Poker Face

I'm still working on my quest to become a real live (read: full-time) librarian.  In the meantime, I've been reading everything I can get my hands on, forcing myself to stop reading the books I'm not enjoying, adding more and more to my list of books to read one day when time stands still and I can finally finish the list, and working as a temporary teen librarian! Woot!

Working in a public library has been a vastly different experience than the school libraries that I'm accustomed to.  For starters, teens are far more willing to tell you that they love 50 Shades of Grey in a public library than they are in a school setting.  And for that, I am grateful.  Why? Because it gives me a lot of practice using my non-judgmental poker face.

Scenario: Teen wants a book that's "a little dark, a little romancey...and I read 50 Shades already"

Me on the outside:

Me on the inside:

Scenario: Teen is trying to figure out how many books she should check out for her vacation. She decides on 4 because she's "a fast reader because [she] was able to read the entire 50 Shades series in 3 weeks."

Me on the outside:

 

Me on the inside: 

But real talk. I love when teens check out the books that they want to read, even if I'm not a personal fan of those titles. I also love that they have no shame (and they shouldn't) about what they've read and that they want to share what they've read with me. It's awesome.

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:

 

Oh teens

Because I focus my library studies on children, tweens and teens, I have to focus on the things they love.  That means constantly being barraged with silly defenses of Justin Bieber's overalls, screeching about what One Direction socks they still need to buy, and their love/hate relationship with TSwift.  Currently, they have moved into full on hate mode. 

I am not shy about my disdain for Swift's songs.  I can't stand them.  But I just defended her to the teens in a heated argument.  

You see, in addition to learning everything that's happening in the pop culture world and what's happening on Glee (which I'm thankful for, because I checked out of that show this year), I also hear their thoughts on social media.  I say this without exaggeration: it is their whole life.  They can't function without it.  In some ways, it's great - they do their assignments, they use all the databases (yay libraries!), they keep in touch with teachers, friends, family.  Great.  In other ways, it is downright scary.  "They can't break up, because then it'll be on Facebook, and she'll look bad."  "She broke up with [him] and now she's writing on [this boy's] wall like such a slut." No! No No No NO NO.  Say it isn't so.  But it is so.  Unfortunately.

But with this idea of what a "relationship" and "sluttiness" must be, they have twisted ideas about Swift's dating life.  Yes, celebrities will always be widely publicized and scrutinized, it's a sad part of life.  And obviously, Swift's alleged dating of a now sacred boybander is unleashing the beasts inside fangirls.  But dating a lot of people does not make her a slut.  

And that's my new goal as a future librarian/current semi-librarian.  I want teens to understand that dating just one person for your entire life (though it works out for a few people) isn't the way the world works.  And while it's perfectly okay to be upset that their favorite boybander is no longer single (my heart was broken when Nick Carter was with Willa Ford), Swift doesn't need to be labeled as a slut.  

You can, of course, make fun of her songs.  I do.

Friday Five: How I Feel About Being a Librarian

Today's Friday Five is on the goofy side because I've been weighed down with reading a bunch of depressing books.  Even my random number sequence for "TheList" is bringing up a whole mess of depressing books in a row.  

So here are five gifs that sum up how I feel about being a [future] librarian:

Bonus:

Librarian Problems

Librarians have to deal with a lot.  Part of that includes people saying "it must be nice to sit around all day and read."  That's not what we do.  Part of being a librarian is making tough decisions.

A library is supposed to provide equal access to all information.  Well, what about super racist and prejudiced books? What about books that proclaim that the world is flat?  Or books that insist homosexuality is a disease that can be cured?

As a super liberal gal, I believe know that all of the above is wrong, but there are those who fervently believe in all of that and it's not a librarian's job to correct them.  Librarians are just supposed to provide them with the materials. Sad, but true.

But, we also have to make sure that our collections serve the needs of our community.  So, what happens when your library is smack dab in the middle of a KKK nesting area?  Do you make sure all of the civil rights books are locked away? Do you even have them available? If you do have these books on the shelves and they are stolen or vandalized to prevent others from using them, do you replace them, or use the library budget elsewhere? #SOMANYPROBLEMS!!!

