Over at Racialicious, there's a post up about the rereleases of Sweet Valley High. Now, while I was never particularly inclined to read Sweet Valley High (I'm going to guess I wasn't the target market, there), I'm pretty sure my sister did. I may ask her about it.
But, the thing that actually really caught my attention was comment number one: My idea of "brainless" reading was Christopher Pike... which in retrospect probably can be torn down as much as SVH.
I looooved Christopher Pike!
And, yeah... I'm going to guess that there are probably some problems in the old Pike books. As I recall, they were very white and very heterocentric. The Final Friends series are the only books I can remember of his that strongly featured any characters who weren't... well... white. And of course they (Nick and Maria, I think?) end up dating. Who else would they date?
Still, I'm tempted to go find my copies and reread them. It's possible that they're better than I suspect. But I doubt it. Looking back, I seem to recall that a most of the characters were sort of annoying stereotypes. There were, as I recall, a whole lot of upper-middle class white girls obsessed with being popular and pretty, and guys who were into sports, or were outcast nerds. Probably a lot like Saved By the Bell meets Nightmare on Elm Street. Or something.
I make no promises, but if I find a Pike book while I'm packing... I may give it a quick read.
Showing posts with label blogging books. Show all posts
Showing posts with label blogging books. Show all posts
Friday, April 18, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
*Good* video games news...
I realize that most of the writing I do about video games is to complain about the sexism or racism contained in a game, or to talk about the problems within gaming culture, and that there are times when people coming here must think "and this guy likes games?"
So, I want to thank Mighty Ponygirl for writing this post about libraries in my home state providing access to video games. It's a brief article, but very interesting. Some of the local libraries have started keeping video games as a part of their collections, and have even begun hosting competitions for games like Guitar Hero.
The same article appears in the Houston Chronicle, but allows comments. Which, as you might imagine, are less than enthusiastic. Of course, there's the manditory "what about people who go to the library for peace and quiet?" comment. I have to wonder when the last time someone who makes a comment like that was actually at a library. Many libraries have: computer and internet access, televisions with movie viewing, children's play areas, music listening stations, etc. None of those things have stopped the library from also having plenty of space for people who are looking for peace and quiet. Many libraries have specific rooms set up to allow for groups to meet or for allowing people to view videos or listen to music.
My favorite comment is probably the third one down:
Ah, yes, the good ol' "Video games will rot your brain!" argument. That never gets old. First of all, is anyone else tired of hearing about "the degradation of society"? Because, really, I'm not seeing it. We hit bumps and snags, but you know what, I think, in the scheme of things, society gets better over time. At what point in time do these people think we were better off? The 80s? The 50s? The 1850s? When were so much more cultured and morally virtuous? We're by no means perfect, and we've still got a long way to go, but, really... we were better off when people of color and women were treated like property, most people in our nation didn't have indoor plumbing, and the average life expectancy was less than sixty years?
Oh, right, when people talk about how society is crumbling, they usually mean either "there's something new that I don't like, and it scares me" or "my moral values are being questioned and opposed, and I don't like it." My mistake.
But, seriously, what does this person think that the library is full of, right now? Nothing but Great Works By Important Dead People? Becuase, as MP points out, there are plenty of, shall we say, socially and intellectually bankrupt books in a library. I used to check out Christopher Pike books all the time when I was young. If Tales From the Crypt and Saved By the Bell got together and created paperback spawnlings, Christopher Pike's books would be the result.
Which is to say: they're total pulp.
Delicious, delicious pulp, but pulp none-the-less.
The points that writer was getting to are a pretty common, though. There's this idea of The Library that's currently at war with what libraries are becoming. It used to be that people thought of The Library as some kind of massive brick or stone structure full of Important Information. Like Ye Olde Hall of Knowledge.
I think that's why we have the stereotype of the librarian as a mean old woman with glasses who hisses at us to be quiet all the time, and why we imagine rows upon rows of old, dusty books on stacks up to the ceiling.
The reality is that the role of libraries has been changing for years. Libraries themselves are changing. They're not just those massive intimidating stone slabs, anymore- they're becoming more and more modern, all the time. Many put as much emphasis on technology and art as they do literature. Libraries are an archive, yes, but they're not just a text archive. They're also a social institution.
As society has changed, so has the function of a library. One of the greatest things about a library is the invaluable service that it provides a society. Libraries not only collect and archive the products of a society, but they provide access to information and services and to the people who would otherwise be unable to share in them.
There's a social benefit in providing access to things like computers and film and, yes, video games. Even if video games were a completely worthless pursuit (which they're not)... so what? I actually think that, yes, the mere fact of getting the kid into the library to play the game has the potential to get the kid interested in books. Especially if, as MP suggests, the staff are using the opportunity to cross-promote related books, like displaying music related books around are in the area where you're hosting a Rock Band competition.
I think that there's still a lot of discussion to happen about how, exactly, we see the role of the library- particularly in the information age, when it's starting to seem like everything is available online and in digital form. But I think that the concept of the library as the Hallowed Hall of Written Text and Knowledge is long over. If someone is completely offended by the idea of the library as community space, I suspect that they're not visiting enough libraries.
In other, related, news:
I mailed my graduate application today. Let the nervousness of Waiting to Hear Back begin.
So, I want to thank Mighty Ponygirl for writing this post about libraries in my home state providing access to video games. It's a brief article, but very interesting. Some of the local libraries have started keeping video games as a part of their collections, and have even begun hosting competitions for games like Guitar Hero.
The same article appears in the Houston Chronicle, but allows comments. Which, as you might imagine, are less than enthusiastic. Of course, there's the manditory "what about people who go to the library for peace and quiet?" comment. I have to wonder when the last time someone who makes a comment like that was actually at a library. Many libraries have: computer and internet access, televisions with movie viewing, children's play areas, music listening stations, etc. None of those things have stopped the library from also having plenty of space for people who are looking for peace and quiet. Many libraries have specific rooms set up to allow for groups to meet or for allowing people to view videos or listen to music.
My favorite comment is probably the third one down:
And the degradation of society continues. Is the library system here actually dumb enough to think that by renting video games that the kids will actually maybe check out a book? No...all they are assisting in is the expanded breeding of zombies with no social or intellectual skills.
