I was hoping for X-rated

Well, hell. Maybe I need to start swearing a bit more.

Pirates

I just saw Pirates of the Caribbean 3. And I think I liked it. I'm not going to give anything away for those who haven't seen it yet. But I have heard from some people that it was completely over the top, overdone, and about 2 hours too long. And I don't think it was. It did have its ridiculous moments (I rolled my eyes at least twice), and there was so much double-crossing it was hard to keep track of who was on what side at any given time (though it was still doable, unlike the first Mission Impossible, where after the movie I just sat there saying, "huh?"), and the ending was kind of sad. And I didn't really think that Captain Jack Sparrow was as charming this time around. But oh my god I love Orlando Bloom. I thought last movie Johnny Depp kind of overshadowed him, but gorgeous Will Turner was back and better than ever this time. Anyway, I liked the movie (though it still can't compare to the first Pirates). And it's left me feeling a bit odd. I feel a bit sad and let down, but I also have a fierce urge to begin work on an epic novel about backstabbing pirates. And I have an odd craving for rum. I hate rum.

Yo ho ho.

Warning: Extreme Cuteness Ahead!

So my mom and dad got a new puppy. They're hoping that the new pup will encourage our very old Husky to stick around home. She's been running to the neighbours to hang out with their dog, so she would probably like a little companionship.

The puppy is eight weeks old, female, and half border-cross collie and half labrador. She looks more like a lab than a collie right now, being mostly black and short haired. She has a bit of white on her paws, chest, and a tiny little soul patch on her chin.

She's very cute, very sweet... and a little bad. She likes to nip feet and hands, but she is only a puppy so hopefully with a little training that will stop when she's older. It's cute now, but... (oooh. I said I'd stop with the ellipses, didn't I? Okay, no more.)

After due consideration, my sister and I decided to name her Mokey, after my favourite fraggle. Without further ado, here's some photos of our little pup:









Okay, everybody say it with me: Aaaaawwwwwwwwww!

Now for more animal cuteness. My sister's cat Nan has an interesting relationship with his food. He loves it. But he doesn't just love it, he loves it. Please note that in this video, he is not getting a treat, those are his regular everyday kibbles, and we did not starve him beforehand. This is the way he eats all the time. Notice the way he caresses the side of the food dish:

book meme

So, for a nice little break, here's a neat little book list I got off of Digital Diamonds.

Bold the ones you've read:

1. The Da Vinci Code (Dan Brown)
2. Pride and Prejudice (Jane Austen)
3. To Kill A Mockingbird (Harper Lee)
4. Gone With The Wind (Margaret Mitchell)
5. The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (Tolkien)
6. The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring (Tolkien)
7. The Lord of the Rings: Two Towers (Tolkien)
8. Anne of Avonlea (L.M. Montgomery)
9. Outlander (Diana Gabaldon)
10. A Fine Balance (Rohinton Mistry)
11. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Rowling)
12. Angels and Demons (Dan Brown)
13. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (Rowling)
14. A Prayer for Owen Meany (John Irving)
15. Memoirs of a Geisha (Arthur Golden)
16. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Rowling)
17. Fall on Your Knees (Ann-Marie MacDonald)
18. The Stand (Stephen King)
19. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (Rowling)
20. Jane Eyre (Charlotte Bronte)
21. The Hobbit (Tolkien)
22. The Catcher in the Rye (J.D. Salinger)
23. Little Women (Louisa May Alcott)
24. The Lovely Bones (Alice Sebold)
25. Life of Pi (Yann Martel)
26. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (Douglas Adams)
27. Wuthering Heights (Emily Bronte)
28. The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe (C. S. Lewis)
29. East of Eden (John Steinbeck)
30. Tuesdays with Morrie (Mitch Albom)
31. Dune (Frank Herbert)
32. The Notebook (Nicholas Sparks)
33. Atlas Shrugged (Ayn Rand)
34. 1984 (Orwell)
35. The Mists of Avalon (Marion Zimmer Bradley)
36. The Pillars of the Earth (Ken Follett)
37. The Power of One (Bryce Courtenay)
38. I Know This Much is True (Wally Lamb)
39. The Red Tent (Anita Diamant)
40. The Alchemist (Paulo Coelho)
41. The Clan of the Cave Bear (Jean M. Auel)
42. The Kite Runner (Khaled Hosseini)
43. Confessions of a Shopaholic (Sophie Kinsella)
44. The Five People You Meet In Heaven (Mitch Albom)
45. Bible (God) - Can I please argue with the author here?
46. Anna Karenina (Tolstoy)
47. The Count of Monte Cristo (Alexandre Dumas)
48. Angela's Ashes (Frank McCourt)
49. The Grapes of Wrath (John Steinbeck)
50. She's Come Undone (Wally Lamb)
51. The Poisonwood Bible (Barbara Kingsolver)
52. A Tale of Two Cities (Dickens)
53. Ender's Game (Orson Scott Card)
54. Great Expectations (Dickens)
55. The Great Gatsby (Fitzgerald)
56. The Stone Angel (Margaret Laurence)
57. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Rowling)
58. The Thorn Birds (Colleen McCullough)
59. The Handmaid's Tale (Margaret Atwood)
60. The Time Traveller's Wife (Audrey Niffenegger)
61. Crime and Punishment (Fyodor Dostoyevsky)
62. The Fountainhead (Ayn Rand)
63. War and Peace (Tolstoy)
64. Interview With The Vampire (Anne Rice)
65. Fifth Business (Robertson Davis)
66. One Hundred Years Of Solitude (Gabriel Garcia Marquez)
67. The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants (Ann Brashares)
68. Catch-22 (Joseph Heller)
69. Les Miserables (Hugo)
70. The Little Prince (Antoine de Saint-Exupery)
71. Bridget Jones' Diary (Fielding)
72. Love in the Time of Cholera (Marquez)
73. Shogun (James Clavell)
74. The English Patient (Michael Ondaatje)
75. The Secret Garden (Frances Hodgson Burnett)
76. The Summer Tree (Guy Gavriel Kay)
77. A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (Betty Smith)
78. The World According To Garp (John Irving)
79. The Diviners (Margaret Laurence)
80. Charlotte's Web (E.B. White)
81. Not Wanted On The Voyage (Timothy Findley)
82. Of Mice And Men (Steinbeck)
83. Rebecca (Daphne DuMaurier)
84. Wizard's First Rule (Terry Goodkind)
85. Emma (Jane Austen)
86. Watership Down (Richard Adams)
87. Brave New World (Aldous Huxley)
88. The Stone Diaries (Carol Shields)
89. Blindness (Jose Saramago)
90. Kane and Abel (Jeffrey Archer)
91. In The Skin Of A Lion (Ondaatje)
92. Lord of the Flies (Golding)
93. The Good Earth (Pearl S. Buck)
94. The Secret Life of Bees (Sue Monk Kidd)
95. The Bourne Identity (Robert Ludlum)
96. The Outsiders (S.E. Hinton)
97. White Oleander (Janet Fitch)
98. A Woman of Substance (Barbara Taylor Bradford)
99. The Celestine Prophecy (James Redfield)
100. Ulysses (James Joyce)

