Random Subject Heading: Gimmicky Books -- Authorship

Maybe "gimmicky" is a harsh sounding word, perhaps "trendy" would be better, but it doesn't have the rawr of cattiness.  Anyway, on Tumblr yesterday I was accosted by Tumblr Staff’s announcement the The Great Tumblr Book Search was over and they have a winner: Shit Rough Drafts – which “imagines early drafts of famous literary works and screenplays” and, as grand prize winner, received a book deal.

Interested in seeing what made the top of the list, I clicked on the link and spent some time reading Shit Rough Drafts and unfortunately was let down.  A “laugh out loud” idea that would be pitched to Chronicle Books via Tumblr to get their attention, then the editors would select a winner for publication.  I don’t know, I guess since they stressed they were “looking for humor” I was hoping that it would be lol inducing, but Shit Rough Drafts is just…eh.  Maybe I shouldn’t expect that much considering the other Tumblrs Chronicle Books cites as examples, but I feel like it should at least be funny – “not amused smile but bored after two minutes.”  Incidentally, I’d much rather see Seinfelt be made into a book, of course the recent posts have been a bit long winded and not as hilarious as entries such as The Booger Wall (and yes, I am very immature, (as if you didn’t know that already)).

I also suppose it’s entirely possible that the book deal offer doesn’t have to involve the Tumblr entry and could be something else…but I have strayed from my original intended topic: gimmick books.  In recent years, popular fiction went from vampires to zombies to werewolves and now erotic fanfic is all the rage.  Lately it seems like the publishing industry has turned to popular websites – and not just typical blogs, but Tumblr accounts and Twitter, as a mine for books, tv shows, and movies.  I guess what interests me the most is that previously at least blogs had some sort of written and thought out content, but now the sites that are getting attention are ones with an idea that catches on and then all the content is generated by its readers, instead an actual traditional “author” (case in point any of the “Award __ Photos”).  I also realize that this is part of the cyclical nature of trends -- not just in the publishing world, but it's definitely not a new phenomena.

I suppose I should offer Shit Rough Drafts kudos for not just reposting submitted stuff from others, but at the same time I’m trying to think of a gimmick of my own that I can somehow spin off into a book deal, that doesn’t involve zombies, or cats, or singing and dancing.  Hmm…

More Cover Redesign for Classics -- CENSORED Edition

Earlier this week there was commotion about the recent cover updates for some classic literature titles and now there's another update to add to the list.  The newest printing of 1984 by Penguin features a "censored" cover with title and author blackened out.

(Techically, the title was released about a months and a half ago, but apparently I'm a little behind in my publishing news.)

Anyway, Penguin has released five new editions of books by George Orwell all with cover redesigns.  The most interesting of the lot of course being the discussion generating 1984 with its dramatic cover being self-referential, suggesting that Big Brother himself has tried to conceal the book from inquiring minds.  

This redesign has been labeled both "brilliant" and "a risky move" by Penguin, with a few curmudgeons complainging that the title is now illegible and potentially invisible to Amazon and other online book store customers who cannot see the debossed letters under the block, which I think is a little silly (won't the information about the book contain the title and author?).  I believe the new cover is definitely one of the most creative redesigns I've seen in a long time.  And it's definitely better than the sexy runner up...

Trending Topics: Cover Redesigns for Classics -- Oh Anne Shirley!

Are you prepped to get your literary panties in a twist?  Last week one of my former coworkers forwarded me a link to Jezebel’s story about the new cover redesign for The Bell Jar. Because I was busy (explaining how to print out an email to a patron for the hundredth time), I only had a few moments to glance over the article but my reaction was expected: I grimaced, did a Liz Lemon worthy eye roll, and chalked it up to corporate America’s idea to package and advertise a book about depression into something possibly teen or chick lit friendly – with pink and lipstick!