Ah, yes, the good ol' "Video games will rot your brain!" argument. That never gets old. First of all, is anyone else tired of hearing about "the degradation of society"? Because, really, I'm not seeing it. We hit bumps and snags, but you know what, I think, in the scheme of things, society gets better over time. At what point in time do these people think we were better off? The 80s? The 50s? The 1850s? When were so much more cultured and morally virtuous? We're by no means perfect, and we've still got a long way to go, but, really... we were better off when people of color and women were treated like property, most people in our nation didn't have indoor plumbing, and the average life expectancy was less than sixty years?
Oh, right, when people talk about how society is crumbling, they usually mean either "there's something new that I don't like, and it scares me" or "my moral values are being questioned and opposed, and I don't like it." My mistake.
But, seriously, what does this person think that the library is full of, right now? Nothing but Great Works By Important Dead People? Becuase, as MP points out, there are plenty of, shall we say, socially and intellectually bankrupt books in a library. I used to check out Christopher Pike books all the time when I was young. If Tales From the Crypt and Saved By the Bell got together and created paperback spawnlings, Christopher Pike's books would be the result.
Which is to say: they're total pulp.
Delicious, delicious pulp, but pulp none-the-less.
The points that writer was getting to are a pretty common, though. There's this idea of The Library that's currently at war with what libraries are becoming. It used to be that people thought of The Library as some kind of massive brick or stone structure full of Important Information. Like Ye Olde Hall of Knowledge.
I think that's why we have the stereotype of the librarian as a mean old woman with glasses who hisses at us to be quiet all the time, and why we imagine rows upon rows of old, dusty books on stacks up to the ceiling.
The reality is that the role of libraries has been changing for years. Libraries themselves are changing. They're not just those massive intimidating stone slabs, anymore- they're becoming more and more modern, all the time. Many put as much emphasis on technology and art as they do literature. Libraries are an archive, yes, but they're not just a text archive. They're also a social institution.
As society has changed, so has the function of a library. One of the greatest things about a library is the invaluable service that it provides a society. Libraries not only collect and archive the products of a society, but they provide access to information and services and to the people who would otherwise be unable to share in them.
There's a social benefit in providing access to things like computers and film and, yes, video games. Even if video games were a completely worthless pursuit (which they're not)... so what? I actually think that, yes, the mere fact of getting the kid into the library to play the game has the potential to get the kid interested in books. Especially if, as MP suggests, the staff are using the opportunity to cross-promote related books, like displaying music related books around are in the area where you're hosting a Rock Band competition.
I think that there's still a lot of discussion to happen about how, exactly, we see the role of the library- particularly in the information age, when it's starting to seem like everything is available online and in digital form. But I think that the concept of the library as the Hallowed Hall of Written Text and Knowledge is long over. If someone is completely offended by the idea of the library as community space, I suspect that they're not visiting enough libraries.
In other, related, news:
I mailed my graduate application today. Let the nervousness of Waiting to Hear Back begin.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
It turns out, maybe I'm not from Mars after all...
h/t: Jessica
If there's one kind of study that's likely to make me want to pull out my hair and grind my teeth into dust, it's the typical "Men are from Mars, women are from Venus" studies. And they're everywhere. You can't walk through the damn grocery store without seeing magazine covers yelling at you that "women do X while men do Y!" or "learn how to think like your man!" or "25 secrets about the female psyche- what she's thinking!"
And isn't it just *so* convenient that almost every time, it turns out that the "secrets" that the study reveils turn out to reinforce the status quo? Oh, how very shocking- a study finds that women talk more than men! I know I've never heard that one, before. And, for extra points, the author of that study points out that "women have an eight-lane superhighway for processing emotion, while men have a small country road." Thank you, Dr. Brizendine, for that completely gender-busting study.
Lucky for me, I'm a data-hound, and I stumbled upon this article in the APA website. It's about the findings of psychologist Janet S. Hyde, of the University of Wisconsin in Madison. It turns out, there doesn't really seem to be that much difference between the sexes after all:
So... men are moderately more aggressive, and can throw things farther.
Wow.
I mean, seriously... wow. Throwing things... that's pretty awesome. I mean, I guess that's great. I should take up bowling or something. I could get angry at the pins and use my manly throwing powers.
And perhaps the most unshocking, but shockingly ignored, aspect of studies about gender:
I mean, who would have guess that gender- a socially constructed and enforced attribute- would be at all impacted by the social context within which it's being measured. I mean, you wouldn't expect to find that expressions of masculinity are different in a controlled lab with anonymous participants than in a high-school locker room, right?
Right?
I also found a great article by Deborah Cameron, called "What Language Barrier? Remember how it turned out that women speak more than men?
Whoops. Looks like women aren't necessarily all that talkitive when compared to their male counterparts.
Cameron has a number of books out, including one released last month called The Myth of Mars and Venus: Do men and women really speak different languages?, that I'm thinking I'll need to pick up. (I'm also very interested in some of her other books: Verbal Hygience sounds interesting, and The Feminist Critique of Language: A Reader or Feminism and Linguistic Theory. Oh, and The Lust to Kil: A Feminist Investigation of Sexual Murder).
If there's one kind of study that's likely to make me want to pull out my hair and grind my teeth into dust, it's the typical "Men are from Mars, women are from Venus" studies. And they're everywhere. You can't walk through the damn grocery store without seeing magazine covers yelling at you that "women do X while men do Y!" or "learn how to think like your man!" or "25 secrets about the female psyche- what she's thinking!"
And isn't it just *so* convenient that almost every time, it turns out that the "secrets" that the study reveils turn out to reinforce the status quo? Oh, how very shocking- a study finds that women talk more than men! I know I've never heard that one, before. And, for extra points, the author of that study points out that "women have an eight-lane superhighway for processing emotion, while men have a small country road." Thank you, Dr. Brizendine, for that completely gender-busting study.
Lucky for me, I'm a data-hound, and I stumbled upon this article in the APA website. It's about the findings of psychologist Janet S. Hyde, of the University of Wisconsin in Madison. It turns out, there doesn't really seem to be that much difference between the sexes after all:
Gender differences accounted for either zero or a very small effect for most of the psychological variables examined, according to Hyde. Only motor behaviors (throwing distance), some aspects of sexuality and heightened physical aggression showed marked gender differences.
So... men are moderately more aggressive, and can throw things farther.
Wow.
I mean, seriously... wow. Throwing things... that's pretty awesome. I mean, I guess that's great. I should take up bowling or something. I could get angry at the pins and use my manly throwing powers.
