carnival hosts get. It's become a form of performance art, and I love it. The hard part is being cute/clever without obscuring the meaning of the posts involved: I've seen carnivals where I really couldn't tell what was what. But the Skeptics usually put on a good show.
I'd like to point out that you did NOT in fact rank just above failed suicide bombers. The first 3 categories are all good. That last one is not even close. Think of it as school. Everyone passed and graduated, except one person who was shipped back down to nusery school to learn the alphabet.
Thanks for the linkback.
Technically.... we're both right.
(I thought it was a carnival of Comedy! Where's the sense of humor?)
It's a good collection, and it's a tough crowd you face with that carnival: comedy being a subjective thing, I think your rankings... need reconsideration. But that's OK, as long as we're linking each other.
Humor is, indeed, a very subjective thing. I got the self depreciating humor of what you were saying about being just above the bottom rung. I just wanted to make it clear that there was a really big difference between any of the top three categories, and the last one.
I've been ranked near the top, and I've been ranked 2nd to last (my worst finish) and everywhere in between. Back to that first point about the subjective nature.
It is nice that it was such a strong field: I'm just glad to be included, etc., etc...
I actually did go back and look at the piece you ranked "failed" and as much as I am politically aligned with him (mostly; the usual caveats) there's nothing in there that strikes me as funny (I gave up on "dumb Prez" jokes a long time ago, because he isn't: wrong, yes; dumb, not really. And yes, I'd love a crack at that job myself but I'd never survive campaigning for it. I just don't have those kinds of people skills, I don't think.). Maybe he hit the wrong carnival on the submission form?
Post a Comment