Friday Five: "Little Girl Books"

I haven't posted a good rant in what seems like ages, so it seems almost fitting that I write one on a Friday the 13th.

Earlier this week, a coworker mentioned that she was reading an Oprah book selection and asked if I had read it yet (I believe it was The Two Hotel Francforts).  I said that I had not and when I reached for the book to read the description, she responded with "Oh that's right. You only read 'little girl books.'"

I've had a fair share of people making fun of my preference for reading children's and young adult literature (as well as my preference for working with children and young adults), so I smiled and laughed it off, but on the inside I felt like:

Why? Because it was a fellow library coworker who voiced this insult.  I can semi-understand when people who aren't well versed in the land of YA and children's lit think that it's a little strange.  But a fellow librarian?  Hurtful!

She probably thought it was harmless and maybe it is; maybe I'm overreacting.  But to me it's a sexist, insulting remark to casually toss around.  It suggests to an entire gender and age group that their book selections are meaningless. What exactly makes a book a "little girl book?"  Are they restricted to featuring only "little girl" activities? Are boys even allowed? Do they require less mental capacity to understand? Do they have stickers? Are they height based? Did she mean Thumbelina?

What would have been unoffensive:

• "Oh that's right, you prefer to read young adult books."
• "Oh that's right, you prefer reading different types of books."
• "Oh that's right, this book might not have crossed your radar."
• "Oh you should give it a try, I think you'll like it."

But no, she went with "Oh that's right. You only read 'little girl books.'"

So, under the assumption she meant that "little girl books" are dainty, easy to digest, and not intellectually or emotionally stimulating*, here are my

Top 5 "little girl books" that I read this year:

1. Code Name Verity, by Elizabeth Wein

The story of two young women during WWII - one a pilot and the other a spy captured by the Gestapo and held as a prisoner of war.

History, spies, torture: Definitely a "little girl book".

2. I Hunt Killers, by Barry Lyga

Jasper Dent investigates a series of murders taking place in his hometown. Why? Because they're copycat versions of the murders his serial killer father committed years ago.

Murder, psychological manipulation: Definitely a "little girl book".

3.Does My Head Look Big in This?, by Randa Abdel-Fattah

Amal, a Muslim Australian attending a rather non-diverse school, decides that she wants to wear a hijab (head scarf) full-time.  She is met with criticism from her family, friends, classmates, and strangers.

Religious prejudice, sexism, cultural identity: Definitely a "little girl book".

4. The Miseducation of Cameron Post, by Emily Danforth

A young teen coming to terms with her sexuality believes that she is the reason her parents were killed in an airplane crash.  She is forced to attend a gay conversion camp by her aunt.

LGBT, guilt, suicide: Definitely a "little girl book".

5. The Earth, My Butt & Other Big Round Things, by Carolyn Mackler

A teen battling body issues and constantly hoping for acceptance from her family, must now cope with the shattered images of those closest to her.

Rape, eating disorders, coming of age: Definitely a "little girl book". 


*Is there anything wrong with those types of books? NOPE.  Have I read books that may fit that description? Absolutely.  But to merely classify all of children's lit and YA as "little girl books" and act as if that is somehow beneath you is what's wrong.

Reference Ettiquette

It happens to [almost] every librarian: not wanting to deal with a reference question.  Sometimes you're annoyed by a patron.  Sometimes you're really busy and you just want to focus on the task at hand.  Other times you're just plain lazy.  Whatever the reason is, you answer in the worst possible way: "Go search for it yourself."

GAH!

Something I witnessed this week at the public library:

Patron [5th grade-looking child]: (looks nervous) Do you have anything on starfish?
Librarian:  (reading a magazine) Did you look for it yourself?
Patron: (looks forlorn) No...
Librarian: Computer's right over there (points). Go search for it.

The poor girl looked so sad.  Now she hates librarians, hates asking for help, and probably hates starfish for getting her into this mess.  Alright, maybe I'm being overdramatic, but I was taught to do the opposite of all of the above.  In fact, we were often given scenarios and discuss point by point what was done wrong.  Soooo:

What did she do wrong?

1) If you can't give 100% of your attention to a patron, at least make the effort to make it look like you are.  Not once did she look away from her magazine.  That's just rude.

2) Asking "Did you look for it yourself?" I get what she was trying to do here.  Librarians don't function to do your work for you, but to help you learn how to do it on your own.  But what she said isn't helpful.  These are better: What have you tried searching for already? What have you already found? What exactly are you looking for, something specific or just basic information? Etc.  Just asking if they've already searched puts the entire burden back onto them.  They're asking for help for a reason.  Help them.  Also, by having them search for themselves, you're pretty much arguing against your job.

3) Never point!! This was practically beat into us by my professor, mainly because she had a bad experience at a previous job where her boss solved every problem by pointing in the opposite direction.  Obviously, it's impossible to always be able to walk away from your desk, so you can be lax on this rule, but at least give good directions.  But pointing can feel like you're shooing someone away (which is effectively what was occurring), so it's better to try to avoid it.  Or learn some nice pointing.  Vanna White knows what's up.


