Books Read May – December 2005

The brevity of this list reminds me of how prolific a reader I used to be. In grade seven, my teacher had us start a list of books read at the back of one of our notebooks. I think it was more of a suggestion than an assignment because I don’t remember anyone else keeping up with it. But I did, and by the end of the school year, I had read ~120 books. I remember being so thrilled when I hit 100. Anyhow, the school year being approximately 10 months, that’s about 12 books / month. Or a book every 2.5 days.

Okay, so I can still read a book in two days. Or one, even. But these days I seem to spend a lot of my time reading Stuff That Is Not Books. Like blogs. Or submissions. 🙂

Saints of Big Harbour by Lynn Coady n
The Chimney Sweeper’s Boy by Barbara Vine n#
A Child’s Book of True Crime by Chloe Hooper n+
Wide Open by Nicola Barker n+#*
Ripley’s Game by Patricia Highsmith n#
Time Off for Good Behavior by Lani Diane Rich n+
A Girl Named Zippy by Haven Kimmel m+
Take the Cannoli by Sarah Vowell e+#
Geographies of Home by Loida Maritza Perez n+
Liza’s England by Pat Barker n#*
For Rabbit, With Love & Squalor by Anne Roiphe e#
Letting Loose the Hounds by Brady Udall s+#
The Digital Sublime by Vincent Mosco nf+
The Real World of Technology by Ursula Franklin nf+
Under Technology’s Thumb by William Leiss nf+
The Small Details of Life by Kathryn Carter nf+
The Extraordinary Work of Ordinary Writing by Jennifor Sinor nf+#
Reading Between the Lines by Betty Jane Wylie nf+

Solstice Prezzie

Judge Rejects Teaching Intelligent Design

In the [US]’s first case to test the legal merits of intelligent design, the judge, John E. Jones III, issued a broad, stinging rebuke to its advocates and provided strong support for scientists who have fought to bar intelligent design from the science curriculum.

…

Judge Jones, a Republican appointed by President Bush, concluded that intelligent design was not science, and that in order to claim that it is, its proponents admit they must change the very definition of science to include supernatural explanations.

Is it just me or is this ruling especially sweet because Judge Jones is a Bush-appointed Republican?! FOCLMAO. Intelligent Design. Bah. I tell ya, if the school board had come to me when I was teaching biology, and said I had to teach ID (read: creationism) in my classes, I’d’ve laughed in their faces. Probably I’d’ve thought it was a joke. No biology teacher worth his/her salt is going to teach religion as science.

You know what really gets me are these so-called “scientists” who are pushing ID. I figure they have to be getting something out of the deal, some sort of kickback, because honestly, if they have degrees from reputable universities (and maybe they don’t, but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt) they have to know what they’re espousing is BS. How they can blither away on CNN with straight faces is beyond me.

On a related note, on Sunday an older guy on a bike stopped and asked where I got my Darwin fish (it’s on the back of my car). Go evolution!

This is bizarre. Asshats strike again…

Can you get arrested for selling your library’s discarded National Geographics on eBay?

The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. Appellant, a 24-year-old with a degree in Library Science, was employed as a high school librarian in the Susquenita School District for the 2003-2004 school year. In late July or August 2003, Appellant informed his “mentor” in the school district of an idea he had conceived to sell old issues of National Geographic magazine as a way to raise money to purchase computer equipment for the school library. The magazines belonged to the library and had been consigned to the trash. Appellant’s mentor told him she thought the idea was “creative,” and did not warn him against pursing it. Appellant pursued his plan and sold the magazines on the internet auction site eBay, raising approximately $ 325.00. Appellant then contributed $ 300.00 of his own money and used the total sum to purchase six used computers, also through eBay. Then, in accordance with his plan, he installed the computers at the school library, where they remain in use to this day.

Let’s recap: Librarian (in what was probably his first job) takes TRASH and turns it into $325. He then (nearly)doubles that amount w/ a contribution of his own (out of his probably inadequate salary). He then takes the whole amount and buys computers, which he places in the school library. He in no way profits himself; in fact, he’s at a net loss.

And what does he get for his trouble? A pat on the back? Oh, no. He gets CHARGED WITH THEFT.

On December 4, 2003, the school district made a complaint to the district attorney’s office, as a result of which Appellant was charged with library theft n2 and misapplication of entrusted property and property of government or financial institutions. n3 In court for what was to be his preliminary hearing, Appellant agreed to resign as school librarian in consideration of the District Attorney dropping the charges. Accordingly, the charges were withdrawn on January 9, 2004, and Appellant filed a motion to expunge his arrest record on March 17, 2004. At a hearing on the motion, Appellant testified to the above facts and the District Attorney offered a purely statutory argument as to why Appellant’s record should not be wiped clean. The hearing court denied both Appellant’s motion and a subsequently-filed motion to modify the court’s order. This appeal followed…

Can you imagine? What were they (the school district) thinking? I especially like the part of how they’re still using the computers that he purchased partly w/ the money generated from the “stolen” magazines. Talk about insult to injury. Then the court refuses to remove the arrest from his record, thus killing his career before it’s even started–all because he did something that ADDED VALUE TO HIS SCHOOL LIBRARY.

Fortunately, the appeals court had more sense.

…the arrest is having deleterious effects right now, as evidenced by Appellant’s testimony that he has not been able to obtain work as a school librarian or even secure an interview for same since the arrest.

