Today I made kind of a rash decision to cut out the two Norwegian Ibsen-texts and focus just on The Biographer’s Tale in my “reanimating Ibsen” article. It’s really looking like the Byatt text is going to be more than enough material, even though the references to Ibsen take up only a fraction of Byatt’s novel.
So that means I pruned my document pretty severely this morning. It went from just under 6000 words to around 3000 (ouch!). Throughout the course of the day I’ve nudged it back up to just over 4000, but at least part of that is really just the bibliography, which I finally filled in.
I just knew I had to cut it back so that I can make room for discussing some pretty complex issues that come up in The Biographer’s Tale. As it was, I was approaching full article length and had really only just managed to make mention of all the textual elements in the first two of the three texts I had planned to analyze. There wasn’t going to be any room for the deeper analysis or any theoretical digressions at all. I figure I can always add Sensommer back into the article at a later point if it ends up really resonating with the Byatt analysis (I think it does, actually, particularly because of attention paid to the body and to the photographic image in both). I don’t think I’m going to bother with Henrik og Emilie though, which is kind of ironic since it was Niels Fredrik Dahl’s novel Herre that started me on the path that led to this project in the first place. Ah well, some other time.
Still drawing a blank on theoretical work on post-mortem portraiture, though I’ll be picking up a (picture-)book (yikes!) on the topic when I’m on campus on Friday. Hope that helps.
Words written: not quite sure, somewhere around 1000 maybe?
Oh, P.S.: here’s a link to my department’s internal newsletter, which lists faculty publications on an on-going basis. It looks kind of lonely in there this time!