So be better with your reference etiquette! Otherwise, this might be about you:

 

50 Shades of Whatever

Alright, let me set the record straight.  I have no qualms with women (or anyone) reading porn/smut/erotica whatever you want to call it.  One of my favorite episodes of Friends deals with the subject:

Here are my issues:

1) People have been reading Harlequinn romances for AGES.  Middle-aged women come storming into libraries when a new one is available. What is all the fuss about a bunch of people liking this book? It's not some shocking, new trend.  Teens passed around page 81 of Judy Blume's Forever,  for years.  Yes, that is the exact page number.  Look it up.

So what is the big deal about a bunch of people reading porn?  Afraid the women folk are gonna learn something? "OMG we can have sex not for BABY MAKING?!?!" Think there's going to be an apocalyptic orgy after women read this book? Well maybe, it is 2012.

2) My second issue may seem to contradict the first. I hate that people are reading this book.  Why?

a) It stems from TWILIGHT fanfiction.  Why do people not know this? Do you not recognize the poor writing? 

 "My inner goddess is doing the merengue with some salsa moves"

WTF is that? From the quote list I suffered through, apparently the "inner goddess" is a recurring thing. Why is she doing stuff? Why can't we just be outer goddesses?

Do you not research your books before reading them? (Okay maybe only I do that).  All of my friends who have read/are reading this book seem dumbfounded when I tell them this.  Then they feel ashamed, their inner goddesses recoiling from my strike of wondrous wisdom. 

But seriously, this "novel" began as a sexual fanfiction written by E.L. James with Bella and Edward as main characters.  She then rewrote it as an original piece with the new characters (I don't know if the story changed or whatever because I refuse to read either).  So it's just...yuck.  Twilight characters.  Twilight inspiration.  Just...no.  If you're going to read porn, read well-written porn.

b) People keep telling me I have to read it.

No I don't.  Thanks to the glorious internet, I know enough about it that if I ever needed to recommend it to someone (Lord, help me), I'll do just fine.  Also, I have good books to read in my spare time. "But you'll love it" they say.  Ahhh, no.  Library school teaches you to know your audience when you're recommending books.  People don't realize it's an artform.

c) Too many people I know are talking about it and it's ruining my newsfeed.

I have no problem with people talking about sex and all that jazz.  I think it's healthy.  But when I see Facebook photos of my aunt opening up 50 Shades themed birthday presents---well, it's vomit inducing to say the least.  STOP THE MADNESS.  #please

Nostalgia: Computer Games

Yesterday I was struck by a huge urge to play Sim City 3000.  Cursing myself for leaving it at home, tucked into a box stored in the basement, I started to reflect on a time when playing this and other games was one of the highlights of going to school. 

Charging people fair taxes in Sim City, tracking down clues in Where in the World/Time is Carmen San Diego?, and fording the freaking river in Oregon Trail was the best.  BEST.  Why? Because back in my day, the majority of us didn't have computers at home, or if we did, we didn't have time to use them/weren't allowed to play games.  That meant that school was our one shot at playing on computers. 

And where were these sacred computers kept that allowed us to experience such joy?  The library.  Back in the day when we were graded in "Library," we all got A's for being able to effectively remember what time period in which the Vikings lived.  Sure we also looked at books and did research, but only if you lost the race to the computers at the start of class. 

But now kids have iPads and laptops and any other technological device that schools for some reason are insisting they "need" to learn.  Yeah, sure it's impressive when a two year old can play on an iPad, but does she really need to?  You know who else can play on an iPad?  A cat. 

Anyway, I can get on board with how typing and learning Powerpoint (although people STILL can't figure out how to put together a good Powerpoint - black on a dark background DOESN'T WORK PEOPLE!) and intellectual programs are important for kids, but now they have access to all the computer games they want and it's just not that exciting to use a computer in school anymore.  Computers in school are all work work work.  I've encountered numerous kids and teens who don't even know what these games are; the only games they know are Angry Birds and the like.  It's so sad. 

I know, I know, I'm being all nostalgic and I know things need to die out, but the fact that kids are born with the knowledge of how to jailbreak iPods makes me sad that the fun/semi-educational computer games that were a big part of library fun (all library was fun, but this was super fun) are dying out. 

Club Monaco on Notice

 

I was walking in a mall one delightfully snowy evening, in a perfectly content mood, when this display caught my eye.  It wasn't the clothes designed for the person who hates color that ruined my happy demeanor.  No, it was the blatant destruction of books used to highlight such boring ensembles.  Torn up books, books just hanging by a page from the walls, and books just tossed onto the floor like yesterday's garbage.  It hurts my soul.  

But it does look cool and I think that what upsets me the most.  I hate that I like it.  Damn you, Club Monaco!

Review: The Snow Angel

Over the weekend, I did the unthinkable: read a children's book written by Glenn Beck (in case you don't know me, the fact that a children's book was written by Glenn Beck is what's unthinkable).  It was difficult to get through and off the top of my head, I can't even remember what it was actually about.  I do remember a few things:

1)  The scene is set on the first page of this terrible picture book: two downtrodden children are in the kitchen, eating what looks like the most depressing Kraft macaroni and cheese ever (because it's not the Blues Clues kind, which everyone knows is the best kind and is sadly discontinued).  The measly three lines of text lets us know that Dad doesn't make good macaroni and cheese like Mom.  But now that Mom has a job, Dad's been forced to cook for the kids more often than not. 

