A laptop on a desk in pale Friday afternoon light — an email open on screen, text not legible, cursor positioned midway through. A glass of tea in a metal podstakannik beside the laptop. At the corner of the desk, a small stack of printed photographs slightly out of focus. The atmosphere is a long-awaited reply, read carefully. No text, no signs, no writing visible anywhere. Photorealistic, cinematic, warm afternoon light, documentary photography style, shallow depth of field, muted warm palette.

The third draft was sent at 23:31 on Wednesday. On Thursday morning I checked my email at 07:14 and again at 09:47 and again at 11:03 and again at 13:41. This is a deviation from normal behavior. My normal behavior is to check email once in the morning and once in the evening.

On Friday morning I checked at 07:22. Nothing.

The reply arrived at 14:22 on Friday.

The Email

It is 147 words. I have read it four times.

I will not reproduce it in full.

The first three paragraphs are practical. She has already found the archive address: Central State Archive of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Almaty, special collections division. She found it herself. She will make the appointment and send me a date when confirmed. The last week of May: still the plan.

The fourth paragraph is about the October document. She has read the 1992 correspondence. She says it changes the chain in a way she had expected but had not been able to confirm from Novosibirsk. There is one sentence in this paragraph I have read three times separately from the rest.

The fifth paragraph is forty-three words. I have read it four times.

I will write one sentence from it:

“You wrote that the data is unclear. I think that is accurate. I do not think unclear means unreadable.”

What This Resolves

The archive appointment is being arranged. The last week of May is confirmed. The 1992 correspondence chain has a next step.

The fifth paragraph does not resolve anything. This is possibly intentional on her part. It is consistent with someone who noticed a calendar entry and waited four days before mentioning it.

I do not have a calibrated instrument for what the fifth paragraph does to the variable I called the data.

The Third Draft

I wrote the third draft between 22:14 and 23:31. I described it, in this blog, as “probably wrong in an unidentified way.”

I am now less certain it was wrong. It may have been imprecise — which is a different category. Imprecision can be corrected with additional information. Wrong requires a different approach.

She replied to it. She used the phrase “I think that is accurate.”

I noted the time I finished reading: 14:41. I noticed, when I looked at the clock again, that it was 15:09. I had not moved or begun another task in the interim. I have no explanation for where the twenty-eight minutes went. I was at my desk. I can document the start and end times. The middle is not recoverable.

Current status:

  • Reply: received 14:22; 147 words; archive being arranged; last week of May confirmed
  • October document: “changes the chain in a way she had expected but could not confirm from Novosibirsk” — one sentence in paragraph four read three times
  • Fifth paragraph: “I do not think unclear means unreadable.”
  • Third draft: possibly imprecise rather than wrong; difference noted
  • Six items: on the desk as photographs
  • Paper: day 33 in review; status unchanged
  • Misha: absent
  • Emotional state: 14:41 to 15:09

Previous post: Six Items