I’m sensing a pattern here

I enjoy fiction. A lot. Some of my more outspoken colleagues openly question my love of fiction, and others just kind of give me sidelong looks, but I don’t care. I can sit down and enjoy a good non-fiction book just as much as the next nerd, but fiction is where my heart lives.

I have several stacks of “To be read” books in my room, but when I’m at work, I usually wander over to the New Book section to see what piques my interest. One of the books that I found this way was The Sleeping Beauty Proposal by Sarah Strohmeyer. This book is obviously marketed to women, and specifically those who have an interest in chick lit. I have absolutely nothing against the genre. Sometimes what you want is a book with some humor, romance, and vicarious fun that is not ONLY about romance.

I thought the book was funny, but I was bothered by how the main character tells a lie to save face, and then spends the rest of the novel telling larger and less justifiable lies to maintain her initial fiction. I definitely understand wanting to preserve your pride or trying to avoid looking foolish, but pretty early on, the deception crosses over into something else. I think that a lot of people can understand why Genie, the protagonist, would pretend that she is the person to whom her boyfriend proposed (over the phone) on live television, but then she gets more and more ridiculous as the book goes on. She buys a fake engagement ring, registers for stuff, and instead of trying to make some sort of graceful extrication, merely digs herself deeper and deeper into a mess.

I’ve been reading a lot of fantasy books lately (such as novels by Rachel Vincent, Mercedes Lackey, C. E. Murphy, and Sharon Shinn), so maybe I’m not just used to some of the conventions of other fiction anymore, but I really hate how reliant Strohmeyer’s protagonists are on dishonesty. I just started another of her novels, The Cinderella Pact. This novel also features a protagonist, Nola, who orchestrates a fiction that she then spends the rest of the rest of the book (so far) lying to maintain.

I don’t lie in order to get promotions, or to impress men, or really much at all (except to my nephew, and who doesn’t love lying to little kids??), and it disturbs me to see that dishonesty is sort of portrayed in these books as a functional way of life. I know, I know that the ends of these books have the heroines, their friends, and the fabulously wealthy romantic partners they’ve managed to snag along the way all chuckling and shaking their heads over the lies that were so recently such a large part of their lives, but this doesn’t ring true to me at all. I like my fiction to have a sort of internal consistency. And if it all ends up with everybody being understanding (after they’ve cooled off) and even admiring (However did you manage to maintain such a ruse for so long!), then why all the subterfuge to begin with?

I guess I’m probably thinking too much about these books, but I do think it’s kind of ridiculous how much effort both protagonists put into creating and maintaining an ever-growing amount of lies, all in the name of (financial, professional, romantic, personal) progress.

Stupid Internet, ruining everything

Stephen Lewis, a humor columnist at the Murfreesboro Post of Tennessee, wrote an opinion column yesterday that included a song about the Obamas move to Washington. As you may have guessed by its inclusion in this post, this song was not in the best of taste. Mr. Lewis chose to set his “Ode to President Obama” to the tune of “Movin’ On Up,” the theme song to 1970’s-era television show, The Jefferson. Wow, Stephen. That’s Klassy!

Here’s the first verse:
“Well we’re movin’ on up,
To Washington, D.C.
To a deee-luxe pimp pad,
Painted whiiiite.
Yeah we’re movin’ on up,
To the White House.
I’ll be jetting with P. Diddy cross the sky.

Let’s examine the stereotypes found just in those lines (nevermind the rest of the song): We’ve got the missing “g” in “movin,'” because when you’re a black, Harvard-educated lawyer planning at least a 4 year squat in the White House, the last thing you’re thinking about is saying your words properly. Then we’ve got “pimp pad” (I’ll excuse “deee-luxe,” as it is in the original song). Because every black man aspires to being a peddler of women. And of course, what’s the point of being famous and black if you can’t hang out with P. Diddy? Nothing says you’ve reached the zenith of the American political establishment more than hanging out with Sean Combs.

