Linktastic: Libraries, Bloggers and Books! Oh my! edition

Some lingering links from my browser bookmarks for your enjoyment (with commentary of course):

• According to Finding Wonderland, The American Library Association (the masterminds behind what are, essentially, the Oscars of literature for young people) have created a new award. The Stonewall Book Awards is now, for the first time, giving a book award for Children’s and Young Adult Literature
  

  “of exceptional merit relating to the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered experience”

  The 2010 winner is The Vast Fields of Ordinary by Nick Burd. What I like about this award is that it’s open (I think?) to anyone who writes about aspects of the LGBT experience in a masterful way instead of being only open to writers who identify as LGBT (like some of ALA’s other identity based awards). Identity based awards and parsing out awards to highlight books about certain things instead of having them stand together under the broader umbrella of, say, the Printz or the Newberry, is a complicated thing and better/more thoroughly analyzed in my post about building a literature of diversity. I’m not sure how I feel about the award being for YA and Kid Lit. I like it but I also wonder if the same criteria can be used to judge both types of books.

• I just found this song via Bookshelves of Doom. There isn’t much to say about it except I love it and need it on my iPod Right. This. Minute.
• Speaking of love, have you seen the cover of Sarah Rees-Brennan’s forthcoming book The Demon’s Surrender? (Conclusion to her Demon’s Lexicon trilogy which is one of my favorite trilogies ever.) Maybe now people will understand my completely irrational crush on Alan–the dashing, cunning, bookish, AWESOME character I most wish were real–who appears on this cover.
• Holly Black offers fans of White Cat a selected noir reading list including classics and some noir-inspired fiction. I don’t know if you need more of an endorsement than recommended by Holly Black, but most of the books under the second heading (CON ARTISTS) reside comfortably, and constantly, in my Most Favorite/Best Books of All Time list.
• If you’re more of a poetry person, here is a list of all of the poems quoted in Clockwork Angel by Cassandra Clare.
• Are you a book blogger? Do you like the holiday season? Do you enjoy exchanging gifts? Maybe you should join me and sign up for the Book Blogger Holiday Swap then. (Deadline is November 14!)
• Are you a book blogger drowning in ARCS? Are you a teacher trying to build your classroom library? Are you thinking this already sounds like a match made in heaven? Then you MUST check out ARCs Float On over at The Reading Zone which is meant to match up bloggers and teachers and get all of those lovely ARCs and review copies bloggers no longer need into the hands of eager student readers. I love the idea and am signing up. If you are a blogger or a teacher, you should too with the Matchmaker Survey. While I will be keeping some ARCs for that much-promised 50k Giveaway Bonanza, I’m signing up for this because it just makes sense and is a great way to share good books.
• Have you seen the new Sherlock on PBS? If not, you must. My mom says it has killed Sherlock Holmes forever, but I love it (and she’s coming around). The kicker: Sherlock Holmes. In the 21st Century! I love this kind of modern retelling premise, the actors are great and it’s just a good show (though the expository text can be a little rough when you are nearsighted and can’t really read it). Anyway, this new Sherlock is obsessed with texting (unlike me) which led Laura Miller on Salon.com to wonder what other classic literary characters might embrace modern technology (and Web 2.0) with open arms. (Salon.com’s Heather Havrilesky also loves the new Hawaii Five-O which is reason enough to listen to their writers, I think.)
• If you’re reading this blog you probably like books. In fact, they might have changed your life. Maybe you even think You Are What You Read. Scholastic recently launched a new social networking site with a simple premise: Users join and build their “bookprint”–a list of the five books that shaped their lives. They can connect with users through these bookprints, compare bookprints with celebrities on the site, favorite other books, and do lots of other cool things. According to an email I received about the site’s launch, YAWYR is part of Scholastic’s 90th anniversary global literacy campaign, Read Every Day. Lead a Better Life, which celebrates the importance of literacy in the 21st Century. I am going to join . . . as soon as I can decide what five books really shaped my life (not easy!). You should too because it sounds fun and I’ll need friends on there when I join. Oh and you can sign in with your Facebook account if you have one.