…it is apparent to this Court that the Commonwealth did not carry its burden of proof in this matter. Further, as we noted above, the burden of proof appears to have been totally misplaced. As common sense and case law demand, we hold that these errors constitute an abuse of discretion. Although perhaps hasty and not “cleared” sufficiently through the proper channels, we believe Appellant’s actions demonstrate the creativity and altruism so vital to our public schools. It is our desire that this case not reinforce the adage “No good deed goes unpunished.” Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Appellant’s motion to expunge and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Cheese Puffs, Part 5

(Parts One, Two, Three & Four)

Impressions of TOFGB:

The first sentence reads awkwardly. It tries to cram too much information in. The bit about being an account executive, etc. should have been a separate sentence. “The court date fell on the Friday of what had been a very bad week for me.” was enough information for the first sentence, though, even at that the construction seems off.

Paragraph 1 establishes that the protagonist has a regular guy, oops, chick job, that she hates because (a) she thinks selling airtime is bad and (b) because she sells airtime people treat her like crap. I’m really not sure why asking people if they’d like to advertise on TV would inspire such venom. Because we’re told that the job is bad, rather than shown why it’s bad, I can’t sympathize with the narrator. I have no context to do so.

With its references to pantyhose and a skirt, paragraph 2 lets us know that the narrator is a woman. (In the part I snipped out, there was also a reference to having cramps, which… yeah. Woman’s in a bad mood; she must have cramps. Sigh.) I guess the reference to putting runs in not one, but two pairs of pantyhose, and the spilling of coffee on the favorite (not just any) skirt, is supposed to endear the reader to the narrator by imbuing her with a lovable klutziness. Me: *groan* I suppose every woman has, at some point in her life, put a run in a pair of pantyhose, so the reader is supposed to identify with this detail, but honestly, without something more (how the run got there, for example), it’s just not all that interesting.

She drives a car she self-describes as “crappy” even though it’s her own damn fault that it’s crappy because she doesn’t maintain it. (She doesn’t seem surprised by the fact the car needs a jump, so this probably isn’t the first time it hasn’t started. It probably needs a new battery, which is not a major fix, nor a major expense.) Then she needed to get male assistance to start her car—implying stereotypical female helplessness with things mechanical. Yes, to jumpstart a car, you need a second car and a set of jumper cables. But why did it have to be a nephew who helped out? Why not a niece? Why not the landlady herself?

After all this, she tells us that she’s in a bad mood. Yes, we got that.

The Mother Teresa reference seems a tad cliched, too easy. Like something you’d put in the first draft as a placeholder. Or in a blog entry. In a novel, I want to read something more original.

Now that we’ve established that grrrl power doesn’t extend to car maintenance, we get into the lawyers are evil rant. Full disclosure, I read this right after I graduated from law school, but at the same time, all-lawyers-are-evil is trite, trite, trite. Please. Some lawyers are evil, some are Mother Teresas (heh), and the vast majority lie somewhere in between. Just like any. other. profession.

Then readers are told that the HG&E executives are “sleazeballs”. Why are they sleazeballs? (And no, just the fact that there was an accident doesn’t automatically make them sleazeballs.) We’re told that the defense lawyer is evil by extension, because if you’re representing “sleazeballs” then you must be one yourself. Never mind the fact that everyone is entitled to representation.

The protagonist nicknames the defense lawyer “Pencil Face”, because why should he get a real name? He’s a weasel. He’s cross-examining her, the evil, evil, man. Doing his job? Bah. Craziness. He should just agree with her, say “no further questions” and sit down. Right.

When that doesn’t happen, our narrator gets so mad at being cross-examined, at the defense lawyer having the temerity to try to discredit her, that she attempts to punch him.

Okay. So there’s a certain amount of humor in this scenario. Who hasn’t been in a situation where they wanted to punch someone, but didn’t? What would happen if you did? That’s the premise of this book. And it isn’t a bad one.

But here’s the thing: after she attempts to punch the defense lawyer, she hits her head, and ends up in a coma. When she wakes up, she decides to change her life, since it’s clearly out of control. Great. So what do you think would be first on this list? How about clearing up the assault charges she’s facing after attacking the defense lawyer? Well, that would be a fine idea–if there were any! She’s not charged with assaulting the defense lawyer, which I mean, come on! She tried to punch a lawyer in a courtroom in front of a judge! Honestly, I just couldn’t get past this. I know it’s supposed to be a light romantic comedy and all, but you don’t go around punching officers of the court and then just walk away tra-la-la. This needed a resolution. How about some community service?

Overall impression: I found the protagonist irritating and the plot development is unrealistic. It’s not just that it verges on the absurd. A comedy of the absurd can work. It’s the giant plotholes. It also relies too heavily on stereotypes and clichés as shortcuts. I’m as fond of a cliché as the next person, but in a novel I want to see fresh writing.

Thinking: the old “show” vs. “tell” axiom was really apparent here.

Which brings me back to where I started: fluffy books are about turning off your brain and being taken for a ride. As long as you don’t think about them too much, they’re fun. Sure, they fall apart the minute you start thinking, but the point is: most readers aren’t thinking. They’re in it for a good time.

The problem is that when you write, you read as a writer. Before I wrote in a serious way, I could (and did) read anything. And now, I simply can’t. The minute I get that “I. am. reading. a. book.” feeling, I’m done. On the other hand, I’ve quite enjoyed several movies/TV shows based on books that I just know that I could not get through (Sex and the City, for example). And I think partly it’s that the acting/directing adds nuances to the characters and plot, but also that because it’s a different medium, I’m able to sit back and be entertained in a way that I can’t with a book.

So two points to conclude. There’s nothing wrong with creating and consuming pure entertainment. Not everything has to have a deeper meaning or greater purpose. But the fact remains that not all books are of equal merit, and fluffy book writers, being writers, have to know that.