New and "Improved" vs Original

Yesterday I was browsing some trending headlines and my attention was drawn to a cover redesign for Anne of Green Gables and the fuss it has created.  The traditional cover has transformed into one featuring a sassy looking blonde who might suggest a story about a roll in the hay with the farmer’s daughter rather than the tale of an unwanted freckled ginger.  With some parents groups throwing a hissy because they think that the redesign is "sexy" or "too adult" for a children’s book, (I do have to admit that the new Anne Shirley would probably have no problems getting that headstrong Gilbert Blythe to be at her beck and call) it has some asking if the publishing industry has gone too far with covers.

Had I actually read the Jezebel article the first time, I would’ve seen that they had already linked a picture of the new Anne of Green Gables cover, but this made me curious about other classic titles getting makeovers.  Recently Wuthering Heights has been renovated to appeal to the Twilight crowd with its new cover – one that even boasts that it is Edward and Bella’s favorite book(!).   And the latest Breakfast at Tiffany’s edition is in Tiffany & Co.’s trademark blue and brings to mind something classier than a free spirited teenage call girl.  Wtf is going on and can we expect this trend to continue? 

The publishing industry doesn't seem to care what message the new jacket sends. Do these revamped and “updated” covers insult teens or other audiences as indicated (or even the long dead authors)?  Do they trivialize the subject matter? Are these any better than books that have the movie tie-in covers promoting “now a major motion picture”?  Does the end (baiting someone to read) justify the means? Obvi, I don’t have any concrete answers to these questions, but I do believe it lends to an interesting topic for discussion among librarians, teachers, readers, book industry employees, graphic designers, etc.  

This is a rare instance where I have actually read all of the books featured and I can honestly say that none of the “modern” alterations accurately represent any of the titles in my opinion, but some have posed that maybe the same could be said of previous covers.  Except the old Anne of Green Gables says awkward redhead. Oh, and previous The Bell Jar looks like a stone cold bummer.  Annnnd now that I'm thinking of it, the boring landscape of Wuthering Heights makes me yawn like I'm back in 11th grad lit.  Of course they don't have the same agenda either.  Looking up old covers, I find that the 1959 paperback edition of Breakfast appears to be fairly honest about its contents (I recall receiving the middle version as a gift and wondering if it contained the story of a pasty, little man).  In my searching, I also came across several Bell Jar parodies that this makeover s-storm has inspired.

High school is over, but Sweet Valley is forever...

This book review most likely belongs in my Very Bad Book Blog, but it was so over the top that I decided to share it here, where more might appreciate this sort of trash.

Spoiler Alert! LIKE this book was SO lame!
I read this but merely for nostalgic/guilty pleasure reasons, which is what I assume is the same reason anyone else would read it and ideally the audience Francine should’ve been writing for. I already admitted that I was not a big SVH fan, but I left out that in college my roommate and I would play the SVH board game with a level of determination and strategizing rarely seen outside of playing Risk (we were often completely tanked, which helped a lot). And I do have a small collection of SVH books that I’ve gathered from thrift shops and donations here at the library. They are full of the silliest teen “drama” and I could usually read one in about an hour or so.

It wasn’t like everyday I was walking around thinking, “I wonder what those perfect, amazing, blue eyed, silky, golden haired girls, aka the Wakefield twins, are up to? Did they get married? Who are their friends and enemies now? And is it possible that one of Margo’s relatives returned with a similar taste for Wakefield blood?” Alright, sometimes maybe I was, but I wasn’t the only one and fans took to the interweb to discuss. Francine must have heard about this and turned to a new legion of ghostwriters to help her craft a rather dull book with a storyline so predictable that even a temporarily blinded Ken Matthews could see coming. A half-baked mix of flashbacks, "unforgivable betrayals," two scoops of romantic confessions, a handful of bitchiness, and completely saturated with inconsistencies, then slathered across 291 pages and served in a hardback shell for $21.99.