Because newspaper articles on the Internet has the opportunity to reach readers around the world, Mr. Lewis’ stupidity did not stay limited to the Volunteer State. By Monday morning, this article, which initially appeared in the Sunday edition of the Post, was making the rounds on the Internet, offending latte-drinking, arugula-eating leftists and beer-swilling, gun-toting rightists alike. By Monday afternoon, the editor of the Murfeesboro Post, Michael L. Pirtle, had issued something resembling an apology. Here’s a link to Mr. Lewis’s column, with the editor’s note of the usual passive-aggressive sort apologizing “for any offense generated” by this column.

Burn!

(Why do we use extreme temperatures to illustrate that something that is really bad? At first, I almost called this post “That’s cold.”)

So it turns out that maybe the Weinsteins and Lifetime had a point, and NBC Universal/Bravo didn’t want to pick up the option on the new season of Project Runway. So why the delay, then? Um, maybe because Bravo has a Project Runway knockoff in the works and is using this injunction to get a leg up on their competition? Machiavellian. Bravo, indeed.

Jerked

Poor Jerell. He really really really deserved to go to Fashion Week. And based on his performance over a significant part of the competition, he should have been a shoe-in. And the items that he showed this week were not even close to his best work, but they weren’t the worst pieces on the runway.

And then there’s Kenley. Kenley’s previous efforts and actions should have earned her a one-way ticket to Brooklyn. But they didn’t. And this week, she really showed me something I didn’t expect from her: talent, not filtered through her tremendous self-involvement, but just plain talent. It was impressive, and helped me believe that she wasn’t kept just to add controversy and color to the show. The reprieve that she was granted last week (not that she’ll ever believe there was any possibility that she’d be sent home) means that Kenley was judged on what she did this week, and not what she showed last week. And even though her improved attitude was as genuine as a four-dollar bill, the high caliber of her dresses was undeniable. So she should have stayed, and the judges did make the correct decision regarding Kenley.

By now, it should be plain that Leanne is a genius at design and construction, and there’s no way that anybody with eyes could ever question whether she deserved to show in Fashion Week. So we move on to Korto.

We know that I love love love Korto. And though I thought that she did not receive the recognition she deserved earlier in the season, the fact remains that her wedding dress and bridesmaid’s dress? Were not up to the level of the items made by the others. And Korto, my beloved Korto, deserved to go home.

But she didn’t! Jerell was sent home and I do not agree at all. And I’ve seen Korto’s fashion week collection and I definitely preferred it to Jerell’s, but the judges couldn’t know this! Based on what was shown, Leanne, Kenley, and Jerell should have been in, and Korto should have been one of the decoy designers. Boo!

Bullet dodged

I got a nastygram yesterday from a guy who I met through the STRICTLY PLATONIC section of Craigslist. He was nice enough, but I knew right away that nothing more than friendship was going to exist between us. He was older than I would have liked and really short. I like my heels. We had an enjoyable time dancing to 80s music, but I didn’t let him buy me drinks or anything, because I knew how I felt about him and wanted to keep things equal and platonic. We said that we might see about hanging out, and later made plans to meet up a few weeks down the line.

Then my work schedule changed and I wrote him to let him know that I wouldn’t be able to hang out on the date we’d settled on. He tried to convince me to hang out for a bit, but I didn’t want to go into the city at 10 only to come home again at 1:30, and I wouldn’t have been able to stay out much past that. He copped a major attitude when I said I didn’t want to go into the city and come home early, and that I also wasn’t interested in paying for car service from Manhattan to my home. He offered to chip in half, but $35 to hang out with a nice guy who didn’t make much of an impression on me wasn’t very reasonable (I didn’t put it like that, though). I had at first considered rescheduling, but he acted like such a jerk about the whole thing that I decided not to even bother. Anyway, I guess he thought that his passive-agressive emails to me were going to make me want to see him again. Not so much, no. So he wrote me out of the blue today to try to make me feel bad for not being in contact with him and to say “bye” to me. Really? Bye? I’d written him off a month ago. I thought about writing him back to bitch him out, or even to be really sweet and make him feel bad about being such a jerk, but it’s not necessary. I’m well rid of that kind of person, and it’s not worth pursuing the matter.