31/100

What's your score??

Fun Game, Not Hard

Okay, so here's where I jump on the bandwagon, and post my own IMDB Keyword movie quiz. Except, unlike some people I know, I'm not going to post obscure keywords which hardly have anything to do with the movie. You people should be able to get all of these easily. Provided you've seen the movies. Some of these are perhaps less well known. So here they are, in no particular order, some of my faves of all time:

1. Blood Splatter, Bride, Vengeance, Female Assassin, Shot In The Head - Kill Bill
2. Catholicism, Vigilante, Irish - Boondock Saints
3. Female Bonding, Southern U.S., Cannibalism, Trial, Train - Fried Green Tomatoes
4. Sexual Harassment, Femme Fatale, Manipulation - Disclosure
5. Wish Fulfillment, Escher Stairway, Goblin - Labyrinth
6. Pirate, Music, Boy Meets Girl - The Pirate Movie
7. Revenge, Marooned, Outer Space, Terraforming, Wrath - Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan
8. Spell, Sister Sister Relationship, Eyes Different Colour - Practical Magic
9. Dance Lesson, Abortion, Forbidden Love - Dirty Dancing
10. Future, Eugenics, Romance, Blood Test, Mistaken Identity - Gattaca

I have acquired myself a minion.

Every Thursday until the end of May I have a student coming to the library for a work experience program. He's in Grade 12, he's very intellectual, kinda geeky, a little weird. He writes odd little poems during his coffee breaks and wants to be a film director. Needless to say we get along great because we are similarly out of touch with reality.

Anyway, here's my problem: I don't know what to have him do. I've had him job shadow just about everyone. He's also done some weeding for me, some shifting of books for the pages, he's been with L a couple of times shifting gov docs and pulling old periodicals. But I don't think he's having a very good time. Cuz those jobs are boring, and I want to give him a better experience at the library. Something that might inspire him so that, if he doesn't become the next Steven Spielberg, he might consider a job at the library instead. He's just so smart and artistic, and here I have him pulling books off the shelf. Surely there is somewhere his talents could be put to better use??

Of course my other problem is that I am a *tiny* bit of a perfectionist/control freak, and I hate to delegate simply because I never believe that anyone else will do as good a job as I would have done.

So does anybody have any suggestions of any projects or jobs that my little minion could do that would befit his talents and at the same time not cause my punctilious personality pain?

dot-dot-dot

Has anyone ever noticed how much I use ellipses? They are everywhere in my writing. I have recently decided that this is a bad thing so I have attempted to curtail my use of them. But I'm finding it really difficult, and I think I know why.

Basically, my love of the ellipsis is intrinsically connected to my personality. I don't know if anyone has ever done any Myers-Briggs or any other type of personality test, but I am a perceiver, as opposed to a judger. Which means I don't really like making decisions or committing to anything. Don't ask me to decide what I'm doing for my vacation this summer. Hell, don't even ask me to decide what I'm doing this weekend. Because I like to keep my options open. And, even if I've made plans, expect them to change with little or no notice. Which, admittedly, drives some people crazy. Because while I am fairly flexible, and can roll with the punches, I've noticed that some people get a little thrown off if something gets changed at the last moment.

