Article
July 10, 2019
0 comment
by Stephen

Editing the Index on the Go Redux

Last week I tried to puzzle my way through the concept of editing the index while the entries are being created, as opposed to saving most of the editing for the end of the indexing process. As I wrote, some indexers say that they save a lot of time by working like this, which I accept in principle while finding that it can be difficult to implement. 

Coincidentally (I promise I hadn’t recently checked the conference line-up), the first speaker at the Indexing Society of Canada’s conference in Ottawa last week was Anne Fifer, with a presentation titled “Edit Your Index Without Pain.” I did find Anne’s talk helpful for clearing up some of my questions and misconceptions, so I am going to revisit the topic with some of Anne’s insights. I thought you might find it helpful too.

First, to set expectations, editing is still required at the end of the indexing process. It is not possible to eliminate editing entirely, but the amount can be reduced. Anne said that often she just needs a day for the final edit. 

Anne’s approach seems to be two-fold. The first part is to use the full capabilities of her indexing software to streamline indexing. Specifically, extensively using labels to highlight entries that need different sorts of editing or extra attention, so that these are easy to find later on. Anne also discussed custom dictionaries for accurate spell check, which I can see to be helpful if one is working on a lot of medical indexes like Anne does, but I don’t really see the benefit for books that lack such specialized terminology. I don’t see myself making custom dictionaries for the books I typically index.

The second part to Anne’s approach is to lay the necessary groundwork for the index at the start. Part of this is making sure that all necessary resources are in easy reach, which is a good reminder that the details of our work environment can make a difference. The largest component is to establish the index structure from the start, which Fred Leise discussed in more detail in his talk (Fred also has an article in The Indexer 34(4)and has presented a webinar with ASI on his approach to structure, if you want to learn more). The benefit of this is that once established, the structure does not need much editing later on, if at all. It also provides the framework to slot entries within as one works through the text. Thinking through the structure upfront was my biggest takeaway from the conference, and something I will be adding to my indexing practice going forward.

Anne also discussed editing in small increments. Part of this is doing a small edit at the end of each day for a specific list of common issues that she looks for. Part of this is also isolating and editing in batches the previously labeled entries. This means that a lot of spelling, formatting, or other common issues are already dealt with by the time Anne reaches the final edit. As I wrote last week, I find it difficult to focus on editing at the end of the day, but I like the idea of being self-aware of issues I commonly need to fix and of proactively fixing them in batches. This could also be done at the start of the day, for example, if I don’t want to do it at the end.

All told, I think Anne has some practical tips to make editing easier. I hoped you learned something too, and are able to become more efficient in your indexing.

Article
July 3, 2019
0 comment
by Stephen

Editing the Index on the Go

With our income as indexers often proportional to the amount of work we can complete, efficiency is key. I want to consider today a practice that I know some indexers use, which is editing as the index entries are created. In theory—and I have heard some indexers say they manage this in practice—by the time you reach the end of the book, very little editing remains to be done. 

I have to admit that while I try to do this, I still tend to split indexing into two distinct phases. There are aspects of the editing-in-the-go approach that I struggle with. So this is more of a self-reflection than a how-to. Maybe you will get some ideas for what works for you. 

There are definitely a couple of advantages to editing as you go, which I try to keep in mind as encouragement. The main one for me is that the content is dealt with while it remains fresh in my mind, which means less going back and double-checking later in the indexing process. This should save time during the final edit, as most of the issues in the index will have already been dealt with. 

Still, I find there can be some barriers to putting this approach into practice. I often find that creating the entries and editing the index requires me to think in different ways, and it can be hard to switch back and forth between entry mode and editing mode. After several hours of entering entries, having to go back and edit can also seem too taxing for my tired mind. And sometimes, especially for more complicated texts, I find I don’t really understand the text until I’ve had a second look at a later date. In this instance, editing is very much part of my process for understanding the text. I also suspect that editing on the go requires a clear sense of what the final index should look like and what constitutes a good final draft.

When I find editing-as-you-go most helpful is for books that are organized into discrete chapters or sections. If I know that armadillos are primarily discussed on pages 34-63, then a quick edit of that one entry, before moving on to the next section, does save time later on. Unfortunately, not all books are this well organized, and a quick edit is still needed at the end to make sure the entry still holds together. Also, something I should do more of, and to avoid the excuse of tiredness, is to do a quick edit after every chapter, to clean up any obvious errors or redundancies. 