Scary thought

I have a confession to make: even though I’m a librarian and the first thing that people usually associate with my job is the Dewey Decimal system, I don’t KNOW it by heart. I mean, I’m good; a lot of the time, if you tell me what you’re looking for, I’ll give you the number right off the top of my head. Still, I will admit to sometimes not knowing where I can locate specific subjects. I get a silly rush of glee every time I do know something off the top of my head, but if I were back in my cataloging class and had a test on the Dewey Decimal system, I know that my score would not be perfect.

I guess my new goal is to know more of this off the top of my head, but it got me to thinking: what other professionals forget this sort of core knowledge once they’re no longer in school being tested? Doctors? Pharmacists? It’s kind of frightening; I know that if I forget where something is located, I can just look it up in our catalog. Despite what some impatient, huffy patrons think, a lack of instantaneous knowledge on my part is never a matter of life and death. If a doctor or pharmacist makes a mistake, somebody could die. I salute the medical professionals of the world for even entering that field, because I would not like to perform a job that had the potential to determine others’ lives.

Here they go again

In advance of tomorrow’s vice presidential debate, Gwen Ifill, the moderator, is being attacked for a book that she wrote called Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. This book is being published in 2009, and is not available to be read, yet some people have exercised their powers of precognition to determine that she is somehow biased in favor of the Obama-Biden ticket, and cannot possibly be fair. Now, to be honest, it’s not impossible to believe that personal biases or loyalties can influence how one moderates a debate; just ask George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson. I don’t think that anybody who was paying attention has forgotten how awful they were when they moderated a debate between the Democratic candidates earlier this year. They asked stupid questions, soft-balled Clinton (at least Stephanopoulos did), and took almost an hour to get to substantive questions regarding Iraq, Iran, and other issues meaningful to voters.

So, it’s not impossible to believe that a debate moderator can be too much for one side or the other. But it seems insulting to insinuate that, because she is a known supporter of Democratic politics, Gwen Ifill won’t be able to attain the level of fairness and bipartisanship required of a good moderator. Maybe the questions about Ifill are warranted and come from people who are genuinely concerned about witnessing a fair debate. But maybe not.

Let’s give a moment of though to what else could possible be fueling these speculations about Ifill’s fitness as moderator. Could it be fear? A lot of the furor over this issue has been raised by Republicans and others on the right. Perhaps concern about Sarah Palin’s prospects in a debate has also contributed to questions about Ifill’s commitment to a fair debate. Let’s face it: during her interview with Katie Couric, Vice Presidential nominee Palin did not shine. In one of the most difficult exchanges to watch, she demonstrated that she did not understand the causes of the current economic collapse, and could therefore offer no cogent or even coherent answer regarding what the country’s next steps should be. Maybe it was nerves, or maybe the slowing dawning realization that she’s totally unfit for the job she’s in the running for, but Governor Palin’s miserable performance definitely did not win over anybody who wasn’t already aligned with her.

Actually, pretty much every televised appearance by Sarah Palin that has followed her energizing, successful, nasty, and entirely scripted coming out party at the Republican National Convention, has shown her to be completely out of her depth. Like the current president, she has shown herself not to be a convincing, confident extemporaneous speaker. Like him, she also seems to have trouble grasping the details and nuances of issues of great national and global import.

Unless her peformances during the month of September were part of a carefully-orchestrated Machiavellian strategy to sharply lower expectations and lull Joe Biden into a false sense of security, she is in big trouble tomorrow. And what better way to negate unflattering day-after assessments in the press than by deflecting attention onto the moderator, before the debate even begins! If Ifill asks tough questions that Palin cannot answer intelligently, then this will be used as proof of Ifill’s supposed biases, and she will be called a bully. If the bruhaha makes Ifill ask easier questions that Palin can answer in a way that makes her seem more aware than she has in any of her recent appearances, then the right will be able to say, “Look! We told you that she know what she was talking about.”

I would love to be excited to see a woman excel on a national stage at such a high level in politics, but nothing I’ve seen so far has convinced me that Sarah Palin is going to be that woman.

Taking an interesting idea far past its logical conclusion

My coworker brought in zucchini bread for us to munch on this morning. I was a little scared of it just because of the name, and also because it was kind of green, but sacked up anyway and tried a bit. It wasn’t anything like what I was expecting. It didn’t taste much like zucchini, but was moist and sweet and really delicious. I had seconds and was happy that I tried this particular vegetable/other combination.

