battle of the books

There seems to be a debate over a conflict that I'm not really sure exists. It's the book battle. Classic paper version vs e-book reader version (ie, Kindle, Nook, iPad). The debate is usually about which is more practical, will e-readers replace books, is it really reading, etc. i don't really get where the drama is coming from. I don't own an e-reader, but I have a handful of read-y friends who do. The common denominator is that they're all voracious readers and they're all frequent travellers, whether for business or pleasure. Here's my rundown of how they compare, even though i maintain its an 'apples and oranges' debate that only exists because bookish types usually need something to be insufferable about.

I vacationed to Las Vegas with a Kindle owner in May and I packed three books/several inches of valuable suitcase space per her 1 Kindle, an easy carry-on in her purse. Point- technology
E-reader: 1, paper book: 0

We spent a great deal of time by the pool on our vacation, and I was free to stand or float in the water and read my $9 paperback worry free, whereas my pal either had to risk dropping her Kindle in the drink or stay by the side of the pool and hope no drunks (or entitled Euro-types) got splashy. Point- classic paper
E-reader: 1, paper book: 1

About a third of the way through my $9 paperback ('Shutter Island', if you're curious), it began molting pages and chunks of pages until the page I was on was literally the first page of the book. Not a huge deal, since I paid bottom dollar and it was only meant as a 'pool read' anyway, but still annoying to have loose pages all over my bag and lounge chair. Naturally, my friend's Kindle wasn't shedding. Point- technology
E-reader: 2, paper book: 1

I lost my place in my book, glimpsed a passage much further along in the story, and had a major plot point spoiled for me. The Kindle allows readers to switch between different books while keeping them exactly where they left off. You'd have to press alot of buttons to accidentally read the end of your thriller. Point- technology
E-reader: 3, paper book: 1

When I got tired of reading and was feeling sunburned (you didn't think we'd left the pool did you? Never!!!!) I could open my book and shield my face and take a little nap. You'd need to be noseless a la Voldemort for that classic move to work with a Kindle. Point- classic paper
E-reader: 3, paper book: 2

If anyone at the pool got a case of sticky fingers once my friend and i had dozed off (me under my paper tent and she under sunglasses or a floppy hat), I was only out $9 and one book (and probably my iPhone and ear buds) whereas my friend would've been out $379+ and several books (and probably her iPhone and ear buds). This rule also applies to misplacing books. Point- classic paper
E-reader: 3, paper book: 3

If she and I had both been reading 'Shutter Island', and Dennis Lehane had walked up and taken the lounge chair next to us and started chatting with us about Boston (his area of interest) or the MGM lion habitat (ours), I could have gushed, told him I was a big fan of his work, and scrounged up a pen with which he could've autographed my copy of his book. (Of course, depending on when this happened, he would've had to sign page 179 instead of the title page, since the first third of my paperback had long since fallen apart.) My friend could've gotten her Kindle signed, I guess, provided we'd scrounged a felt-tip pen that wouldn't get smear-y. And from then on she would have Dennis' signature on her Kindle even when she was reading Jumpa Lahiri or Anne Patchett. Awwwwkwaaaard. Point- classic paper
E-reader: 3, paper book: 4

Hypothetical Dennis has to go, but hypothetically thanks us for being marvelous lounge neighbors before he departs. (He's hypothetically meeting with some film producers about the rights to his hypothetical newest book and was very receptive to our opinions on casting.) Back to reading in the bright desert sun by the pool. I have to squint to read the tiny print on my $9 paperback and I have to position myself so as to turn pages and read two different 'sides' of the book. If I were reading at night, by book light (which I often must do since I married a non-reader who is needy enough to want to sleep in the DARK), the physical complications would be compounded. My friend's Kindle is ergonomically suited for optimum visualization and the twitch of her thumb 'turns the page'. I am jealous. (though it IS easier to handle a paperback once it has molted the first third, then half, then two thirds of its pages). Point- technology
E-reader: 4, paper book: 4

Had I wanted to read something that could be embarassing, like a bodice-ripping romance novel or 'Going Rogue', I'd have had to either suck it up and be public about it or go to absurd lengths to hide my book's cover behind a magazine, junior high style. (although, don't people usually hide magazines behind books?) In reality, everyone knew exactly what book I was reading, but no one knew if my friend was reading something as exceptional as 'Ulysses' or as mortifying as 'New Moon'. This 'publicity' factor protects the reader from positive or negative judgement, but also hampers any dialogue that might arise from the chosen literature, like when you see someone reading your favorite book and you engage them, or when someone sees you reading a book they've been curious about and a conversation arises from there. Ah, the bibliophilic community! It's a nice thing, isn't it? It's more intrusive to ask a Kindle reader what he/she is reading. I wonder how many potential romantic pick-ups were squashed by that anonymous plastic case.... Anyway, since I'm not prone to reading things I'm not proud of (that sounded alot snottier than it was meant to) the e-reader's privacy offer has little significance to me. But I still see its value, so we'll score this round thusly: half point: technology
E-reader: 4.5, paper book: 4

Outside the vacation situation, there is 'the library factor'. i love having books in my home. Some people put up pictures from their travels, or collect and display antiques or oddities or art, and some of us display our books: our own travel memorabilia and art pieces all mixed in to one. (even if we only travel in our miiiiinds) There's also the perk of being able to loan out a book to a friend, which piggybacks the 'gift factor' wherein it's more fun to give someone a prettily wrapped paper book than a....file. (i don't know how individual Kindle books work. i assume it's like iTunes?) My Kindle-owning friend has stacks of books around her home from her pre-Kindle days but now, if she wants a tabletop version of something she read and loved on her Kindle, she'd essentially have to buy the book twice. Point: classic paper