Translation: A woman's place is in the kitchen. Grab your torches and pitchforks, the economic crisis is yanking women from their natural environment.  Manly men should not be forced to pick up utensils and prepare food for their offspring.  They should be spending their time killing the food they bring home for their wives to cook. 

Hidden meaning: Obama is not only destroying the economy, but he's ruining the nation's nutrition by forcing men to cook for their children, and upsetting the traditional American family structure.

2)  He couldn't go three pages without mentioning the Middle East.  On the off-chance a woman  neglecting her duties isn't enough to prove the world's demise, he lets the news announcer demonstrate just how serious the setting is in this story.  I'm a little surprised at his restraint from writing about how this family doesn't even have a flat screen television for Dad to watch while he ignores his children's pleas for a better dinner.   

3)  Dad may cook the dinner, but he puts his dishes in the sink, presumably for the wife to wash after busting her metaphorical balls to support her family.  

4)  I just reread the book (UGH) to remember what the story was about: an unappreciated Grandmother telling her bratty grandkids about how her soldier dad once taught her that snow angels store love.  This lesson is somehow supposed to console them about having to eat the same thing each night and never see their parents.  I think that the lesson is mostly supposed to mask the fact that Mr. Beck didn't realize until it was too late that the Grandmother was a viable candidate to cook dinner instead of the Dad.  She apparently takes care of them every night.  It only makes sense. 

5)  So the kids have some sense smacked into them, and they make some paper snow angels for their parents to show them how much they love them.  They also give them breakfast in bed: uncooked macaroni and cheese, which I'll admit did actually make me giggle..but only for a second. 

Is this book good? No.  Should you read it? No.  Not even to give it a chance? No.  Should you buy it for someone else?  Only if you hate them or you're giving it as a joke gift, like the wonderful gentleman who gave it to me.  Thanks, Richard!!

Adults Judging Childrens Books: Complexity

Whenever I tell people that I'm close to reaching my goal of reading 110 books this year (6.5 to go!), I tend to get a response along the lines of: "But those are easy books. Those are way beneath your level. So why bother?"  Putting aside the obvious problems of them taking the liberty of knowing what my level is and assuming I'm not reading books that I actually enjoy, who is to say that children's and young adult books are beneath anyone's level?

While some "grown-up" books may not be appropriate content-wise for young'ns, readability statistics for some of the most popular adult fiction is right on target for a children's audience.  The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level ("FKGL") test is a readability test that measures total number of sentences, sentence length, and syllables to assign a grade level to a selection of writing.  If you're a student, you're most likely familiar with this test from seeing it after spellchecking your papers in Word (...and then furiously hitting shiftF7 to use the thesaurus to find longer words, yeah don't deny it).  Obviously assigning grade levels is making an assumption about where each grade should be, but let's experiment.

Read this:

"'All your old drinking habits, too. Chewing Excedrin. Wiping your mouth all the time. Cranky in the morning. And you haven't been able to finish the play, yet, have you?'"

According to the FKGL, that's at a 2.8 grade level.  It's also a quote from The Shining, one of the most popular "adult" books of all time.  That quote isn't even as bad as this:

"The wedding. Her father had been there. Her mother had not been. She found she could live with that, if she had Jack. And then Danny had come. Her fine son."

That has a 0.0 rating.  Seriously. 

Now this:

"'From this point forth, we shall be leaving the firm foundation of fact and journeying together through the murky marshes of memory into thickets of wildest guesswork.'"

Yes, that's right.  Dumbledore speaks at a 13.2 grade level.

While the subject matter of Stephen King novels may not be appropriate for a second grader (depending on how liberal you are), they can definitely read it.  So should second graders deem you lazy for reading something way below your level?  I mean, it's a pretty easy read, so why bother?

Okay yes, obviously I picked specific quotes that would prove a point.  But if you put The Shining as a whole up against this test, it averages out at about a 7th grade level.  You know what else does? The Harry Potter series.  So stop judging people for reading things "beneath their level" because guess what? Chances are, so are you. 

I do not like the Taylor Swift

Usually my gym has it down with the playlists.  Hall & Oates, NKOTBSB, Huey Lewis and the News...basically all the 80s and 90s nostalgia I need to pretend that I'm a runner.  But yesterday, it was nothing but fail, unless the gym was hosting some weird tween scene for all the middle-aged people on their lunch breaks.  If that's the case, it passed with flying colors: Biebz, Selena Gomez, and the worst of 'em all, the T-Swizzle. 