With the frequent inaccuracies and continuity problems it is obvious that former ghostwriters didn’t want to be in a ten-mile radius of this lard coated, flaming piece of caca. Francine gives credit to the assistants who helped her remember details of the very same series she created and yet, aside from the giant plot holes, all of the characters appear to suffer from personality disorders and amnesia (including a speech impediment for Jessica). This suggests that not only had these assistants not cracked the spine of a SVH in years, but that no one associated with this book had bothered to read the series.

That Sweet Valley Confidential is bad is an understatement and yet simultaneously it is not bad enough. Fans of the series loved it for the cheese (I did at least), not because it was an accurate portrayal of teen life in any decade. Over the years Sweet Valley went from being a teen drama, to a teen soap opera, and then something else that was possibly written as a dare or after an LSD hallucination. Originally I thought Sweet Valley Confidential could be updated, written as lighthearted chick-lit with a far-fetched murder mystery, not the as a faux shocking, recycled tripe that was published, and without the cheese it’s not even a fun guilty read.

The update is perhaps a little too updated with all the social media namedropping and pop culture references that will mean nothing a year from now. The Wakefield twins have grown up and aren’t clean teens anymore complete with f-bombs and disturbing discussion of Elizabeth’s weepy orgasms and taut nipples. *shudder* The girls wax poetic about how much the town they live in has changed since the 80’s (which is noted as being before the twins were old enough to care), with all its chain stores and a Starbucks on every corner changing the landscape. Nothing is said of Sweet Valley being more dangerous than Detroit, populated by more devious characters than a Mexican telenovela, and with a higher WTF?! per capita rate than any other made up town in young adult literature.

The completely obvious plot-line has the girls on the outs with each other again, but this time it’s personal! The twins have never been faced with a betrayal so outrageous in all of Francine’s sieve-like memory. Unless you count that time Jessica spiked Elizabeth’s drink (over the very important title of Jungle Prom Queen), leading to a car accident, the death of Jessica’s boyfriend, and Liz getting charged with manslaughter. Or those times Liz cheated on Todd. Or every single book when Jessica’s jealousy has her pulling some sort of underhanded scheme against her perfect sister.

However, the absolute worst part of the book and biggest insult to fans (other than Jessica’s sudden outbreak of valley girl brogue) is the relationship between Elizabeth and Bruce Patman. They are BFFs because Elizabeth has completely forgotten about that time he tried to date rape her. Elizabeth casually alludes to this incident as the time when Bruce kissed her “when she was passed out” and leaves out the overly friendly part about his twisting her arms to try to make her give in. While there is absolutely no chemistry between Elizabeth and Bruce during the entire book (except perhaps in his mind), when he finally confesses his feelings she decides she loves him too (heck, why not?!) because he’s such a super guy she doesn’t want him to be with anyone else. Yes, these are some pretty screwed up bitches, but then again, wouldn’t you be if you had gone through all of this:

The Evil Twin – Twins doppelganger and all around crazy girl, Margo, plans to kill Elizabeth and take over her life. Though Alice Wakefield mistakes Margo for one of her own daughters, the jig is up when Liz catches Margo dressed as her and also wielding a large knife. Jessica loses yet another boyfriend to sweet mistress death.

Beware the Wolfman -- Liz falls for a dark, handsome English stranger named Luke, who is naturally a psychotic werewolf. Jessica’s boyfriend dresses as a homeless man to watch over her.

A Kiss Before Dying -- The feud between Palisades and SVH reaches a deadly conclusion when Jessica’s boyfriend Christian is killed, but as a bonus she wins the surfing contest.

To Catch a Thief –- As Au Pairs in France, Liz falls for a prince, Jessica falls for a jewel thief and the girls end up getting locked in the dungeon.

Tall, Dark, and Deadly – Liz hates goth newbie Jonathan, but Jessica and Enid fall madly in love with him. A cat is the only witness to a murder committed by a vampire who is obviously…wait for it…Jonathan.