Which brings me back to the punctuation. Because what else is an ellipsis but a refusal to commit to a sentence? It is an incomplete thought, the beginning of an idea... but ultimately it has refused to finish itself. It will not be locked into one static meaning but instead remains like a wound-up spring, just waiting to explode its meaning all over the page (or screen in this case). And the beauty of an ellipsis is that there are usually several, and sometimes many, potential meanings stuffed into those three little dots. And when I use the dots, I could mean any one of those things.

And that brings me to the problem with ellipses. Because while I think that being flexible is good, there are some things that you shouldn't be flexible about. When I use the ellipses, I don't have to choose the endings to my thoughts. I don't have to commit myself. I don't have to take a stand, or make my true intentions or feelings known. Because once you put that period at the end of your sentence, that's it. You've made your decision. No more wishy-washy fence-sitting. You've picked your statement, and now you have to stick with it. Defend it, or else admit you were wrong.

So, while it is somewhat scary for me, I figure that at the very least I should be able to commit to a sentence. No more ellipses (or at least none without a very good reason). We will not discuss my tendencies towards claustrophobia or the absolute feeling of panic I have gotten in the past when someone starts talking about marriage or buying a house.

One thing at a time. Period.

Goodbye Glasses

So I got Lasik Eye Surgery done on Monday.

This may seem a bit out of the blue, but I've really been thinking about it for awhile. It started about a year ago when I started having trouble with my contact lenses. I went in for a routine check up and I saw a new eye doctor since the one I usually go to was booked up solid. And this new doctor she took a look at my eyes and said that they obviously weren't getting enough oxygen. There were apparently a lot of extra blood vessels, which means that the eye was compensating by increasing the blood flow to it. My eyes felt just fine, but hey, the doc knows best. So she gave me a sample of a new contact lens that was supposed to allow more oxygen to reach the eye.

However, I was back again a couple of weeks later because the new contact lenses were awful. My old ones I could wear up to 18 hours a day and they'd be all right, but the new ones, after just 8 hours, were getting so filmy and gunky that I could hardly see out of them. My new eye doctor looked at my eyes and said, "Well, they are obviously getting more oxygen. They look a lot better." Well, really, that's great, and I'm happy for my eyes. But I can't see.

So then she gave me a new set of trial lenses. And they were definitely an improvement on the old ones, but still not as good as the ones I had in the first place. I didn't want to go back and try yet another pair of lenses, but I wanted to be able to see. So I just started wearing my glasses again. But I didn't want to do that forever either, so...

Surgery it was. And I'm glad I did it. It's really, really quite amazing. I had the surgery on Monday morning. The whole procedure took about 15 minutes. The actually "laser" part of the procedure only takes a few seconds on each eye. 41 seconds on my left and 38 seconds on my right to be specific. Then they make you go straight home, or in my case, to a hotel, and lay down with your eyes closed for four hours. (I listened to Hat Full of Sky by Terry Pratchett on CD, thanks Ash it was great, looking forward to Wintersmith).

And you're supposed to take lots of eye drops, both antibacterial and lubricating, and above all DO NOT RUB YOUR EYES!!!!! (And it really was written like that in my post-op instructions, five exclamation marks and all).

24 hours after my surgery, I could see almost as clearly as I could with my glasses, and was pronounced fit to drive home. Amazing, eh?

So now I am one of those people who don't wear glasses or contact lenses. I'm not really sure how it feels yet, because my eyes are still healing, so they feel dry and scratchy a lot of the time, like I've left my contact lenses in for way too long. And my vision is supposed to continue to fluctuate for the next two weeks. But when that's over, I think it will sink in and be really cool.

One thing that I kind of slightly regret is that it's quite possible that I'll have absolutely no reason to wear glasses again (at least until I'm fifty and have to start wearing reading glasses). And sometimes it was cool to have that option. Cuz some glasses just look really cool. And I also liked to wear them when I wanted to appear intelligent or serious. So, maybe I'll have to get a pair of glasses with either plain glass lenses, or really weak lenses (depending on how good my vision finally ends up being) just to have a pair of glasses to wear when I want them.

But, for right now, I can't afford them. Because the surgery was really, really expensive. But so, so worth it.

Signs of Spring...

I was at my parents' this weekend, and it was absolutely beautiful. After the horrid Winter That Wouldn't End, Spring finally made an appearance. Of course, as I type this, it is once again snowing outside... but I have confidence that this snow will be short-lived. I always love it when Spring comes. For some reason, I always feel happy for no reason, other than that I can finally go outside sans boots and parka, and I don't have to plug my car in every night just so it will start in the morning.

Spring can be a particularly spectacular sight at my family's farm. I am always amazed when the landscape can go from this:


To this:


Here are some other lovely Spring-y water-y pics:








Bridge? What Bridge?

Censorship Alive and Well

Well, I know this has been blogged to death, but I just had to put my two cents in. This year's Newbery Medal winner is The Higher Power of Lucky by Susan Patron. It is also the latest book to be targeted by censors. Why? Because of the word "scrotum". Which, in the book, refers to the place a dog got bitten by a snake. People are upset because they feel the word will cause children to ask inappropriate questions. Well, geez. That's what kids do. And if they don't know what a scrotum is by the time they're eight years old, they damn well should. There's nothing wrong with telling kids the proper name for body parts. It's not like the book actually discusses sex. It's on a dog for goodness sake! I cannot even fully express my disbelief and horror at the librarians who are refusing to stock the book because of ONE WORD. It's not even a bad word at that. Thankfully, as far as I know, this stupidity has been confined to south of the border. If anyone knows of any Canadian instances of censorship, feel free to correct me.