So this might seem out of place here in a blog about being a librarian-in-training.  But being a librarian isn't all about pushing books on the children.  It's also about embracing other forms of media as sources of education and entertainment.  As such, it allows me to vent about one of the most popular musical acts among kids, tweens, teens, people who think they're country music fans, and college boys.  Here goes:

Alright, she's cute.  They're all cute.  And she didn't start on Disney, so she's most likely got a few more years up the sleeves of her sparkly dresses before she reaches the pivotal point where teen stars need to pick their path as if they were in that Robert Frost poem: will she go down the well-worn path of drugs and shaved heads (yes, I love the Brit Brit, but I'm not blind to that horrible year), or will she take the "one less traveled by" and go for a respectable career?  Probably the latter, although I would much rather she fade away into obscurity.  I get that her stuff is all about cutesy puppy love, but it's sooooooo bad. Please, someone make this girl write something that doesn't sound like she put a bunch of cliches and phrases into a hat and pulled them out one at a time to make a song. Just...please.  I know my taste in music is questionable, but let's just examine one of her "hits," the one that plagued me at the gym yesterday:

This is the Swift version of a  fairy tale

"Today was a Fairytale" - [too bad she doesn't mean one by the Brothers Grimm]

Today was a fairytale

You were the prince

I used to be a damsel in distress

You took me by the hand and you picked me up at six

Today was a fairytale

[Oh good, way to stuff people into forced gender roles.  Also, if this were actually a fairy tale, you would still be a damsel in distress.  Or did you stop becoming a damsel in distress sometime before he picked you up at 6? If that's the case, then by traditional fairy tale lore, you're cheating on the person who saved you, because once you're saved you can't ever leave that person, meaning he shouldn't have to pick you up.  So how sweet of you.  Also, in what fairytale is someone picked up at 6? Midnight, dawn, dusk, etc. tend to be the go-to times, not 6.  Actually, people tend not to get picked up at all.  Maybe lifted in the air as a troll is about to pummel them, but never picked up.  You must mean saved.  He saved you at...6.]

Today was a fairytale

[Yes, you've told us.]

Today was a fairytale

I wore a dress

You wore a dark grey t-shirt

You told me I was pretty

When I looked like a mess

Today was a fairytale

[A dress?  You wore a dress.  Okay, that's...fitting, I guess. But who wears a dark grey t-shirt in a fairy tale? I can't say I recall reading about "Prince Charming" in a dark grey t-shirt.  He told you you looked pretty when you looked like a mess.  Okay, let's dissect this.  You condone lying and you're on a date with a liar.  Also, why do you look like a mess? You just told us you were wearing a dress.  Did you not pick a clean one out of the closet? Even Ariel knew how to make herself look spiffy without a dress.  If you want today to be a fairy tale, think about stepping up your game.]

Time slows down

Whenever you're around

[No. No, it does not.  That's what happens when you're miserable.  Time goes too fast when you're happy.  Get it right.]

Can you feel this magic in the air?

It must have been the way you kissed me

Fell in love when I saw you standing there

It must have been the way

Today was a fairytale

It must have been the way

Today was a fairytale

[Love doesn't happen until you either dance with him or he kisses you to wake you up from a long sleep, thereby obligating you to be in love with him.  Silly girl.]

Today was a fairytale

You've got a smile that takes me to another planet

Every move you make everything you say is right

Today was a fairytale

[That third line makes you seem like Little Red Riding Hood believing your "Grandmother" when she tells you that her eyes are so big because that makes it all the better to see you with.  Or like Michelle Bachman when she believed the lady behind her who said her daughter suffered from mental retardation from the HPV shot.  Now, I realize that this isn't a fairy tale, but as fairy tales were designed to teach moral lessons, I plan on making it one so that future children can learn how to not talk to strangers about health care.  So I guess you're playing up to that gullible female fairy tale role.  Brava!]

Today was a fairytale

All that I can say

Is now it's getting so much clearer

Nothing made sense until the time I saw your face

Today was a fairytale

[So this is one of those fairy tales where you've been sleeping for 100 years, and now that you've been allowed to open your eyes, things have become clear.  Got it.]

I can feel my heart

It's beating in my chest

Did you feel it?

I can't put this down

[WHERE ELSE IS YOUR HEART SUPPOSED TO BEAT?????]

Swift, T. (2010). Today was a fairytale. On Valentine's Day. Big Machine.

This is a 1909 illustration from a
real Brothers Grimm fairy tale.

Classics are TORTURE...to me at least

Recently some friend of a friend asked me what I planned to do with my life and upon hearing "librarian" immediately responded with: "Oh! So you must really love the classics!"  No.  I don't have to must love anything, thank you very much. 

Granted, my knowledge of the "classics" isn't wonderful.  I own most of them and they have their own little designated area on my too cramped bookshelf, but usually I think they're a waste of shelf space when I come home with a bag full of new books. 

Are classics worthy? I'm sure they are.  I'm sure there are plenty of great reasons for students and/or readers to deconstruct meaning from Great Expectations or what have you, but just because someone deemed them a "classic" doesn't mean they should sit year after year on students' required reading lists.  Doing so causes people to refuse to acknowledge the existence of wonderful, NEWER books that are just as well written and engaging and possibly better.  It's a classic (heh) case of being blinded by nostalgia.  "I had to read these books as a child, so they should too" or "It was written before technology destroyed our minds, they must read them" or "Things my generation experienced will never be matched by any other generation, therefore we must subject the children to the same books."  No.  The only time that last argument is acceptable is when discussing the near flawlessness of 90s Nickelodeon shows.  That is it.  (Kids who grew up without Clarissa Explains it All are just deprived).   

I just really hate when people put them on a pedestal when other books are just as deserving.  While I clearly put Harry Potter up on a pedestal and think it will become a classic children's adventure series, I don't doubt for a second that something just as amazing will pop up in the future (I'll weep, but get over it...maybe). 