"R" for Revenge -- Elizabeth must eventually save Jessica and the cheerleading squad when they are kidnapped and held hostage by their new adviser.

The book ends with an American Graffiti-esque epilogue where readers get updated on a random assembly of characters. The important thing to know is that everyone is either dead or miserable. That and there’s going to be another spin-off, but maybe Francine will get it right this time.

On a scale of squeaky clean teen fun, Sweet Valley Confidential is neither squeaky clean, nor teen, nor fun really. It reads like a horrible made for TV movie, but a made for TV movie on a cable station so it has swearing and sexy parts. At the birthday party for grandma, Alice Wakefield shouts, “Bring out the f---ing cake!”
Not recommended for: nostalgic adults who don't want to think about Liz's nips.

"Who are Pultizer winning authors, Alex?"

A mom (I'm assuming she's a mom (someone's mom), she had mom jeans and that hideous Kate Gosselin style haircut) in her mid to late 40's approached the reference desk looking for a new book to read.

Suburban Mom: Where are the best sellers? I want something on the best seller list.
Me: Anything on the current best seller list is going to be checked out but I can put you on a wait list.
SM: Yeah, reserve me something then.
Me: Who do you like to read? What types of books to you enjoy? Fiction, non-fiction, romance, thriller…?
SM: Oh, I'll take anything.
Me: Ok...
SM: As long as it's good.
Me: Ok...
SM: And it's not depressing.
Me: Alright, so you want something on the current best seller list that's good and not depressing?
SM: Yes. Oh, and it should be about women or girl stuff, you know.

Side note -- just as a librarian has not read every book in the library, we are not mind readers either. Readers' advisory can be a great way to connect a reader with a book, but the more information we have to work with makes our job easier and the possibility of getting a book you actually want to read is higher.

Me: (looks up some stuff, reads her off titles that she rejects one by one)
SM: (face suddenly lights up) You know who's supposed to be a really good author?
Me: Who?
SM: Lauren Conrad.
Me: Lauren Conrad? (surprisingly repeated without a hint of sarcasm)
SM: Yeah, you know, from "The Hills." I heard she's a pretty good writer, why don't you request me her latest book.
Me: Ok...
SM: You know who else recently wrote a book? That Nicole Richie. I hear she's pretty good too, why don't you get me her book too.
Me: Alright.
SM: And that Paris Hilton, what about her? Does she have a new book out?
Me: (searches) I don't think so, I believe her last book was Confessions of an Heiress, which came out about five years ago.
SM: Get that for me too, I can't remember if I read it or not. Isn't it great when a celebrity can actually put two words together and write something worth reading?
Me: (desperately fights urge to cough "ghost writer" or "crap"). Yeah, it's...something.
SM: But I'll never read that book by that Snooki. That girl is not so smart and she's hardly a role model. She doesn't deserve to be on the best seller's list.
Me: ???

I imagine the thrill of being on the New York Times Best Seller is deflated for any author who’s achieved the title and is on the same list as any of these reality TV stars.