Another form of editing which can be done early in the indexing process is to establish consistent wording, particularly for elements like glosses. I may not always know what I want to use right away, but once I do, it can be worth taking a moment to go back and fix, and then be consistent going forward. This can also be done to consolidate subheadings, if I decide partway through to change the wording or how I am gathering locators.  

Otherwise, I have to admit that if I am not certain about a particular entry, I tend to just keep going. I will put in my best guess or use some sort of placeholder wording, and I may write a separate note for myself about the issue, and then I will come back later during the editing phase. There are elements of indexing on the go that I use and can better incorporate, but I do like the editing phase. I find that I view the index differently while editing, which is valuable in its own right. 

How do you index? Do you edit as you create the index entries? Why do you do it, and what works best? Let me know, if you have a moment. I am curious to know what works for you.

Article
June 27, 2019
0 comment
by Stephen

Why Correctly Identifying the Metatopic Matters

I have been reluctant to write about metatopics. It is already extensively discussed by Do Mi Stauber, Janet Perlman, and Margie Towery in their books, as well as, I assume, elsewhere. Appropriately handling the metatopic is also one of the trickier aspects of indexing to master. I am not sure what I can add to the discussion that is new. I also suspect that reading about the metatopic only goes so far. The best learning comes from taking theory and applying it to real books, though perhaps that is simply how I learn best.

Still, I was recently talking with a new indexer who was struggling with the metatopic, and a misconception came to light that might be worth highlighting. Specifically, this new indexer was feeling overwhelmed by the multiple metatopics which she had identified in the book. The misconception was that the metatopics identified were actually main topics, or what Margie Towery might call supermain headings. These are clearly important topics that need to be in the index, but they do not encompass the whole book, which is what differentiates main topics from metatopics.

I like what Janet Perlman says about the metatopic in her book, Indexing Tactics & Tidbits (Information Today, Inc., 2016):

“…The metatopic is intertwined with aboutness. When the indexer can make a cogent statement of what a book is about, whether it be a word, a phrase, or a sentence, he has identified the metatopic of the book.”

There is usually only one metatopic in a book, sometimes two if a book has dual subjects. It may be a complicated metatopic, requiring a sentence or three to explain, but it should still be a single topic or concept that encompasses the whole book.

Correctly identifying the metatopic is important because this impacts how the metatopic is handled in the index and how the whole index is structured. This new indexer was having trouble because she was trying to follow the advice to disperse information away from the metatopic entry. This is generally good advice, and the reasoning is, since everything in the book, theoretically, falls under the metatopic, all main topics should stand on their own as main entries. In this approach, the metatopic should be a signpost to the main entries via cross-references, and should only gather general information that are not able to stand alone. It is usually not a large entry. This approach works fine when there is a single metatopic, but not if you are trying to disperse information for multiple topics. As this indexer learned, if you are trying to disperse all of the information from all of the main topics, the index quickly loses all sense of structure and some information simply does not stand alone very well. 

The flip side to dispersal is gathering, and while gathering the whole book under the metatopic entry is not practical, gathering under individual main topics is. This is why we need to distinguish between the metatopic and supermain headings, because these different types of information and entries are handled differently. As I have discussed previously, entries should contain or direct readers to everything they need to know about that topic. Overly large entries can be split up into smaller chunks that are still meaningful, but we should see dispersal and gathering as complementary techniques for structuring the index. They each have their role, and the starting point is correctly identifying the different components of the book and how those components translate into the index.

The metatopic plays key role in the index, but only if it is first correctly identified.

Article
June 25, 2019
0 comment
by Stephen

AFCon 2019 Debrief

It has been almost two weeks since I attended AFCon, the Ancient Faith Writing and Podcasting Conference, which took place in a little under 48 hours on June 13-15. It is a conference put on by Ancient Faith Ministries, an Orthodox Christian organization in the US which has substantial publishing and podcasting/online radio arms. I am an Orthodox Christian myself, and while I was not sure how much my writing interests would overlap with Ancient Faith’s, there were a few people I wanted to meet.

Overall, I am glad I went, though June has also been an incredibly busy month for indexing. I was quite stressed going into the conference, and now that the conference is over I still haven’t had time to think through how I want to proceed. Still, here are a few thoughts and impressions so far.