Don't tell me I've nothing to do...

Wow. Yeah. So I guess I haven't posted in a while. But you know, I really can't spend all my time thinking up witty and interesting things to say on the Internet. I have a life, you know. And there are so many other, more important things that require my attention. Like trying to fool my cat into thinking my dirty sock is actually a large, purple mouse. Or watching reruns of Friends and Family Guy that I have already seen five times. Or attempting, for the fifteenth time, to finish my Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets computer game (it is really hard to find the last two bronze wizard cards). So you see, I've been very busy and I have a very good excuse for being such an intermittent blogger.

Speaking of Harry Potter, I'm sure everybody knows that the title for the final book was announced in December: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

Oooooohhhhh. Doesn't that sound deliciously... deadly? Will she or won't she? Is Harry going to survive the final onslaught, or will the Deathly Hallows be his doom? Actually, I am working on a piece which I hope will be ready to post sometime soon about my predictions for the final book. There is, as of yet, no official news of a release date for the book. Many people are predicting July 7th of this year (the seventh book being released on 07/07/07 would have a kind of symmetry to it), but considering that the 5th Harry Potter movie is due to be released that same month, I doubt that will be the case.

Speaking of movies based on books, can you believe how crazy the movie industry is going over movies based on children's books? Just before Christmas there was Eragon and Charlotte's Web, How to Eat Fried Worms was before that, and coming up is Bridge to Terabithia. Bridge to Terabithia is a Disney production and I will be interested to see what they do with it. The novel is a frequent target of censors and appears on the American Library Association list of the 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990-2000 at number nine. I wonder if Disney will stay true to the book, or change it into another one of its sanitized, happily-ever-after atrocities. The movie will be released on February 16th, so we shall see.

Anyway, I'd better go. I think I hear Harry calling.

Happy New Year

So, here's a good New Year's story.

First of all, I should explain that my parents were in Australia for six weeks and did not get back until December 15th. Because they were going to be away until just before Christmas, they asked my sister to get a tree for them. Now, my parents' living room goes all the way up through the second floor (think loft), so the ceiling is actually close to 20 feet high. So my sister asked for a "tall tree". So the guy at the tree lot gave her "a really good deal" on a tall tree, since not too many people have the room in their house for one and he didn't think he was going to sell it. And, bonus, this tree was a wild tree all the way from the mountains. So, she hauled her tree home, and it was only when we got it home that we realized what "tall tree" meant.

The tree was actually somewhere around 10 to 11 feet tall. Now, as I said before, that's not a problem with regards to the ceiling, but recall that trees are cone-shaped, and an increase in height means an increase in the size of the base. We were dealing with one massive tree. Now, we usually have fairly tall trees (usually in the realm of 8 or 9 feet tall) so we already owned a fairly heavy-duty tree stand. Well this tree was so big and heavy that we couldn't get it to stand up. It fell over twice (luckily before it was decorated). Finally, Dad had to weld extra long legs onto the stand in order to hold the tree up. After that, it seemed to be well-balanced and supported, and once decorated, it was actually quite nice. Really, one of the nicest trees we ever had, I think. What do you think?

Before I go on, I should also mention that my sister brought home her two kittens, who are, as kittens are wont to be, very cute and mischievous, and who also developed an unhealthy fascination with the Christmas Tree. We also have a very old, very large dog named Fuzzy. She's part Husky part St. Bernard, deaf as a post, almost blind, and possibly going a bit batty as well (mom found her barking at the book case the other day for no apparent reason). The kittens were also fascinated with the dog. The dog was not quite so enamoured of them. The whole situation was a recipe for disaster, and I'm sure you can see where this is going.

Now picture this: We were sitting at home in the basement watching a movie on New Year's Eve, it is just past midnight (happy 2007!) when there was a deafening crash from above, followed by the sound of claws scrabbling on the floor and running feet. We ran upstairs, and I'm sure you can guess what we found.

The big, beautiful tree had tipped completely over and was lying on the floor amidst needles, water and broken glass. Yuck! K and I were not looking forward to cleaning it up. But it had to be done, so the first thing we did was stand the tree back up again. And who should emerge from underneath? Fuzzy! A little bit shaken (after all, how often does a 10 foot tree fall on you?) but otherwise unharmed and waiting patiently to be rescued.

Luckily, the damage was not as bad as it first looked. There were about 10 broken balls, but if a large furry dog had not been there to break the tree's fall, I imagine we would have lost many more.

Now, it would seem, given the fact that we caught Fuzzy red-handed underneath the tree that she would be the primary suspect. However, you must remember the sound of running feet that was heard directly after the incident. It obviously wasn't Fuzzy as she was trapped under the tree at the time. Which brings me to K's kittens. They, of course, were nowhere to be seen when we went upstairs to investigate the crime scene. They wandered in a few minutes later and stared at Fuzzy with wide eyes as if to say "Oooooh. Look what you did." Although we have our suspicions, there were, alas, no security cameras and no other physical evidence to tie them to the scene. The cats, of course, aren't talking. So we'll never know for sure exactly what transpired.