It was like that when I got it

One of my favorite patron comments, aside from the obligatory "I know I returned that book because I keep all my library items (insert on a table, in a basket, on a shelf next to the door, etc.) and never take them anywhere else," would be "It was like that when I got it."
You can tell when someone is going to pull out this excuse, they usually have a bored expression on their face that translates to "I don't care," or "I can't hear you over the shouts of my 8 uncontrollable children," or "I could stab you and hide your body in a crawlspace that no one would find until it began to stink." Visually, these people look like they may also have a guest spot on People of Walmart, and they never smile. Yeah, I'm sure it was like that when you got it.
What I would really like to say in return is, "Take some adult responsibility and pay the $9.99 for the Tom and Jerry DVD that your toddler snapped in half." Instead, I have to go through the game where I explain that each item is checked upon return and that it could not have been like that when they got it, even though we both know what really happened.
According to these people, my branch circulates DVDs and music CDs that are not only broken in two, but books with large chew and tear marks, books with covers pre-ripped off, DVD cases that have bits of moldy food in them, Hooked on Phonics kits that are completely empty, magazines with entire sections cut out, and, in two separate cases, books that were returned still completely soaking wet (dripping is an understatement) that were all miraculously like that when the person checked it out.
Now, I realize that the library isn't perfect, and that sometimes an item is returned damaged and not caught, but then wouldn't the next borrower notify the library as soon as they noticed a problem to ensure that they aren't held responsible? Or at the very least, bring it to the circulation desk and talk to someone about it, instead of just putting it in the bookdrop like nothing happened?
What prompted this post was a recent incident when a patron who claimed a book that had been marked as returned damaged by her was like that when she got it. The item in question: Liar, liar! That book's been on fire!
The book was actually ashing on my desk and the binding was so damaged that the cover was falling off. You might ask what other detective skills I used to confirm that she was the guilty party? Well, the dust jacket had been suspiciously taped on and the book was practically brand new, only previously checked out twice. She ended up paying for the book (an outrageous, bank breaking $23), but let us know she wasn't happy about it. Lucky for her, I didn't care, though I was curious to know what had happened to this book, but I suppose it will just go as an unsolved library mystery.
I only wish I'd had the staff digital camera around the day that the teen returned a book that had been put in the microwave.

Reference question of the week

Teen: Is it true Elvis died on the toilet?

I'd heard this rumor before of course, but I wasn't sure if it was actually true or not. I doubted any of our classy database biography resources would go into that type of detail so I started searching the catalog for print biographies, hoping to come across a tabloid style one that might answer this question.

Teen: The Wikipedia entry said he was found on the bathroom floor, but I always heard heard he was on the toilet.

I looked up the Wikipedia page for Elvis. I don't usually use Wikipedia for an answer unless there's nothing else I can find, and even then I remind the patron what an unreliable source it is. One thing I think Wikipedia can be useful for is references if they are properly cited. The reference attributed to Elvis's death in the entry was from the book Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley by Peter Guralnick, which we actually happened to own. I thought it was interesting that our copy had only circulated once since it's purchase 10 years ago, but another branch's copy had circulated 43 times. I guess we don't serve a big Elvis fanbase here.
We went to the shelves and got the book, which smelled as if the one person who had checked it out had smoked directly into it. In the index, Death of Elvis, The started on page 650.
Me: According to Guralnick, the medical investigator reported that Elvis was found on the bathroom floor, slightly away from the toilet as if he had been crawling and it looked as if he had been using the toilet at the time.
Teen: Were his pants around his ankles?
Me: (reading) It doesn't say that specifically, but hold on...

I flipped a few pages back and started scanning until I found what appeared to be the first page of Elvis's death, p647.
Me: Here is says, "When there was no answer (at Elvis's bathroom door), she (Elvis's girlfriend at the time) pushed on it and discovered him lying on the floor, his gold pajama bottoms down around his ankles, his face burried in a pool of vomit on the thick shag carpet." So, yes, his pants were around his ankles, but he was probably going to the toilet beforehand. Does that answer your question?
Teen: Yeah, thanks! That was some messed up shit.
Me: You're welcome.