Facebook Free Works for Me

I’m not going to post any links mainly because it’s only stuff I’ve been hearing secondhand on Twitter, but there have been (perhaps unsurprisingly?) more issues with Facebook’s privacy filters. I also just recently saw an article (via Twitter) about employers asking for a link to your Facebook page when applying. My first reaction was to wonder why you would share such a link if you were worried about it making a bad impression; why not just say you have no page?

My second thought was to be glad that I legitimately do not have a facebook presence anymore.

As some of my regular readers and friends already know, I set my facebook account for deletion in August. By October I had confirmation that the account was actually, finally, completely gone.

Sometimes it’s a little frustrating to see an incoming link to the blog from Facebook and not be able to see what it’s actually saying, but I don’t really regret the choice.

I feel like I’m more in control of my online presence by sticking with twitter, my blog and my own website (more on that in a future post!) where I can actually keep track of the privacy settings and know exactly what is being seen and by whom–in my case that actually translates to everyone can see everything. Some people don’t like working with that lack of privacy but I find it easier to assume everything is public and just claim all of that content instead of trying to parse out who can see what and when and where they can see it. Not that I do anything “inappropriate” online but now that I can really track all of my information more easily I know there is very little chance of being caught unawares about information about me appearing online.

I also have been using my time online more productively now that I’m not wasting so much lurking on facebook and, weirdly, I feel like I’m more connected with people now that I don’t have an account at the ultimate social networking and connecting site.

On the one hand, I’ve “lost touch” with a lot of people from high school. On the other hand, we weren’t really in touch anyway. This might just be me but I was starting to feel like facebook gave me permission to not talk to people because I could find out anything with one profile view. Now that I can’t do that, I actually need to talk to people for real. And that’s resulted in seeing more people too.

The other side of that coin is that I also realize I’m not the easiest person to be friends with. I (probably) tweet too much, I don’t like to text, my feelings about talking on the phone are ambiguous at best, and I kind of hate Google Chat and gmail for complicated reasons I won’t get into here. I am great with email and I love AIM and Twitter, but a lot of people don’t. And of course now I’m not even on facebook. I’m trying to get better by keeping in mind how other people like to talk and am working on being more accessible (though making sense of google chat is proving harder than I’d expected).

Like everything else, navigating an online presence is a process and I think I finally have one that I really like. I’m happy with my website and social networking choices. (I cannot wait to show you guys my website! It’s fierce.) I think I’m finally using these tools for blogging and tweeting and just being online in the way I’d always envisioned I would be. And that makes me much happier than getting a bunch of “likes” on a facebook status ever did.

But that’s me, what are your thoughts on social networking and privacy online?

Picture books aren’t going anywhere

If you know any librarians, writers, or avid readers on Twitter, you’ve probably already heard about the recent New York Times article “Picture Books No Longer a Staple for Children.” You may have heard about the concern that picture books are dying. You may have heard the concerns from a quoted parent whose quote was taken out of context.

You may have heard any number of panicked voices worrying about picture books and children and what not including BigThink’s ominously titled article “Love Goodnight, Moon; Forget About Harvard” worrying that we don’t know what will happen to children who don’t read picture books. Happily this article does bring some sanity back to the subject by reaffirming that reading is about quality and not about quantity.

You also might have seen Mother Reader’s very wise post reminding everyone that this is not the first, nor will it be the last, time that the New York Times has gotten something wrong in literature for young people. (If you read this blog you might remember the bad parents debacle and the remorseful reading catastrophe–I know I do.)

What you haven’t heard yet, are my thoughts. So here they are with the caveat that I very much agree with Mother Reader that this article isn’t the end all, say all about picture books. That said, I was so struck by the audacity of the article that I find myself unable to let it pass without an extensive response (you have been warned, this will be long). And honestly I didn’t take a bunch of journalism courses in college and concentrate on youth services/literature in grad school to let things like this slide.

This article reminded me a lot of what I am going to go ahead and call the Graphic Novel Ghetto in its talk of parents pushing (or letting or whatever depending on what the real context of quotes was) children to read “real” chapter books instead of picture books.

