Reading: March 2010

[jenett]

(Full list for this year As always, glad to comment further on request.)

New reads this month: 10
Re-reads this month: 10
Fiction this month: 15
Non-fiction this month: 5
Total this month: 20
Total this year: 75



New (to me) books
March
1) Winds of Marble Arch and Other Stories : Connie Willis
2) Curse as dark as gold : Elizabeth Bunce
3) Blackwork : Monica Ferris
4) The Suspicions of Mr. Whicher: Kate Summerscale : a look at an infamous murder (of a 3 year old boy) in the 1860s in England.
5) Factory Girls: From Village to City in a Changing China by Leslie Chang
6) A Secret Country: The Hidden Australia : John Piliger
7) Years of Rice and Salt : Kim Stanley Robinson
8) Oath of Fealty : Elizabeth Moon
9) Dinosaurs in the Attic : Douglas Preston
10) The Lyncher in Me: A search for redemption in the face of history : Warren Read (about the great-grandson of one of the people jailed for an infamous lynching in Duluth in 1920 and his discovery of that fact, and how it changed how he viewed his family.)

Rereads
March
1) Gibbon's Decline and Fall : Sherri Tepper
2) The Weaver and the Factory Maid : Deborah Grabien
3) Famous Flower of Serving Men : Deborah Grabien
4) Matty Groves : Deborah Grabien
5) Cruel Sister : Deborah Grabien
6) New Slain Knight : Deborah Grabien
(#s 2-6 are her folk songs and ghosts mysteries series, which I like a lot: each mystery is tied into a traditional folk song.)
7) Native Tongue : Suzette Haden Elgin
8) Judas Rose: Suzette Haden Elgin
9) Letter of Mary : Laurie King
10) Alone In the Kitchen with an Eggplant : edited by Jenni Ferrari-Adler

Comments

[pj]

Just out of curiosity ~ with as exhausted as you've been, how ever did you still manage to read 20 books? I am in awe.

[jenett]

20 books is actually really low for me, especially in a month that included nearly 2 weeks of vacation - on the other hand, I have moved from the 'reading mindcandy, even when it's really fun' into the 'reading stuff that actually requires some brain'.

(in comparison: 24 books in January, 31 in February.)

I read *really* fast - I come by it naturally (it's actually how my parents met) and I've gotten plenty of practice. I read for at least 30-45 minutes before bed almost every night, another 20+ minutes in the bathtub, and when I'm not up for much else, can easily go through 2-3 books on a weekend day at home if they're light reading. Non-fiction generally takes me longer, but even popular non-fiction tends to go fairly fast.

I am, incidentally, really pleased that my fiction/non-fiction ratio has stopped being quite so skewed: in January, it was 21/3, and in February 28/3, and in March, we're back to a more reasonable 15/5.

[pj]

I knew you would answer 20 was low! But still, it is substantial for your level of unhealth. I did also notice the non-fiction increase because I recalled you were reading much lighter stuff as your brain refused to co-operate.

I used to read as fast as you. Then when my reading habit dropped off and I finally got back into it I was worried that age/time would make forget stuff if I read just as fast. But once I start a good book the only way to make myself slow is to physically put it down. So I guess not. I do read slower, though, by forcing myself to go back over parts so I don't miss anything. <---- non-fiction I do this.

I think I need to add more (non-internet) reading to my "new habits" list. I miss it. It would especially nice with summer coming. :-)

[(Anonymous)]

Remember that part of it is professional: I think part of what makes me a truly stellar librarian (and I need to figure out a way to explain this to my division head, who keeps asking "What makes this stuff only you could do) is my ability to make vast connections across pieces of information and find the right thing for people. Broad, wide, eclectic and sometimes deep reading is all a part of that. As is reading at least some YA fiction, at least some books with tons of buzz, etc. etc.

(The problem is that people don't see either the process of the reading, since it doesn't happen at work, nor do they see what I'm providing that someone else without that background couldn't: they just know that they get help finding cool stuff. Hmm. Must ponder how to make that more transparent still, though I've been trying.)

Anyway, this reading doesn't include blog and other Internet reading either on or outside DW/LJ. And I haven't been listing fanfic, even novel-length stuff, though I do list stuff I read electronically otherwise. (The Heris Serrano novels in January, for example, are all electronic copies because Baen's price point for older ebooks is exactly right for my "Want to read something that I'll enjoy but that I've already read before and don't still own".)