And perhaps the most unshocking, but shockingly ignored, aspect of studies about gender:
Furthermore, gender differences seem to depend on the context they were measured in, said Hyde. In studies where gender norms are removed, researchers demonstrated how important gender roles and social context were in determining a person’s actions.
I mean, who would have guess that gender- a socially constructed and enforced attribute- would be at all impacted by the social context within which it's being measured. I mean, you wouldn't expect to find that expressions of masculinity are different in a controlled lab with anonymous participants than in a high-school locker room, right?
Right?
I also found a great article by Deborah Cameron, called "What Language Barrier? Remember how it turned out that women speak more than men?
If we are going to try to generalise about which sex talks more, a reliable way to do it is to observe both sexes in a single interaction, and measure their respective contributions. This cuts out extraneous variables that are likely to affect the amount of talk (like whether someone is spending their day at a Buddhist retreat or a high school reunion), and allows for a comparison of male and female behaviour under the same contextual conditions.
Numerous studies have been done using this approach, and while the results have been mixed, the commonest finding is that men talk more than women. One review of 56 research studies categorises their findings as shown here:
Pattern of difference found / Number of studies
Men talk more than women / 34 (60.8%)
Women talk more than men / 2 (3.6%)
Men and women talk the same amount / 16 (28.6%)
No clear pattern / 4 (7.0%)
· Source: based on Deborah James and Janice Drakich, 'Understanding Gender Differences in Amount of Talk', in Deborah Tannen (ed.), Gender and Conversational
Whoops. Looks like women aren't necessarily all that talkitive when compared to their male counterparts.
Cameron has a number of books out, including one released last month called The Myth of Mars and Venus: Do men and women really speak different languages?, that I'm thinking I'll need to pick up. (I'm also very interested in some of her other books: Verbal Hygience sounds interesting, and The Feminist Critique of Language: A Reader or Feminism and Linguistic Theory. Oh, and The Lust to Kil: A Feminist Investigation of Sexual Murder).
Monday, November 19, 2007
Breaking News: Men Don't Think...
Or, at least, that's what this book review would have me believe.
Author Stephen Fried has a new book out, apparently, called Husbandry: Sex, Love & Dirty Laundry -- Inside the Minds of Married Men. If you're feeling really interested to know the mind of the married man, you can read an excerpt. I can save you the trouble: Think of the stereotypes associated with being "a guy" and being married, and you're pretty much all set. You'll gain such wisdom as "Men don't really remember, or care, about putting laundry in the basket" and "Men don't like to do the dishes" topped off with a healthy and humorous! dose of "Women think emotionally, but men don't."
To the credit of the paper, they've apparently picked exactly the right person to review the work, because the only person that I imagine would enjoy this book would be the sort of person who can read a review that opens with "We wives recognize that even the best husbands still suffer from that pesky Y chromosome: They have sex on the brain, they don't listen to what we're telling them and they suck at housework." and not want to scream.
I'm so glad to have my entire sex summed up thusly: we have sex on the brain, don't listen, and suck at housework. Oh, and did I mention that we men have the attention spans of gnats?
Like the comic I pointed out earlier, this book appears to be little more than a series of "here's a tired sexist stereotype that I'm going to reinforce with a humorous story from my personal life." Why is this shit funny to people? Oh, haha! He's a man and he hogs the remote, channel surfs, and doesn't want to talk to anyone while he's watching the show! That's so funny!
It's so very clever.
Only, you know, not.
If I ever start waxing nostalgic about how funny it is that *insert stupid sexist stereotype here* is so true!, please, someone, shoot me.
Author Stephen Fried has a new book out, apparently, called Husbandry: Sex, Love & Dirty Laundry -- Inside the Minds of Married Men. If you're feeling really interested to know the mind of the married man, you can read an excerpt. I can save you the trouble: Think of the stereotypes associated with being "a guy" and being married, and you're pretty much all set. You'll gain such wisdom as "Men don't really remember, or care, about putting laundry in the basket" and "Men don't like to do the dishes" topped off with a healthy and humorous! dose of "Women think emotionally, but men don't."
To the credit of the paper, they've apparently picked exactly the right person to review the work, because the only person that I imagine would enjoy this book would be the sort of person who can read a review that opens with "We wives recognize that even the best husbands still suffer from that pesky Y chromosome: They have sex on the brain, they don't listen to what we're telling them and they suck at housework." and not want to scream.
I'm so glad to have my entire sex summed up thusly: we have sex on the brain, don't listen, and suck at housework. Oh, and did I mention that we men have the attention spans of gnats?
Like the comic I pointed out earlier, this book appears to be little more than a series of "here's a tired sexist stereotype that I'm going to reinforce with a humorous story from my personal life." Why is this shit funny to people? Oh, haha! He's a man and he hogs the remote, channel surfs, and doesn't want to talk to anyone while he's watching the show! That's so funny!
It's so very clever.
Only, you know, not.
If I ever start waxing nostalgic about how funny it is that *insert stupid sexist stereotype here* is so true!, please, someone, shoot me.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Good News Friday: Today has been a good day...
Given that much of my posting, it turns out, is sort of, uh... less than happy? I thought it might be nice to have a post that talks about some nice things happening. It can be easy to feel overwhelmed or discouraged when everything seems bleak and like there's nothing to be happy and excited about. And, honestly, I think that there are good things happening and things to be pleased with. I'd say that this could become a regular Friday feature, but, well... given how successfully I've managed to keep up on past feature ideas, my new policy is "I make no promises".
First up: Mighty Ponygirl talks about the awesome new game, Portal. Portal was just released as part of Valve's "Orange Box", a package that includes Half-Life 2, the Half-Life 2 expansions: Episode One and Episode Two, and the highly anticipated Team Fortress 2.
Anyway, I haven't had a chance to pick it up, yet, but I fully intend to. MP does a great job explaining why Portal is so exciting: a game about a woman that doesn't rely on her being half-naked or waiting to be rescued? That shows her as very capable and kick-ass? That involves unique gameplay and puzzle solving in an FPS environment?
*swoon*
Second: It has been brought to my attention that I didn't actually specify a timeline for my graphic novel reading challenge. If you're interested in reading and discussing Four Women, I'd love to have you participate too. Given that it's a little older, you may have to order it or have it ordered at your favorite book/comic shop. You can find it on half.com for about ten bucks, or at buy.com for $16 (after shipping).
If you check some of your local comic shops, you might actually be able to find the individual issues (there were five, I think?), which might be cheaper than picking up the graphic novel format (although I prefer the GN format, personally- no adverts!). Anyway: It, like most graphic novels, is a pretty short read- I'd guess a few hours, at most. I'm thinking two weeks or so? November 12th, perhaps?