The Graphic Novel Ghetto is essentially the idea that reading a graphic novel/comic book* isn’t valuable because it doesn’t have as many words as a “regular” traditional prose book or because it’s seen as simpler in concept/content. There are parents (and tragically still some librarians) who think reading a graphic novel isn’t “real” reading or of any intellectual value.

The Graphic Novel Ghetto’s close cousins are the Chick Lit Stigma and the YA Ghetto** which have marginalized many fine and literary books. Another relative of the Graphic Novel Ghetto is the Junk Food Shame. Namely, if a book is “easy” or, dare I say, fun to read it can’t be a “good” book with any literary merit or redeeming intellectual value of any kind. Ally Carter recently said on Twitter (I don’t have the link and I am so sorry about that but Twitter ate it) that this is essentially a flawed idea because what books are really meant to be hard. And I agree.

I hate hearing about people who are apologizing for reading a silly book like The Daring Italian Businessman and His Ravishing Secretary (made up title, you know the book series I mean though) or a vampire novel, or a series like Geronimo Stilton or any number of formulaic series books. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t valuable.

Reading is a skill but it’s also kind of like a muscle. You need to use it; you need to exercise it. Frequent use counts as exercise. Who am I to say that the girl who readers 25 mangas in a week isn’t doing as much reading or increasing her reading skills as much as the boy who reads Around the World in Eighty Days over the course of three weeks (made up figures but you get my point I hope)?

How are we defining challenging or at level reading? When I was 12 I read all of Louisa May Alcott’s books and other classics. At 14 I read The Lord of the Rings. By 16 I had Ella Enchanted and was discovering the wide and wonderful world of YA. That is neither here nor there except to say I adored all of these books. They changed how I viewed the world and they made me who I am today as a reader. Ella Enchanted inspired a whole scholarly article in college (which you might have seen already because I link to it often).

But I don’t, in all honestly, think any of those titles helped my grades in school or my vocabulary for standardized tests. This is a bold statement, but I don’t think any books can inherently prepare a child to do well in school or on tests. My mother did.

My mother did all of that (partly by being a brilliant parent but mostly) by introducing me to the library and giving me the freedom to read voraciously as I saw fit and raising me as a reader.

Children naturally move away from picture books and part of being a parent is, of course, letting that happen (as the BigThink article mentions). The thing the New York Times ignores is that a lot of children will come back to those picture books later in life. Some of them will remember their favorites fondly. Others will reference them while starting their own careers as writers and artists. Others will remember them as librarians and publishers. Like any book, picture books are a part of our culture and you can’t just erase a cultural event like that (I’ve never even seen a real eight track tape, but I still know about them–see what I mean?).

As to parents not buying them, well I still have issues with buying books that I am working through. Not because I dislike books or think they are dying (they’re not) but because I read books very quickly and they are expensive. The cost if I bought each book new is too much to sustain. Imagine the expense of buying each picture book you or your child wanted to read? Actually, don’t imagine it, go to the Library Savings Calculator and see for yourself. For myself I know in the past few months I’ve looked at about twenty picture books for work and this blog. If I had to buy them all, that would have cost 300 dollars (and that’s at 15 dollars a book–many cost more). I can’t afford that and I’m a single woman. What family can afford to buy books at that rate in this economic climate?

The article in the NYT addresses a real situation but as any student of statistics can tell you, correlation does not equal causation. Where are the libraries in this article? Where are the parents who come to the library every week to return a stack of twenty picture books only to immediately borrow twenty more? Where are the librarians who have story hours every week for babys, toddlers, and children? How, in a time when libraries are seeing more use than ever, can any responsible article say picture books are no longer a staple for children?

Even without those basic issues though, picture books (like graphic novels) are huge as learning tools and teach just as much about reading as traditional (all word) chapter books.

What this NYT article (and I guess the parents worried about test scores?) fails to mention is that reading a picture book isn’t really just reading a picture book.

First of all, most picture books are designed to be read aloud–they’re too complex to be read by a child on her own. Parents, caregivers (or perhaps librarians?) are meant to read many picture books to a child and work through the books with them.

