- Published on
The link to the following blog post came over the transom courtesy of ISLMA (the Illinois School Library Media Association) listserv:
10 Things I Hate About the Library
And being a school librarian who works with young children every day, I of course felt the need to reply, measure for measure, ala Liz Phair to the Rolling Stones, Exile in Guyville to Exile on Main Street:
1. The Stress: Oh please. With free access to books and CDs, and minimal (if any) fees on DVDs, the library is a bargain that is worth the time, effort and stress to help children keep track of their borrowings. Try using a designated book bag; teach children to keep their library books in a special place (nightstand, corner of the bedroom, chair) when they are not reading them. This is an organizational skill they will need early on in school and use 4-EVER!
2. Late and Replacement Fees: a small price to pay. See above suggestions. Always get a checkout receipt and post it somewhere prominent -- refrigerator, calendar, front door, garage door.
3. The Grossness: exposure to germs can be a good thing -- builds the immune system. And, believe it or not, librarians do wipe down books and/or pull them out of circulation as necessary. Your little darling will not catch the flu or dysentery checking out a library book.
4. Keeping Kids Quiet: Again, oh please. Stereotype! The majority of libraries have designated children's areas and I have never seen a posted "Quiet Zone" in any of them.
5. Keeping Kids Still: Children's librarians expect some noise and exuberance. We have been known to dance in the aisles ourselves upon finishing a particularly excellent book -- Scaredy Squirrel or a classic Dr. Seuss, anyone? As long as the children are not hurting themselves or putting others in danger, I think you are okay with movement. Sorry, but we do draw the line at bungee-jumping off the top of the shelving units.
6. The Books My Kids Choose: Well, kids are generally receptive to guidance in this area. But the deaths of pets and divorce are facts of life and reading about these sad circumstances allow children to experience the emotions surrounding these events safely and/or find comfort and confirmation in a fictional character's response.
10 Things I Hate About the Library
And being a school librarian who works with young children every day, I of course felt the need to reply, measure for measure, ala Liz Phair to the Rolling Stones, Exile in Guyville to Exile on Main Street:
1. The Stress: Oh please. With free access to books and CDs, and minimal (if any) fees on DVDs, the library is a bargain that is worth the time, effort and stress to help children keep track of their borrowings. Try using a designated book bag; teach children to keep their library books in a special place (nightstand, corner of the bedroom, chair) when they are not reading them. This is an organizational skill they will need early on in school and use 4-EVER!
2. Late and Replacement Fees: a small price to pay. See above suggestions. Always get a checkout receipt and post it somewhere prominent -- refrigerator, calendar, front door, garage door.
3. The Grossness: exposure to germs can be a good thing -- builds the immune system. And, believe it or not, librarians do wipe down books and/or pull them out of circulation as necessary. Your little darling will not catch the flu or dysentery checking out a library book.
4. Keeping Kids Quiet: Again, oh please. Stereotype! The majority of libraries have designated children's areas and I have never seen a posted "Quiet Zone" in any of them.
5. Keeping Kids Still: Children's librarians expect some noise and exuberance. We have been known to dance in the aisles ourselves upon finishing a particularly excellent book -- Scaredy Squirrel or a classic Dr. Seuss, anyone? As long as the children are not hurting themselves or putting others in danger, I think you are okay with movement. Sorry, but we do draw the line at bungee-jumping off the top of the shelving units.
6. The Books My Kids Choose: Well, kids are generally receptive to guidance in this area. But the deaths of pets and divorce are facts of life and reading about these sad circumstances allow children to experience the emotions surrounding these events safely and/or find comfort and confirmation in a fictional character's response.
As for farting, well, it is a natural process and two absolute favorites on this topic are Walter, the Farting Dog and the based-on-a-true-story Fartiste. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. And
have you seen what's playing at the multiplex lately? The gross-out, "adult" humor in the movie of Judd Apatow should be so entertaining as these children's books!
7. The Smell: This blogger must be going to a really old library. Well, sorry. Would she prefer the formaldehyde-laced scent of a Glade Plug-In?
8. The Scowling Librarian: Oh PLEASE! STEREOTYPE!! CLICHE!!! I could say "nuff said," but I shall continue.
have you seen what's playing at the multiplex lately? The gross-out, "adult" humor in the movie of Judd Apatow should be so entertaining as these children's books!
7. The Smell: This blogger must be going to a really old library. Well, sorry. Would she prefer the formaldehyde-laced scent of a Glade Plug-In?
8. The Scowling Librarian: Oh PLEASE! STEREOTYPE!! CLICHE!!! I could say "nuff said," but I shall continue.
Children's librarians are some of the most patient and friendly people you'll ever meet. It is a requirement of employment that you be cheerful, kind, patient, helpful ... sort of like Mary Poppins without the spoonful of sugar and the flying umbrella.
9. The Lack of a Starbucks: So while she's off sipping her coffee at Barnes and Noble, where are the kiddies? Tearing up the picture book aisle? Knocking over the New Nonfiction displays?
