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…

Update your bookmarks

Closed Stacks has changed location and can now be found at http://www.closedstacks.com/
And now back to our regularly scheduled program.

Great Gatsby, the video game

Ok, so since discovering this last night I'm a little obsessed:

The Great Gatsby by Nintendo!

I really don't care if it's a hoax or not (and c'mon folks, it obviously is), but what fun and creativity! I love the lengths that someone went to in order create this 80's nostalgic literary game -- it's awesome! As someone who received (and, ok I admit it, actually asked for (yes, I was that nerdy)) Nintendo's sucky The Adventures of Tom Sawyer as a xmas gift in '89 (pictured right), which had the amazing ability to be simultaneously difficult, confusing, and boring -- I kinda wish The Great Gatsby Nintendo version had been around instead. It certainly is much more interesting with better graphics and gameplay than probably at least a quarter of Nintendo's real games, even if it only takes five minutes to beat. This goes to show that classic literature can work in video game format and I'm betting with all the hubbub surrounding it right now, Nintendo only wishes that they really had secretly invented and never released this.

When you Google you become a terrorist

It's movie award season and lately there's been a lot of buzz about Black Swan, (an arty film about ballet and masturbating while your mom is in your bedroom) which has made Winona Ryder suddenly relevant again because she has a minor (really minor) part in it.

And what does she do with this reclaimed fame? She acts kooky. (see photo of Winona inexplicably wearing a wedding dress to Sunday's SAG awards and giving the camera some crazy eye) “I don’t use the Internet,” Ryder revealed in last month's Elle magazine. "I have my e-mail on my BlackBerry, and that’s about it. I’ve never read a blog, ever." She then followed up this tidbit about herself with the reason why on "Late Night with Jimmy Fallon." It's because Winona thinks she will stumble into joining a terrorist group just like how one innocently wanders into a porn cyclone.

"The Googling was very terrifying to me," Ryder said, "Because I have this fear that I'm going to be trying to find out what movie is playing at what theater, and then I'm suddenly going to be a member Al Qaeda...We're a button away from joining Al Qaeda...You have to be careful."

This is totally true because I once accidentally joined the Symbionese Liberation Army while trying to snipe bid on some Garbage Pail Kids cards on eBay. While today's teen generation has embraced technology and the interweb with all of the wonderful and terrible things it can do, I am often interested by some Gen-Xers reaction to distance themselves from things like Facebook or Kindles -- though it is usually not out of fear. I occasionally feel like I am part of a gap generation, as those younger and older than me race to shed all personal and private information about themselves online, while somedays I feel like I could unplug and and walk away from it forever.

Maybe it's ok. After all, Prince did say "The Internet's completely over," earlier this year.

We'll show you! Library takes its toys and goes home

(Read this entire entry with a fake British accent as I wrote it thinking with one. Or if you are British, proceed as normal.)

In merry England when Parliament made some major budget cuts to its libraries, (including closing some of them) the Stony Stratford council found out about the possible closure in December and sent letters to 6,000 townspeople, telling them that while the threat of closure was only a threat, it was time to prove how crucial the library was to the community. Then they took their battle to Facebook!

The library in Stony Stratford successful convinced its patrons to empty their library’s shelves, checking out approximately “16,000 volumes,” to show what a void the closure would leave in the community. The maximum amount of books one person could take out was 15. And ahead of their deadline of closing time today, all the books were gone.
According to the Guardian, the last few books lent out were self-help books and practical mechanics books. But they were checked out, and now the library staff are dusting the shelves.

Self help books would probably be the last of ours to go too. An interesting idea, but oy, I would not want to be there on the day all those books come back.

The joys of the internet

After going without internet access at home for over a month in my new apartment, today the Comcast guy finally came out to hook me up. I don't know if I'm supposed to feel happy or sad.

I've seen this video clip posted a few places, but hadn't been able to watch it at work or on my magic phone. So yeah, I'm late to the snark party, but if you haven't seen it yet enjoy:

Pay no attention to the woman behind the desk

Due to a system upgrade, our card catalog has been down for the last few days. This means we cannot look up books, cannot place items on hold, cannot renew items for patrons, cannot check items in, and cannot tell a patron where they are on the waitlist for Eat, Pray, Love. OH YEAH, DID I MENTION THAT WE CANNOT LOOK UP BOOKS? Because if I forgot to say it in the last thirty seconds let me tell you again that no, we cannot look up books to see if they’re checked in here or at another branch, or even if our library owns that title.
Patron, who looks like a mildly intelligent man: Could you check the computer?

So this is what it comes down to: an undergraduate degree in English, a master’s degree in Library and Information Science, but apparently I’m just some unemployed volunteer that shows up here because the real librarian is the computer. I’m a hairless ape, but it’s the computer that has all the knowledge! Please ignore me and what I’m telling you, let’s check the computer!