Picture books are about interaction and analysis. That’s why we have the huge spectrum of books ranging from the wordless (like the recent Caldecott winner The Lion & the Mouse by Jerry Pinkney–save for sound effects) to the longer works of Chris Van Allsburg which in addition to being lengthy texts introduce complex concepts like distinguishing between real and imaginary. That isn’t even addressing other picture books like Mostly Monsterly that deal with socialization (and being yourself) or How to Catch a Star which explores the more abstract concept of finding a friend or books that build vocabulary not through flashcards but through everyday like My Heart is Like a Zoo which introduces children to words and concepts including bothered, rugged, frightened and thoughtful. That isn’t even to mention the rich, advanced literature found in picture book adaptations of myths, folk tales and legends.

Second of all, when you read a picture book you are not reading one story. You’re reading at least two: the one told in words and the one told in pictures. Writers and illustrators of picture books often do not know each other and don’t even meet face to face while working on a book. For that reason they both bring many different elements to the story being told.

A picture book–even a simple one–isn’t an illustrated story or a series of captioned pictures. A picture book is an interplay of text and images. (Even when it is written and illustrated by the same person because writing a book is a different task than illustrating a book.) You read both and you draw conclusions between the two (and if it’s a graphic novel style book you also learn sequencing which is a whole different skill). Kevin Henkes’ books are a great example of this. Go, take a look at Kitten’s First Full Moon. First look at the pictures. Then look at the words. Can you tell the whole story without both?

Finally, and I can’t stress this enough, reading is never about quantity. Reading is about quality. It is about an individual experience and individual progress. What a child reads isn’t, I think, as important as the fact that they are reading. Any book–every book–is a gateway to more books. To imply that reading picture books won’t help a child with standardized tests is like saying learning to count isn’t helpful in understanding math. Reading is qualitative. It’s about building comprehension and learning textual literacy (and visual literacy for picture books) but it’s also about enjoyment.

My issue with the NYT article isn’t that it was wrong or nonsense (although I really do think it was the latter) it’s that once again the New York Times is trying to tell people what they can and cannot read.*** Some kids will move to chapter books as soon as they can. Others will stick with picture books or illustrated chapter books. Some kids won’t read until they are much older. Some might never like to read. And all of that is okay. In a world with so many wonderful and varied options for books, why does anyone have to choose just one format or one genre? Why isn’t all reading created equal?

*I could get into the differences (and if anyone wants to hear about them please tell me in the comments and I will oblige because I wrote not one or tow but three essays about the merits of graphic novels in grad school) but for all intents and purposes the terms are interchangeable and I will be using them interchangeably here.

**In short: Writing By Women Authors Isn’t Real Writing At All and Writing For Teens Instead of Adults Isn’t Real Writing At All respectively. I wrote a huge manifesto about both a few months ago if you want more info/links.

***Not to mention implying that every post-Twilight paranormal romance was inspired by the Twilight books. Hello? It’s called a sub-genre.

On Reading Without Remorse (A manifesto of sorts)

By conventional standards, I might be what’s called a narrow reader. I know what I like and I stick to it. I read fantasy books (sometimes I read science fiction, but when I do I’m always left waiting for the dragon that will never come). I read mysteries (but currently only Cassandra Chan’s Gibbons and Bethancourt series). I read realistic fiction. I read Chick Lit (but my own expanded version of it as seen here each Wednesday). I read classics. But only by authors I like or my mom likes. (I doubt I will ever read Lady Chatterly’s Lover for instance. And my Hemingway quota was more than filled by The Sun Also Rises. Don’t even get me started on Kafka.)

Now, I know what you’re thinking. That isn’t narrow at all. I read a lot of genres. But most of the books I read–in fact, I’m comfortable saying that 80 percent of the books I’ve read to date–are Young Adult books. And, for a lot of (unenlightened) people (who do not read it) YA is its own genre.

More than that, it’s a genre that seems to require a lot of apologies or explanations from its readers and its authors. Many YA authors, I’ve seen it happen on Twitter to at least three, are asked when they’re planning on writing a “real” book. You know, one with real, adult people. Because anyone who’s  a teenager can’t be experiencing anything “real” or sincere or, you know, literary.

Margo Rabb wrote a whole essay for The New York Times a while back working through her own mixed feelings about being a debut YA author with her novel Cures for Heartbreak. That essay, back in 2008, raised some discussion about the phenomenon of the YA Ghetto and how so many wonderful books are seen as “less than” just because they happen to be targeted to teens (even though they are rich, strong books that have appeal for people of a variety of ages).