While not all students are terribly bored with these "wonders," most are and as a result of being forced to read them (or watching the movie counterpart to avoid doing so), they risk ending up choosing not to read for pleasure.  I'm not saying that students should never read the classics because the books do have their merits hidden in there somewhere, but they shouldn't be approached with the idea that they are the "best."  They aren't.  They're racist.  They're boring.  They're not targeted towards the minds of today's youth.  Etc, etc.  Instead, they should be paired with more recent publications, ones that mirror the sentiment, but in a more modern fashion that allows today's young adult to relate.  That way you can bridge the gap between the past and present and open up a discussion in which students will most likely feel more comfortable participating. 

Most people think this reaction to classics stems from laziness.  Not the case.  I can read through them in a breeze.  Sometimes I actually think modern books are more difficult to read.  It took me a few chapters to fully understand the structure of The Book Thief and graphic novels actually take me about 3 times as long to read.  New doesn't mean depraved.  There's just a different structure.  Young adult books are actually the most inventive books on the market.  As teenagers are trying to find their own voice, they're more open to reading inventive pieces to see what fits for them.  Hence the success of the Chaos Walking trilogy, The Hunger Games, The Book Thief and, it pains me to say it, Twilight.  Sometimes reading these series even leads young adult readers to exploring the classics on their own.  My sister was obsessed with Twilight and ended up reading Dracula on her own.  Now she knows that Twilight is crap, which is the one bonus that come from reading that horrorific excuse for a novel.  This is hurting my argument, Twilight is awful, but the others are wonderous.  Actually, there are definitely awful young adult books out there, you just need to sift through them and select ones that will get the job done. 

So to sum up, I do not love classics because I'm going to be a librarian.  I am pro-new books.  Yay!

Leave YA Alone!

Last week, an article called "Darkness Too Visible" was posted on the WSJ website that criticized the state of current young adult literature.  In essence, the author was saying that the current selection is harmful for teen readers and they need to read things of more substance and less controversy.  Okay, I won’t deny that some of the current YA books aren’t great literature (said in hoity-toity accent like a professor of mine used to), but neither are the large amounts of romance and mystery novels that are available.  For the most part, YA literature is amazing and helpful to a lot of teens. 

In response to the article, YA authors like Laurie Halse Anderson started a twitter hashtag, #yasaves, to get people to tweet about how the YA books the article criticizes made an impact on their lives.  This makes me happy because the amount of responses were amazing.  Go look, it's fun! 

My response to the article is of course to rant about it, which I’ve already verbally done to a lot of friends (sorry guys).  So here goes:

-The article begins with a woman “disheartened” by the YA selection in a store who had to leave without buying anything.  Okay, I’m sure she did and that's sad.  Just because there were some book covers and, if she actually read the summaries, books that weren’t appealing, it doesn’t mean that there weren’t others to select from.  No one will like every book and that's fine.  But just because some YA books aren't up to your standards doesn't give you the right to generalize every other book in that section.  You're in a book store for crying out loud, there are other things available.  All of the books that are praised in the article are also kept in the YA section, so there’s no need to feel disheartened.  Just look through the books to find one.  It’s not that hard. 

-The author mentions Go Ask Alice as one of the first YA books to mention dark topics.  I have a slight suspicion that she doesn't know this isn't a real diary, but was actually written by a psychologist as a tool to keep kids off of drugs...but maybe it's just me.

-She seems very anti-Cormier.  Yeah, his stuff doesn’t include happy endings.  NEITHER DOES LIFE.  The ending to Charlotte’s Web isn’t happy either.  Charlotte freaking dies.  The message of the story could very well be “have babies and die.”  Should we take that out so the youngins aren’t exposed to death? 

-She's afraid that talking about the horrible problems teens and other people experience will help to normalize them.  Well not only is not talking about them censorship, but it's also ignoring the fact that the problems do exist.  The books aren't telling kids to go out and cut themselves.  They're giving teens an opportunity to see their frustrations voiced. 

-She says the Hunger Games are"hyper-violent." Umm, no?  Yeah it involves kids fighting to the death, but there are no drawn out death scenes and nothing is too graphic.  The book is all political commentary.  It’s amazing.  It has a strong FEMALE main character who kicks ass.  Does she not want girls to be strong? 

-She's rather fond of the non-"grotesque" Judy Blume whose works apparently pale in comparison to what's available today (although her stuff is still heavily challenged).  Yes, YA Literature has changed.  But so has everything else.  Women can vote now (gasp!), we can all drink from the same bubblers (water fountains for you non-Boston freaks), and we have a black president.  The world back then didn’t have the same problems teens have now.  The internet didn’t exist, cyber-bullying was unheard of, and most approved teenage issues were whether or not saddle shoes were an appropriate footwear choice for the big school dance.  Teens face a lot more problems now and the literature reflects it.  It gives them a way to see that they aren’t the only ones experiencing these problems and offers solutions to help them.  So instead of fighting their ability to read these works, why not put that energy into encouraging them to read and work out their problems?

-There’s a sidebar included with a list of appropriate reading selections.  Possibly the best part of the article, one of the suggested books is Fahrenheit 451.  An article that is basically calling for the censorship of YA material in order to shield the eyes of today's youth, recommends a book with the main message of anti-censorship. 

