Last week I attended the rather enjoyable English: Shared Futures conference and participated in a panel titled "[How to Get Published as an Early Career Academic](http://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/19144)". This was a worthwhile thing to do, although it's a shame we need this.

Dear Walt, A response to [your letter](https://walt.lishost.org/2017/06/dear-martin/), albeit only briefly as it is late here on a Friday but I have only just seen this.

In mid-2015, Art Winslow caused something of an online furore when he suggested that the pseudonymously-authored novel by “Adrian Jones Pearson”, _Cow Country_, was, in fact, a work by Thomas Pynchon. A full-blown argument then erupted when this was countered by Nate Jones and Pynchon's own publisher.

You may remember that, a while back, the editorial board of Elsevier's journal, _Lingua_, decided to leave the publisher to setup a new journal called _Glossa_ that would be totally open access with no author-facing charges. The new journal is published by Ubiquity Press and has ongoing support from the Open Library of Humanities.

It seems to me that there are two types of "post-critical" articulations. Felski _et al_ are calling for a turn away from the idea that we should employ critique to analyse texts. That is, a call for a type of aesthetic formalism entwined with an appreciation of social entanglement. Latour also suggests turning away from critique in his "Why is Critique Running Out of Steam?" – but, that is, a critique of science.

The Lenovo G580 comes with Windows 8. It is possible to permanently lock yourself out of the operating system if you begin with a Microsoft account and migrate this to a local account. Further, you won't be able to rescue the system since _it is impossible to enter the BIOS setup in the machine's default state if you cannot login to Windows_.

Some thoughts to myself now voiced out loud. Meta-ethical moral relativism holds that there is no objective wrong or right between parties with different ethical views. Normative moral relativism holds that one should therefore tolerate each of these views. For many years, the political right railed against both of these forms of moral relativism.

Consortial OA funding models such as Knowledge Unlatched, the Open Library of Humanities, and others are non-classical economic setups. They are susceptible to free riders. These models have worked thus far because: * Academic libraries are not necessarily classical economic actors; * They spread the cost well and are often cheaper than options under the classical model;

Cheap it is not, but the Folio Society Edition of Russell Hoban's Riddley Walker is a beautiful item to behold. The edition itself is limited to a run of 1,000 copies signed by the illustrator, Quentin Blake, and ours is #15. The illustrations themselves are wonderful.

There are 100 people in a room. They have $10 each. The academic speaker will give them a talk but the venue wants $50 to cover its costs (and any profit/surplus). There are 40 such talks per year. There is final indefinitely large group of people (let us call them "the general public") who might want to hear the talk but who can't afford to pay anything. Subscription logic: each person pays $0.50 and gets access to the talk.

One of the things we have to contend with at the Open Library of Humanities is the fact that libraries will evaluate our performance and decide whether or not to renew their subscriptions/memberships. This makes sense and is only to be expected. A few thoughts struck me about this, though. One of the core questions that some librarians have been asking is: how many articles from our researchers are appearing in these journals?