That's an extreme example, yes, but issues like this are common.  Arizona schools banned ethnic studies, so should libraries contain these materials to help the students who lose out? [Yes] Schools in Tennessee aren't allowed to discuss homosexuality in grades K-8.  Should these students have access to books like And Tango Makes Three or Heather Has Two Mommies? [Yes]  Should libraries in secular towns hold titles that discuss intelligent design? [Yes]  It's difficult to find an appropriate balance of materials, but it's necessary because there is supposed to be something for everyone. 

So no, we don't get to sit around and read all day.  We have to think about this type of issue to make sure everyone is happy.  #librarianproblems

Google Ad Preferences

Again and again my fellow library students and I hear that we're going into an unnecessary field because Google does our job for us. Well, that's not true.

According to Google's Ad Preferences, your interests are pigeonholed into categories, stored in a cookie and used to select ads that will appeal to you...aka make you click them and buy all of the things. Also, Google will infer from your interests your age and gender.

I checked it out and according to Google, my apparent searches in the categories of "Arts & Entertainment," "Beauty & Fitness - Body Art," "Food & Drink - Restaurants - Fast Food," and "Shopping - Apparel" make me an 18-24 year old man.  SUPER.  Not only am I a girl, but it is incredibly assumptive to believe that people falling into that seven year age range are similar enough to lump together.  That's like saying a 11 year old is the same as a 17 year old.  If you go to the ad preferences page, you can edit their assumptions, which is great, but I'm still a little wary of what they'll select for me.

Librarians don't make such assumptions because most of the time we see our patrons in person. We can figure out what a person wants by talking to them and asking questions, rather than pulling up an intricate log of past items looked at and deciding what's appropriate without user input.  Silly Google; you're a wonderful tool, but you still can't best librarians.

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!

Attorney Update

I'm being scolded once again by the 87 year old attorney who thinks my going to librarian school is worthless, but also an opportunity for him to publish a series for kids on Native Americans.  As you may or may not recall, this series was to star an Indian chief named Wolfman.  Well it's Wolfman no more.  Now his name is Lone Star Wolf, which is wonderful because we can get Chuck Norris to pose for the cover art as an intoxicated cowboy. 

In addition to being born on the first Thanksgiving before the Pilgrims arrived, Wolfman Lone Star Wolf was "born many moons ago" on "a clear night."  I'm hoping he'll say that there was a full moon so we can add werewolves to this testament to U.S. history.  Now these additions to the Wolfman Lone Star Wolf saga may not seem that amusing, but I should note that they followed his declaration of "no liquor for the Indians!" which he shouted, unprovoked, as he walked by my desk.  Adorable. 

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. 

So You're Gonna Be a Librarian?

I've already mentioned the usual responses I get to my wanting to be a librarian.  But every now and then I get strange, strange reactions.

I work at a law firm right now, which is on the other side of the spectrum in terms of my life goals.  But I like it and it pays the bills, so it works.  In my office, there's an 87 year old attorney who comes in periodically to play solitaire and reminisce about the time he sat at a table with Frank Sinatra and Marilyn Monroe (true story!).  He has provided 2 of these strange reactions:

The first was his desire to publish a picture book detailing the life of an Indian Chief he has named Wolfman.  Now, he has the story all planned out.  He tells me that Wolfman was born before the Pilgrims arrived and that his birthday was on the first Thanksgiving.  Yes, you read that correctly.  He has named the chief Wolfman.  He's got big plans for this book; he's thinking he should turn it into a series so "the kids can use it for all their reports and fun time reading."  Apparently, my being a librarian-in-training means that I can get this book published for him and he constantly yells at me for having not found him an illustrator yet.  Yes, this man still practices law. 

The other reaction he's given me just makes me laugh...even more so than Wolfman.  "There's no such thing as a children's librarian!"  Oh boy.  So, after showing him how to turn on his computer, something I do on a weekly basis, I pulled up a bunch of websites and showed him children's libraries, libraries with children's rooms, school libraries (also a myth), etc. etc.  He still doesn't believe me. 

Oh well.  The man is utterly adorable and while racist in the way that only old people can be, he's still got a good heart.  I'm going to go look for an illustrator now so he doesn't yell at me tomorrow when I show him how to turn the light on in his office.