Final thought of 2008

Alright, it's really going to be two thoughts, mostly because I don't want to seem completely shallow.

1. I'm just starting The Audacity of Hope, and I've listened with interest to the preparation that President-Elect Obama has been making (yay, science!), and man, I am glad I voted for that guy.

2. I am totally, utterly annoyed that Heath Ledger is stealing all of Robert Downey, Jr.'s thunder this year just because he died. There. I said it. The Dark Knight was a trainwreck of a movie, nothing compared to Iron Man, and Downey, Jr.'s performance in Tropic Thunder blows The Joker out of the water. I am not looking forward to award season and seeing who the hell ever gets to go up and accept awards snivel over and over again about Heath Ledger while RDJ just sits there and looks like a hot, hot guy who fixed his shit instead of shuffling off the mortal coil. So there.

Awesome book of the day

Joyce, James, 1882-1941
Finnegans wake / by James Joyce
London : Faber and Faber ; New York : Viking, 1939


Limited first edition. 425 copies, numbered and signed. I think what gets me is holding such a book, maybe taking it in hand to write the call number in the back, and thinking "James Joyce held this book in a very similar manner, almost 70 years ago." It's not the 70 years that's so impressive in this case, but rather the James freaking Joyce part.

This is when I really love my job.

War economy?

I've just finished reading Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, which might be my biggest accomplishment in 2008. I've actually been "reading" it for a couple of years now, half a chapter at a time, usually after I'd read another entire book or two. About a month ago I decided that enough was enough, and I was going to just finish the bloody thing already. There was quite a feeling of excitement upon finishing, let me tell you. I might have "raar"ed and thrown the book down (gently, of course). I'm not telling. But anyway, I had a point to make here.

One of the things that Zinn focuses quite a lot on is the way in which the US government, quite often, chooses to control society and the economy by engaging in wars. He makes his point quite clearly, and I started to think about how, in my memory, that's been true, what with the Bushes and the Middle East. I've also been thinking about how (if at all) the Obama presidency will differ from the way the government has been operating for a really long time. Obama does not fall into the standard mold, and so even if he represents the upper classes in his personal situation in life, he's still outside of that white, Anglo-Saxon (to coin Zinn's description of the presidency in general) box. Back to the war economy idea ... at one point in reading I chortled to the husband that at least with the way things are now, Obama was unlikely to fall back on that sort of operation. However, I'm rethinking that. Is it possible that we will just pull out of Iraq and jump right into Afghanistan? I guess what I am not sure about (being, you know, in no way qualified to talk about this sort of thing) is whether or not the "war economy strategy" will even work at this point, seeing as we're already knee-deep in such nonsense and it's certainly not doing anything for the economy right now.

I guess what I'm getting at is just that I hope the mold is good and broken. I hope that Obama is different enough to shake things up, and I hope that the system has reached the point where it no longer functions, and we need a new system. Fingers crossed, eh?

This is what I get for listening to NPR on the way to work...sometimes it's worth it, though, if only to hear Steve Inskeep say "SuperPoke!"

Sexy.

There is no point to this post other than to declare that I think the song "Come On Get Higher" by Matt Nathanson is damn sexy. Even if he himself is not particularly.

Yes? No?

To be read:

"Ours is essentially a tragic age, so we refuse to take it tragically. The cataclysm has happened, we are among the ruins, we start to build up new little habitats, to have new little hopes. It is rather hard work: there is now no smooth road into the future: but we go round, or scramble over the obstacles. We've got to live, no matter how many skies have fallen."

~First paragraph of Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence.

The first American edition* is sitting just to the left of me, waiting to be cataloged. That first paragraph is fabulous. Why haven't I read this yet?

*Fine, so it's not the first Am. edition, but rather a reprint claiming to be such. Not that it matters, but I feel the need to truthfully represent the collection.

Meme? Here?

1. What's your name?
Samantha. What's yours?

2. What is your favorite thing to wear?
Black.

3. Last thing you ate?
Lunch.

4. One place you will NEVER eat?
I tend to avoid McDonald's, but try to never say never.

5. I say 'shotgun,' you say:
Wedding?

6. Last person you hugged?
Andrew.

7. Does anyone you know wanna date you?
I don't know. I hope so. It's good for my ego.

8. Would you date anyone you met online?
I think I have...

9. Name something you like about your physical self:
I like my muscles.

10. The last place you went out to dinner?
Desert Moon Cafe.

11. Who is your best friend?
My husband.

12. What time of the day is it?
2:45 pm.

13. Who/What made you angry today?
Hearing Saxby Chambliss' victory speech on NPR. RAGE.

14. Baseball or football?
Baseball on TV, football live. Fencing FTW.

15. Ever gone skinny dipping?
I don't think so, actually.

16. Favorite type of food?
Sushi.

17. Favorite holiday:
Christmas.

18. Do you download music?
I did when I had a gift certificate to iTunes...

19. Do you care if your socks are dirty?
No.

20. Opinion of Chinese symbol tattoos?
I don't really care, but I will mock you if you are not fully aware of what your tattoo means.