[jenett]

The above is me: sorry about that.

[pj]

When your division head poses that question, "What makes this stuff only you could do," is he asking out of curiosity, is he challenging the idea that you are not the only one who can do it, or is this part of the "Why should I give you a raise" review process? Reason one and three seem okay, reason two seems assholeish considering the time you've been there.

Your ability to make those connections is why you are invaluable as a librarian (and a writer, and a Priestess) and it isn't that no-one can, but it is that few can make those connections as quickly and accurately as you do. You make a connection, then you just need to go back and fact check it to be sure (which I honestly think comes from a bit of self-doubt or even modesty, not from any real possibility of you being wrong, but that's just my opinion).

It is your stellar memory, your fast and vast reading, your high intellect and a high functioning ability to pull disparate abstract concepts together and relate them in a meaningful way. And that is very much a Jenett thing as opposed to an any-person-who-is-a-librarian thing. I believe others can do it, but I also believe you do it with a less effort because it is a natural gift for you.

[jenett]

The question, as phrased, is more or less: "What do we get out of having you, in specific here, as opposed to some other (very well-qualified) librarian."

So, yeah, it's mostly #2. And on one hand, I get why he's asking. on the other hand, it's an assholish question, especially given the other current challenges and the fact they do have a track record.

So, I'm wondering how to frame an answer in a way that makes sense to him. I can actually now talk about some things that are in planning progress for next year that they'd have a very hard time finding other people for. (in our planned training for 9th graders as we move into 1:1

I am not the only librarian with extensive experience seeing the behind-the-scenes issues of a large social networking/online communication site, but there aren't *that* many of us out here. Plus the "I have a breadth and depth of background knowledge that helps me narrow down what would be helpful to someone very rapidly in a way that many people don't do.", and "I have undergraduate experience in a multi-disciplinary program designed to draw connections between wide-ranging fields and topics."

(The number of librarians who don't read widely scares me. My minion is not one of them, thankfully, and she and I have actually pretty compatible preferences: she reads more YA than I do, and different areas of non-fiction more.)

Hmm. Will talk this comment over with my mentor, because I think I finally got a hook on how to present it.

In terms of double checking: one of the things we are supposed to do as librarians is double-check stuff. The canonical example is that if someone asks us how to spell 'fish', we should still check a reliable source, even if we think we know perfectly well that it is spelled ghoti. *grin* So my double-checks are often about that: I use the internal brain power to get me to what I need to check, run a very fast check, and then hand the info over. I can do it much more mechanically if I have to (like I've had to the last four months or so, because the brain speed just wasn't up to making the synapses fire fast enough), but doing it on intuition and native pattern matching is a lot more fun, a lot faster, and actually usually produces much better quality of information for me.

My boss was a very good librarian in a lot of ways, but that *wasn't* his mode - he did the slow and deliberate planning thing, which also works, but is actually a way I don't work terribly well. (I can, but it really doesn't speak to my strengths.)

I've been doing clean-up work on the public blog the last two days, and was reminded by this post, too, which speaks to a bunch of the same things: http://gleewood.org/threshold/2008/09/10/what-do-you-bring/

[maribou]

I'd love to hear more of your thoughts about Gibbon's Decline and Fall (which I read ages ago, loved, and was surprised to hear from many people that they don't really like it) and also about the Connie Willis mega-collection (which I've also read and loved).

But if you didn't love 'em, be frank!:)

[jenett]

I really like Tepper. I know she can come across heavy-handed, but it turns out not to be in a way that grates on me at all.

_Gibbon's Decline and Fall_ particularly fascinates me because of the experience of the central characters as coming from a women's college. (Something near and dear my heart, and especially the way it manifests for them.) And also because it's about struggling with how to change the world, and recognising that just because you think you could do better means you're actually the right person to do so.

My other reliable favorite of hers is _The Gate to Women's Country_, and I really need to get a copy of _The Margarets_ for my very own.

The Connie Willis anthology is because I keep going "Why have I not read more of her", and need to just buy stuff and read it and reread it. But this was handy at the library, so I started there. (I've read _Passages_ and _To Say Nothing of the Dog_ and _The Domesday Book_, and I think something else, but I will cheerfully take other suggestions.)