Old woman who probably has never used a computer: Could you print me out a list of your current book club kit books?
Me: I’m sorry, but as I already said we’re experiencing a countywide outage with our card catalog and do not have the ability to check on items in the collection. If you come back tomorrow or maybe even check online at home tomorrow evening everything should be back to normal.
Old woman, gesturing to my coworker next to me who is helping another patron: I can wait and ask her. Maybe her computer is working.

When did people stop using their brains and give over to the idea that computers have all the answers to every single thing in life?

Patron with a “Guns Don’t Kill People” trucker hat: My cousin Clayton’s in the hospital?
Me: ???
Gun lovin’ Patron: My cousin, he was in a car accident yesterday, what hospital is he in?
Me: Uhhh…Was his accident local? Do you have another family member you can ask?
Gun lovin’ Patron: No, I can’t reach anyone on the phone. Can you look it up in the computer?
Me: !

Pron and defending your right to library boners

So yesterday I had a library first: my very own library public masturbator! Yes, I know what you're thinking (besides Ewww!), how can I have worked in various library jobs over the past six years and not yet encountered someone masturbating in public? Good luck, I guess? I've had at least one incident with indecent exposure (that, thankfully I only had to report and did not witness), and countless run-ins with internet porn, but so far those pervs have only been viewing it (or pretending not to view it while really playing chess online) or printing it out and showing it to me to ask how much their copies will cost, but so far no one had been caught in the act of working the rocket launcher. Until yesterday.

Shortly before lunchtime we received a complaint that a teen at one of the internet stations was viewing porn and the two attempts my branch manager made to catch him in the act failed as his spidey-sense must have alerted him that we were trying to peep over his shoulder. This prompted a discussion between me and my branch manager about the library's policy on porn. In library school, we would be forced to have these ridiculous debates on what we would do as a librarian if our library theoretically decided to stock Playboy as a magazine in our collection and a member of the public became outraged and complained. I found these arguments useless because a)what public library would want to walk into the firing squad that would be stocking Playboy? and b)it wasn't an argument that I really agreed with most of the time.
Now I realize that the buttress to the librarians defending porn argument is the "slippery slope theory," in that once you censor pornography, everything else is up for grabs so it's an "either you're with us or against us" mentality, very black and white. Yeah, I understand that theory, but I don't necessarily agree, and it's not even from the "oh, think of the children!" point of view -- it's more like "things that are better done in the privacy of your own home" point of view. Why should some guy (who smells like a brewery) have more of a right to watch YouPorn in public than my right not to see it or hear it as I use or work in the library? I'm certainly not going to come over to his house and regulate his personal life or get all Big Brother on his ass, but really, why is porn in public places a constitutional right?

This is why I'm glad that while ALA may stand behind your right to view teh interweb pron at the library, the second you decide to unzip those rights are quickly superseded by laws requiring you to keep it in your pants at the library. My boss was on the phone helping a patron when she suddenly exclaimed "Oh no!" and my head snapped around to the direction she was running where the teen internet porn suspect was fully engaged in the most urgent self love, almost to the point where it looked like his chair might lift off the floor into orbit. He was reminded of the library code of conduct policy and asked to leave, but I feel a little better about the world knowing that ALA welcomes him with open arms to come back today, just as long as he looks and doesn't touch.

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 in the media - both pertinent and irrelevant

While channel surfing the other day I came across two different representations of libraries that I thought were interesting. The first was search engine Yahoo!'s 15 year anniversary where they conducted a U.S. survey from users asking them how the internet has changed their lives since 1995.

The results showed that several activities are down, including library visits being down by 59%, though the Yahoo! rep and interviewer seemed to feel a nostalgic loss more than anything else.

The other item was a new show on NBC, brought over from England called Who Do You Think You Are?, a reality tv show that researches the genealogy of a celebrity. I was bored and switching back and forth from other channels while waiting around for my night to begin, but the premier episode focused on Sarah Jessica Parker, following her cross country as she learned more about her family tree. As easily accessible as the internet makes everything, it was interesting to see the visits to different library's archival records for primary sources and information not yet digitized. We have a genealogy database at our library, but it doesn't get used very much from what I've seen and I've only played with it here and there without any major results, but I wonder if interest in this type of information can be renewed by the public thanks to shows like this? Maybe, though I noticed they did not make Sarah Jessica Parker wear gloves to handle her 10th great-grandmother's arrest record in Salem.

Facebook Forevs?