21. Would you date the person who posted this?
No. She's definitely not my type. Lovely, but no.

22. Has anyone ever sung or played for you personally?
Yep.

23. Do you love anyone?
Lots of people.

24. Are colored contact lenses sexy?
That would depend on the color.

25. Have you ever bungee jumped?
No, but I think about it sometimes.

26. Have you ever gone white-water rafting?
Sort of. The rapids weren't very ... rapid-y, though.

27. Has anyone ten years older than you ever hit on you?
A few. Some successfully.

28. How many pets do you have?
2 kitties.

29. Have you met a real redneck?
I am from Georgia. You figure it out.

30. How is the weather right now?
Not cold enough.

31. What are you listening to right now?
Deep Blue Something.

32. What is your current favorite song?
"Busby Berkeley Dreams" by The Magnetic Fields.

33. What was the last movie you watched?
An Ideal Husband. It was fun!

34. Do you wear contacts?
Yes, quite.

35. Where was the last place you went besides your house?
Work, fencing.

36. What are you afraid of?
Spiders and death.

37. How many piercings have you had?
Three.

38. What further piercings do you want?
I keep saying I'll get an upper ear one...

39. What's one thing you've learned this year?
So many things that I can't think of just one.

40. What do you usually order from Starbucks?
Either a chai latte or hot tea.

41. What Magazines are you reading?
I subscribe to Self and Vegetarian Times.

42. Have you ever fired a gun:
Ick.

43. Are you missing someone?
Sure.

44. Favorite TV show?
Don't really have a favorite.

45. Do you have an obsession with WoW?
No, but I like The Guild.

46. Has anyone ever said you looked like a celeb?
Yes.

47. Which celeb do you look like?
I usually get Christina Ricci. I've also heard Winona Ryder, Demi Moore, Ally Sheedy, and Audrey Hepburn. No, seriously.

48. Who would you like to see right now?
Oh, you know, in a perfect world Robert Downey, Jr. would show up to do some research for a role...

49. Favorite movie of all time?
Singing in the Rain. I normally don't do favorites but I made an executive decision on this one.

50. Do you find yourself loved?
Yes.

51. Have you ever been caught doing something you weren't supposed to?
Of course.

52. Favorite smell?
Rain? I dunno.

53. Butter, plain, or salted popcorn?
Butter butter butter.

54. What's something that really bugs you?
Nearly everything at some point in time.

55. Do you like Michael Jackson?
I am ambivalent towards the Gloved One.

56. Taco Bell or Burger King?
Taco Bell, hands down.

57. What's your favorite perfume?
Anything "amber".

58. Favorite baseball team?
Go Twins!!

59. Ever call a 1-900 phone number?
I don't think so.

60. What's the longest time you've gone without sleep?
I've probably done about 24 hours.

61. Last time you went bowling?
Oh geez. In Bloomington? With Mari and Davin? Maybe?

62. Where is the weirdest place you have slept?
Please, I have enough trouble sleeping at home.

63. Who was your last phone call?
Probably Andrew. Or Ben.

64. Last time you were at work?
Currently.

65. What's the closest orange object to you?
My sweater's kind of orange...

Cut that out!

injunction:
1. The act or an instance of enjoining: order,admonition
2. A writ granted by a court of equity whereby one is required to do or to refrain from doing a specified act.

Enjoining? To direct or impose by authoritative order or with urgent admonition.

Brought to you by Howard Zinn and the ever-present M-W.com.

Celebrity baby names: WTF?

Do you think that there are out there in the world tons of ridiculous names, and that it is just because they are in the public eye that it seems as though celebrities come up with the craziest ones? I mean, maybe there's lots of other kids out there with names like Zuma and Apple and Pilot Inspektor and we just don't know about it because their parents aren't famous. Whatever the case, here's the newest crazy effing name, granted to a child who will, no doubt, get eyeliner and black nailpolish for Christmas and who will be beaten up because his dad is Pete Wentz, notwithstanding the fact that his name is Bronx Mowgli Wentz. Honestly, given the parents, we should have expected something insane, but wow. Just, wow.