What was with people last weekend?  This article AND the whole Paul Revere warning the British business?  This world scares me.

Another librarian-in-training, Tahleen, gives a much better, concise response to the article here. 

#TheList, No. 171: The Ugly Duckling

This weekend is the concert pairing of my lifetime: NKOTBSB, which I realize loosely translates to New Kids on the Backstreet Boys.  I've been obsessed with the New Kids since I was 2 and, after a brief fling with Hanson, proclaimed the BSB to be my second favorite boyband at age 10.  I've kept these loves strong.  Only Harry Potter and B.Spears give them any competition. 

So in honor of this blast from the past (although technically the New Kids have been back now since 2008 and contrary to popular belief, the BSB have never left), I thought I'd write about my favorite book from childhood.  Unfortunately, I knew that the Ultimate Visual Dictionary would not be on The List.  No lie, that was my favorite.  Ask my Mom if you don't believe me. 

Seriously, one of my favorite
 books ever.

So then I scanned The List for some other favorites and found NOTHING.  Cam Jansen? Not there.  Nancy Drew? Nope, but the Hardy Boys are included which I find sexist and I'll complain about that by the time I get to that entry.  Chika Chika Boom Boom?  Nowhere near The List, which is super upsetting because man is that one catchy.  Becoming increasingly frustrated, I decided to put the frustration to good use and rant about one I hate, which will provide me just as much delight as talking about one I love. 

The Ugly Duckling is HORRIFYING.  It's another one of those stories where people know the basic premise and the "lesson," but don't actually know the inbetween.  So yeah, there's a duck, it's ugly, but it grows up to be a beautiful swan.  No.  No, no, no, no, and no.

First of all, there's the obvious problem of perpetuating the idea that you have to be beautiful to be happy.  Wrong.  I was fairly hideous in high school, but for the most part I still had a blast.  So already the "lesson" that you can suffer and be ugly, but it'll be worth it because one day you'll be pretty, is horrific.  Sorry kids, some people stay ugly.  Plus, who is this "lesson" actually for?  Like Aunt Becky says in that episode of "Full House" where DJ's afraid to be ugly in school (which could be the plot for multiple episodes of that show, all of which are clearly perfect), you're only supposed to use this story if you're talking about another kid.  No kid wants to hear that they're ugly right now.  That's not going to help. 

He's still ugly, so he's sad.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for telling kids about the cruelties of life, kind of like how in "The Golden Girls" Dorothy and Sophia admit they like to pop kids' balloons to teach them such things, but this book is just gross.  It negates all the bad things that happen to the duck by basically saying it's okay that they happened, because now he's pretty!  If the message was more along the lines of bad things happen to the duck because the world can sometimes be a horrible place, then I could maybe get on board.  But bad things only happen to him because he's ugly, and that's just not cool.  So there's really nothing inside this book, aside from the general message people for some reason remember fondly (suffer silently and you'll be smokin' one day), that merits this as one of the greatest books kids should read...unless they're being asked to explain why the message sucks.  

So here's what else grosses me out in the book:

-The mother introduces her ducklings to others by basically saying "aren't they pretty" because there's nothing else about them that's worth mentioning.  Probably because they're little jerkoffs.  See next complaint.

 

-His brothers and sisters chase him around and openly hope that the cat eats him.  So steer clear of this story if you're planning on giving your only child a new baby brother or sister; you'll give the kid the wrong idea... unless you're a fan of survival of the fittest.  Then by all means, read this story to your kid all the time. 

-The girl who feeds the animals kicks the ugly duckling.  Now that's just mean.

-The book has a kind of odd quest for the perfect race vibe to it.  Once he runs away from his abusive family, our ugly friend meets some wild ducks who allow him to hang out with them despite his hideousness, "so long as you don't want to marry into our family."  How thoughtful. 

-The poor duck finally makes some geese friends and then they're shot right in front of him because really,  he hasn't suffered quite enough yet.  Post traumatic stress disorder anyone?

-"This story would be too sad if I told you all the duckling had to suffer"  Really?  Because unless it lived out an episode of "Law & Order SVU," I don't think that it's possible to make the story any sadder. 

One of the few things, actually, the only thing I like about this book is in the beginning when the mother complains that their father is a "'scoundrel...who never comes to see [her].'"  Yay progressive single mother-ness! 

  

And to make me feel more cheerful:

Love.

Andersen, H.C.  The Ugly Duckling.  (1989).  Bell, A. (Trans.), Marks, A. (Illus.).  MA: Picture Book Studio.

We Didn't Start the Fire

I'm currently writing a history library lesson plan that involves a Cold War culture review,  and as much as this song is horrible (read: amazing), it gets the job done. Was it just my school, or was absolutely none of this ever covered in class?  

I'm fairly certain that the only way to keep history teachers on track is to have a holiday for every major event.  There's no student out there who doesn't know about Christopher Columbus by Columbus Day, Pilgrims and Indians by Thanksgiving, and slavery by February.  That's great, but there's no holiday for Roe v. Wade, so it tends to get shoved to the sideline in favor of a more celebratory, we can make pictures of this holiday, type of history lesson.  Two weeks before I took my AP U.S. History exam, we still had about 40 years of history to cover.  I'm still not 100% sure what the Vietnam War was except I do know that Tom Cruise came back in a wheelchair because of it. 