Just last week the New York times featured another essay, this time by Pamela Paul, explaining that it’s okay to read young adult books because (guess what?!) some of them are really, really good. Shocker. My favorite quotes: “A lot of adult literature is all art and no heart.” “Y.A. may also pierce the jadedness and cynicism of our adult selves.” Snark aside, Paul made some good points though my main issue is simply that any of the points needed to be made.

Then, of course, we have the infamous chick lit stigma which afflicts many YA authors twice as hard since their “real” book would have to not only be about adults, but about men besides. I didn’t know it when I first started my Chick Lit Wednesday reviews, but I know now that this is exactly the reason I feature a book with  strong women every week. Because we need to dispel the ridiculous idea that books centered on women are somehow less important than books about anything else.

Tamora Pierce just recently wrote a blog post about why she writes about a lot of girl heroes. Maureen Johnson has done her part to expand the working definition of chick lit simply by working through why so many people call her books chick lit. My friend “Sarah” also pointed me to Tiger Beatdown’s essay from The Rejectionist on manfiction and why The Rejectionist no longer reads it.

I could talk until I’m blue in the face about the many virtues or chick lit, ya lit and genre fiction (all of my favorite things to read which, paradoxically, always seem to be seen as inferior by the big literary critics and prizes who only seem to give awards, in my narrow knowledge, to “serious” books about “serious” things*). Sometimes I feel like I already have talked myself blue in the face.

And I’m tired of it.

I’m thrilled that so many of the genres I love (steampunk, YA/chick lit if you want to call two really broad categories genres, etc.) are getting so much great press. But I’m sad that so many adults still feel a need to apologize for reading it and so much of that great press starts with an apology as if a person needs permission to read whatever she or he wants.

So I’m done.

I am now reading without remorse. I will choose books and recommend books without apology. I will review without explaining that the book has crossover age appeal. I will summarize without mentioning that chick lit involves more than women in romantic comedy situations. And I will never, ever try to justify or excuse or otherwise explain what I read. Nor will I ever expect explanations from anyone else.

And I want you, dear readers, to join me.

Who’s in?

While you’re at it, if you are ready to read without apology, maybe you should consider joining my new book club?

*This might be a good point to mention that aside from the links provided, no other research went into this post. Maybe a little known YA crossover chick lit steampunk title did win a huge, prestigious, serious book prize and I missed it, I don’t know. My main point is that there tends to be a very narrow definition of what makes a book valuable as literature versus as entertainment or plain old good reading and that definition does not yet encompass YA or chick lit.

Linktastic! Fun and Games Edition

Some links for your enjoyment:

• Jane Austen’s Fight Club has been making the social networking rounds for a while now and I finally sat down to watch it. It was quite entertaining. (Keep in mind this is from someone who has never read or seen the original Fight Club so I can only imagine how much more the rest of the world who hasn’t been hiding under that rock with me will enjoy it!)
• Who else grew up playing Oregon Trail every single chance they could? I loved that game and wish they would make a new version to work with Mac OSX. It’s not real, but I would totally go see Oregon Trail: The Movie. Don’t know what I’m talking about? Nostalgic to play the game again? Look no further. Just be careful fording those rivers. (This is totally insane but if you view the top 10 I’m the Miss Print that’s currently listed there. Is it weird that I’m crazy proud of that?)
• Maybe you’ve heard already, but The Old Spice Guy loves libraries.
• Do you have a literary crush? PIEharn lists a lot of her favorite literary characters (who are badasses) and I have to say it includes many of my favorites. How can you not love Alan, Gen, or Howl? (I’m not even going to mention Mr. Darcy because the idea of anyone disliking him is just silly.)
• So, Firefly is this really popular cult classic show by Joss Whedon. Maybe you’ve heard of it. Ever wonder what it would look like if it were made in the 1980s? Here is the answer in the form of an Eighties style opener. I’m actually more partial to the original opener and its steampunk-y look–the intro song is actually living on my iPod right now because I love it so much. (Anyone else wish Adam Baldwin had a better show than Chuck to work on? I mean, come on.) Here’s an extended version because I wanted to hear the song again.
• I recently went all in with Twitter and decided to completely delete my Facebook account. The PRepguide takes that idea one step further (sort of) and makes a case for putting your twitter handle on your resume.
• I will leave you with 10 children’s book characters who need a sassy gay friend.

