Jun 282007
 

Here’s a review of Ant­o­nia Fraser’s The Wives of Henry VIII (there also seems to be an updated ver­sion, The Six Wives of Henry VIII (Women in His­tory)), which the book­club picked, par­tially because I’d read it before and thought it was inter­est­ing, par­tially because most of the book­club mem­bers knew a little about that peri­od but not much and wanted to learn more, and par­tially because one book­club mem­ber will read any­thing and everything about the Tudors. Every­one enjoyed the book, but with some caveats.

To go with it, I read Alis­on Weir’s Henry VIII: The King and His Court. Read­ing both books at much the same time was good, I found they com­ple­men­ted each oth­er and helped me under­stand more of what was going on.

The Henry VIII book mostly con­cen­trates on the King him­self, what he was like as a young man (incred­ibly gif­ted, hand­some, and strong, if the records are all to be believed), how the court func­tioned, what all the people around the King were meant to do, how much things cost, what the fash­ions of the time were. It then goes into the King’s life, and how, to quote Alis­on Weir, Henry began his reign in a medi­aev­al king­dom, he ended it in a mod­ern state. I found the first part of the book to be the most inter­est­ing, per­haps because I got rather lost with all the people who kept chan­ging names as they were pro­moted and demoted, and the King him­self became less sym­path­et­ic as he became more dic­tat­ori­al and averse to being crossed.

The Wives book (and Alis­on Weir has also writ­ten one on that sub­ject, which I haven’t read) con­cen­trates on the wives them­selves, their per­son­al­it­ies and their his­tor­ies. Ant­o­nia Fraser, unlike Alis­on Weir, gen­er­ally uses the same name to describe the same per­son through the book, which makes fol­low­ing along who did what when much easi­er. I also found her fam­ily trees to be of more use. She brings up a lot of inter­est­ing points about the expect­a­tions placed on women in those times, that people genu­inely believed that Henry ruled by divine right (which makes it easi­er to under­stand some of what happened), and that Henry towards the end of his life was driv­en by the need for a male heir (iron­ic­ally) and saw his daugh­ters, just like his sis­ter, as pawns to be used to prop up his king­dom by means of alli­ances. Even though Henry saw that his own mar­riages should also be use­ful (polit­ic­ally and reli­giously), he had a great tal­ent for con­vin­cing him­self that God wanted him to do what he wanted to do any­way and thus he could always con­vince him­self that the woman who cur­rently attrac­ted him was the one he had to marry.

It’s inter­est­ing to note the dif­fer­ences in the books. Alis­on Weir is obvi­ously a fan of Cath­er­ine of Aragon, and does­n’t much like Anne Boleyn. Ant­o­nia Fraser is sym­path­et­ic to Cath­er­ine, but seems to admire Anne, des­pite her sharp tongue and lack of dis­cre­tion. They both sym­path­ize with Henry’s pre­dic­a­ment, though not with how he chose to solve it.

The main prob­lem with both books is that there is a lot of detail, and they mostly seem to be aimed at an audi­ence that already knows some­thing of the era and the people involved. So those of us who did­n’t study his­tory at school in Eng­land are at a bit of a dis­ad­vant­age. Over­all, how­ever, both books are worth read­ing, you might just need to have some ref­er­ence mater­i­al at hand (or be pre­pared to skim a bit in the long con­fus­ing passages).

Jun 272007
 

Most years I get to speak at the XML Sum­mer School put on by CSW in late July in Oxford, Eng­land. Last year I did­n’t go since I’d just had a baby 6 weeks before and the fam­ily suc­ceeded in talk­ing me out of it. This year I’m going again. It should be a lot of fun; the idea of the school is to get a bunch of experts as teach­ers who go along with the attendees to all the social events, so the attendees can ask ques­tions while every­one is in the pub or wan­der­ing around the Old Bodlei­an Lib­rary. Ques­tions while punt­ing are best not dir­ec­ted at the punter, of course, and the rest of us are usu­ally too busy laugh­ing anyway.

With ses­sions on web ser­vices (includ­ing iden­tity and secur­ity), con­tent and know­ledge with XML, XSLT, XSL-FO and XQuery, Teach Your­self Onto­logy (that one’s new this year!), Build­ing XML Applic­a­tions, and XML in Health­care, there’s lots to choose from. I’ll have to choose which days I attend care­fully, there’s always too much going on.

I’m speak­ing in the Trends and Tran­si­ents track (which I chair each year, even when I’m not there) with Jeni Ten­nison and Dan Con­nolly; I’m talk­ing about Web 2.0 while they’re talk­ing XML Pro­cessing and Micro­formats respect­ively. I even got my present­a­tion deck fin­ished, and only a couple of days late! For the last ses­sion of the day, I get the oth­er track chairs to spend five minutes telling us what they think are this year’s hyped or under-appre­ci­ated tech­no­lo­gies, fol­lowed by a pan­el ses­sion of all the day’s speak­ers. There is always some con­tro­versy around people’s opin­ions, even of these sup­posedly dry tech­nic­al sub­jects. For a sample, check out the You­Tube video of Bob DuCh­arme’s talk (rant?) last year (the video and sound qual­ity’s not great, but adequate).