10. Reading. Hmmmmmm... I guess I will tackle this "other post" later... for "tomorrow is another day!"
9. The Lack of a Starbucks: So while she's off sipping her coffee at Barnes and Noble, where are the kiddies? Tearing up the picture book aisle? Knocking over the New Nonfiction displays?
10. Reading. Hmmmmmm... I guess I will tackle this "other post" later... for "tomorrow is another day!"
- Published on
It's out. It's good. And if you read it and disagree, feel free to let me know.
It's not a paranormal romance, although the characters are haunted. It's not a thriller, although there is a mystery to solve. And don't ask me what other author I am "like;" I've only ever been taught that I must write in my own original voice.
- Published on
A few days ago we looked at a few examples of good children's books that are horribly served by their movie versions, also known as the GBBM juvenile virus. Today we put the adult strain under the microscope.
Oh Hollywood, what wreckage have you wrought? Let me count the titles. The question is... how to begin. Should I start with the worst? But then again, we are in one of those "highly subjective" areas. You might actually like the movie version of such-and-such, while it happens to provoke my gag reflex.
But an attempt must be made... So, in the category of Most Egregious Change of Endings, the winner is... Roland Joffe's revisionist take on Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, starring Demi Moore, with its new, improved happy ending that features Hester, Pearl and Dimmesdale horse-and-buggying out of town to start a new life together. The moral of this story: beware of any movie which uses the phrase "freely adapted from" in the credits!
Oh Hollywood, what wreckage have you wrought? Let me count the titles. The question is... how to begin. Should I start with the worst? But then again, we are in one of those "highly subjective" areas. You might actually like the movie version of such-and-such, while it happens to provoke my gag reflex.
But an attempt must be made... So, in the category of Most Egregious Change of Endings, the winner is... Roland Joffe's revisionist take on Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, starring Demi Moore, with its new, improved happy ending that features Hester, Pearl and Dimmesdale horse-and-buggying out of town to start a new life together. The moral of this story: beware of any movie which uses the phrase "freely adapted from" in the credits!
A scarlet "A?" Would that happen to stand for asinine?
The "Muddled Lukewarm Mess" award goes to the film version of The Bonfire of the Vanities, a big, luscious, hot casserole of a novel by Tom Wolfe, which, as much as he stirred into the mix, was still a crystal-clear examination of morals and mores of our culture in the 1980's. The novel held up a mirror to the racism, greed, ambition, politics and social class that festered under the sunny glow of Reaganism.
But despite a stellar cast which included Tom Hanks, Melanie Griffiths and Bruce Willis, the film never gelled and failed to capture the essence of the Greed Decade. Perhaps Hanks wasn't right for the role of bond trader WASP Sherman McCoy. Or maybe the screenwriting just couldn't live up to Wolfe's elegant
prose (yes, I admit I have a "writer's crush" on him). Whatever the reason, the movie just gummed where it should have bit.
prose (yes, I admit I have a "writer's crush" on him). Whatever the reason, the movie just gummed where it should have bit.
Speaking of miscasting, in the category of "Most Miscast Milquetoast Movie," the winner would have to be Water for Elephants, the adaptation of Sara Gruen's delightful novel, which told a familiar story (love triangle variety) in an entirely fresh, unexplored setting: the traveling circus milieu of the Depression era. I love Reese Witherspoon. She's a fabulous comedienne who showed her serious side in Walk the Line; she's just not Marlena.
And Robert Pattinson? Great as Cedric Diggory in the Harry Potter series. I avoided him in the Twilight movies because, well, I avoided the books, too. I guess I have something against poorly written vampire novels -- or, I confess, poorly written novels in general, whatever the plot, characters and setting. As for the undead, I have been there, done that with the superior writing of Anne Rice. Back to Pattinson... he just couldn't connect as Jacob. Maybe he's just entirely too pretty or... wooden. When actors can't connect with each other, they are hardly able to connect with the audience. Something about chemistry...
Other failures to translate from page to screen include The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, a comic book series and graphic novel by Alan Moore and Kevin O'Neill (how could the screenwriters miss? They already had a !#$%^*! storyboard), The Lovely Bones by Alice Seybold, and My Sister's Keeper by Jodi Picoult.
Other failures to translate from page to screen include The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, a comic book series and graphic novel by Alan Moore and Kevin O'Neill (how could the screenwriters miss? They already had a !#$%^*! storyboard), The Lovely Bones by Alice Seybold, and My Sister's Keeper by Jodi Picoult.
Then there is the special case of The Great Gatsby. My goodness, the novel is bursting with juicy scenes and all the glamour and grit one might desire and expect from an examination of the American experience during the Roaring Twenties.
