Seriously, I have a post nearly ready to go for Prince Caspian! I have been altogether too busy trying to crank out my paper (an historiographical essay on 20th-c. historians perspectives on 16th-c. English historians, if you must know) between Starbucks shifts.
Here is how much this paper weighs upon me: I dreamt last night that I was working at some generic coffee bar. Intriguingly, a computer wire ran directly from the register to the office of University of West Florida Interim President Judy Bense (erstwhile chair of the anthropology dept.), so she could keep an eye on our profits and our work ethic. (Social scientists kind of creep us historians out.) While trying to maintain my dignity and my job behind the counter, I received a call from a woman in England who wanted to know why Richard III couldn't successfully conquer London in the mid-1500s. I said I had no idea, and why in the world would a British person randomly call an American coffee kiosk with a question about British history? How should I know!
Then it struck me like lightning: I did know the answer! I read it in Joseph Levine's masterful Battle of the Books! I explained that London withstood this attack thanks to the careful preparations of Edward VI's defenses. Problem solved and another happy customer!
Reminder: this was a dream. Edward VI's grandpa Henry VII defeated Richard III in the late 1400s for the English throne (War of the Roses). Ed VI lasted a very short time on the English throne and was certainly not a brilliant tactician. The Battle of the Books covers scholarly debate in the Stuart Era, i.e. 17th-c. England.
And, as far as I know, Judy Bense is not spying on me.