  • The venue, Antiochian Village, in rural western Pennsylvania, really is like an Orthodox hotel. I’ve never been anywhere quite like it.
  • I am really glad I made the effort to attend the daily services, including the early morning ones. I think the services helped to ground and settle me, as I was off-kilter from stress and being around so many strangers and in an unfamiliar place. I have also never heard anyone sing the gospel readings quite like Father Andrew Damick. Beautiful. 
  • I need to sing the hymn “Rejoice, O Bride Unwedded” more often.
  • Speaking about singing, the small music session that Benedict and Talia Maria Sheehan led was perhaps the highlight of the conference for me. It was so relaxing to casually sing folk songs and spirituals with a large group of people. You can read more about small music here.
  • I did talk to the editors at Ancient Faith Publishing. No solid plans yet, but it was helpful to get a better sense of what they are looking for, and to receive their encouragement to write. 
  • I really appreciate Fr. Stephen Freeman’s talk on shame, particularly his distinction between shame as how you feel about who you are and guilt as how you feel about what you have done.
  • I am still thinking through Deacon Nicholas Kotar’s talk on culture creation, which also ties into the Sheehan’s small music. Dn. Nicholas’s talk was excellent, and avoided the pitfalls of romanticization of the past, eurocentrism, and setting up an us/them dichotomy. Where I stumble is the question, which culture do I create in, or, which culture do I belong in? Put another way, which cultures am I allowed to create in? I often feel like my identity is fragmented between my various experiences and contexts. For example, my childhood in Taiwan versus my current adulthood in Canada. Or, growing up Evangelical and now being Orthodox. Or even British Columbia versus Alberta. I usually feel like I exist on the margins of whatever community I find myself in. That said, culture, in this context, was defined as what people do when they are together, which seems a pretty accessible definition and one I can get behind. 
  • I scribbled down a couple new ideas for stories. Maybe my next writing projects?
  • I appreciated Angela Doll Carlson’s weekly practice with her Sunday School class of identifying one thing that is beautiful and one thing that is true. 
  • I did not realize that copyright would be so interest. Many thanks to Eric Jansson for his talk. 
  • Thank God for priests who are nerds. The Tolkien panel, moderated by Fr. Andrew Damick, was a fun way to end the conference. Lots of moments for laughter. Though as wonderful as the Lord of the Rings is, I would like to see more attention given to newer works, to see if we can find and nurture contemporary equivalents. 

The next AFCon will be in two years. Hopefully I will be able to attend again. In the meantime, back to writing (and not just indexes, though back to indexing too).

Article
June 5, 2019
1 comment
by Stephen

Who to Serve: the Client or the Reader?

Who is the index for?

This may seem like a trick question. You are probably thinking, “The reader, obviously.” So let me rephrase the question.

As the indexer, who are you trying to please?

I hope you are still trying to please the reader, but when writing the index, the first person or people to see and approve the index are often not the book’s readers. 

What I am getting at is the distinction between the client and the reader, and how the needs and wants of each may not be fully aligned. 

As freelancers, we primarily work with the client, which can be either the author, editor, or both. If you are the author writing your own index, this may not be an issue if you are self-publishing, but if you are working with a publisher, you may be working with an editor or proofreader on the index. 

Ideally, our vision for the index aligns with the client and the reader. But it can happen that the client wants something different. What happens when that point of difference violates indexing best practices? What do we do when we think that the reader will no longer be well served? Where does our ethical obligation lie?

There is a line of thought in business that the client is always right. So long as we get paid for our work, and the client is happy enough to come back for our services again, who really cares what the end product look likes? The client is paramount.

What this line of reasoning misses, though, is that the index, in this case, is not actually for the client. Sure, the client is paying us, but the people who will actually use the index are the readers. 

Now, I am not suggesting open conflict with our clients. Money is persuasive, and I like being paid as much as anyone else. At the same time, keeping the ultimate audience in mind, I think we should be willing to push back a bit when clients request changes that are detrimental. Perhaps the client simply does not understand and is willing to learn. Perhaps the client does have a point, and we can offer an alternative solution that is a better fix for the problem. Perhaps there is some other way to compromise. 

Gently pushing back can also be a reminder, to ourselves as much as to the client, that we are professionals. Being a professional does not always mean that we are right, but it does often mean we have a broader understanding of the situation. We should not be afraid to make our voice known, even if ultimately we accede to the client’s point of view. This also involves knowing what is worth speaking up for, and when to stay silent.  