Welcome to the world. Sorry, kid.

WOD: lucubrations

Don't ask me. Shows up in Special Collections a fair amount, though. Fancy word from the 18th-19th centuries, having something to do with miscellaneous sort of writings.

Hit me, Merriam Webster: "laborious or intensive study ; also : the product of such study —usually used in plural."

You're on your own with pronunciation ... I'm still practicing.

Edification, courtesy of NPR

This morning, there were a few things I decided to look up after hearing them discussed on NPR. I will say that again, I had sort of the gist of them, but wanted some clarification. Here we go!

pragmatic:According to Merriam Webster Online, if something is pragmatic, it is "relating to matters of fact or practical affairs often to the exclusion of intellectual or artistic matters : practical as opposed to idealistic." While I don't really like the bit about excluding intellectual matters, seeing as this was in reference to Obama's team of economic advisers, I'm mostly glad to hear it. Wasn't he supposedly going to be the idealism king? I don't really think that exclusion is valid in this particular instance, Obama being fairly intellectual. Anyway.

I've also decided that, since I'm attempting to pay closer attention to the workings of our governement, it's a really good time to learn some things since Obama is choosing his cabinet and filling all these positions, etc. To that end, the first nomination, apparently, is for the position of Attorney General, that going to one Eric Holder. "Attorney General" seems to be more or less a simple concept; my guess would be that what we're talking about here is kind of the head lawyer for a presidential administration. According to the website of the Department of Justice, "the Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. In matters of exceptional gravity or importance the Attorney General appears in person before the Supreme Court. Since the 1870 Act that established the Department of Justice as an executive department of the government of the United States, the Attorney General has guided the world's largest law office and the central agency for enforcement of federal laws." So that's what he does. For extra edification, the mission statement of the Department of Justice is "to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans." I guess the only thing that confuses me a little here is the bit about being the "chief law enforcement officer", which just makes the AG sound like a policeman. I suppose, though, that since law enforcement does fall to the Judicial branch of government (as opposed to the other two) that it's all the same, really. It's just the use of the term "officer" that throws me, I think.

Kindly do not make fun of me - I was never a good student, and the last time I studied government would have been 10 years ago, so there. I'm doing well to remember what little I do. At any rate, it's never too late to learn things, right? [Right.]

Personal Word of the Day

Upon encountering a word for which I do not know the definition, I shall look it up and post my findings here. To wit, a short story, by Walter de la Mare, entitled "The Froward Child". Froward is a word that I've often read, and I more or less understand in the context that it means "difficult", but my curiosity was piqued, regardless. Merriam-Webster Online says: habitually disposed to disobedience and opposition.

That sounds much grander than "difficult", doesn't it?

Womanizer

I appreciate a good pop song as much as the next kid, but the chorus of "Womanizer" is nothing more than two lines, "musically" stuttered. Can't Britney afford a better writing team? Also, the video is ... strangely inane. What's with the hair-tossing? "Look! The wigs stay on!" It mostly seems like an excuse for Britney to be artfully naked so we can see that she's got her body back. I'm sure that I'm just getting older, but seriously, pretty much any Madonna song/video prior to the year 2000 is better than this. Hell, Katy Perry is better than this.

Motherhood vs. Candidacy

There was a story on NPR this morning about how many people (apparently mostly women) are taking issue with Sarah Palin's vice-president candidacy on the grounds that she ought to be more concerned about her children than her political career. I have to say that, despite being a fairly liberally-minded woman, and not a mother, I am inclined to agree. However, as in all things, I'm looking for perspective. Some of the women interviewed made the claim that she should be putting her children first, some women said that it was not the business of anyone else to judge her parenting skills, and the point was also made that, in general, the United States public is not concerning itself with whether or not Obama (or McCain, for that matter) ought to be putting the needs of his children first. Ah yes, the ever-present cry of sexism. I've got a couple of points I want to make here, in reverse order.