Sam Kieth is one of, if not my absolute, favorite comic creators. He has a very particular visual style that really stands out, and his personal creations display a lot of thought and a desire to create characters that read as real. The fact that most of his main characters are women who are written as real people with real motivations, problems, issues, desires, and personalities just adds to my love.
I'd also like to suggest taking a look at this interview Sequential Tart did with him. It's a great interview, and he really opens up about a lot of things regarding his personal life (including his marriage to a woman 15 years his senior, whom he met when he was 15) and his professional work. He talks about everything from how fans reacted to his unique style:
to his thoughts on writing women characters:
It's an older interview, but if you've got an interest in comics or in his work in particular, I think it's a pretty interesting read.
And the best for last: I stumbled upon this amazing story today. Four women got involved in a research project helped uncover the great works of Irena Sendler- a Polish Catholic social worker- who helped save around 2,500 Jewish children from the Warsaw ghetto and kept detailed documents of their ancestry and whereabouts hidden from the Nazis, even after being captured and threatened with torture and execution.
It's a pretty amazing story not only about the heroic efforts of this woman to save children from a terrible situation, but about the work of the women who helped bring her great works to light. Prior to these women's research, few people had heard of Irena Sendler. Now, she's been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. Awesome.
It's kind of an amazing story, as their former instructor points out:
So, I open the floor to you: Got any good stories to share? See something that really warmed your heart? Hear a news item that brought a smile to your face? Watch a movie that made you giddy? Please, share it with the rest of us. =)
First up: Mighty Ponygirl talks about the awesome new game, Portal. Portal was just released as part of Valve's "Orange Box", a package that includes Half-Life 2, the Half-Life 2 expansions: Episode One and Episode Two, and the highly anticipated Team Fortress 2.
Anyway, I haven't had a chance to pick it up, yet, but I fully intend to. MP does a great job explaining why Portal is so exciting: a game about a woman that doesn't rely on her being half-naked or waiting to be rescued? That shows her as very capable and kick-ass? That involves unique gameplay and puzzle solving in an FPS environment?
*swoon*
Second: It has been brought to my attention that I didn't actually specify a timeline for my graphic novel reading challenge. If you're interested in reading and discussing Four Women, I'd love to have you participate too. Given that it's a little older, you may have to order it or have it ordered at your favorite book/comic shop. You can find it on half.com for about ten bucks, or at buy.com for $16 (after shipping).
If you check some of your local comic shops, you might actually be able to find the individual issues (there were five, I think?), which might be cheaper than picking up the graphic novel format (although I prefer the GN format, personally- no adverts!). Anyway: It, like most graphic novels, is a pretty short read- I'd guess a few hours, at most. I'm thinking two weeks or so? November 12th, perhaps?
Sam Kieth is one of, if not my absolute, favorite comic creators. He has a very particular visual style that really stands out, and his personal creations display a lot of thought and a desire to create characters that read as real. The fact that most of his main characters are women who are written as real people with real motivations, problems, issues, desires, and personalities just adds to my love.
I'd also like to suggest taking a look at this interview Sequential Tart did with him. It's a great interview, and he really opens up about a lot of things regarding his personal life (including his marriage to a woman 15 years his senior, whom he met when he was 15) and his professional work. He talks about everything from how fans reacted to his unique style:
Kids would write in and say things like: "Wolverine's okay, but his back is too round." "What's up with Wolverine's feet? Why are they growing?" And, "Wolverine is really out of proportion, I think your artist is losing his mind or something." And it was funny, because the letters I would get would be kids who really loved it, or kids who were saying "Why are you ruining my universe." They had a very specific view of the world. "I'm going through latency," they wouldn't say it in those words, but, "I'm going through this world view phase where I'm trying to categorize and order things, and you're causing chaos by giving me a version of things that are drastically different from everything else. So please, please, please go away and not do that anymore."
to his thoughts on writing women characters:
the first thing I think about is, I'm just trying to write people who happen to be female characters. So, on the one hand, if things seem more dimensional, maybe that's why. On the other, if it rings false, it's because, once again .... That whole gender question can drive you crazy, "Would I be writing this differently if I was a woman or a man?" I drove myself particularly nuts in this Four Women story. The bottom line is, yes, I think that it's probably a weaker story, yes I think that a woman could write it better, but on the other hand, I can't help who I am and the stories I'm compelled to write.
It's an older interview, but if you've got an interest in comics or in his work in particular, I think it's a pretty interesting read.
And the best for last: I stumbled upon this amazing story today. Four women got involved in a research project helped uncover the great works of Irena Sendler- a Polish Catholic social worker- who helped save around 2,500 Jewish children from the Warsaw ghetto and kept detailed documents of their ancestry and whereabouts hidden from the Nazis, even after being captured and threatened with torture and execution.
It's a pretty amazing story not only about the heroic efforts of this woman to save children from a terrible situation, but about the work of the women who helped bring her great works to light. Prior to these women's research, few people had heard of Irena Sendler. Now, she's been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. Awesome.
It's kind of an amazing story, as their former instructor points out:
“Think of it,” said Norm Conard, their former social studies teacher. “You have some rural Protestant kids from a tiny place in Kansas who decide to tackle the story of a Polish Catholic woman who saved thousands of Jews, despite the fact that they were raised in a place where there is virtually no one of Jewish ancestry. It makes absolutely no sense that Irena’s story would end up getting told like this.”
So, I open the floor to you: Got any good stories to share? See something that really warmed your heart? Hear a news item that brought a smile to your face? Watch a movie that made you giddy? Please, share it with the rest of us. =)
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Blogging about books... jumping prematurely into a challenge...
Dewey, over at the hidden side of a leaf takes a moment to Black Hole, by Charles Burns. It's a solid write-up of a pretty amazing, if somewhat disturbing, graphic novel. Dewey finishes up the post by pointing out that none of the bloggers she reads regularly write much about comics/graphic novels, and that maybe she needs to "host a graphic novel challenge!"
I keep meaning to write more about graphic novels, and putting it off for some reason. Over at 79 Soul I used to write about comics a little bit, and a number of the blogs I read are comic blogs, but I haven't really been in a position to pick up much new material lately.
Still, I love a challenge (even one that hasn't officialy been issued yet!).