So, I was up until 3 am on New Year's Eve cleaning up bits of tree and broken glass. Not a particularly auspicious beginning to the year, but I have faith. 2007 is the year of the Violette. I can feel it. In any case, it's got to be better than last year which, apart from the 6 weeks I spent in Europe (which I will admit was pretty darn awesome), this past year totally sucked. Was, in fact, the suckiest year ever. So, here's to 2007. Don't let me down.

Don't judge a book...

Something happened in the library today that made the newest Unshelved Strip very relevant. A patron wanted Washington Irving's "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow". The only copy we had was in the children's section. It was the full text, not an abridged version, but the patron refused to take it home. Because it was in the children's section and he was not a child. It's amazing how people's perception of something will change depending on what label you slap on it.

Survey...

Okay, y'all know I've been bitching about work lately. Well, I've got a question for the blogosphere:

1) Are children's librarians usually considered to be part of management?

2) Do children's librarians usually manage their own staff?

If anyone has any experience to offer me, especially if you work in a smaller city (Ash? This might be one you could answer) that would be great. I'm trying to figure out if my job really sucks or not.

Grrrrrr.....

Work is driving me crazy. I came home today and felt like punching someone. I'm supposed to be doing eighteen different things and I have time for none of them. I do stuff all day, and I feel like nothing gets done. I have no budget, thanks to the previous librarian who kindly spent it all for me in June. I ask people to do stuff and it doesn't get done. I am understaffed, underpaid, and under stress.

I will not get any more specific than that, cuz really, bitching about work on your blog is not a good idea. But suffice to say, I'm not having the best time right now.

There. I'm done complaining. Maybe I'll have something more intelligent or enlightening to say later. Maybe. Some day.

My Beef with Vegetarians

The other day I received a book about vegetarianism called "Why are people vegetarians?" for my children's non-fiction section. I did not order it, the previous librarian did, and it was so one-sided and full of crap that I really didn't want to put it on the shelves. But as I am a librarian who is whole-heartedly anti-censorship, I put it on the shelf. I am now searching for another book to offer an opposing viewpoint. The search does not go well. So, in the meantime, here are some of my opposing viewpoints.

Vegetarianism is kind of 'in' right now. It's the cool thing to do. But I am not, nor will I ever be, a vegetarian. But many people are, and they become vegetarians for various reasons, most of which, in my humble opinion, are completely illogical and silly.

Reason #1: Being a Vegetarian is more healthy

Okay, first of all, humans are omnivores. That means that we eat both animals and plants. We have biologically evolved in this way. Meat is not some foreign substance that we are invading our bodies with. We're supposed to eat it. When most people think of vegetarians, they think of lots of vegetables, fruits, and other good, healthy non-meat foods. But let's say all I ate was potato chips and pop-tarts. Am I a vegetarian? Yup. Am I healthy? Not so much. It is true that many vegetarian diets are healthier than the average western nation diet, but it is not because they don't eat meat. Rather it is because of what they do eat (fruits and veggies). They're just healthy in general. The key here, people, is balance. If you took someone who ate a healthy diet including all those fruits and vegetables AND meat, and compared them to someone who ate a healthy vegetarian diet, there would be little to no difference. In fact, I'm betting the meat-eater has a slightly better chance of being more healthy. As someone who perpetually struggles with an iron deficiency, I know where I'd be if I tried to be a vegetarian. Yes, you can get enough iron without meat, but it is way more difficult. So, in conclusion, a healthy diet is a healthy diet, whether you eat meat or not. Period.

Reason #2: I don't like the way meat tastes

This one I actually think is somewhat legitimate. It's a personal taste thing. You don't like it, you don't like it. I don't like coconut or green peppers. That doesn't mean that I'm weird, it's just the way I am. However, I would like to point out that beef, pork, chicken and fish are all very different in texture and flavour. I find it difficult to believe that someone doesn't like the taste of any of them. I think that at least some vegetarians who use this reason are really fooling themselves. It's not the taste that gets you, it's the fact that you associate the taste with killing poor innocent creatures and that is what turns your appetite off. That doesn't mean that it's impossible for someone to really and truly dislike the taste of all types of meat. But be honest about your reasons. Which brings me to my next point:

Reason #3: Killing Animals is Cruel

This also has some legitimacy in my opinion. Some. First of all, I would like to point out, perhaps unnecessarily, that killing animals is natural. Animals do it to each other all the time. Cats catch mice, wolves catch deer, bigger fish eat smaller fish. And people are animals. We have our place in the food chain too. If people stopped eating animals, I would argue that there would be some serious ecological consequences. Populations of animals depend on the food chain to keep them in balance. If you eliminate a predator, then the population of the prey explodes. The fact that humans have taken over the territory and therefore severely reduced the population of many natural large predators does not help. So what's more cruel: letting some hunters make deer sausage out of a few does, or watching them slowly starve to death over winter? Also, if humans stopped eating animals, we would be condemning many billions of domesticated creatures to death and possible extinction. There is one reason to keep these animals around: lunch. Otherwise there is no economical reason to keep them. Now, you might keep some cows around for milk (but vegans won't do the dairy thing), chickens for eggs (except some vegetarians won't eat them either), and sheep for wool, but your populations will be severly reduced. We could release them into the wild. But most of these animals are so domesticated that they couldn't survive in the wild. These animals depend on us. I would also like to ask the question of just where we draw the line between what we will kill, and what we won't kill. So, plants are okay. And we don't have problems killing viruses and bacteria. Other single-celled organisms? Well, we can't see them. How about a worm? Or a bug? When's the last time you swatted a mosquitoe? Set any mousetraps lately? Oh, but those are pests, right? Well, an out-of-control rabbit population could be considered pests too. Wouldn't it be better to chow down on some rabbit stew rather than just poison them all and burn the carcasses? But rabbits are cute and furry you say?