Libraries: helping shut-ins who should stay shut-in

Like the set up for a bad joke, I was sitting at the reference desk when the phone rang. It was an elderly lady who wanted help in finding out if some old books she cleaned out of her parents house were worth anything (*cough*no*cough*). I tried directing her to some local appraisers who would be more knowledgeable about rare books, but she was more interested in coming in and speaking to me directly for some reason (Yes, if you haven't already guessed part of the outcome of this story, let me spoil it for you: she now thinks we're best friends!)
Anyway, so Ruth Gordon comes in a couple hours later and settles in for a nice long chat at the reference desk. Has she brought in any of the books she wants me to help her find the value of? No. Has she written down any of the titles, authors, publication dates, or anything relevant that could help us? No. Why, you ask? Oh, because batshit insane Ruth Gordon keeps looking over her shoulder and tells me that she thinks her enemy from the old folks home followed her here and is eavesdropping and will come into her apartment and steal her valuable books. So she scribbled down titles that she could remember on slips of scrap paper, folded them up, and passed them to me across the desk. And she talked in code. Oh hell yeah, it was one of those mornings.
Some of the books were Nancy Drews, but without the publication date of copies there's not much I could do, since I explained to her repeatedly that an original Nancy Drew from the 1930's or 40's would be different than a reprint, and still it may not be worth much since it was mass produced or may no longer be collectible. Seeing I was not impressed, Ruth Gordon decided to pull out her big gun: a KKK propaganda romance novel! As she started telling me what a fascinating read the book was I decided to pull the plug, giving her the book dealer's contact info and restating he would be a much better judge of her items worth.
As she got up from the desk, she pointed to a group of teen boys crowded around our internet stations wearing short-sleeved button up shirts and black ties and pants. "So nice to see your employees so formally dressed!" she beamed.
"Those are Mormons, not library employees," I informed her.
"Oh," she said. "Nevermind."

Library kitsch

Ok, so I'm reposting this from Awful Library Books, and it's probably better suited for The Very Bad Book Blog, but it's just too fun not to mention. I'm going to have to read it in order to figure out why it took two people to author this amazing piece of literature and to understand just what a "career romance" is. Does poor Jinny Williams, library assistant, hope to find love on the job? If so she is in trouble because the pickings are slim -- better stock up on cats, Jinny!
I am also liking the stiff illustration on the cover. This is the exact position I stand in at the reference desk with a book in each hand, ready to dispense knowledge.

With an ebook, no one will notice that you’re reading Tolstoy over Tori Spelling (a lesson for pretentious readers)

Yesterday, there was an article in the NY Times about how the social aspects of reading might change in the digital age – mainly, book covers and the ability to browse/snoop on what others around you are reading. Attractive book covers not only help attract potential buyers at bookstores and patrons at libraries, but they also facilitate book discussions among total strangers in the park or on the bus, and most importantly, bring comfort to librarians with low self-esteem who like to show up in the staff lunch room with giant hardback copies of Crime and Punishment for pleasure reading while they scowl at their coworkers with their latest Janet Evanovich paperback.

As someone who likes to spy on observe others, not being able to see what someone is reading is a bit of a disturbance. How else will I pass judgment on them for their inferior reading choice (ahem, Wuthering Heights)? How will I know when to clap someone on the back and shout “Huzzah!” for their decision to read John Hodgman’s The Area’s of My Expertise, aka “The Greatest Book Ever Flippin’ Written”?

This matter is actually more important for me personally because I make a lot of my reading choices based on the book’s cover (THAT’S RIGHT! I’m a librarian who judges books by their cover, how do you like them apples?!). Like a child, I am drawn to bright graphics, bold fonts, clever art concepts, and intelligent photographs. I like my literature’s packaging to basically resemble the box of a kid’s cereal that is high in sugar (more candy marshmallows, please!). I would like to say that it is overwhelmingly successful, but admittedly only works probably 50% of the time (read 40%). When a book I have selected based on its cover and perhaps interesting dust jacket blurb disappoint me as a reader I feel betrayed, maybe a little abused. I suppose someone judging my reading material by the cover art would come to the conclusion that I have the attention span of an insect and that I will read anything bound in a design reflecting pop art. They might be right…

However, since I am famously slow to upgrade to new technology (yes, I actually own a rotary phone), absent covers from ebooks most likely won’t be a problem for me…for now. I will continue to pick out books based on their covers that I can hold in my hot little hands, but I’ll probably have to come up with new ways to spy on what my coworkers are reading. And, of course, that is what the internet is for.