(and, even if I can't spell the word correctly the first time around)
There are several works that I think would be interesting to write about on here, and I thought I'd go ahead and mention which ones I'm going to be taking a look at, so that other people can read them and give their opinions as well.
First, I think I'm going to start with something by Sam Kieth. He has a pretty long history of writing believable women in his stories, and many of his books focus on the lives and experiences of women. So, to that end, I'm suggesting that we take a look at Four Women first.
I want to warn anyone who is thinking of picking it up that it deals pretty frankly with sexual assault and rape. I've read it once before, and it can be really difficult to read- it definitely deserves a trigger warning. Noting that, I remember thinking it was a powerful comic, so I'm looking forward to reading it, now that I've got a few years distance between it and myself.
I'd love to know what other graphic novels people are interested in taking a look at- do any of you even care about comics/graphic novels?
I keep meaning to write more about graphic novels, and putting it off for some reason. Over at 79 Soul I used to write about comics a little bit, and a number of the blogs I read are comic blogs, but I haven't really been in a position to pick up much new material lately.
Still, I love a challenge (even one that hasn't officialy been issued yet!).
(and, even if I can't spell the word correctly the first time around)
There are several works that I think would be interesting to write about on here, and I thought I'd go ahead and mention which ones I'm going to be taking a look at, so that other people can read them and give their opinions as well.
First, I think I'm going to start with something by Sam Kieth. He has a pretty long history of writing believable women in his stories, and many of his books focus on the lives and experiences of women. So, to that end, I'm suggesting that we take a look at Four Women first.
I want to warn anyone who is thinking of picking it up that it deals pretty frankly with sexual assault and rape. I've read it once before, and it can be really difficult to read- it definitely deserves a trigger warning. Noting that, I remember thinking it was a powerful comic, so I'm looking forward to reading it, now that I've got a few years distance between it and myself.
I'd love to know what other graphic novels people are interested in taking a look at- do any of you even care about comics/graphic novels?
Friday, August 17, 2007
Good News... Games Are Good For You!
A few weeks ago, I read Everything Bad is Good For You, and I was pretty impressed with the argument that Johnson laid out. The book is essentially an argument against the people who claim that technology is dumbing us down, or that television is getting stupider with time, etc. There are several points to be made there, but his main point is that, if you do any kind of objective measure, programming today is more complicated and requires greater mental participation from audiences than programming ever did in the past. Shows have larger casts of characters, more complicated plots, more sub-plots, and stories are measured in seasons, not episodes.
Amanda started a nice discussion over at Pandagon, and Mighty Ponygirl talked about it as well.
The thread at Pandagon is growing nicely, and, not surprisingly, there are a number of people who are really dismissive about gaming and video games. A lot of the arguments levied against gaming and television are the same kinds of arguments that were levied against radio, or comic books, or whatever media type you want to bring up. There's always this reaction against it, and this doom-and-gloom forecasting about how X new media type is going to bring about the destruction of our children's minds.
Johnson never argues that gaming is the best new tool for education, and that we should abandon reading altogether, which seems to be lost on several of the posters. There's the usual criticism that games are all fast-twitch and that they must, therefore, contribute to a decline in attention span, and that the only thing they teach is how to process lots of simultaneously occuring pieces of information- such an air traffic controller might have to do.
These kinds of arguments treat every game as though it's Asteroids on speed. They imagine that the gamer is forced to make tons of split-second choices amid an ever increasing wave of hostile forces, while trying to rescue the princess, etc. And, sure, there are games that involve that kind of rapid-fire, fast-twitch gaming.
There are also lots of games that reward slow, methodical planning. Hell, there are entire genres devoted to rewarding careful gameplay. Turn-based strategy/tactics games and RPGs, for example, greatly encourage players to think about longterm goals, not just the immediate circumstances. Also, you know... being turn-based sort of negates the need for fast-twitch responses. Weird, that.
Ultimately, I find conversations like the one on Pandagon infinitely frustrating and annoying, though. The focus on "but games make kids stupid! They make them lazy! They give them ADHD!" ignores the very real concerns that we should be having about games.
Here's reality: Games aren't going anywhere.
That's the fact of the matter. Games aren't going away, and whining that you don't like them because you think that they're all fast-twitch and flashing lights isn't going to change that. It's mostly just going to make you look like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and like you haven't picked up a video game since Space Invaders was king (and even then there were games like Utopia that were, you know, rewarding for people who wanted slow, methodical gameplay!). Games survived that big crash, and there's not likely to be another one. Gaming is a huge industry. Video games bring in more money than the film industry's box office draws.
That's big.
There are real problems with video games, and harping on about how you think that books are soooo much better than Bloodrayne is nothing but a distraction. As recent events have shown, there's a lot of work to be done in the gaming community. Homophobia, sexism, and racism are all still serious problems in the gaming community.
Ultimately, what these conversations seem to reveil to me is that there's a huge cultural divide between gamers and non-gamers. Gamers don't really take the comments from non-gamers seriously, precisely because there are so many non-gamers who clearly know very little about what gaming is actually like. If you think that gaming is nothing but flashing lights and sounds and that playing a game is just about processing tons of information all at once- ignoring chaos- why should a gamer listen? That's not, I suspect, what most gamers think of their experiences as being like. The other thing it does is reinforce the idea that non-gamers are trying to get rid of games or trying to take games away from gamers. This is, in fact, kind of true. There are a lot of people, like Gore, who think that games are a total waste of time. So, it's not surprising that gamers might not react kindly.
More on this, I'm sure, to come...
Amanda started a nice discussion over at Pandagon, and Mighty Ponygirl talked about it as well.
The thread at Pandagon is growing nicely, and, not surprisingly, there are a number of people who are really dismissive about gaming and video games. A lot of the arguments levied against gaming and television are the same kinds of arguments that were levied against radio, or comic books, or whatever media type you want to bring up. There's always this reaction against it, and this doom-and-gloom forecasting about how X new media type is going to bring about the destruction of our children's minds.
Johnson never argues that gaming is the best new tool for education, and that we should abandon reading altogether, which seems to be lost on several of the posters. There's the usual criticism that games are all fast-twitch and that they must, therefore, contribute to a decline in attention span, and that the only thing they teach is how to process lots of simultaneously occuring pieces of information- such an air traffic controller might have to do.
These kinds of arguments treat every game as though it's Asteroids on speed. They imagine that the gamer is forced to make tons of split-second choices amid an ever increasing wave of hostile forces, while trying to rescue the princess, etc. And, sure, there are games that involve that kind of rapid-fire, fast-twitch gaming.