Ultimately, I want both the client and the reader to be happy with the index. This requires taking both seriously, and not being afraid to explain my position when needed.

Article
June 3, 2019
0 comment
by Stephen

Business Changes Ahead

Last week in my recap of the Indexing Society of Canada/Société canadienne d’indexation conference I alluded to business change, which is a difficult subject to write about. Change is inherently disruptive, as it usually involves some kind of ending as well as a new beginning. Change also affects the web of relationships with colleagues and clients that I exist in. It is also often personal, especially in a single-person freelancing business, as I am the one making the change.

At the same time, I think that change is natural and even necessary in a business. I change as a person, in my interests, goals, experience, and circumstances. The publishing industry around me is also always changing. I believe that a successful business requires a certain amount of mindfulness and self-reflection in order to know when to change and when to hold the course. It may be that not changing is the right decision—I certainly do not believe in change for the sake of change—but that decision to not change should still be a conscious choice. 

I mention all this because I am feeling myself to be at a point of change. Really, to be honest, I feel like this whole year so far, and part of last year, has been a gradual reorientation in what I want to do for work.

 Being a freelance indexer, for me, has never really been about indexing. The original purpose was to create a more flexible schedule and an income to support my writing. Ironically, in doing the hard work to establish a freelance business, and then keeping up with the increasing requests for my services, I really have not done much writing. I have not put the time into writing, like I have for indexing, to become a published author, which is still a goal of mine. I have been feeling this discrepancy more acutely in the last couple of years, which is leading me to wonder: Can I change my business to incorporate more writing? Should I change and trade (some) steady income for a risky venture? What if I completely fail at being an author?

These are not easy questions to answer. The ideal scenario, at least as I envision it now, is to write part-time and index part-time. But cutting my indexing work in half overnight is not practical or sustainable. 

This year I have made a renewed effort to blog every week, and have also started to write a weekly reflection on indexing. Even committing to this has felt at times like a struggle, in relation to my indexing work, but I think it is also proving helpful for establishing a regular writing habit, and to orienting my focus more towards writing.

For fiction, I am trying to commit to one half-day a week, which is really a struggle, akin to drawing my own blood sometimes, in the face of looming indexing deadlines. But I do enjoy those mornings when I show up to write, and I feel like progress is being made, even if just in very small increments. My goal is to eventually work on fiction two mornings a week, and perhaps work up from there. 

I am writing this because I want to let you know of this change that I am trying to make. You will probably see more posts about writing, mixed in with the posts about indexing and freelancing. Eventually–hopefully–even some stories and news about publications.

I will still index, of course, though instead of using the lessons learned at the ISC/SCI conference to expand my indexing business as far as it can go, I am hoping to create more time to write—to index the same amount, or maybe a little less, in less time, essentially. I am excited to see what results from these changes, and I am also a bit scared. It will also mean a lot of work, starting with trusting myself that this is the right decision to make at this time. Thank you for following along. I do appreciate it.

Article
May 29, 2019
0 comment
by Stephen

On Double-Barrelled Entries

If the index structure can be likened to a skeleton, and the information that the index seeks to convey the lifeblood, then perhaps all the small details that shape and bind an index together can be considered the muscle and sinew. It is this attention to detail that can elevate an index. One specific type of detail, which I have been considering and using in some of my own recent indexes, are double-barrelled terms. 

By double-barrelled terms, I mean terms that bring together similar and related concepts into a single heading or subheading. The different components are usually connected by an and or a forward slash.

At the main heading level, I think this works best for concepts that are clearly related in some way. These could also be variations of a word, and if the terms would sort side-by-side anyway. Think architects and architecture, or canoes and canoeing. These terms are not quite synonymous, so if going the double-barrelled route, make sure that there is overlap in how these terms are discussed in the text. I find it also helps if each term would be a relatively small entry on its own. Otherwise, if the terms are used in distinct ways or would form substantial entries by themselves, then two separate entries are probably the better option.

Double-barrelled terms can also work as subheadings. The first situation would be the same as discussed above for main headings. The second situation (which does not work as well for main headings) is to link together related events. For example, in a family history I recently indexed I had the following subheadings: cancer and death; wedding and married life.

