There's a Word For That, But I Don't Know It

From "Shelf Awareness", an insider booksellers' thing:

Speaking of the Strand, the New Yorker offers many column inches in its coverage of the store's Books-by-the-Foot service, begun in 1986 to provide "ready-made libraries for private homes, stores, and movie sets."

A current client: the upcoming Indiana Jones film, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. The books, for Indy's personal collection, are to cover "paleontology, marine biology, and pre-Columbian society. They had to be in muted colors and predate 1957."

"People have gotten so character-specific nowadays," Jenny McKibben, a manager at the store, told the New Yorker. "It can't just be color anymore. With high-def, they can just freeze the film and say, 'Oh, that's so inappropriate.' "

The store offers 18 basic library styles, for purchase or rent. The random hardcover bargain books version goes for $10 per foot of shelf space. For $30, clients can customize the color. For $75, they can get a "leather-looking" library.

"Character specific", cry me a freaken river- buy your library for *you*, not to match your couch.

Wow. I didn't realise I was going on 11 years of hating the Strand bookstore for their anti-bookish behaviour. True, I was leery of them when I saw an interview with one of their buyers some 8 years ago about how they will often find valuable things stuck between the pages of books, or discover that they'd drastically underpaid someone for their used books, and not contact the seller.

In the same interview, they did cover the Books By The Foot sales, admitting that they do often break up sets of books.

There's a lot wrong with this.

One- Your library is supposed to reflect you- your tastes, your passions, your hates (I'm looking at you, first edition volume of Stan Rice "poetry"). It is something which is built over the years- at which you can look and maybe chuckle at your youthful indescretions (ahm, I'm looking at you, "A Fine Old Conflict"), or rediscover a half-forgotten gem, getting even more out of it now that you have a better Understanding Of Life than you did some twenty years ago. In other words, it is a part of what you are made of.

Two- The breaking up of sets is Taboo Number One of honest booksellers. Now, if you happen to only find a volume or two of a set (thanks in part to The Strand's having broken it?), that's one thing. But if you have a set (no matter how pretty), you keep it intact. It is a single being. It travels together. Unity.

Three- I just hate them. No, wait, let me make this into a valid point. I do not appreciate their distict lack of respect for books. That they are willing to view them as "set peices", as mere objects regardless of the ideas contained therein leads me to believe they are philistines. No ofence to actual Philistines- which I know there are, because I read it in a book which I chose with care.

Actual Philistines (according to my ex-Rabbi, that would be us, the remaining ethnic Jews) like books. We are also known as "People of The Book" (I think you get to pick *which* book of which you are nowadays. I digress.)

So a better word might be "Uncouth barbarians who would destroy civilization if it meant a quick buck".

Magazinery

For some reason, I picked up a copy of The Progressive the other day. "Letters to the Editor" has long been my favourite section no matter the publication, so I started there. Lo, and let the forehead-slapping out of frustration begin... I don't even have the energy to rant, as the letters were so consistently internally inconsistant that it would take too much typing and I have other things to do.

On to Scientific American instead. Whew.

Michael Shermer, with whom I sometimes agree, writes a generally insightful column for the mag. This one proved quite interesting (September 2007 edition).An open letter to Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens, it states that, "Whenever religious beliefs conflict with scientific facts or violate principles of political liberty, we must respond with appropriate aplomb. Nevertheless, we should be cautious about irrational exuberance." In the short and worthwhile essay, he goes on to present what could be called a five-point guideline for arguing the cause of atheism. In brief:

"1- Anti-something movements by themselves will fail." He quotes Von Mises here, "People must fight for something they want to acheive, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be." (I chuckle a bit at this, as it proves that even Von Mises saw something with clarity.) Really, any parent who is paying attention will tell you that just saying "Stop it" will not get the results- more effective is the addendum, "do this instead."

"2- Positive assertions are necessary." How many times have I heard "Religion is just bad"? Too many. I don't really want to get into the defence of religion, but have to say, unless you can answer the question "Do you have anything better?" without the circular argument that it's better because of what it's not, you're not going to get far.

"3- Rational is as rational does." No schnitt there. Harris (here we go again) suggesting that we could ethically kill someone for holding an idea is rational how, again? Ignoring the tenets of a religion and choosing to see only the extreme elements in order to paint everyone of the beleif with the same inflamatory brush is rational how? That's not even good science, let alone good thinking. Ignore the evidence you do not like? Way to get the big picture. I'll stop now. Sagan is quoted in this; "You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don't see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it." Words to live by.

"4- The Golden Rule is Symentrical. In the words of the greatest consciousness raiser of the twentieth century, Dr Martin Luther King, Jr., in his epic 'I have a Dream' speech: 'In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline.' If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same." I think that says it all, and well.

"5- Promote freedom of belief and disbelief." Thinking, and the freedom to think must be guarded for everyone. MLK, again: "The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realise that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realise that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom."

I Have a Dream speech entire. If you have never heard the whole thing, please do.

Coming out in paperback in October, of course

I find this out after I bought the hardcover of World War Z, by Max Brooks (son of Mel). Damn, this is a good book. Written in faux-documentary style (and subtitled "An Oral History of the Zombie War"), Max has wrought a nice piece of horror and social commentary. In vignets presented as if by various survivors of the war, we see an interesting picture of just how bad things can get if we continue on the paths we currently tread in re military unpreparedness, general unpreparedness, celebrity worship, and media deception.

I did not expect this, mind you- I expected a humourous and maybe scary bit o'fluff. I am in the middle of it, and very excited about it. That's not happened with a new fiction author in some time.

Here's a link- buy it.
Powells Books

---On the subject of links. I have decided to start linking to random (or maybe not so random) independent book stores which do business over the web. I may or may not go back and link for some other books as I feel like it. I will not link to a book I do not like, which means you'll have to do some work on your own in those cases.

World Without Us By Weisman

I read a review and exceprt of this in Scientific American recently, and was intrigued. Even more intriguing is the publicity this book has been getting- the author has appeared on The Daily Show, and any number of other places, and is well-spoken and calm in his presentation. So I have started reading it.

Though I am just in the first half of the book, one thing strikes me which I do not think was the author's intent. The amount of work needed to keep human society from falling into what we would call ruin (if we were still here) is astonishing. Most striking to me is the deconstruction of New York City. Were it not for the constant attention of underground crews, the subways would flood almost immediately. This would be followed by the literal undermining of the city itself, as the tunnels eroded and collapsed, and streets became rivers (some once again, in a return to their pre-Hudson conditions). I wonder if this will be brought up the next time contract negotiations come up. I hope so.

I am not saying that the author is anti-worker, just that this is not the main thrust of his work here. The main thrust is that nature can in many respects- the majority of respects, really- take back what we have been using. And that it would not take all that long.

While reading the description of what (and how) would happen to most modern houses, I was reminded of my trip through some of Detroit's harder-hit areas earlier this year. The houses I saw in a state of decay (with people still living in them) were built using older methods, which is probably what has kept them going even this long. Contrasting these houses, even in their crumbling states, to the newly-built apartment complexes in the area, it was easy to see that the newer buildings would not, even with the best of upkeep, fare as well as the former buildings.

Really, we are seldom building things to last for one human lifetime anymore, let alone something which could stand through the ages.

Anyhoo- I am in the middle of it (well, the early middle).