I was reading this little news story today about how Facebook is "locking in" its internet dominance, which ironically mentions how many of these sites end up going the way of the digital graveyard while quoting a tech-savy college student who claims that FB is a more valuable internet commodity than Google.
Ok, I will admit that FB is smart because its creators have learned from what mistakes its predecessors made (or stole from them), and gives people the one thing they have wanted since the dawn of the internet: the ability to spy on their exs with a few keystrokes and for free! Middle-aged moms can finally find out what their high school boyfriends are up to! (Oh yeah, let's just also forget for the sake of this article the fact that Google makes beaucoup dollars and Facebook has yet to return any of its $716m investment).
The most annoying part of the article, to me, was student Ravasio's comment that, "It's your real name, it's your real friends...It's the new thing you need to keep in touch, almost a requirement of modern social life."
Hold up, real friends? I would probably only consider about a 1/3 of the people I've had to accept as friends as my real friends, and that's in my personal account. What with Great Aunt Betty, the girl bully from my 8th grade class, and my creepy polly-o-string-cheese-eatin' first boss friending me in FB, who needs real friends? Or real privacy, for that matter?
I guess part of my problem is I'm too nice in real life, or I'm still kind of scared of Heather Williams and afraid she'll show up at my work to kick my ass if I don't friend her. But if these connections as well as the never ending flood of fake flower gifts, lost farm animals, and "Which Thundercat Are You" quizzes are a requirement in modern social life then I'm not sure I'm going to make it.
Where's my time machine? Send me back to the socially repressed '50's quick!

No, Ask Your Librarian

My library system offers a virtual reference service called "Ask a Librarian." There are numerous systems across the country that do. What I don't understand is how at least once a week we have an email or IM question from someone using the service who is not part of our service area. Or state. Or country.
This might even be acceptable if these individuals were asking actual reference questions like "What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?" but these weirdo long distance questions are almost all about their user accounts (overdue items, late fees) or books not at our library, or ones like this transaction from the other day:
chat user: I want to read "book x" which is the next book in the series I am reading, but my library doesn't own it. Your library owns it, will you send it to me?
Ask a Librarian:What you want is an interlibrary loan. You can set that up through your own library. They may not get the book directly from us, but they should be able to locate you a copy. Which library are you at?
chat user: I am in Spain. Will you send me the book?
Ask a Librarian: Our library system does not lend materials outside of the US. I recommend discussing this issue with your own local librarian who can help you.
chat user: I don't use my library. Can you mail this book to my house?
Ask a Librarian: *not responding because I'm attempting to knock myself unconscious with another book*

I understand that these people are just Googling "Ask a Librarian" and not taking the extra step to think that it might not be their own local librarian, but it is very tiresome to repeatedly tell people in Michigan and New Mexico that I cannot resolve their lost book problems, especially when they keep emailing back asking me to contact their library for them!

Don't believe everything that you read, but dammit, listen to what I say

So I guess earlier this week The New York Times The Moment blog Tweeted that Morrissey was dead and while I missed that "X is dead!" go around, all I can think is "What, really?! We're playing this again?" I know that the interwebs didn't start this type of rumor (I'm flashing back to 8th grade when our head cheerleader broke down hysterically crying in Algebra I because she heard Mark-Paul Gosselaar of Zack Morris fame had died in a motorcycle accident), but cripes, when the real newspapers go down the tubes will all actual fact checking go with them?

Yesterday I was at work when a man approached the desk looking for Mitch Albom's Tuesdays with Morrie, which I looked up in the computer and found that all four of our copies were checked out. I explained this to the man, letting him know that Albom's new book has probably renewed interest in his earlier works, but that I would be happy to put it on hold with him.
"Can you just tell me where the book is? Like what number?" he asked.
"The call number? Yeah, it would be under 921 Schwartz if it was checked in--"
The man held up his hand, as he was done listening to me. "I'll just take my chances and have a look for myself to see if any happen to be on the shelf," he said and walked away.
Ok...I mean, I'll be damned if I ever let a computer tell me what to do, but four copies checked out means four copies checked out. It's just simple math folks.

But what about calling the electronic highway “Data Zoomy Land”?

The other day BusinessWeek created a list of 12 outdated tech terms deemed to get you a workplace paddling if used or at least give cause to have the nearest teenager roll their eyes. I feel a little guilty that the other day when explaining what our computer tutor does to an inquiring patron, I mentioned that “learning how to surf the web” was part of the instruction session. However, I do think that specifying long distance versus local calls is still somewhat relevant since we occasionally have sneaky patrons trying to make out of state calls from our desk phone.

This post was brought to you by my 1200 baud modem.
Beep boop.

The Wikipedia Problem

I'll admit that I'm a Wikipedia fan, but as an information professional I get tired by how many people use it as an unquestionable authority for information or research. I must tell at least one high school student every day that Wikipedia is not always reliable and that they really need to look into their sources.

Perhaps this recent news story will wake up some people to the problem: Irish student's Jarre wiki hoax dupes journalists.

In a slightly related note, yesterday I was bored at work and playing around on Wikipedia and was reading Glenn Danzig's entry which contains a link to Danzig's supposed Twitter feed which is either really sad or really funny, but maybe a bit of both.