When I was a kid, the library was a staple. We had books at my house, but my memory (which may be less than a completely factual recall , it should be noted) tells me that the majority of them were textbooks from my parents college days, religious books, which as a child were less than stimulating (though they are highly appreciated by me now), or other rather adult tomes that were of little or no interest to a young mind that craved fiction.
The result of that is that I am a book collector. For example, I am stocking up on books from the library right now, while I have access. I highly doubt I'll finish them all, but I am going to try. Admittedly, some of them are less than scholarly. I read a fair amount of young adult fiction. (There are reasons for this--1) I consider this research. 2) I have to have good recommendations for my nieces and nephews). But I do try.
Anyway, I have tried over the years to make my bookshelves of interest to folks of all ages, so that, should I someday have children of my own, they will be able to find something on the shelf to dig into. And I try to have books so that as they get older, there will still be something on the shelf for them. Because books are beautiful things and one of the best things to share.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Friday, August 17, 2012
stupidity
This week, for some reason I don't now recall, I read Stupid American history : tales of stupidity, strangeness, and mythconceptions by Leland Gregory. I can't say it was a horrible book. I mean, it was quick and easy to read. But about half of the bits of trivia were corrections of misconceptions, right (Thus the 'mythconception' in the title)? And is it just me, or doesn't it seem like if you are going to correct something and establish a fact, you would provide a resource? No resources. None. Zero. No citations (other than a random handful--four or five--that were dropped in with the fact). How do I know it is true? How can I be sure it's not made up like the previous misconception? I was a little disappointed. Maybe it's because I'm an archivist and so I feel like these things should be documented.
It was also interesting (and again, this is the archivist me) that there were certain facts that were hearsay. For example, what Benedict Arnold may or may not have said on his deathbed. One story says one thing, but because his wife wrote down a different account, that must be true. Well, just because something is written doesn't make it true. And his wife may have had reasons not to be truthful about his last words. Or she may be right. Who knows? I wasn't there, and neither was this guy, and since there is no citation of his source or why it should be trusted, who knows what is true? That is the beauty of history. It's so spinnable.
Anyway, I've also read some other books. I started Out of the Silent Planet, by C.S. Lewis (who knew he did sci-fi?), read The One and Only Ivan, by Katherine Applegate, which I really enjoyed. Juvenile fiction, story about a gorilla with a mission. Nice heartwarming story, interesting perspective, gets you thinking a little. I've been listening to a few books on CD--most notably the Artemis Fowl series, an oldie but goodie that I can read over and over again. I've taken a bit more time to dig in to some reading, which has been nice. I still have an enormous book list, but in time. I'm glad that reading has felt more relaxing lately. Always a plus.
Anyway, I hope that you have enjoyed some good books lately, and that you'll overlook the archival rant!
It was also interesting (and again, this is the archivist me) that there were certain facts that were hearsay. For example, what Benedict Arnold may or may not have said on his deathbed. One story says one thing, but because his wife wrote down a different account, that must be true. Well, just because something is written doesn't make it true. And his wife may have had reasons not to be truthful about his last words. Or she may be right. Who knows? I wasn't there, and neither was this guy, and since there is no citation of his source or why it should be trusted, who knows what is true? That is the beauty of history. It's so spinnable.
Anyway, I've also read some other books. I started Out of the Silent Planet, by C.S. Lewis (who knew he did sci-fi?), read The One and Only Ivan, by Katherine Applegate, which I really enjoyed. Juvenile fiction, story about a gorilla with a mission. Nice heartwarming story, interesting perspective, gets you thinking a little. I've been listening to a few books on CD--most notably the Artemis Fowl series, an oldie but goodie that I can read over and over again. I've taken a bit more time to dig in to some reading, which has been nice. I still have an enormous book list, but in time. I'm glad that reading has felt more relaxing lately. Always a plus.
Anyway, I hope that you have enjoyed some good books lately, and that you'll overlook the archival rant!
Friday, August 10, 2012
The dirt
A while back, I attended a conference at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum which got me interested in Gerald R. Ford (whose birth name was Leslie King Jr, did you know?). Well, while browsing at the library one day, I came across a book called Write It When I'm Gone by Thomas DeFrank. Background: Tom DeFrank was a journalist assigned to cover Ford. They became good friends, and DeFrank received permission to have off-the-record interviews with Ford and print them after Ford's death.