Some Links for Readers

I’m not even sure how I found these (I think The Librarian Kate may have retweeted something about a link or some such). Anyway, I thought these might be useful for anyone looking to do some quick reader’s advisory or just looking for some rapid fire book recommendations for their own to read piles. The sites don’t do so well with cross-genre pairings, but then I’m sure you all know to come here and look at my possible pairings within each review when you want something like that!

• First up we have we have Your Next Read. I like this site because it’s very visual with book cover images for each recommendation. The site is also very dynamic. You can rate recommendations, add your own, and bounce between books (be warned: it’s kind of addictive.) The site is a little wonky with multiple editions of the same book showing up separately, but if you search with title and author you usually get what you’re looking for with a few decent recommendations besides. Here’s an example for If I Stay by Gayle Forman since I was just talking about that with Lola. It’s a great tool to use in tandem with goodreads though sometimes (like every time but while I’m writing this) it works better than others.
• A similar site is The Book Seer. This site is similar to the first but I found it a little less dynamic. It also gets annoyed when you don’t include an author so it’s not quite as quick and dirty as the Your Next Read. The recommendations are good for the most part (even for pre-pub titles) but it’s not as visual with only title and author for recs as can be seen in this example for City of Ashes by Cassandra Clare. It also includes a lot of titles from the same series. Like, I get that Wicked Lovely could be a good pairing for this book, that doesn’t mean I need every title in the series listed. You also need to type in every new title, no option to bounce around. The site supposedly recommends titles from LibraryThing (not my fave book site) but I’ve yet to see it actually return any results.

So, together with a site like goodreads or amazon (and my old standby KDL’s What’s Next Database) you should have everything you need here to be a regular reader’s advisory maven (which apparently can be used to refer to men and women, who knew?) even if you are outside of your genre comfort zone. Enjoy!

UPDATE: Neither site works very well with children’s books (YA books work fine, don’t ask me why). When I did a search on BookSeer for Nate Fludd books I got no results. YourNextRead only recommended other books in the series/by the author though that one you can add your own recommendations and conceivably thereby “fix” that shortcoming. YNR also sometimes randomly displays no recommendations but refreshing fixes that.

Some Bookish Links

So, I’m enjoying my Linktastic! posts listing stuff I read that was interesting and that I think YOU might find interesting. I’m going to try to do them on a semi-regular basis. In this edition, for your perusal, are a bunch of articles I had on hand about books, authors and other bookish matters. (Some of these are really old because I’ve been working on this post for months and I tend to not read links I get pointed to right away–bad blogger.)

• What better way to celebrate books than using their spines to create some poems? (Who needs magnets!?) Need some inspiration first? Check out this flickr set of examples from the Somers Library. (Originally brought to my attention by Travis at 100 Scope Notes who has his own gallery of samples.)
• Ever wonder how NYPL sorts their books to fill holds? Wonder no longer, read about it in “That Mighty Sorting Machine Is Certainly One for the Books” by Kate Taylor. There is also a video of the sorter in action. I don’t know if it’s just me, but I have always been fascinated with the annexing aspect of the library because it was so distant and mysterious and really enjoyed the video for that reason.
• Angels and Ages: Lincoln’s Language and its Legacy by Adam Gopnik is a fairly old article from The New Yorker magazine. It’s also one of my all time favorite articles. It’s a great look at Lincoln’s last day and also how real history isn’t always what gets written in the history books.
• Yale Alumni Magazine recently ran a brief feature by Alex Beam on the Psychology of the Bookplate. Beam covers a lot of territory in a short space ending, as I would have myself, by suggesting that e-books will never be the same as real, physical books anymore than they will manage to occupy the same place as real books. But first Beam talks about the bookplate acting as a way to possess and even become a book. My personal library has no bookplates–I think of them as something very near damage when it comes to a book (though I love a good signed book as much as the next girl). But when I was in grade school my aunt worked for a publisher and had access to tons of books that she gave to my school’s library. Each book had a bookplate indicating it was donated by . . . me. It’s a strange thing to walk around a school and be thanked by strangers for books when you’re eight years old–bookplates are powerful stuff. Not as powerful as an e-book. Not yet anyway:

“Their library exists on a server farm, where real estate is cheap. My library is here, in this room where I am writing.”