1. It's true that nobody is saying Barack Obama ought to be at home taking care of his kids. However, I would point out that, to the best of my knowledge, nobody said that about Hillary Clinton, either. I think that we have to look at each individual situation. It really does have a certain amount to do with the age of the children involved. Chelsea Clinton was already a teenager by the time her mother was running for the US Senate, never mind the presidency. Sarah Palin has five children, of which (assumedly) all but one still live at home, and one of which is not even a year old and has Downs' Syndrome. It is my personal belief that yes, her children still need a greater degree of parental involvement from both parents. Let's not even get into the discussion about Palin's eldest daughter, who obviously had need of parental guidance and didn't get it. I will also say that I've read some interviews with the Obamas in which they address their methods in raising their children, and they talked a lot about how they functioned as a team and about how they worked hard to be present and keep the lines of communication open with their kids. I admit that their presented ideas about children agree strongly with my own at this point, so I'm inclined to applaud them on that count, but it still just seemed very healthy to me.
2. I agree that it is not the place of anyone else to judge Palin (or anyone) on the manner in which she chooses to raise her kids. (Or what she names them ...wtf?)However, I think that we can take something away from the situation in terms of how she handles/looks at responsibility. Kids are the biggest responsibility anyone, adult or otherwise, can take on, and I think that more important than the issues of sexism involved is the question of whether or not a person has really given serious thought to how much other activity can go on at the same time as the attempts to maintain a family. Maybe she really is a superwoman who can balance it all, but I think that maybe I'd rather see someone opt out of an activity out of concern that it might be too much as opposed to taking it all on and waiting for "too much" to present itself.
3. Finally, yes. I do think that it is somewhat selfish for Palin to try for one of the biggest jobs in the country when she's got 4 kids at home, one with extra-special needs, and an imminent grandchild whose parents are still children themselves.What it is mostly about is those children: people who probably need Mrs. Palin more than the country does. What's that saying? "(Insert noun here) starts at home"? There are many ways in which a person can make this country/world a better place, and I think that raising good people is one of them. It's got nothing to do with sex to me. I have thought a fair amount about the effect that the election/presidency will have on Obama's kids, too. Maybe that's where my personal politics come in in addition to more information regarding the Obamas stance on how they're raising their kids. I've read a bit about that, so I feel as though they've addressed the issue. Perhaps we should give Palin time to sound off a bit more on the subject. I just get the feeling that it will be contradictory to what she stands for in a lot of other ways. I'm not sure you can really wave the "conservative hockey mom" flag while you're out there stumping and a nanny takes care of your kids. You're young, Mrs. Palin. Why not give it a few years, let your kids grow up, and then run for president?

Again, just my opinion. I admit to being highly liberal and thinking that Sarah Palin is only about two steps down from Ann Coulter as it is. I admit that I'm not a parent yet, so I don't fully know what I'm talking about. I'm planning on being a parent sooner rather than later, though, so I think about the topic a lot. Finally, I admit that my arguments aren't airtight. In typing them out I've seen plenty of holes, and I've questioned my own statements a time or two. Like I said, though, all I ask is perspective. Mine's not perfect either, but at least I'm trying to think about the issue rather than just throw out a black and white answer devoid of thought. We've got enough of that floating around these days, don't you think?

Blogging a blog

One of my sites that gets checked every day is IMDb. They quite often have interesting links and news items that an entertainment culture nerd like myself gets a kick out of. Today, I'm particularly enjoying this link: Cinematical Seven: Children's Books That Need to be Filmed Immediately. I have to admit that I haven't read 3 of the 7 (perhaps incentive to correct that...), but Cinematical gets major points from me for mentioning two of my favorite books from my childhood; namely Ghosts I Have Been and Jackaroo. I would love to see either of those on the big screen, and I'm really going to have to go read them over again, now. There might be some book-buying in my future. Hrm.

Anyway. Check it out! You might find something to read...

Under the radar catablogging

Alright, so I'm not officially blogging at work yet, but I'm just so excited by this particular item that I'm jumping the gun.
Mary : a fiction
[Wollstonecraft, Mary, 1759-1797]
London : Printed for J. Johnson, St. Paul's Church-Yard, MDCCLXXXVIII [1788]

This is the first edition of Mary Wollstonecraft's first and only novel before she went on to write A Vindication on the Rights of Women. Wikipedia calls this novel "an important development in the history of the novel because it helped shape an emerging feminist discourse." In checking the catalog for a Wollstonecraft bibliography, I came upon John Windle's Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin 1759-1797, which is a very nice and detailed bibliography, complete with transcriptions, collational formulas, and title-page facsimiles. Our copy is, sadly lacking the half-title, which Windle says is "required", but it does have the manuscript "correction" on page 178. I'm not positive whether or not a copy without the half-title is of a different edition, etc. but it seems as though the manuscript point would still indicate the first edition. Either way, I think this is pretty sweet, so sue me.