The movie version has the potential of eye candy and acting chops with Robert Redford as Jay, Mia Farrow as Daisy and Bruce Dern as Tom, and Karen Black as Mrytle. However, again, the parts didn't add up to a great sum. The chemistry just didn't... combust. Maybe it was Farrow... too fragile, not enough allure to pine for over time? Maybe it was Redford... not enough fire in the belly? It was all entirely too beautiful, but strangely lifeless, like a butterfly pinned to a specimen board.
The movie version has the potential of eye candy and acting chops with Robert Redford as Jay, Mia Farrow as Daisy and Bruce Dern as Tom, and Karen Black as Mrytle. However, again, the parts didn't add up to a great sum. The chemistry just didn't... combust. Maybe it was Farrow... too fragile, not enough allure to pine for over time? Maybe it was Redford... not enough fire in the belly? It was all entirely too beautiful, but strangely lifeless, like a butterfly pinned to a specimen board.
Very pretty... very lifeless
I promise to keep an open mind on the latest version being filmed by Baz Luhrmann, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and
- Published on
I love Lenny Abramov, the protagonist of Gary Shteyngart's wicked satire of a tech-crazed, dystopian America in serious decline, Super Sad True Love Story. Okay, so he's a bit of a loser. His taste in clothes is horrendous. He's out of shape. He's definitely not fashion-forward in his choice of tech gizmos, either. So what attracts me to Lenny? He loves books -- or, as the novel calls them, "bound, printed, non-streaming Media artifacts."
In my libraries this year, I will be celebrating these amazing creations that have been around for over 500 years (in printed form, thanks to J. Gutenberg) and will, I hope, be around for at least another 500 (though I won't be around to enjoy them). I am no Luddite, but let me sing the many praises of the low-tech book.
I have long been curious as to differences in reading on paper as opposed to reading in an electronic format, and, frankly, I am concerned that e-readers (in all formats) do not promote "deep" reading. Now the results of studies are beginning to trickle in. For example, a grad student at the University of Washington, Alex Thayer, completed research on the use of Kindles among academics. His findings indicate that e-readers were useful for what he calls "receptive reading," that is, simply reading from start to finish in a straight line, without much depth. (Think summer beach book). However, the e-format was not very good for what he calls "responsive reading," which involves a deeper interaction with the text to build knowledge. Hmmmm... For further reading on this provocative topic, I suggest Nicholas Carr's examination of the Internet's effect on our reading and thinking processes, The Shallows.
Then, there is the matter of all the electronic waste we are fast-accumulating. What's going to happen to all those old Kindles and Nooks and iPads, when the next generation comes along? Something tells me they will wind up smouldering in a dump in China (after the precious metals have been extracted).
Books have been and always will be fully recyclable.
So let's hear it for something that:
1. is portable.
2. won't break if you drop it.
3. you can loan to friends and if they lose it, well, it's not the end of the world.
4. you can use a cute bookmark to note where you left off.
5. doesn't need batteries or recharging.
6. are free (at your local library).
7. lightweight yet durable.
8. come with attractive covers.
9. come in all different kinds (think genres).
10. let you use your imagination.
11. can take you all over the world (and to new worlds).
12. help you learn how to FOCUS (maybe the most important skill of all).
So thanks, Lenny, for appreciating those "bound, printed, non-streaming Media artifacts." May they live forever.
In my libraries this year, I will be celebrating these amazing creations that have been around for over 500 years (in printed form, thanks to J. Gutenberg) and will, I hope, be around for at least another 500 (though I won't be around to enjoy them). I am no Luddite, but let me sing the many praises of the low-tech book.
I have long been curious as to differences in reading on paper as opposed to reading in an electronic format, and, frankly, I am concerned that e-readers (in all formats) do not promote "deep" reading. Now the results of studies are beginning to trickle in. For example, a grad student at the University of Washington, Alex Thayer, completed research on the use of Kindles among academics. His findings indicate that e-readers were useful for what he calls "receptive reading," that is, simply reading from start to finish in a straight line, without much depth. (Think summer beach book). However, the e-format was not very good for what he calls "responsive reading," which involves a deeper interaction with the text to build knowledge. Hmmmm... For further reading on this provocative topic, I suggest Nicholas Carr's examination of the Internet's effect on our reading and thinking processes, The Shallows.
Then, there is the matter of all the electronic waste we are fast-accumulating. What's going to happen to all those old Kindles and Nooks and iPads, when the next generation comes along? Something tells me they will wind up smouldering in a dump in China (after the precious metals have been extracted).
Books have been and always will be fully recyclable.
So let's hear it for something that:
1. is portable.
2. won't break if you drop it.
3. you can loan to friends and if they lose it, well, it's not the end of the world.
4. you can use a cute bookmark to note where you left off.
5. doesn't need batteries or recharging.
6. are free (at your local library).
7. lightweight yet durable.
8. come with attractive covers.
9. come in all different kinds (think genres).
10. let you use your imagination.
11. can take you all over the world (and to new worlds).
12. help you learn how to FOCUS (maybe the most important skill of all).
So thanks, Lenny, for appreciating those "bound, printed, non-streaming Media artifacts." May they live forever.