• The Subconscious Shelf (a blog from the magazine) reminded me why I fell in love with The New Yorker in the first place. I can’t afford the monetary or physical strain of subscribing again. But I will be a faithful reader of this blog that analyzes user submitted photos of bookshelves. What could be better? This idea is so right, so pure, that I can add nothing to make it more enticing. Go, read it now, finish this post later. I think one of my life goals just became getting my shelves analyzed there (I’d like to see them handle my hodgepodge of picture books, YA books, and what not). Exclusive Bonus Content: This also ties in with my post about personal library organization.
• Here is an old article from the NYT about E-Readers and eye strain. Basically, nothing works perfectly to read in bright sunlight or dim light but there are pros and cons to all of the different reading media available. I still prefer books, but that might have to do with being able to get books from the library. Who knows?
• I love Charles Dickens. And I especially love A Christmas Carol and all of the different movie versions it has inspired. One of my friends once told me that he read it every year on Christmas Eve (or thereabout, I can’t remember the specific day) and he would only get a gift from his sister once he had finished it. Anyway, there is only one manuscript of that famous novel and, amazingly, it’s available online for your viewing pleasure! (I find it really hard to read, but then I have a hard enough time with my own handwriting so maybe you all will fair better.)
• Not exactly book related, but definitely worth reading for all the twitter users out there now that Twitter’s archive belongs to the Library of Congress. (First thoughts: Who would want all those tweets? I guess we know why I’m not an archivist . . .)
• Also not exactly book related, BUT the Eclipse movie is out now and maybe you want a taste of it without paying for a pricey ticket. I direct you to Jen Lancaster’s improved version of the story. For bonus awesome check out all of her like-themed posts (read: random but funny) here.
• Last, but not least, I haven’t made it any secret that I think Jacob is way more fun and better in every possible way than Edward. That said, here is an explanation of why Jacob cannot win.

“Why does Team Jacob always have to lose? Because Eclipse is a movie about rejecting adulthood, not just as a person but also as a culture. It’s about rejecting adult relationships between men and women, but also between people of different races and between people from the city (like Victoria’s army) and people from Forks. It’s about never crossing boundaries, never leaving home.”

And on that note, I will leave you dear readers.

Some links and a promise (not in that order)

First of all, Miss Print currently has 28,000 some odd views. That is both wonderful and astounding and a number that thrills me. But I think we can do better. And I do mean we because this blog would be nothing without my regular readers and commenters. So. Here’s the deal:

I have books to give away but I am also fond of round numbers. When Miss Print hits 50,000 views, I will be conducting a High Brow/Low Brow book giveaway bonanza. What does that mean exactly? I will definitely be giving away several books. I can’t say more until the give away starts. I have reinstated the narcissistic blog stats widget (titled “Number to Note” in the top right of the main page) so everyone is on the same page. Remember: 50,000 hits = really happy Miss Print = Free Books That is a promise!

Now for some cool links from the blogosphere:

• Collecting Children’s Books has a fascinating post on unique Newbery/Caldecott Medal stickers (and literature bingo).

• Jacket Knack led me to the brilliant Daily Drop Cap a sight providing free (beautiful) initials daily to use for your own blogging amusement. (See one in action.)
• From 100 Scope Notes I offer a link to some children’s books that have been updated for the digital age. Apparently the Harriet the Spy Blog Wars movie is totally legit–why didn’t I already know about this? (I am both intrigued and worried.)
• Also, from 100 Scope Notes: Ever wonder how R. L. Stine stays on top of his crazy busy publishing schedule? So does College Humor. (True story: One of my college English professors knows R. L. Stine. As she put it, “Ron” is a good friend of the family.)
• Finally, an interesting editorial from Library Journal about paraprofessionals in the library AKA the non-library-school people who are vital to making a library a vibrant, efficient place for everyone. I’m personally fond of the term “library worker” for anyone and everyone who works in a library; working my way through library school as a clerk has made me really aware that it takes more than librarians to make a library work.