New Blog

I decided to start a new blog -- a blog for bad books. Now, I know there already several out there that I already enjoy that show off terrible covers and questionable content, or others that specialize on the worst of certain genres, BUT mine will be reviews of bad books I'm actually reading, usually while preparing to weed them from the library. Basically, I was going to read all these goofy Sweet Valley High/Christopher Pike/pulp books anyway, but instead of putting my review on librarything or goodreads , I'll put them here: The Very Bad Book Blog!

Oh yeah...that book

This kid approaches the reference desk, he looks about 10 or 11.
"I'm looking for a book that my grandpa told me to get," he says.
"Do you remember what it's called or who wrote it?" I ask.
"Uh, it's by Mitch Albom," he says.
"Do you know which one by Mitch Albom?" I'm thinking it might be his latest book and that the kid is fetching it for his grandfather, but one can never be certain.
"Uh, It's called The Professor," he says.
The Professor? Hmmm, I haven't heard of that one. "Is this a new book? Is it for adults or is it for kids?" I ask. Popular authors often cash in by penning kids books and though I'd never heard of "The Professor" or a Mitch Albom book written for kids it's not impossible and I'm not the children's librarian either. When my search in the catalog comes up empty for an Albom book with that title I start looking on Amazon.
"Yeah, it's for kids, my grandpa wants me to read it," he says.
"Are you sure Albom was the author? That The Professor is the right title?" I ask.
"Yes, yes," he says, then thinks for a minute, "Or it could have been called The Magic Coat."
When The Magic Coat just as mysteriously receives no hits I send the kid back to his grandpa waiting nearby to make sure he has the right author, as I'm pretty sure Albom's not the one that this kid is looking for.
He jogs back over to the reference desk, "Oh yeah, the book is really called Tuesdays with Morrie."

(Of course, had I actually read Tuesdays with Morrie, I might've been able to figure it out since it's about Mitch Albom's relationship with a former professor (thanks Wikipedia!), but I thought it was about a young guy spending time with an old guy who was dying, talking about life and shiz, like a dude's version of Fried Green Tomatoes, but now I know and next time someone asks me for The Professor (or The Magic Coat) I'll be able to help them!)

A quiet day

Snowy winter days not at work = cocoa and some good books!

Today I finished Catching Fire the second book in the young adult Hunger Games Series and found out I have to wait until late August for the next book! I also read the first graphic novel in the Scott Pilgrim Series and thought it was cute so I'll have to request the next one, which should only take a couple days.

Also, when I was taking a break from reading I made my own ALA style READ Poster:


Ok, ok, not a very productive day, but I promise to do laundry and dishes tomorrow.

*gasp* Theft in the library?! Shocking!

The Post had an article about how 12 naughty patrons in Maryland are being indicted for stealing nearly $90,000 worth of books from the county libraries. The group of library users were checking out the maximum of 75 items for that county, most of them textbooks, never returning the items, then reselling the textbooks and sometimes CDs and DVDs online.
Two things shocked me about this story and neither of them had to do with theft in the library. The first thing that shocked me was that the people were actually being indicted and held responsible for their stolen book fines. Many times I have looked up a patron's account to give them their internet password to discover that they have at least $100 in fees for lost library items. Once, there was this girl who was a student and begged us to let her go over the regular interlibrary loan limit for her research paper and never returned any of the books, ruined our relationship with several lending libraries, and to this day still has an outstanding $843.99 in lost items on her card. What does my library system do when you don't return a book? We send you a letter. Are you scared yet?! I have heard of library systems that actually turn their nonpaying patrons over to collection agencies to try and recoup some of the costs, so obviously I'm pretty impressed that Maryland's state's attorney is going balls to the wall over this.
The second thing that shocked me was that these book recycling morons actually checked the items out to their own account, leaving a noticeable paper trail as to who had the missing book last instead of just stealing the stupid books in the first place since that's what they planned to do anyway. Sure, we have those electronic security gates at the entrance of our library, but we stopped putting the tattle-tape in the books eons ago. In fact, our security gates are just for show because they kept breaking and were so expensive to fix that they were left broken as a visual deterrent. You want to steal a book? No one's going to stop you. Hell, that's the reason why we can't keep any of the sex instruction books on the shelves. But then again I work for a library system that doesn't have loan limits or late fees, so maybe that's why our patrons take advantage of us.