Random rare book revelations

So, post-RBS, I have (mostly unsurpisingly) lost momentum, but seem to have settled into what I think is an upward climb in terms of cataloging. Writing a policy is on hold because there's just too much prior information to be slogged through. I've had occasion to get my hands on some leftover 16th century items in the Dewey collection, so attempts are being made to get those cataloged in proper(ish) DCRMB format. Last week I felt as though I'd learned just enough to be dangerous -- this week I have felt quite inadequate, but it's getting better. I'm refreshing things learned in grad school, putting into practice things learned at RBS, and I think I'm starting to churn out some reasonably pretty records. I've learned that truly, most collational formulae are not that complex, that it's really fun/exciting to correctly identify printers' devices, and that 16th century French printers often used "lz" as a substitute for "k". I'm quite getting the hang of the whole "u/v" problem, but I must say that even when you know you're transcribing correctly, it's really frustrating to write down something as a "u" when in modern terms it would be a "v". And boy, do I ever need to learn Latin. I sort of know what words ought to look like, so I can usually tell what's missing with contractions, but it'd be nice to know what the words mean.

All in all, I guess I am feeling much more comfortable and confident about this gig, and that's worth a lot. Now then, this here book is not gonna collate itself. Once more into the fray...

Oh. I meant to make a note of the things that are still problematic. I am still very confused by 240s and 246s, still afraid of describing bindings, and don't quite get the concept of the order of 500 notes. I'm trying to remember to plug in 752s in OCLC, but apparently they don't transfer out. What I need to do is compile a list of the areas I'm doing and just make sure that my records go down the checklist. Hmm.

Purposefully vague

Isn't it funny how in just the right set of circumstances, some action from your past that you've never really questioned suddenly seems other than what it was? What's that Meatloaf song? "Objects in the Rear View Mirror May Appear Closer Than They Are". As though looking backwards suddenly makes one wistful, makes the past rosy, makes us forget what we really thought/felt and unconsciously remember it differently. Can't go back but wouldn't even if you could, so what's the difference?

How ridiculous.

Briefly

A few words to remind myself that I (might) have a lot to say and (definitely) have a lot to do following my experience at Rare Book School. Of first order, though, is actually getting home again, so signing off from hotel a la Charlottesville. Miles to go before I sleep...

Tall order

Ever been to freewillastrology.com? Here's mine for the day.

LEO:
ButlersGuild.com named Mr. Ravi Shankar as its Butler of the Year. Serving as Head Butler of the Qasr Al Sharq hotel in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Shankar "always acts with complete integrity in everything he does." Your simple yet arduous assignment, Leo, is to be worthy of that same description. Are you up to the challenge? Can you be morally and ethically impeccable, between now and noon on June 18, in every single thing you do and say and think? Do you have the willpower to be absolutely free of hypocrisies, deceits, and manipulations? Can you refrain from speaking derisive or careless words about anyone, while at the same time being rigorously authentic and intent on telling the deepest truths?

Yikes. A worthy challenge, to be sure.

Turn of phrase

There's a phrase that has long confused me, and when I came upon it last night in chapter 2 of The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, I attempted to dissect it, and became even more confused than I was before. The phrase in question is "not unkindly". First of all, isn't that a double negative? Not + un? Secondly, it seems to be purposefully contradictory of itself. Let's break it down. First of all, the word kindly. Merriam Webster Online defines kindly as "of an agreeable or beneficial nature". So kindly = good. Moving on to unkindly, which is defined as "not kindly". Nice and succinct, there, MW. Unkindly = bad. Now, "not unkindly". Basically, what we're talking about here, at a very basic level, is not not kindly. It's so ...awkward. Why is it so often used?
The thing that really gets me, though, is how it's used in narrative. I think the reason it's so bloody confusing is that the context is never, ever clear. For example:

When the train at last crawled back into the Prague station early that evening, Josef remained in his seat, unable to move, until a passing conductor suggested, not unkindly, that the young gentleman had better get off.

That could so easily be taken either way. The conductor could be a nice guy and sympathetically tell the poor young man he needed to get off the train, OR he could just as easily be a total jerk and say "Beat it, ya bum." Obviously, given our new clarification of the phrase, the conductor is the former. But really, that double negative confuses us, and we're left unsettled, not entirely sure that we've read it right, and wondering if we're supposed to be feeling any more badly for poor Josef Kavalier than we already are.

Not, perhaps, the most enlightening blog post ever, but hey! Now that I've picked the whole thing apart, I understand it a lot more. And really, it's my blog. Isn't it all about me? I mean that not unkindly. ;)