So, hope you enjoy the links and remember: When the blog tops 50,000 views I start giving stuff (books) away!

The Rockette Problem

At my previous place of employ, “Tori” and I started talking about the Radio City Christmas Spectacular and how awesome the Rockettes are. This led to some sound relationship advice that we tried to share with a less-than-grateful “Bear.” This post has been a long time coming and, hopefully, some readers (assuming I have any male readers–do I?) will feel our findings were more helpful than Bear did.

To state it simply: Every girl wants to be a Rockette. But not every girl can be a Rockette since the Rockettes are highly trained athletic dancers who are between 5′ 6″ and 5′ 10′ in height (the tallest Rockettes are at the center of any kick line and other height discrepancies are made up for in the height of shoe heels and hats). No matter how unrealistic the dream, it is a hard thing to realize that even if you become a highly trained athletic dancer you cannot be a Rockette because you are too short (I imagine there are some people out there who are too tall, but I do not know any of them). Therein lies The Rockette Problem.

I am aware there are some people who simply do not like the Rockettes and will freely tell you as much. These people are lying to you and themselves. When I first told my “Kiki Couture” about The Rockette Problem her first response was a declaration of Rockette hatred. Further discussion revealed that Kiki’s hatred came not from animosity, but from envy. Because she could not be a Rockette. But one real life example of The Rockette Problem at work.

But what does The Rockette Problem have to do with relationships? I will tell you.

One day, Tori was trying to offer Bear some advice–because she is has a lot of wise advice and because offering advice is what librarians do. She posited that men would fair better with women if they just understood one universal truth. And I looked at her and said three words that you should know well by now: The Rockette Problem.

This was the advice she had for Bear and it is the advice* I now share with you, readers. Use it well:

When a guy meets a woman he might like, the surefire way to win her over is to take her to see the Rockettes. I know what you’re thinking. What if the guy is Jewish, does not celebrate Christmas, or simply does not enjoy a well-choreographed holiday dance routine? My initial response: Suck it up.

My expanded response: Use this advice hypothetically if you are for some reason averse to the Rockettes, but consider this first. If you fall into a demographic that would not generally enjoy a well-choreographed holiday dance routine but take your girl to see it anyway, think how many brownie points you could earn. (Hint: you would probably need to go on a diet.)

Also, almost everyone celebrates Thanksgiving. And the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade isn’t a parade until the Rockettes perform, so watch them with your special lady friend then. Tell her you like their costumes**. Admire their athleticsism. Tell her you understand The Rockette Problem and she will understand how much you care.

If, for some reason, that doesn’t work. Write a letter. Not a coy letter. Just write a letter and say “Hey, let’s go see the Rockettes.” It will be enough.

Should that still not work, you might be beyond this blog’s help, but in a last ditch effort you can consider telling her you like the way she looks in blue at five minute intervals. If it worked for Edward Cullen it might work for you, although utilizing The Rockette Problem to your advantage is really much more likely to work.

So, remember, you must not hate The Rockettes–just admire. And maybe The Rockette Problem can be your own relationship solution.

*This advice does not apply to women hoping to improve their relationship prospects with other women for the simple reason that women already inherently understand The Rockette Problem and therefore cannot utilize it further.

**Being one to try and get the last word, Bear later told me the costumes were NEVER the first thing a man noticed about the the Rockettes. My initial response to that was, I think, fairly obvious: Suck it up. And don’t tell your special lady friend that!

“I don’t need to weed them.”

Bear’s take on weeding graphic novels that live on the main floor of my previous place of employ: “I don’t need to weed them because when they’re unhappy here they leave.”

(Unfortunately, the graphic novel collection has a habit of “walking” out of the library instead of being properly checked out. I guess it could be worse–DVDs could be walking out instead. . . .)

Clearly, whoever has been helping the graphic novels find a happier home knows how much they save by using the library every month thanks to the Library Savings Calculator.