Well, I agree. It's difficult to want to kill and eat something like a bunny or a deer. Or even a cow (although anyone who says cows are cute, I say you have NEVER actually had to deal with one). I don't think this is a logical response, but it is an emotional one. I admit the thought of someone killing, skinning and eating my Avery cat is absolutely horrifying to me. And let's be honest, in some cultures that happens. And despite what I said before about humans being animals and it being natural for animals to kill other animals, humans are also not JUST animals. We have a gift called critical thinking. We can think about our actions and choose to do or not do something. We are not a slave to our instincts. And we can therefore choose not to kill and eat animals. I think it is a purely emotional response, and not based on any logical reasoning, and as I said before, if everyone chose this route, I think we would be in trouble, but if you can't bear the thought of a fuzzy creature dying for your dinner, then I respect your decision. And lucky for you, we live in a society where food is plentiful enough that you can actually choose what you eat. Good luck with that when western society comes crashing down around your ears and you're back to hunting and gathering off the land.

There are also those who state the additional reason that many domesticated animals, like cows, are kept in very bad conditions. Dark, dirty, over-crowded feedlots where they can't even turn around and they suffer horribly, etc. I don't know how legitimate these claims are, I've never been to a feedlot, though I suspect they are not even close to as bad as rabid animal rights activists would have us believe. But, I do agree that animals shouldn't be kept in those conditions, if those conditions exist. However, there are alternatives other than swearing off meat completely. There is such a thing as free-range beef. These cows are raised on pasture in wide open spaces. Not kept in a barn and fed grain. So if you would like to eat "happy" meat, then you will simply have to search a little harder for it. It does exist. Money makes the world go round. If there are people willing to buy it, then more will become available.

Reason #4: Vegetarianism is better for the environment

This is by far the stupidest reason I have heard yet. Proponents of this argument cite the fact that animals such as cows, sheep and goats are major producers of methane gas, a contributor to the greenhouse effect and global warming. Yes, this is true. Do you know what else produces a ton of methane? Wetlands, swamps and bogs. Do you hear environmentalists running around saying "Drain the swamps!"? No. Because wetlands are a natural contributor to global warming (i.e. not man-made) and getting rid of them would cause much more harm to the environment than it would save. How about we focus on UN-natural producers of methane like petroleum drilling, coal mining, and landfills, hmmmm? But, you might argue, cows are kept by humans for food, and are therefore man-made, not natural. However, let us not forget that these cows were in fact at one point wild and roaming free over the earth. And cows produce methane no matter if they're in the wild or in a barn. There are an estimated 1.3 billion cows in the world right now. However, back in the day before Europeans arrived in the Americas, there was another methane-producing animal roaming at will over the plains of North America: the bison. There was an estimated 50 million of them. Now there are only about 200,000 left. So, before the interferance of humans, the earth supported a large number of methane-producing grazing animals. Was the world-wide total 1.3 billion? Probably not that high, but still. Cows were on earth producing methane long before humans got organized enough to domesticate them.

Another environmental argument that people use is that cows use up land that could otherwise grow food to feed all the starving people in the world. There are several things wrong with this statement. First of all, there is no global food shortage. That's right people. We could feed the world right now. It's not a production problem, it's a distribution problem. Western nations have too much (we're all getting fat) and developing nations don't have enough. Secondly, most of the land that cattle graze on, i.e. natural grass and pasture land, is unsuitable for other agricultural production. It's rugged and dry and if you tried to cultivate it, you would ruin it. Also, natural grassland evolved with grazers, and it needs animals grazing on it to keep it healthy.

So, in conclusion, unless you are absolutely psychologically unable to reconcile yourself to killing an animal, or you really don't like the taste of any meat, then you have no excuse for being a vegetarian. Get a Life, Eat a Steak. Take that you stupid book.

The Perks of being a Children's Librarian...

One of my most favourite, favourite things about being a librarian is that I am surrounded by books all day. Good books. Especially Teen Lit, which I really, really love. So I've been reading up a storm.

The Raintree Rebellion - Janet McNaughton

This is the sequel to The Secret Under My Skin which those of you who were in Anna's Children's Lit class will be familiar with as the book everybody (except me) hated. I mentioned The Raintree Rebellion a few months ago and said, rather defiantly, that I was going to read it, and I was going to like it, so there. Well, I'm not done the book yet, so I hate to pass premature judgement, but I gotta say, I don't think it's a good book. The premise is good; a dystopic, technophobic future set in Canada. But McNaughton just doesn't pull it off. Let's compare it to reading something like Philip Pullman's Golden Compass Trilogy. Reading The Golden Compass is like eating expensive chocolate truffles. Like the small, solid, round truffle, the plot is tight, compact; everything has a purpose and works toward enhancing the story. Yet every single tiny molecule of the truffle is bursting with sweet, chocolatey flavour, and you want to savour every single morsel. In contrast, The Raintree Rebellion is kind of like eating overdone steak. The cook has done a very good job coating the outside with a tasty barbecue sauce, so it's not completely unpalatable, but man oh man do you ever have to chew a lot to get it down.