This book is really fascinating. I thought it might be a bit of a time commitment to read, but it went very quickly. First off, even though he has his quirks, you can't help but like Ford. He was a truly decent guy. A bit too committed to the party for my taste, but he wasn't partisan. He believed in Republican values, but I don't think he was like politicians today, who put party before the good of the people they represent. I don't know for sure, but that's an impression I have.
Also, you learn a lot about other presidents. Keeping in mind it is one man's opinions, it still helps you to round out the picture of people who are usually very able to control their image and public perception. But you still get some insight into what these people were like when you strip away the position.
It is also interesting to get a glimpse into the life of a former president. I don't know that we really think about it (and why would we?) but it was really interesting. It never occurred to me that there are only 44 people who can claim to have been the President of the US, and at any given time, there are only maybe 4 or 5 living people who can say they were once in that office. That is a very very small minority.
Anyway. This is really a good read. It gives a lot of insights into events that aren't part of the past of the up and coming generation. It will give you a lot of new topics to explore and give a glimpse into the life of a decent person, who just happened to be a politician. Now that's rare.
This book is really fascinating. I thought it might be a bit of a time commitment to read, but it went very quickly. First off, even though he has his quirks, you can't help but like Ford. He was a truly decent guy. A bit too committed to the party for my taste, but he wasn't partisan. He believed in Republican values, but I don't think he was like politicians today, who put party before the good of the people they represent. I don't know for sure, but that's an impression I have.
Also, you learn a lot about other presidents. Keeping in mind it is one man's opinions, it still helps you to round out the picture of people who are usually very able to control their image and public perception. But you still get some insight into what these people were like when you strip away the position.
It is also interesting to get a glimpse into the life of a former president. I don't know that we really think about it (and why would we?) but it was really interesting. It never occurred to me that there are only 44 people who can claim to have been the President of the US, and at any given time, there are only maybe 4 or 5 living people who can say they were once in that office. That is a very very small minority.
Anyway. This is really a good read. It gives a lot of insights into events that aren't part of the past of the up and coming generation. It will give you a lot of new topics to explore and give a glimpse into the life of a decent person, who just happened to be a politician. Now that's rare.
Friday, August 3, 2012
It makes you think
One of the great things about reading is that it gets you thinking about a lot of things. So, here are some things books have got me thinking about this week:
1) Historical accuracy. How do we know an author is portraying an accurate representation of a time period and not imposing current values on a past era?
2) Love. What is love, really, and what does it mean to love? How does one balance oneself and love?
3)Truth and honesty. Why would anyone want to live a life where they can't tell what is real and what isn't? Isn't it hard enough to understand reality without adding complications?
4) Being okay with oneself. How do we like ourselves when the people close to us don't seem to? How do we resist the pressure from others and see ourselves as we really are?
5) Suspension of belief. At what point does an author cross the line and expect us to believe more than is possible?
6) How does a book become a classic?
7) Why does this book have so much filth in it? Is it possible to accomplish the same thing without the trash?
These questions, and many others, brought to you by:
Elegy for Eddie, by Jacqueline Winspear
Midnight in Austenland, by Shannon Hale
The Trouble With May Amelia, by Jennifer L. Holm
Catch-22, by Joseph Heller (I did not finish this book. I got about halfway through, and was just not really finding it that great. So I took advantage of the fact that it was due and I couldn't renew it and dropped it off early. I wanted to read it because everyone knows the catch-22 phrase, and it seems like it should be read, but I found that knowing what a catch-22 is is sufficient).
1) Historical accuracy. How do we know an author is portraying an accurate representation of a time period and not imposing current values on a past era?
2) Love. What is love, really, and what does it mean to love? How does one balance oneself and love?
3)Truth and honesty. Why would anyone want to live a life where they can't tell what is real and what isn't? Isn't it hard enough to understand reality without adding complications?
4) Being okay with oneself. How do we like ourselves when the people close to us don't seem to? How do we resist the pressure from others and see ourselves as we really are?
5) Suspension of belief. At what point does an author cross the line and expect us to believe more than is possible?
6) How does a book become a classic?
7) Why does this book have so much filth in it? Is it possible to accomplish the same thing without the trash?
These questions, and many others, brought to you by:
Elegy for Eddie, by Jacqueline Winspear
Midnight in Austenland, by Shannon Hale
The Trouble With May Amelia, by Jennifer L. Holm
Catch-22, by Joseph Heller (I did not finish this book. I got about halfway through, and was just not really finding it that great. So I took advantage of the fact that it was due and I couldn't renew it and dropped it off early. I wanted to read it because everyone knows the catch-22 phrase, and it seems like it should be read, but I found that knowing what a catch-22 is is sufficient).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)