I think this works because it shows a clear chronological progression. This also works when the two discussions happen on the same page or across a small span of pages. Separate subheadings would have simply duplicated the information. As with main headings, it also helps if there are only a few locators to gather together. If there are a lot of locators—say an entire chapter or section each for the wedding and then married life, then separate subheadings make more sense.

If you need to shorten the index, double-barrelled terms can also be another tool you can use for merging entries and cutting down on duplication. It will probably not make a big difference, but can still be useful if just a few lines need to be cut or if used with other methods for shortening. 

Otherwise, I think elegance is the main reason for using this technique. Double-barrelled headings and subheadings can bring terms together in a way that is less didactic, and can provide a more nuanced understanding of the book than through standalone entries. Double-barrelled terms are not always applicable, but are useful to keep in mind for the right book.

What do you think of double-barrelled entries? Do you use them in your own work?

Article
May 28, 2019
0 comment
by Stephen

ISC/SCI Ottawa 2019 Indexing Conference Recap

I am home from the Indexing Society of Canada/Société canadienne d’indexation’s conference in Ottawa, back to working on an index that is due ASAP while also trying to recover from a few packed days at the conference and a late flight home Sunday night. I do enjoy the conferences—one of the best ways to gain a sense of community, in my opinion—and the conferences are exhausting, for this rather shy person. More so this year, perhaps, due to a busy couple of weeks in the lead up. For the first time ever, I skipped out on a session for some alone time. 

Still, I thought I’d jot down a few highlights while the conference is still fresh in my mind.

  • One of my key takeaways was to better learn how to vet books (to use Enid Zafran’s term) prior to indexing, and to get a much better handle on the index structure at the beginning of the indexing process, as per Fred Leise’s excellent presentation. This feels like a natural next step in improving how I index.
  • I also have much food for thought on how to run my business from Pierre Joyal’s presentation on incorporation, as well as from conversations with another more experienced indexer. I feel like I have to be very careful in how I grow my business, as I don’t want to focus on growth to the exclusion of writing. If anything, I want to index less so that I can write more. At the same time, I expect that I will index for many years to come, so I do need to pay attention to the business side of things. I think what I need is a business that grows in such a way to support the work and life that I want, rather than growth at any cost. 
  • I am very thankful to have attended Enid Zafran’s all-day workshop on indexing names, especially as Enid announced that she is slowing down and that this might be her last workshop. She is a masterful teacher and indexer, and I definitely learned a few things about names that I did not know before. 
  • Kate Mertes is also an excellent presenter, and her talk on index locorums was illuminating. That said, outside of Biblical citations, I don’t feel at all qualified to take on an index locorum. Kate definitely has a unique set of skills.
  • This conference felt like the beginnings of a generational turnover. There are a number of indexers in both the Canadian and American societies who have decades of experience, and who have done so much to teach and mentor. It seems like more of them are starting to either slow down or retire. I am glad that they are still with us, but this conference did seem to be a reminder that a new generation will need to step up in the next few years. 
  • I am no longer a coordinator for the Mary Newberry Mentorship Program. That responsibility is now passed on to Linda Christian and Alexandrea Jory. I think they will do an excellent job, and after two years of putting the program together, I am ready to pass it on. Still, letting go is bittersweet. 
  • For a door prize I picked up a hard copy of the manual for the new Cindex 4.0. I guess this means I better upgrade. 
  • The biggest surprise of the conference was being given the Tamarack Award, which is for volunteer service “above and beyond the call of duty.” In my case, so I was told, largely for putting together the mentorship program. I was also told that my face turned several shades of red while receiving the award. Many thanks to all present for your kind words and acknowledgement. If you are interested in knowing what the award looks like, here it is perched on one of the bookshelves in my living room.
Article
May 22, 2019
0 comment
by Stephen

On Rewriting the Book in the Index

I was recently talking with a new indexer who was struggling with how much detail to pick up and include in the index. The issues were, how granular the index should be and how much of the author’s argument should be revealed in the index. This discussion got me thinking about the common advice of, “Don’t rewrite the book.”

At face value, this is good advice. It speaks to the index’s role in directing readers to information, and an index that is too large will take up more space (what a publisher probably does not want) and more importantly, will likely be more difficult for the reader to use. An effective index should provide just enough information.

In practice, however, just enough can be difficult to gauge. What constitutes rewriting the text can also provoke clashing opinions. So I want to consider these questions and see if some rules of thumb can be derived. 