However, we don't carry textbooks either -- I mean, come on, that's just asking for it.

D'oh!

Ok, so I have a totally embarrassing confession to make: since July I've been working with my brother on our own classic literature retelling with monsters. And if that wasn't awkward enough, I've been beaten to the humiliating punch with nearly the same concept!
A little while back my brother and I started discussing how all the classics with zombies were going to be lame (as a side note, I'm trying to get through Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters right now (shudder)) and we came up with Little Werewolf Women. I read the original in late elementary school and thought I had better brush up on it, but also I thought I should really engross myself in all things werewolf so I've been researching and rewriting things for three months now. Then just yesterday evening my brother breaks the news that some equally bored but much faster person named Porter Grand has already sold the idea to Del Ray books as Little Women and Werewolves. *howls*
I can at least say that the plots were different and ours was much more interesting sounding with us making the little women themselves the werewolves, trying to cope with the Civil War era life in addition to a deep desire to eat their neighbors. I was even going to have Beth killed by a silver bullet!

Banned books and library hypocrisy

I felt guilty for not making a post about celebrating "Banned Books Week" last week, but I thought that there were probably enough librarians, teachers, and others already talking about it, and I was lazy. Actually, as I was changing out our library's "read a banned book" display this morning I felt a bit silly because few of the books actually moved off of the display. I don't think this was because our patrons were offended or in favor of censorship, but rather it isn't such a big deal since I believe the majority of the books in the display have been on local high schools' reading lists for quite awhile.
I made the display because all the branches were encouraged to do so, but at the same time I'm making the display for 1984 and Catcher in the Rye, a few feet away is our graphic novel section which is largely classified as adult material, although most of the series are geared toward teenagers and are labeled as young adult in other library systems. While working in a fairly metropolitan, liberal area, I am often caught off guard when I come across titles like The Perks of Being a Wallflower, or Ready or Not? A Girl's Guide to Making Her Own Decisions About Dating, Love, and Sex, or another teen resource book about teen dating violence that are all cataloged as adult materials. One could argue that at least they are technically available at the library, but their circulation numbers are lower (and practically nonexistent for the non-fiction materials) when compared to neighboring systems that rightly classify them as YA. Since I was encouraged to make the banned books display, I wonder what my system would have done if I had instead made a display of titles that were being subjected to a form of internal censorship.
But then again I'd rather just keep my job and not get any annoying emails.

Almost like bad mad libs

A couple months back I confessed that I had jumped on that bandwagon that helped fund the "and Zombies/with Vampires" explosion with my purchase of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (my review was a solid "meh"). And now it appears that there is much more on the horizon with the upcoming Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters, Mr Darcy, Vampyre, and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and Zombie Jim. Is this good that we are getting people to take a look at the classics they would normally ignore just because of some promised gore and violence? How long do you think this literary trend will last? Oh yeah, and before I forget, what about this?
My sibbling is urging me to get to work on our own version of a literary classic with monsters, but I feel so ridiculous even thinking about it. The possible interest in publishers and a check are the only motivating factors.

Romance and copious amounts of vomit

I just Googled the phrase life is a series of down endings and the first return was a Google book page for Jane Eyre, which seems appropriate.

In other classical literature downer news, I finished Pride and Prejudice and Zombies the other day and felt it fell short of its full potential with the promised "ultra-violent zombie mayhem" just barely making an appearance. Still, in general it was an amusing read and the dining scenes at Hunsford and Rosings Park received quite a few lolz, even though I thought it borrowed some from Dead Alive.