I think that's why librarians need to exist.  Seriously.  They're the ones who have all the resources that contain these hidden pieces of history.  Obviously history teachers know what they're doing (hi LLT!), but they can't cover everything.  So library teachers can provide the missing pieces and work with the subject teachers and students to help uncover the missing history.  That sounds super corny, but I'm keeping it anyway. 

On an unrelated note: Happy April 25th!!!!

To Google or Not to Google

"So you're gonna be a librarian?  You realize that job will be obsolete soon right?"

--Only if the world actually ends in 2012.

Yes, I love Google.  It's a very handy source for fast searches.  I also love Wikipedia.  It's the best way for me to get synopses of horror movie plots when I don't actually want to sit through the blood, gore, and stupid half-clad girls running upstairs instead of out the already open door. 

But just because they're good for fast searches and brief introductions doesn't make them reliable sources, especially for younger students who don't have a firm grasp on the research process.  It's statistically proven that when children search, they don't look past the first few results they get.  They also like to search in long phrases and when they don't get any good results, they either change the order of their search terms or change the spelling.  Really, children can't rely on Google for finding all of their research information.

Let's try something.  Go Google "Barack Obama biography."  After the ad at the top of the page, you'll see that the second result given is his IMDB page.  I would LOVE if a student turned in a paper that cited information about the President from a movie database (my sarcasm hand is raised).  The actual White House biography isn't listed until the bottom of the first page.  There once was a link to "barackobamaismyhomeboy.com" on the first page.  Thankfully, this one is no longer available.  

Next, let's try a Google image search for "spears" as if you need it for a medieval weapon project.  Every single result is of Ms. Britney.  Even if you do a singular "spear" search, you get a good amount of Brit Brit. 

Then there's Wikipedia.  I think it's a great source for getting a good overview of topics, but it shouldn't be a student's sole source of information.  Especially because anyone can edit the pages.  Remember what happened when  Stephen Colbert told users to edit the elephant page to say that the elephant population had tripled?  Pages can be hacked all the time.  Of course there are monitors on the site, but you can't catch everything. 

So where can you find more reliable information?  Maybe it's a long shot, but I'm thinking libraries and the awesome librarians who work there can help you out. 

Adults Judging Childrens Books - the T Edition

With my life consumed by grad school and work, the T is where I accomplish the majority of my reading.  Now, because of the glorious rainy weather we're experiencing right now, I was hit with a few umbrellas this afternoon.  As I looked up to passive aggressively glare at my attackers, I happened to notice the stares of fellow T riders I've grown accustomed to ignoring.  You know, the stares that are the equivalent of "why the hell is she reading that in public?" or "wow, she must be dumb." 

I'll backtrack.  I'm currently reading The Golden Compass because 1) I've owned a  practically untouched copy since the 7th grade; and 2) it's on The List.  It's an insanely long book as far as children's books are concerned so, on a superficial basis, those stares are not merited.  Also, like many other books for children, it is an incredibly complex novel that should be read by any age group so again, those stares shouldn't happen.  But apparently people aren't accustomed to adults reading a book where the cover art pictures a young girl sitting on top of an armored bear.  

I've seen people read some pretty messed up things on the T, but I've never stared them down like they were beneath me.  I thought you weren't supposed to judge books by their covers?

If that's no longer the case, then I'm going to fully judge these people and books I see all the time on the T:

1) The Classic Reader

Yes, I see you over there with your pristine copy of Lolita, Anna Karenina, Jane Eyre, etc.  I also see that despite your smug look of being better than all those around you, you haven't turned a page in 15 minutes.  You probably won't even know what's going on in the book until you consult Spark/Cliffsnotes for a quick recap of all that you "read."   I'm guessing you had a 40% coupon to use at B&N and decided to splurge on one of their $5 classic copies to impress someone.  Good luck.

2) Twilight Reader

Now despite my insane hatred of this series, I've never really judged someone for reading it because hey, at least they're reading.  This one time is an exception.  I was sitting next to a very muscular, macho man on the T one morning and he pulls out a copy of a Stephen King novel.  Or so I thought.  I glanced over and happened to see "Bella," "Volturi," and "Edward" and started laughing my butt off on the inside.  He was reading Twilight, but had switched the book jacket to fool those around him into thinking he was reading something more reflective of his physical appearance.  Oh I judge him so much.  Be proud of what you read!  Even if it's crap! 

3) The E-reader

This is probably what the Twilight man should have invested in instead of a Stephen King book jacket.  These readers are elusive.  While privacy usually isn't the only reason (if one at all) for possessing an e-reader, the fact remains that if you're going to hide what you're reading from the rest of us, you have no right to judge what we're reading.  It irks me when you judge my battered copy of Harry Potter.  However, as I am not yet blind, I can read the insanely large font of your e-reader from my seat.  So despite your great attempt, I still see that you're reading a romance novel, Mr. I Have a Briefcase and Therefore Deserve Two Seats, and I'm going to judge you right back. 