On the sparse, no-rewriting end of the spectrum, simply directing readers to information without explication is usually sound advice. There may be a damning political scandal behind the entry for SNC-Lavalin, but the reader can discover that on their own. If all entries are like this, however, I think it can be difficult for readers to understand how terms are connected to each other. Such an index lacks context. I believe that readers should be able to receive a rough sense of the book’s argument and contents from the index, so there is space for some light description.

The main place for this are the larger entries, by way of subheadings. Breaking down long strings of locators is helpful for the reader, and by definition will require telling the reader something about the contents of the book. I think it can also be helpful to signal to the reader which are the more important topics by means of a few subheadings or cross-references. This does not have to be extensive, and I see it as part of guiding the reader through the contents of the book. 

Clarity should also be a guiding principle when wording main headings and subheadings. The significance of each term does not need to be spelled out, but will the reader at least understand what the term means? The temptation, to avoid rewriting, is to be brief, even to the point of being cryptic. While brevity is ideal, I think it is fine to add a few more words if that is what is needed for clarity. 

The last consideration is the audience and the purpose of the book. For books that are intended for reference, where the index will be the first point of entry, an extremely detailed index, to the point of almost rewriting, is probably ideal. Whereas books that the reader is likely to actually read first are probably fine with a lighter index. 

As with any advice, “Don’t rewrite the book” needs to be contextualized to the specific project. What constitutes too much detail will vary. And regardless of how much detail is enough, the index entries need to be clear. Lack of clarity will derail any index, detailed or not. 

Article
May 20, 2019
0 comment
by Stephen

Index Live-Tweet Debrief

As you may have noticed, two weeks ago, on May 6, I started live-tweeting my indexing process, as I indexed the trade book Almost Human: The Story of Julius, the Chimpanzee Caught between Two Worlds. Those tweets are now compiled, with some additional commentary, which you can find here. I also want to take a moment to reflect on the experience.

First of all, I am glad that I did it. I have had the idea for at least a few months, wondering what live-tweeting an index would be like. Now I know, and it feels good to put the idea in action and see it to its conclusion. 

I am also very thankful for everyone who took the time to follow along, and to comment, ask questions, retweet, and like specific tweets. It was encouraging to know that I was not tweeting into a void. The indexing community on Twitter is supportive and positive, so I am glad to have you all with me. I hope the experience was interesting for you as well. 

As for my goal of raising the profile of indexing, even if just in a small way, and of reaching authors, editors, and publishers—I don’t really know how that went. As I learned, Twitter provides limited data. I was able to see how many impressions each tweet received, and of total impressions over the course of a day, but an impression simply means, if I understand it correctly, that someone saw the tweet. It could have been someone scrolling through their Twitter feed without really reading the tweet, or it could have been someone who was actually interested and following along. So while the live-tweets apparently got several thousand impressions over the course of the week, I don’t know how engaged those impressions where. Also, unless someone took the time to comment, retweet, or like, I don’t know who those impressions are from. So, maybe I met my goal? I don’t really know. All I can really go on is the feedback I receive from people who noticed and took the time to say something.

As for the indexing itself, I would make a couple of changes if I did this again. I found that I had less to tweet about as the index progressed, so I would put more effort into pre-planning some topics and making sure tweets were spaced out. I would leave room for spontaneous tweets as well, of course, but I think having a rough plan or outline ahead of time would have been helpful. I would also try to ensure that I was only working on that one project, so that I could finish the index in 3-4 days. I think having the indexing spread over seven days, due to a second project I also needed to finished, resulted in some live-tweeting fatigue. It is too bad how the scheduling worked, though that is also an insight into how I work, with overlapping projects when deadlines demand. 

I am not sure if I will do this again. As I mentioned above, I think it is a fun idea, but it is hard to tell how effective it is for reaching people. To switch things up, I wonder how it would be to live-tweet with someone else, so that there is more of a conversation throughout. That might be interesting to try. At the very least, I am glad that I tried something new and pushed myself out of my comfort zone. And thank you again to everyone who followed along.

If you are interested in reading the book, Almost Human, by Alfred Fidjestøl, it is forthcoming later this year by Greystone Books. You can learn more about it here. Many thanks again to Greystone for giving their permission for this live-tweet. They are a fantastic publisher and a pleasure to work with.