Feeling Overwhelmed

Well, I guess I’ve had enough fun with Aristotle’s Topoi. Trying to figure out how to inject a topic of invention into whatever blog I happened to be writing lately has been enjoyable, and his topic “the possible and the impossible” turned out to be something I found useful last night at midnight while writing another poem about…hmm…that’s enough about that. Right now, I’m in the mood to do a little focused free writing about what’s going on inside concerning the Oxford Guide to Library Research, and the amount of information it contains, in the hopes it will ease this feeling of being overwhelmed.

This is a great book. If there was a way I could open the top of my head and pour this stuff in, I’d do it… but the more I read, the more I realize it’ll take at least two years to understand even half of the methods, tricks, and pathways it has to offer for doing research efficiently. I mean, in the first place, just last week, I found it hard to stay on top of this book, which is regrettable, and in the second, I’ve been aware from the start that this is the type of information I will only ever understand by using it in trial and error situations. In other words, hands–on work is going to be necessary to grasp the myriad ways I’m being shown to attack a research project, and hands–on work doing research, for me, takes a lot of thoughtful time. And, these days, it seems to be hard to find any kind of time. For instance, the other day I had to decide whether it was more important to stop for an In–and–Out burger, or stop for gas. I opted for the gas because I figured it would be better to reach my destination hungry than find myself sitting on the side of the road with a full belly and a long walk. But I’m digressing.

Here’s the paragraph from OGLR that lead to this train of thought –– “A repeated theme of this book is that no one way of searching does everything […] You simply have to be aware of the trade–offs among the several search techniques so that your overall strategy can balance their various strengths and weaknesses against each other. Remember, though, that what you cannot do with one way of searching, you can do with another” (133). OK, I get that… but at this point, even though I’m thirsty for knowledge of the techniques contained in this book, and I wouldn’t mind a drink, I feel like I’ve asked for a glass of water and somebody tossed the contents of a bucket in my face. Not that that’s a bad thing. Someday, after going over this stuff enough, in real life situations, I’ll get more and more of a grasp on how to become a good researcher. But at the moment, I really can’t see myself on a “search for articles whose authors are in the English Department of Loyola University of Chicago,” or any other university for that matter, and plugging in something similar to “AD=loyola u* AND AD=eng* AND AD=chicago.” This whole book seems to be suggesting that I figure out a lot of different codes, which I believe would be fun because I do have a nerdy side. But unfortunately, I feel like I have to try and do it between fill–ups and wolfing down junk food, so I’ve decided to take baby steps, and hang onto this book as a reference guide. And who knows? Maybe in a couple years I’ll be able to find any article written by any professor at any university in any country around the world. And, if I can do that, I’ll die a happy man.