![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Feb. 15th, 2007 01:41 pmThe review came back in the negative from Antiguo Oriente on my article on the "Book of the Heavenly Cow." Here's the gist:
My biggest comment regarding this article is that the author needs to engage the Egyptological content more … The writing is extremely clear and fluid; however, I was left at the end wondering what the author’s purpose in writing the article was. Although s/he does provide a very good and thorough overview and interpretation, a longer and more thorough conclusion discussing how this author’s interpretation moved forward the understanding of this religious text would have been helpful … I’m concerned about the author’s Egyptological content and who the author’s intended audience is. In other words, although the author’s subject matter is Egyptological, I would personally like to see the Egyptological content of the article be brought forward for inclusion in a journal such as this one dedicated to ancient studies …
Taking the "half-full" approach, I guess that I should be happy the reviewer didn't criticize my prose style (as some have recently in rather heavy-handed fashion), and that s/he doesn't seem to dispute my interpretation so much as its relevancy. Maybe, if it was fortified with more references to the Egyptological literature, it might have a fighting chance at Brill's fairly new Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions.
In better news, I found out that the same book I mentioned in my last post as having a citation of my article from Dionysius actually has a second article in it that cites me, this one by Wayne Hankey, the editor of Dionysius. If you go here and scroll down to the article called Ab uno simplici non est nisi unum: The Place of Natural and Necessary Emanation in Aquinas' Doctrine of Creation, you'll find the citation within. This one is more a matter of Prof. Hankey throwing me a bone, since he could just as easily have cited the primary text in this case rather than citing it via my article. It's fun, though, to think that I'll be on two pages in the index of this book.
Also, I sent the article on the Intelligible Gods off to Méthexis, here's hoping it meets a warm reception. It's much improved, I think, from the version that got shredded by IJPT.
In lighter matters, I'm waiting to pick up the third of Elizabeth Moon's Vatta books; really enjoying that series. In the meantime, I'm reading Lindsey Davis' Scandal Takes a Holiday. After reading who-knows-how-many of her books, I know just what to expect. The last one that stood out, I think, was The Accusers, for its description of the Roman court system in the first century CE.
As for TV, the high points of my week are Heroes and Oban. Heroes is weird because normally when I am addicted to a program I feel a sense of affection for it, but Heroes is just like a drug I need, I'm not really a "fan", which is a strange sensation for me. Maybe it's just that the relentless cliff-hangers wear me out a bit. Oban is just the opposite: pure love. I've also picked up The Dresden Files, but I don't think it's anything too special, frankly. Police procedurals (with the exception, of course, of Assy McGee) mean nothing to me, even with paranormal elements. But I give the show credit where credit is due, it's watchable and not insulting my intelligence so far. It came close to insulting my religion with the Egyptian-themed episode, but managed to narrowly avoid treading on my sensibilities. I was glad to hear Galactica got picked up for another season. Hopefully Sci-Fi realizes that this show is a solid long-term investment. ImaginAsian debuted a whole block of new anime fresh off the boat from Japan, but the only one we're sticking with is Gankutsuou: The Count of Monte Cristo. The rest just seem old hat. I'm looking forward to the day when Korean manhwa like Dokebi Bride and Moon Boy get made into anime. I think that they have a freshness that the Japanese product is lacking these days.
My biggest comment regarding this article is that the author needs to engage the Egyptological content more … The writing is extremely clear and fluid; however, I was left at the end wondering what the author’s purpose in writing the article was. Although s/he does provide a very good and thorough overview and interpretation, a longer and more thorough conclusion discussing how this author’s interpretation moved forward the understanding of this religious text would have been helpful … I’m concerned about the author’s Egyptological content and who the author’s intended audience is. In other words, although the author’s subject matter is Egyptological, I would personally like to see the Egyptological content of the article be brought forward for inclusion in a journal such as this one dedicated to ancient studies …
Taking the "half-full" approach, I guess that I should be happy the reviewer didn't criticize my prose style (as some have recently in rather heavy-handed fashion), and that s/he doesn't seem to dispute my interpretation so much as its relevancy. Maybe, if it was fortified with more references to the Egyptological literature, it might have a fighting chance at Brill's fairly new Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions.
In better news, I found out that the same book I mentioned in my last post as having a citation of my article from Dionysius actually has a second article in it that cites me, this one by Wayne Hankey, the editor of Dionysius. If you go here and scroll down to the article called Ab uno simplici non est nisi unum: The Place of Natural and Necessary Emanation in Aquinas' Doctrine of Creation, you'll find the citation within. This one is more a matter of Prof. Hankey throwing me a bone, since he could just as easily have cited the primary text in this case rather than citing it via my article. It's fun, though, to think that I'll be on two pages in the index of this book.
Also, I sent the article on the Intelligible Gods off to Méthexis, here's hoping it meets a warm reception. It's much improved, I think, from the version that got shredded by IJPT.
In lighter matters, I'm waiting to pick up the third of Elizabeth Moon's Vatta books; really enjoying that series. In the meantime, I'm reading Lindsey Davis' Scandal Takes a Holiday. After reading who-knows-how-many of her books, I know just what to expect. The last one that stood out, I think, was The Accusers, for its description of the Roman court system in the first century CE.
As for TV, the high points of my week are Heroes and Oban. Heroes is weird because normally when I am addicted to a program I feel a sense of affection for it, but Heroes is just like a drug I need, I'm not really a "fan", which is a strange sensation for me. Maybe it's just that the relentless cliff-hangers wear me out a bit. Oban is just the opposite: pure love. I've also picked up The Dresden Files, but I don't think it's anything too special, frankly. Police procedurals (with the exception, of course, of Assy McGee) mean nothing to me, even with paranormal elements. But I give the show credit where credit is due, it's watchable and not insulting my intelligence so far. It came close to insulting my religion with the Egyptian-themed episode, but managed to narrowly avoid treading on my sensibilities. I was glad to hear Galactica got picked up for another season. Hopefully Sci-Fi realizes that this show is a solid long-term investment. ImaginAsian debuted a whole block of new anime fresh off the boat from Japan, but the only one we're sticking with is Gankutsuou: The Count of Monte Cristo. The rest just seem old hat. I'm looking forward to the day when Korean manhwa like Dokebi Bride and Moon Boy get made into anime. I think that they have a freshness that the Japanese product is lacking these days.