There are also lots of games that reward slow, methodical planning. Hell, there are entire genres devoted to rewarding careful gameplay. Turn-based strategy/tactics games and RPGs, for example, greatly encourage players to think about longterm goals, not just the immediate circumstances. Also, you know... being turn-based sort of negates the need for fast-twitch responses. Weird, that.
Ultimately, I find conversations like the one on Pandagon infinitely frustrating and annoying, though. The focus on "but games make kids stupid! They make them lazy! They give them ADHD!" ignores the very real concerns that we should be having about games.
Here's reality: Games aren't going anywhere.
That's the fact of the matter. Games aren't going away, and whining that you don't like them because you think that they're all fast-twitch and flashing lights isn't going to change that. It's mostly just going to make you look like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and like you haven't picked up a video game since Space Invaders was king (and even then there were games like Utopia that were, you know, rewarding for people who wanted slow, methodical gameplay!). Games survived that big crash, and there's not likely to be another one. Gaming is a huge industry. Video games bring in more money than the film industry's box office draws.
That's big.
There are real problems with video games, and harping on about how you think that books are soooo much better than Bloodrayne is nothing but a distraction. As recent events have shown, there's a lot of work to be done in the gaming community. Homophobia, sexism, and racism are all still serious problems in the gaming community.
Ultimately, what these conversations seem to reveil to me is that there's a huge cultural divide between gamers and non-gamers. Gamers don't really take the comments from non-gamers seriously, precisely because there are so many non-gamers who clearly know very little about what gaming is actually like. If you think that gaming is nothing but flashing lights and sounds and that playing a game is just about processing tons of information all at once- ignoring chaos- why should a gamer listen? That's not, I suspect, what most gamers think of their experiences as being like. The other thing it does is reinforce the idea that non-gamers are trying to get rid of games or trying to take games away from gamers. This is, in fact, kind of true. There are a lot of people, like Gore, who think that games are a total waste of time. So, it's not surprising that gamers might not react kindly.
More on this, I'm sure, to come...
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Why Authors Should Sometimes Just Shut the Eff Up...
As if Bradbury didn't make it manifestly clear, let me: Authors would be well advised not to talk about The Meaning of their books.
Now, Sara quotes an interview with Rowling that illustrates exactly why many authors would be well advised to just shut the hell up about what they meant by various things.
In this case:
Thanks for clearing that little mystery up, J.K. Can I call you that? I'm going to. You have to be a goblin fanatic to think that all goblin-made objects really belong to the maker? Really? Now, I don't have the book in front of me, but didn't Bill make it sound like... well... most if not all goblins hold that belief. So... all goblins are fanatics?
It was bad enough when I thought she just dropped the ball on the whole species as race aspect of the books, but it turns out that I was wrong. She didn't just drop the ball, she threw the damn thing away.
Now, Sara quotes an interview with Rowling that illustrates exactly why many authors would be well advised to just shut the hell up about what they meant by various things.
In this case:
Su: How did neville get the gryfindor sword, is there a link to the hat
J.K. Rowling: Yes, there is very definitely a link to the hat!
J.K. Rowling: Neville, most worthy Gryffindor, asked for help just as Harry did in the Chamber of secrets, and Gryffindor’s sword was transported into Gryffindor’s old hat
J.K. Rowling: – the Sorting Hat was Gryffindor’s initially, as you know.
J.K. Rowling: Griphook was wrong – Gryffindor did not ‘steal’ the sword, not unless you are a goblin fanatic and believe that all goblin-made objects really belong to the maker.
Thanks for clearing that little mystery up, J.K. Can I call you that? I'm going to. You have to be a goblin fanatic to think that all goblin-made objects really belong to the maker? Really? Now, I don't have the book in front of me, but didn't Bill make it sound like... well... most if not all goblins hold that belief. So... all goblins are fanatics?
It was bad enough when I thought she just dropped the ball on the whole species as race aspect of the books, but it turns out that I was wrong. She didn't just drop the ball, she threw the damn thing away.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Spoilerific Discussion of Race/Species and Harry Potter...
I warn you now- I'm going to be talking about Harry Potter here. I'm going to be talking about Harry Potter book 7. If you haven't read it and you don't want it spoiled a little bit, you might want to stop reading now. I'm not planning on giving away any major secrets, but I'm going to talk about the ending, and I'm not going to be held responsible for ruining the book for other people.
I'm not kidding.
Still here?
Last chance.
Okay. If you're still reading, I assume you're either fine with spoils or you've already read the book.
Over in this thread at Thinking Girl, there was some talk about how the world of Harry Potter (or, at least, the wizarding world) don't seem to have race issues- they have species issues. From the standpoint of the story, that's great- it lets the author play around with and discuss bigotry without directly pointing fingers at her readers- it can let her raise awareness and get people talking about issues of racism through the analogous treatment of the magical creatures in her world. I don't think that's particularly controversial, and I think that it works well- seeing how the wizards treat the centaurs, goblins, and the house elves as second-class citizens has pretty clear parallels to the treatment of non-whites in the muggle world.
I really appreciated the way that Rowling was handling this through most of the books- There were characters with varying levels of prejudice against the magical creatures, and the creatures themselves had differing levels of animosity towards wizards as a result. I thought it was really well thought out and executed- I loved that even the "good" characters were still guilty of speciest attitudes, in the same way that even well intentioned and progressive people are guilty of racist and sexist attitudes sometimes.
I was feeling this way, right up through the end of the last book. Now? I have to be honest, I'm a little annoyed. All the way through the books, she's made it clear that This Is A Problem. She had Hermione start SPEW, and she made it really clear through Hagrid that the poor treatment of the centaurs was leading up to a potential war. It was very clear that there's a double standard, and that it's sort of a dark splotch on the wizarding world. I kept waiting for something to happen- and then she just lets the whole thing fade away.
By the end of the book, the house elves join the battle, but nobody but the SPEW members gives a second thought to the ways that they're treated. The Goblins still get cheated. The centaurs join the battle for no discernable reason, despite the fact that their grievances are never even acknowledged.
And it's not like there weren't plenty of opportunities to have species/race discussed. I don't expect Harry Potter to solve all of his world's problems, but even a simple understanding of what is happening and the acknowledgement that it's wrong would have been a good start. Take, for example, the point when Harry makes the deal with Griphook to break into Gringotts. There, Bill warns Harry about making a deal with goblins, explaining that they have very different ideas of ownership, and that Harry would do well to remember the strained relationship between wizards and goblins.