4) The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Reader

You think I have the mental capacity of a 5 year old because I'm reading Matilda on the T? Well by that logic, you have the mind of a sadistic serial rapist.  Please don't sit near me and keep your hands visible at all times.  Granted, Matilda rocks, so I would like to be compared to her.  Poor choice of example, but you get my point.

5) iPhone/iPad/Anything with an Internet Connection User

Those who use these to read newspapers or something of merit are fine.  But those who look down at me while looking at the latest Perez Hilton updates are uncalled for.  How are celebrity pictures with unfortunate white MS Paint squiggles more sophisticated than my children's novel?  At least I'm reading something with substance.  

6) Anything with Sarah Palin on the Cover Reader

No explanation necessary. (Sorry Mom!!)

7) The Movie Book Reader

There's a movie coming out soon.  Because there are zero original ideas in Hollywood, naturally the movie is based on a book.  You've never read this book, but you want to impress someone with your knowledge of the story either before or after you see it, so you try to rapidly read before the release date.  The movie poster book cover completely gives you away.  If Robert Pattinson wasn't starring in Water for Elephants you would have never given that book a second glance.  If Julia Roberts' 10 foot smile wasn't a part of Eat, Pray, Love you wouldn't even know that book existed.  Sometimes I take comfort in knowing that when you later quote a fact from the book to compare it to the movie, you'll probably get it wrong. 

To sum up, stop judging kids' books!!! Or at least keep it to yourself and don't make it so obvious that you're looking down at me for reading one on the T.  The end.

ABC easy as 1 2 3...

How hard is it to alphabetize? Seriously.  We all learned the alphabet when we were little.  And if on the offchance you don't have the capability to put things into alphabetical order, don't be the person in charge of putting titles in order.  It's that simple.

I can see how alphabetizing terms like "E.T." and "Enchanted" could maybe give you trouble for 4 seconds (E.T. would go before because the period after E makes it a separate word), but when I'm looking through the Free Movies A-L category OnDemand and Tarzan is in the mix there's a problem.  Idiots.

Gale databases list all of their entries in alphabetical order by first name and it drives me insane.  Who does that? Was teaching children to alphabetize incorrectly the trendy thing to do at one point?  

Also, articles aren't supposed to be included in the alphabetizing process.  They go at the end of the title, right after a comma.  When I'm procrastinating and looking at episode recaps on The A.V. Club, I should not have to look to the Ts for The Big Bang Theory.  It should be Big Bang Theory, The.  

And this is why librarians need to exist.  To save the masses from poor alphabetization. 

"Love You Forever"...great, but please go away

Love You Forever seems to be one of those nostalgic titles that will always be cherished for presenting the lasting love of a mother to her child and the cyclical nature of life and all that gushy, sappy stuff chick flicks are made of. 

This book needs to go away. 

In this picture book the mother sings a lullaby to her son.  Most people seem to be familiar with this quote that stems from the book's title:

  

I'll love you forever,
I'll like you for always,
As long as I'm living
my baby you'll be. 

Aww, how sweet.  The reason this book has a long-lasting shelf life: it has a go-to quote for future graduation and birthday cards.  Lovely.  People's perception of this book is well-captured in a Friends episode here, where the characters all weep over the amazing love that is had, given, shared and received (for you Leanne).

For some reason people either have never read the entire book and only recognize it from that one quote, or they are just completely blind to the intense creepiness that the book contains:

But at night time, when that teenager was asleep, the mother opened the door to his room, crawled across the floor and looked up over the side of the bed.

 What's that? It gets creepier?

If all the lights in her son's house were out, she opened his bedroom window, crawled across the floor, and looked up over the side of his bed.

So the mother is a huge creep who apparently isn't afraid of breaking and entering charges or the possibility of raising a real life Norman Bates.  And if this book is supposed to represent a cycle of love, then this son is going to do the same for his daughter.  Thaaaaat's a bit much.  

I don't know, maybe I'm cynical or maybe there's actually nothing unusual about mothers crawling (seriously, crawling) across floors to stare at their children.  Maybe it's just me who gets a visual image of the girl from The Ring crawling out of the TV set.  But I'm pretty sure my mother didn't and still doesn't do that and I'm even more sure that she still loves me.  So lets let this book go already and find a new way to tell kids we'll love them forever, okay?

EDIT: Turns out this book is on the 1001 list. Check! 1000 to go...

Adults Judging Children's Books Pt 1 of 10 Million (I'm sure)

I set off alarms all the time.  It's reached a point where my friends actually refuse to walk into stores with me so they're not subjected to the awkward stares and random questioning that comes from any employee who cares enough about his job to actually do it. 

So today when I went to the library to pick up the million books I had on hold for school, the alarm naturally went off as I departed with my bags of books.  The security guard of course went through all my books and when she reached the newest Caldecott winner, A Sick Day for Amos McGee, she looked at me like I was crazy.   Seriously, what is the big deal about an adult checking out picture, children's or young adult books?  

What if I had a kid or a younger relative and was merely checking out the book so I could enrich said child with the charming tale of a man who is home sick and taken care of by his animal pals?   Granted that's not the case, I checked it out for my own professional development, but still there's really no call for immediate judgment of a 23 year old checking out a picture book.