Despite the fact that I did enjoy reading The Secret Under My Skin and subsequently defended it in class, I never denied that there were flaws; these same flaws continue to exist in Rebellion - only this time around I can't be as forgiving.

First of all, the world in the 24th century, as described by McNaughton, is kind of mixed up. They are technophobic, and yet they have inexplicably integrated various frivolous technologies into their lives such as walls that can change colour, and a ceiling that mimics the sky outside (total Harry Potter rip-off BTW). They all keep saying that it's such a mystery what happened during the technocaust, but Blay is only 18. She was two when it happened. That's only 16 years. We're not talking 50 or 100 years. There should be many, many people around who remember what happened. You also find out in the sequel that the Technocaust only happened in North America. So they ask places like Australia and South Africa to send them news reports to help them piece together what happened. Huh? The whole reason the Technocaust happened is because the world was an ecological disaster and people blamed technology for making it that way. The Ozone layer affects the entire earth people, so how come good old Australia managed to hang onto democracy and didn't descend into chaos? The first book was like this too; it was like she would be writing along and then all of a sudden remember, oh yeah, this is the future, let's throw in a bit of inexplicable, useless technology. Oh yeah, this is supposed to be a dystopic future, let's throw in some sort of description of the degredation of society. It's patchy at best, and I don't think the book hangs together very well. We're left with too many Whys?

She also has a tendency to overexplain some things. And I think she is perhaps trying to make up for the fact that parts of it are indeed hard to understand, but she explains the wrong things to you. Finally, I have a little bit of a problem with characterization in this one. And this is maybe why I forgave the first one its flaws, but couldn't forgive this one: I liked Blay as a character, but in this book she's angry all of a sudden, and I was like, "Huh?" Blay was just not the type of person to get or stay angry at someone.

Anyway, all in all, I think we can say skip this one. It's not worth it.

I have however, done some really good reading too.

Ella Enchanted - Gail Carson Levine.

I'd never seen the movie or read the book, so when I came across it on the shelf, I just had to have a go. And coincidently, the day after I finished reading it, the movie was on TBS, so I got to do both. And the book isn't as goofy as the movie. The movie makes fun of itself quite a bit, there is a lot of parody, etc. The book takes itself more seriously, but it is equally good, if not better, in its own way. It is a re-telling of the Cinderella story, complete with evil stepmother and stepsisters, a handsome prince, glass slippers, and a masked ball, and a couple of fairy godmothers, but the funny thing is that I didn't realize this until near the end when it became painfully obvious, so it really is quite a different story than the original Cinderella. I really recommend this, even if you have already seen the movie.

Dairy Queen - Catherine Gilbert Murdock

This was so good. It is set on a dairy farm in Wisconsin and it is about a girl who, over the course of the summer, ends up training the rival school's snobby football quarterback. She ends up liking the football quarterback guy, and has so much fun training, that she decides she wants to go out for her own school's (all-male) football team. Will the quarterback like her back? Will her school let her play? And if they do, how can she play against the guy that she likes? I'm not going to answer these questions because you should read the book. I just thought that the whole setting - small, rural community; rival towns; schools that are absolutely obsessed with football - oh yeah. I lived it. And every once in awhile, it's good to go back.

MeMe

This fun meme is from Ash.

Look at the list of books below. Bold the ones you've read, italicize the ones you might read, cross out the ones you won't, underline the ones on your book shelf, and place parentheses around the ones you've never even heard of.

The Da Vinci Code - Dan Brown

The Catcher in the Rye - J.D. Salinger: Maybe, someday.

The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy - Douglas Adams: I've heard good things about this one.

The Great Gatsby - F. Scott Fitzgerald

To Kill A Mockingbird - Harper Lee: The movie's good too.

The Time Traveler's Wife - Audrey Niffenegger: I'm not sure if I should bold this one or not, because I've only read half. But the half I read was really good and I would've finished had my sister not stolen it back from me. I will finish one day.

His Dark Materials - Philip Pullman

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - J.K. Rowling

Life of Pi - Yann Martel: Um, not sure what I should do with this one. I've skimmed it and read the beginning and ending. Which I know doesn't do it justice. But now that I've read the ending, I probably won't read it all.

Animal Farm: A Fairy Story - George Orwell

Catch-22 - Joseph Heller

The Hobbit - J.R. R. Tolkien

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time - Mark Haddon: I've read the first chapter of this, and it sounded really good. I will finish it sometime.

Lord of the Flies - William Golding

1984 - George Orwell

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - J.K. Rowling

One Hundred Years of Solitude - Gabriel Garcia Marquez: Heard of it. Sounds boring.

Memoirs of a Geisha - Arthur Golden

(The Kite Runner - Khaled Hosseini)

The Lovely Bones - Alice Sebold: Mom said it was good.

