Readin' Archives, Findin' Links

Occasionally I have downtime at work, and I like to read the archives of my favorite blogs. Eventually I will be all caught up! Thanks to Smart Bitches, Trashy Novels (my favorite romance genre blog), I got this link http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2008/nov/21/bad-novels-fiction. I found it really interesting. When do you put down a "bad" book? Do you give it the 'Nancy Pearl 50'? Do you weigh it against how much you want to read the next in your pile? When is it worth continuing? I admit I wouldn't have thought that I needed to read the bad in order to recognize the good, but it's true for so much else in life and I can see why it works. Thoughts?

Owning Books

I just got back from the library, having armed myself with items for a long train ride home tomorrow. I was browsing in the magazines when I heard a middle aged man speaking to his wife. "Look at this", he said, holding up a magazine, "Oprah's private library. No wonder she got all them books, she's so rich. This is what her book club's about". I waited until they left and went to the cover, expecting to see one of those libraries with the spiral staircase and the ladders on wheels to get to the high shelf. Instead, I see this (if the photo doesn't get moved or something, this is the internets after all), the cover from the Fall 2008 issue of the now defunct "O at Home". It is almost a close up, a couch and three floor to ceiling bookshelves, about four visible shelves on each. I was really surprised. I grew up in a house covered in books, for a middle class family in a rowhome, I suppose it is odd that we have a room we call the "library". Those 7 or 8 floor to ceiling bookshelves only really carry the non-reading books, my Dad's collection of Sax Rohmer books, lots of stuff on guns, etc. We all had bookshelves in our rooms with the 'books for reading' and the living room is also covered in books.

So I can see that having an entire room set aside for books might be odd to most people, and sure, the picture indicates that there are more books in the room than those just shown, but really, THAT picture doesn't make me think that Oprah is a billionaire book collector. What bothers me more is the uniformity of the books in color and size. I can understand buying a publisher's line of classics that may have matching editions, but the text discusses Oprah's collection of first editions. This looks like those fake books Ikea uses in their displays. They definitely don't have the air of being lovingly discovered from used book stores over the years, like most of my and my parents' books do.

I adore the library, and rarely buy books right now, partially because I can't afford it, and partially because there aren't too many books right now I feel like I will want to reread on a whim. If I want to reread, I can usually wait the time it takes to order it from the library. Books I own include my collection of every Agatha Christie, which I often pick up randomly when bored, books I adore and just want to own for its own sake, and books I suddenly desire to reread at 9 pm and I HAVE to have at my fingertips. For everything else, I depend on the library. When I buy a house, will I have a set aside library? Probably yes, if I can afford a big enough house. A room full of shelves, maybe doubling as an office, nice lights and organization. Will I buy my children books? Yes. I think it's really important for a child to own books, to bond with the concept of books as well as read lots of different things through the library. Do I think this picture of three shelves shows that Oprah adores books and should be lauded for having a room set aside for them? No. Do I think it means she's rich to own this many books? No. Do I think it means Oprah is promoting another silly and barely reachable ideal, then using her interior design magazine to promote herself as well read but able to have white carpeting and couch even though she has a dog? Yes.

Any Book Snobs Want a Date?

I have to admit, I am a bit disturbed by this article. A survey was done by a British pro-reading website, and men and women chimed in on what books would impress them into wanting a date. The fact that the survey was done through a reading website gives you the expected self-selected population, and gives much higher brow responses than the average male, I'm sure, but all together the responses give me the same complex I already have from reading on the bus: if it's not stunningly intellectual, it's not reading. Voltaire and Dickens impress men, apparently, but Bridget Jones and trashy romances send them running.

I don't expect everyone to appreciate the snarky humor of Helen Fielding, the beauty in her updating a classic work while pointing out the irony in our change (or lack thereof) in priorities. I don't expect everyone to appreciate and understand the beauty of pure escapist fiction, or even the joy of reading a horrible trashy romance novel just to feel superior (ugh I would never do that for a man, aren't I an independent woman! Also, I could totally write a better book than that). But, still, to say that someone reading Orwell is more dateable than someone reading Grisham? To say that a woman who enjoys the Confessions of a Shopaholic series is inherently materialistic? No thank you. If you are reading Zorba the Greek? You won't impress me. I will more likely skip you for the bloke reading Terry Pratchett or something silly. At least he knows how to have a good time.

Books are effin' Awesome

is definitely one of my favorite web comics.

Some Choice Quotes.

http://www.laughinglibrarian.com/siglibn.htm
Here are some lovely quotes for a librarian to use as an email signature, or if you just want to feel validated.

I particularly appreciate:
"I really didn't realize the librarians were, you know, such a dangerous group. ... You think they're just sitting at the desk, all quiet and everything. They're like plotting the revolution, man. I wouldn't mess with them. You know, they've had their budgets cut. They're paid nothing. Books are falling apart. The libraries are just like the ass end of everything, right?"
Michael Moore
(BuzzFlash interview, 13 March 2002)

Today, at lunch eating tacos with a researcher coworker, I mentioned library school and she perked up. "Oh right, you are a librarian! Then went on to ask me a reference question. "That is so going on your facebook profile!" other coworker Amy said. No, Amy. It is going on my blog.

Well, well.

So....I forgot the password to this email account/blog.
I tried in vain for seconds, nay MINUTES to remember it, I tried every combination of the three passwords I use for everything nonfinances related, I tried resetting it through blogspot and eventually through gmail.

FINALLY, months later, I was able to get in thanks to my delightful security setting of MY LIBRARY CARD NUMBER.
Ta da!

I have a knitting blog now too on wordpress
where I also talk about reading. I like books. And yarn.

ReReading

I am always surprised when I meet someone who says they don't reread books. Growing up, I had no choice but to reread, I only owned so many books and I read at such a speed that my parents would have gone broke trying to keep me in new books. I literally read the entire local library (I have been back since, in college, and they have not gotten much new, I still have read most of the books in the building). Now, rereading is a comfort thing, I often want a specific feeling, or a happy ending, or just to know what is coming next. You can only do this by rereading. If I need a guarantee that a book will have A or be B, I need to read a book I already read and know has A or is B.

As a librarian, I hear one story over and over, "I thought libraries were for school, I was wasting so much money on novels, I never even thought of the library!" I love this exchange, I love having a convert to the library world, but when I say something along the lines of "and if you find a book you love, THEN you can buy it so you can read it whenever", I often get a blank face. So many people don't reread! I guess I'm just curious what qualities make a rereader or not.