Then, this afternoon when I was getting a drink to go with my lunch, I ran across Dr. Brown’s Cel-Ray soda. I saw a lime green can and thought that it might be a soda in the spirit of Sprite or 7Up. Then I read the writing on the can, and found out that it’s actually celery-flavored soda. My relationship with vegetables is shaky at best, but I think that even normal vegetable eaters would be like, “Okay, now you’re just being crazy.” Why would you make a soda that tastes like celery? Celery doesn’t even have much of a taste. You have to stick it in peanut butter and decorate it with raisins and pretend that it’s animals marching in nature in order to get people to eat it. Its only good property is that it’s so high in water content that you (probably) burn more energy digesting plain celery than you took in while consuming it.

Seriously?

There is not, in this day and age, any good excuse for not understanding the theory of evolution. Even if you don’t believe that evolution is a satisfactory explanation for how we came to be here, you should at least know what it is that you oppose. I thought that misunderstanding or misrepresenting evolution was a particularly American thing to do, but I guess that’s not true. I was reading an article in England’s Daily Express about several actors (Paul Bettany, Jennifer Connelly, Rosamund Pike, and Joseph Fiennes) who are gearing up to do films about Charles Darwin’s life, and I was horrified to read this sentence: All four Hollywood stars are lining up to appear in films about Darwin, who developed the controversial theory of evolution, which argued that humans descended from apes.

Really? That’s it? Evolution is a rich, complex theory based on observation of the natural world, living species, and the fossil record, and all they can boil it down to is that it says humans descended from apes? AND THAT’S NOT EVEN WHAT EVOLUTION SAYS. So I’m disappointed. By the way, the theory of evolution states that humans and apes descended from a common ancestor, but in no way says that humans came from apes. If we had, why would apes still exist? Stupidity like this is frightening.

I wrote the editor an email about the story, not that I think it will help. I’m familiar with the Daily Mail, which is roundly mocked because it is rather right-wing and not usually terribly concerned with the accuracy of the articles it publishes, but I didn’t know that the Daily Express was the same way. I guess I learned something today, even if it’s not what the Daily Express thought it was teaching me.

Too touchy?

I don’t consider myself easily offended. I make and laugh at jokes about women, black people, New Jerseyans, Americans, Christians, liberals, and a host of other groups to which I belong. And I do believe that non-black people can talk about, or disagree with, black people without automatically being considered racist. So why did it bother me so much today when a white coworker used the word “uppity” to describe an annoying black patron?

I’ve been thinking about it for the last couple of hours, and I think I’m bothered because the word uppity has such a troubling history. When I hear it, I think of a person whose behavior is somehow above what could reasonably be expected from one of his or her station. I don’t know if this is a definition that would be used by that any significant portion of the non-black population when defining uppity, but it’s probably what a lot of black people think when they hear it. This word has been the subject of recent press, after Lynn Westmoreland, a Republican Congressman from Georgia, used it to describe Barack and Michelle Obama, then claimed to be ignorant of any racial connotations to the word. He’s from Georgia. Even if that’s not what he meant when he said the word, I find it unlikely that he could have spent the past 58 years in Georgia without somehow knowing that this word might have had a racist connotation. His explanation that he thought they were elitist and snobbish also makes no sense. They’re pretty high up on the freaking totem pole, buddy. Certainly higher than you. How do you expect them to behave? Also, I’m really love it if I Westmoreland could answer this question: what about a duly elected senator who won his party’s vote to be their Presidential candidate could be considered too elite? Don’t we want our leaders to belong to a relatively high class in society? Who should be of a higher class than those who aspire to lead our nation? And if that higher class does exist, why aren’t they running things?

So this patron was annoying, but in the same way that scores of other patrons are annoying many times throughout the day. She didn’t seem to look down on us, she just didn’t really care that what she wanted didn’t conform to library rules. She was over the whole rules thing, but she never acted as though she was above us. I get along just fine with my coworker and I’ve never thought for a second that he might have a problem with me due to my race, but things like this always make me uneasy.