CSW is offer­ing a spe­cial deal this year, speak­ers get a spe­cial code that people can use for a dis­count on regis­tra­tion. So if you are think­ing of attend­ing, email me for the code, either at my Sun email address or my Tex­tu­al­ity email address. Unless you’ve already got a code from one of the oth­er speak­ers of course… 

Jun 272007
 

One of the bet­ter pieces on iden­tity and pri­vacy that I’ve read recently, and well worth every­one read­ing, wheth­er you do any­thing much with iden­tity man­age­ment or not, is from Dav­id Wein­ber­ger. Iden­tity man­age­ment in an unequal world dis­cusses how when sign­ing up for things is easi­er, people can take advant­age of that to ask us to sign up more often, to give more inform­a­tion than we really need to. I’ve been well trained at Sun to ask now why any­one needs the inform­a­tion they’re ask­ing for. Can­’t they do with less inform­a­tion? What are they going to do with it? These are the basic ques­tions every­one needs to ask every time some web site or shop asks for per­son­al inform­a­tion of any sort, basic­ally why do they want it and why do I need to give it? If more people ask the reas­on why, maybe few­er com­pan­ies will be need­lessly intrusive.

Jun 262007
 

To the anonym­ous read­er of my blog who bought books on Amazon using my asso­ci­ates link, thank you! Not so much for the few cents it brought me but for the fact that it means you thought enough of what I wrote to check out the books and spend your own money to get a couple of them. I appre­ci­ate the faith you’ve shown in my opin­ion (bolstered, one hopes, by the opin­ions of the oth­er reviewers).

Jun 242007
 

When I was chair­ing the XML Con­fer­ence, one of the things I tried very hard to con­vince speak­ers to do was to write up their talks as pro­ceed­ings, and not just use slides. The main reas­on for that was that 6 months after giv­ing a talk, often­times the speak­ers can­’t fig­ure out what they meant with those slides, let alone people try­ing to make sense of them on their own. A writ­ten paper is much bet­ter at giv­ing people the inform­a­tion they’re look­ing for.

So I was inter­ested to see that Present­a­tion Zen recently wrote on the same top­ic. As the author says:

Power­Point is not the cause of bad busi­ness present­a­tions, but lazi­ness and poor writ­ing skills may be. The point is not to place more text with­in tiny slides inten­ded for images and visu­al dis­plays of data. The point is to first (usu­ally) cre­ate a well-writ­ten, detailed doc­u­ment. Do busi­ness people still know how to write?

Recently I’ve star­ted try­ing a dif­fer­ent way of cre­at­ing slide decks. I pull togeth­er a few slides with pic­tures or bul­lets, then write a doc­u­ment with gram­mat­ic­al Eng­lish, pic­tur­ing myself actu­ally giv­ing the talk, writ­ing what I plan to say. This leads to addi­tions and changes in the slides, and makes them more into the sup­port­ing visu­als that I think they should be. In the ideal case, I’d have time after the actu­al present­a­tion to edit the writ­ten-out talk to reflect what I really did say and pub­lish that togeth­er with the slides. I real­ise that the slides on their own often aren’t much use to any­one who was­n’t at the talk, or 6 months after­wards for any­one who was; that’s not always a prob­lem depend­ing on the audi­ence and the actu­al pur­pose of the talk. 

I do know of people who put a lot of work into mak­ing their slide decks suit­able for teach­ing pur­poses on their own without sup­port­ing doc­u­ments; those people who are good at that often use extens­ive speak­er­’s notes. And they’re usu­ally also good at writ­ing those full-length papers. Which leads me to sus­pect that there is some­thing to the slide-deck style that is appeal­ing — maybe it’s the sense that you get the import­ant inform­a­tion in the bul­lets? Maybe it’s respond­ing to people’s lazi­ness in reading? 

Jun 152007
 

Dar­ren had a post prais­ing the idea of Single-Gender Groups. I find that very prob­lem­at­ic, and here’s why.

Dar­ren’s main point is that women and men com­mu­nic­ate dif­fer­ently. Per­son­ally I’ve found more dif­fer­ences in com­mu­nic­a­tion style in dif­fer­ent coun­tries; I’ve lived in (in chro­no­lo­gic­al order, and only count­ing places I’ve lived in for more than five years and where I’ve spoken the loc­al lan­guage flu­ently) New Zea­l­and, Aus­tralia, Ger­many, and Canada. For example, Ger­mans in my exper­i­ence are rel­at­ively dir­ect, both men and women. Cana­dians often aren’t. Aus­trali­ans are often also dir­ect, New Zeal­anders often aren’t. I tend to be more dir­ect than lots of people, which caused a cer­tain num­ber of prob­lems for me when I was grow­ing up.

One oth­er reas­on I have prob­lems with that atti­tude is due to the fact that I stud­ied phys­ics at uni­ver­sity, and was often the only woman in the room. Obvi­ously the few women study­ing related sub­jects often became friends, but most of my friends were men. Single-gender clubs would mean that I would­n’t be able to take part in activ­it­ies that the rest of my friends could take part in. Obvi­ously sports clubs pose a set of issues that often res­ult in the segreg­a­tion of those tak­ing part, but not for all sports and not neces­sar­ily for the social aspects of those clubs. 

You could say the answer to that is hav­ing more women study phys­ics or maths, but that’s the answer to a dif­fer­ent ques­tion. My ideal is not that there are lots of single-gender groups and every­one finds them ok, but that both men and women can take part in groups where they find the intel­lec­tu­al stim­u­la­tion or enter­tain­ment that they are look­ing for, not restric­ted by people’s expect­a­tions based on their gender, or indeed their name (anoth­er one of Dar­ren’s posts). There are men who knit, you know, even if not very many.

/* ]]> */