Slaughterhouse 5 - Kurt Vonnegut

Angels and Demons - Dan Brown

Fight Club - Chuck Palahniuk Never seen the movie, no desire to read the book.

(Neuromancer - William Gibson)

(Cryptonomicon - Neal Stephenson)

(The Secret History - Donna Tartt)

A Clockwork Orange - Anthony Burgess: Weird abstract books give me headaches.

Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte

Brave New World - Aldous Huxley

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe - C. S. Lewis

(Middlesex - Jeffrey Eugenides)

(Cloud Atlas - David Mitchell)

The Lord of the Rings - J.R.R. Tolkien

Jane Eyre - Charlotte Bronte

Good Omens - Terry Pratchett, Neil Gaiman: They are good authors and I've read other books by them, so I will have to check this one out sometime.

(Atonement - Ian McEwan)

(The Shadow of the Wind - Carlos Ruiz Zagon)

The Old Man and the Sea - Ernest Hemingway

The Handmaid's Tale - Margaret Atwood

The Bell Jar - Sylvia Plath

Dune - Frank Herbert

So there you have it. I've read a lot of them, but I must confess that several of them were forced on me by University Professors, and while I am glad that I have read them and think that they have enriched my mind, I probably would have never picked them up on my own.

My Life, or a reasonable facsimile thereof...

Well, where do I start?

My beast is dead. He is in the shop again, and I am very upset. It is really hard to get around in a small prairie city when you have no transportation. It takes me 40 minutes to walk to work. The bus system here is a joke. And not a very funny one at that. It is the same thing that was wrong the last time. And this time it is not my fault, just a faulty part. But unfortunately, I chose to go the cheap route last time and got a used part, which means NO WARRANTY. So now I have to get another one, and it will cost me just as much money (if not more, since I will probably get a brand new part having learned my lesson about used parts).

I am crazy-busy at work. I just had my first story time today, and it went fine, except I forgot the last two lines to a song, and so I just made something up, and it didn't rhyme, and it didn't even have the correct number of syllables, but give me a break, people. I'm just barely clinging to sanity here.

I also had my first go at weeding the children's fiction collection. The whole children's section needs weeding badly. So I'm getting pages to pull books that haven't circulated in the last four years. Then I go through them. I have discovered that I am perhaps not a very good weeder. Books gain my sympathy way too easily. I'm only too willing to give them a second chance. I'm always thinking, "but you are a good book! Why has no one ever tried you out?? You poor thing. Let me take you home and we'll have a good cuddle in front of the fire with a cup of hot chocolate." It's hard to remember that they are all good books. That's why they were purchased in the first place. But some of them have to go. In the end, my discard pile was at least twice as high as the pile that was going back on the shelf. So that's something. I dunno. Do you think I'm being ruthless enough? It is so hard to condemn a book that is only six years old, is attractive, and interesting, but for some reason has never circulated. Not once. I think we need a foster books program. To give unwanted and unloved books a home. All they need is a chance to prove themselves, and you will find out what good books they can be.

Yes, I know, another post and no France. I promise, I will write about my trip to Europe, in exhaustive detail. If it takes me until Christmas, I shall prevail. But until then, think of me, wish me luck, and consider becoming a foster book parent.

I love Paris...

So, on to more about Paris. First I'd like to talk a little bit about where K and I stayed, because we really got lucky in that regard I think. You see, K and I did not make any plans about where we were going to stay, so we were kind of flying by the seat of our pants you might say. But K got there a few days ahead of me along with a few other friends who had been in Ethiopia with her, and one of them knew of a cheap hotel called L'hôtel de l'Espérance. So that's where they stayed, and also where we stayed for the first couple of days. And I think it is in a really good place. It's just off Rue Daguerre, which is a small street off of Avenue Du Général Leclerc in the south part of the city. Avenue Du Général Leclerc is a fairly busy street with lots of shops, including an Internet café and a French-language movie theatre. Rue Daguerre is a little side street with lots of small shops and cafés, including a laundromat. And it also has a market every day with tons of fresh fruit, vegetables, meat, bread and cheese. Plus, it is super close to a major metro stop: Denfert-Rochereau. In short, it is a fabulous location to explore the city from. We later moved to another hotel which was a few blocks further down Rue Daguerre. This was Hotel Télémaque, and it was pretty nice. It was only few more Euros than Hôtel de L'Espérance (about 54 Euros a night for a double bed and en suite shower and toilet), but it was cleaner and nicer, it was never full (probably because it was a bit more off the beaten path). Plus breakfast was included (nothing fancy, just a baguette with some butter and jam and your choice of hot chocolate or coffee, but still!). So, moral of the story, if you ever go to Paris, and you are looking for a cheap but decent place to stay, I highly recommend that hotel and that location.

Okay, on to our Paris trip. One of the first places we went to was Jardin du Luxembourg. It used to be some royal residence, but now the Palais du Luxembourg is the seat of the French senate, and the gardens are open to the public as a park. This beautiful and large public park was just north not too far from where we stayed. K and I walked there and had lunch a few times. It's got some beautiful fountains, and rows and rows of trees clipped into squares. It's tricky though, because some of the grass you can sit on, and some of the grass is forbidden as K found out (she was kicked off several lawns).


Jardin du Luxembourg

K liked these turtle fountains