At the beginning of their deal, Harry's bargain with Griphook is that he'll give the goblin the sword of Gryffindor back if Griphook will help them break into one of the vaults. Harry knows that they really need the sword to destroy the horcruxes, though, and plans on keeping the sword until after they destroy them, at which point he will give the sword back to the goblins. Hermione rightly points out that this isn't fair, and it's clear that the goblin will see this as welching on their deal. Instead of having Harry and Ron realize that this is true, and that it's just another example of a wizard backing out of a deal with the goblins (like Lugo Bagman did), Rowling has Harry lose his grip on the sword and has Griphook grab it and run away with it.
That was particularly unsatisfying to me- it felt like a copout. Harry had every intention of cheating Griphook out of his end of the deal, and rather than have Harry deal with the consequences of this action, or having him come to the realization that it would be wrong to cheat the goblin, she created a situation where Harry never has to think about what he's planning on doing. She gives him an out from dealing with the very significant species issues that he's confronting. In the end, Neville pulls the sword out of the sorting hat, anyway- which means that Griphook wasn't able to maintain possession of the sword, but she never addresses how this effects human/goblin relations, which are, from all appearances, pretty strained.
Like I said, I didn't expect Harry to solve the problem of speciesism in the Potterverse, but I really expected some kind of progress to be made. I expected some characters who "didn't get it" to... well... get it. There are some minor instances of characters who might have gotten it- Bill makes a comment of being friendly with a few goblins (although I don't take that very strongly, since he works closely with goblins in his position at Gringotts, and his comment stank strongly of the "I'm not prejudiced against group X, why... I have friends who are X!" sort), and Ron brings up the house elves (which is negated by the fact that he was one of the founding members of SPEW, however reluctantly). It would have been nice to see Harry understand his mistreatment of the goblins, or maybe have some of the characters call someone on using slurs against the centaurs, or... I don't know... anything, really.
Ultimately, the issue of species just seems to have faded away. For all that Rowling repeatedly brought it up, it never really takes priority, and there's absolutely no real resolution in terms of action taking place. As far as I can tell, by the end of the book, the wizarding community still treats the magical races like lesser beings, and status quo has been maintained. For me, that aspect of the book was particularly unsatisfying, and I really wished that she had made a bigger deal out of what was happening there.
I'm not kidding.
Still here?
Last chance.
Okay. If you're still reading, I assume you're either fine with spoils or you've already read the book.
Over in this thread at Thinking Girl, there was some talk about how the world of Harry Potter (or, at least, the wizarding world) don't seem to have race issues- they have species issues. From the standpoint of the story, that's great- it lets the author play around with and discuss bigotry without directly pointing fingers at her readers- it can let her raise awareness and get people talking about issues of racism through the analogous treatment of the magical creatures in her world. I don't think that's particularly controversial, and I think that it works well- seeing how the wizards treat the centaurs, goblins, and the house elves as second-class citizens has pretty clear parallels to the treatment of non-whites in the muggle world.
I really appreciated the way that Rowling was handling this through most of the books- There were characters with varying levels of prejudice against the magical creatures, and the creatures themselves had differing levels of animosity towards wizards as a result. I thought it was really well thought out and executed- I loved that even the "good" characters were still guilty of speciest attitudes, in the same way that even well intentioned and progressive people are guilty of racist and sexist attitudes sometimes.
I was feeling this way, right up through the end of the last book. Now? I have to be honest, I'm a little annoyed. All the way through the books, she's made it clear that This Is A Problem. She had Hermione start SPEW, and she made it really clear through Hagrid that the poor treatment of the centaurs was leading up to a potential war. It was very clear that there's a double standard, and that it's sort of a dark splotch on the wizarding world. I kept waiting for something to happen- and then she just lets the whole thing fade away.
By the end of the book, the house elves join the battle, but nobody but the SPEW members gives a second thought to the ways that they're treated. The Goblins still get cheated. The centaurs join the battle for no discernable reason, despite the fact that their grievances are never even acknowledged.
And it's not like there weren't plenty of opportunities to have species/race discussed. I don't expect Harry Potter to solve all of his world's problems, but even a simple understanding of what is happening and the acknowledgement that it's wrong would have been a good start. Take, for example, the point when Harry makes the deal with Griphook to break into Gringotts. There, Bill warns Harry about making a deal with goblins, explaining that they have very different ideas of ownership, and that Harry would do well to remember the strained relationship between wizards and goblins.
At the beginning of their deal, Harry's bargain with Griphook is that he'll give the goblin the sword of Gryffindor back if Griphook will help them break into one of the vaults. Harry knows that they really need the sword to destroy the horcruxes, though, and plans on keeping the sword until after they destroy them, at which point he will give the sword back to the goblins. Hermione rightly points out that this isn't fair, and it's clear that the goblin will see this as welching on their deal. Instead of having Harry and Ron realize that this is true, and that it's just another example of a wizard backing out of a deal with the goblins (like Lugo Bagman did), Rowling has Harry lose his grip on the sword and has Griphook grab it and run away with it.
That was particularly unsatisfying to me- it felt like a copout. Harry had every intention of cheating Griphook out of his end of the deal, and rather than have Harry deal with the consequences of this action, or having him come to the realization that it would be wrong to cheat the goblin, she created a situation where Harry never has to think about what he's planning on doing. She gives him an out from dealing with the very significant species issues that he's confronting. In the end, Neville pulls the sword out of the sorting hat, anyway- which means that Griphook wasn't able to maintain possession of the sword, but she never addresses how this effects human/goblin relations, which are, from all appearances, pretty strained.
Like I said, I didn't expect Harry to solve the problem of speciesism in the Potterverse, but I really expected some kind of progress to be made. I expected some characters who "didn't get it" to... well... get it. There are some minor instances of characters who might have gotten it- Bill makes a comment of being friendly with a few goblins (although I don't take that very strongly, since he works closely with goblins in his position at Gringotts, and his comment stank strongly of the "I'm not prejudiced against group X, why... I have friends who are X!" sort), and Ron brings up the house elves (which is negated by the fact that he was one of the founding members of SPEW, however reluctantly). It would have been nice to see Harry understand his mistreatment of the goblins, or maybe have some of the characters call someone on using slurs against the centaurs, or... I don't know... anything, really.
Ultimately, the issue of species just seems to have faded away. For all that Rowling repeatedly brought it up, it never really takes priority, and there's absolutely no real resolution in terms of action taking place. As far as I can tell, by the end of the book, the wizarding community still treats the magical races like lesser beings, and status quo has been maintained. For me, that aspect of the book was particularly unsatisfying, and I really wished that she had made a bigger deal out of what was happening there.
Friday, July 20, 2007
A Notice, and a Book Review...
Posting will probably be light (read: non-existent) until Tuesday- I'm attending some Harry Potter festivities today, and then I'll be visiting with family over the weekend, so I'm unlikely to get much by way of blogging done.
Thanks to Jaclyn for forwarding me to one of the funniest book reviews I've ever seen. It's pretty damned funny. Also, sort of true, and I'd never really looked at the book in that light.
Hope everyone has a great weekend- Oh, and Natalie: I haven't forgotten your request for my views on the candidates, by the way. I feel woefully underinformed on them right now, and I've been trying to study up... My general feeling is that none of them are liberal enough, or, at the very least, none of them seem willing to take strong stances on the issues that matter to me. I'm tired of candidates who pitch "to the middle" when what they really mean is that they're pitching to the people on the left side of the right. I want candidates who're going to take strong stances on women's rights, gay rights, and on liberal social policies, and, right now, I don't feel like they're doing it. I've generally been leaning towards Edwards, but it's not really a tremendously enthusiastic support on my part. More as I get a stronger sense of positions, though.
Thanks to Jaclyn for forwarding me to one of the funniest book reviews I've ever seen. It's pretty damned funny. Also, sort of true, and I'd never really looked at the book in that light.
Hope everyone has a great weekend- Oh, and Natalie: I haven't forgotten your request for my views on the candidates, by the way. I feel woefully underinformed on them right now, and I've been trying to study up... My general feeling is that none of them are liberal enough, or, at the very least, none of them seem willing to take strong stances on the issues that matter to me. I'm tired of candidates who pitch "to the middle" when what they really mean is that they're pitching to the people on the left side of the right. I want candidates who're going to take strong stances on women's rights, gay rights, and on liberal social policies, and, right now, I don't feel like they're doing it. I've generally been leaning towards Edwards, but it's not really a tremendously enthusiastic support on my part. More as I get a stronger sense of positions, though.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
The Out of Town Recap...
Greetings all!
I spent the last five days visiting the lovely Boston, so I, sadly, haven't really had time to post any updates. Can I admit that I'm loathe to forego updating because I feel guilty about it? Or is that just a wee bit pathetic?
Regardless, I'm back, now, and ready to blog.
While I was in Boston, I had a chance to go to a Center for New Words event. It was their monthly Feminism and Desert event, and this month they did a book swap, which was absolutely awesome! Chocolate cake, cranberry lemonade, chocolate covered almonds, and lots and lots of books... yum.
Around 20 or 30 people came to the event (including a couple of people who, as it turns out, read my blog! Hello you two!), and the selection of books was fantastic. I brought an old copy of Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, and left with Ehrenreich's Bait and Switch. I picked up The Handmaid's Tale years ago, because it was one of those books that I kept meaning to read, and felt like, as a Lit major, I ought to have read... but hadn't gotten around to reading yet. Sadly, there are still many, many books left on the list. I figured that I can't have been the only person in such a situation, so I brought it along. As it turned out, the woman sitting next to me was in exactly the same situation- she'd been wanting to read it for some time, and just hadn't gotten around to picking it up, yet. So, Atwood's book found a nice, new home.
I got, as I mentioned, Bait and Switch. It has, so far, been quite interesting. The only other Ehrenreich I've read was Nickle and Dimed, but it was such an eye-opening and interesting book, that I've been wanting to read Bait and Switch since I heard about it. Given that I work in a pretty white collar position, I'm finding myself nodding along as I read- "Yeah, I've definitely heard that." I'll probably finish it this weekend.
So, now, a little reader participation: On 79Soul, I do a thing on Friday's (usually) I call List Day, but I'm not sure how well that fits in here. I thought I might give it a little nudge, though, and do a reader participation day. I was thinking I'd fish for topics from you, my readers. So, now is your chance to ask me questions, or suggest topics, or give me links or articles that you think I should check out... whatever you're interested in seeing on here, now is your chance to push it on me. Tomorrow, I blog about what you want to see.
If this is a hit, it can be a weekly thing.
So, lay it on me!
I spent the last five days visiting the lovely Boston, so I, sadly, haven't really had time to post any updates. Can I admit that I'm loathe to forego updating because I feel guilty about it? Or is that just a wee bit pathetic?
Regardless, I'm back, now, and ready to blog.
While I was in Boston, I had a chance to go to a Center for New Words event. It was their monthly Feminism and Desert event, and this month they did a book swap, which was absolutely awesome! Chocolate cake, cranberry lemonade, chocolate covered almonds, and lots and lots of books... yum.
Around 20 or 30 people came to the event (including a couple of people who, as it turns out, read my blog! Hello you two!), and the selection of books was fantastic. I brought an old copy of Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, and left with Ehrenreich's Bait and Switch. I picked up The Handmaid's Tale years ago, because it was one of those books that I kept meaning to read, and felt like, as a Lit major, I ought to have read... but hadn't gotten around to reading yet. Sadly, there are still many, many books left on the list. I figured that I can't have been the only person in such a situation, so I brought it along. As it turned out, the woman sitting next to me was in exactly the same situation- she'd been wanting to read it for some time, and just hadn't gotten around to picking it up, yet. So, Atwood's book found a nice, new home.
I got, as I mentioned, Bait and Switch. It has, so far, been quite interesting. The only other Ehrenreich I've read was Nickle and Dimed, but it was such an eye-opening and interesting book, that I've been wanting to read Bait and Switch since I heard about it. Given that I work in a pretty white collar position, I'm finding myself nodding along as I read- "Yeah, I've definitely heard that." I'll probably finish it this weekend.
So, now, a little reader participation: On 79Soul, I do a thing on Friday's (usually) I call List Day, but I'm not sure how well that fits in here. I thought I might give it a little nudge, though, and do a reader participation day. I was thinking I'd fish for topics from you, my readers. So, now is your chance to ask me questions, or suggest topics, or give me links or articles that you think I should check out... whatever you're interested in seeing on here, now is your chance to push it on me. Tomorrow, I blog about what you want to see.
If this is a hit, it can be a weekly thing.
So, lay it on me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