E-reader: 4.5, paper book: 5

When I began this, I had no idea of how the score would work out. (Also, it's 2 am and I'm typing this all out on my iPhone while in bed (in the DARK) and without my contacts or glasses.) i had little agenda beyond pointing out the absurdity of the debate: people are reading, that is always a good thing. Whether they read via paper or screen doesn't matter. If i were a traveller or commuter, i'd probably have a e-reader. i don't think they'll replace paper books, but frankly i'm not sure. All of my music is now invisible: i buy it online and press a few buttons and it's in my car, pocket and home and i never touch it with my hands. "But books!" the purists cry, "they've been around foreverrrr and they're historicaaaalllll!" (purists have odd speech patterns) Well, purists, music is as ancient and historical as books and look how our culture has changed its form. Sure, people still buy vinyl, but you know who those people are? Yep. PURISTS. My hypothesis is that if the e-reader continues to proliferate the way it has been, paper books won't be eliminated, but the way we buy them will change and they'll become like vinyl: sought, collected, treasured, instead of voraciously consumed. If i'm right, then the paper books i have all over my house may become valuable someday... maybe even my desiccated $9 copy of 'Shutter Island'.

cime scene

When Mr. Perfect was a little tyke, he had his own Cabbage Patch doll- a boy doll whose name has been lost to history. We acquired him, along with a cache of other childhood treasures, from Mama Perfect a year or so ago. When it came time to announce our pregnancy to The World, we picked up a cheap baby carrier (the Bjorn knockoff, if you will) and unearthed the Cabbage Patch. In doing so, we christened him Carlos, after the 'found' baby in The Hangover and even equipped him with some sunglasses. Josh wore Carlos to work and told his peers he was practicing for fatherhood (thus, announcing). Carlos has been lurking around our living area ever since and added a diaper to his outfit when Mr. Perfect decided he should probably learn how to apply one. He also donned a hat, though i don't remember why.

So to sum up: Carlos the doll had been living happily, and fully dressed, in the entry for a matter of months. Last night we went to the movies and left Penny and Stella in the house unsupervised, as we often do. They'd been fed, to ward off any hunger-related mischief, and left with air conditioning and lights on and each other's company.

This is what we returned to:

Carlos' naked body, splayed face-up in a different room, with his hair disheveled and ankle tendon chewed off. THE HORRORRRRR! His clothes were scattered all over the place. Exhibits B-E (and i apologize for the blurry photos; i was overcome with emotion (which may have been horror... but may have been hilarity)):




And i'm no CSI, but i think i spy a pretty irrefutable DNA sample left behind by the culprit, which confirms my suspicions about who the alpha of the criminal partnership is:

To recap, two creatures, neither possessing opposable thumbs, 'allegedly' plucked Carlos from atop a dresser in another room, transported him into the living room, removed two shoes, two socks, pants, a diaper, a shirt and a hat, and left him exposed in his shame. Clearly, we're going to have get Carlos into therapy to do all we can to stave off any PTSD. He hasn't said much since the incident, but he was never very chatty in the first place.
(Here's where i struggle with whether it's TOO inappropriate to make a 'show me on the doll...' joke.)
Maybe the dogs thought he looked overheated in his sweatsuit, shoes, socks, diaper and beanie and felt they were doing him a service by stripping him bare? All we know is that they were pretty proud of themselves, while poor Carlos' face was a frozen rictus, trapping a fateful night behind those wide eyes.

the town the film

Just stumbled upon this trailer for The Town, and it looks goooood. It's directed by Ben Affleck, which will either make you roll your eyes or sit up a little in your chair. The eye-rollers obviously did not see what us sit-uppers did: his directorial debut, Gone Baby Gone, based on the book by Mystic River and Shutter Island author Dennis Lehane (all excellent books, by the way). As a reader, i can vouch that he did an astounding job with Gone Baby Gone and would recommend anyone not too faint of heart to go check out both the literary and film versions. (It contains some very difficult material, in the heinous-crimes-against-children vein and is set among some very gritty places and people.)

Anyway, the cast of The Town (yeah, not that gripping a title, but i'll reserve judgment) boasts, in addition to Affleck, Hurt Locker's Jeremy Renner (who happens to sing, and sing WELL but i don't think he sings in this movie), Chris Cooper, JON HAAAAAAMMMMMM!!!!, and Rebecca Hall, who Lyn recently reminded me was super great in The Prestige. Oh, and that one blonde from Gossip Girl who doesn't move her mouth when she talks (again, reserving judgment). It's a Boston-based bank-robbery type movie and it looks like quality entertainment. Let's go see it.

Our blog template tends to chop off the sides of videos so if you want a better viewing experience, you can watch it HERE.

(Also, i think this beats my record for 'number of parenthetical asides per non-parenthetical writing in a single post'. i now recognize that i have an addiction.)

the pregnancy industry: preventing over-population with every effort!

i just want to read a story, internet. JUST. WANT. STORYYYYY.

And not the story of the beautiful, fertile woman who abandons her every selfish whim to do X with/for her newborn and, in doing so, ensures she and her infant will be forever followed around by a golden light of health and happiness.

And not the story of the evil, arrogant feminist who doesn't do X and therefore cruelly condemns her infant to a life of allergies! low test scores!! and irritable behavior!!! never to be corrected because mom was a BAD BAD MOMMY who couldn't get her infant to latch/sleep/poop properly!!!!!!

And so help me, if i see one more photo or drawing of a woman who is dressed and styled like she crawled out of the bowels of the 70s, i will take my dog and move outer space and never come back. If my husband wants to meet his offspring, he'll have to come along.

My (crackpot) theory: the pregnancy industry is why the population is getting dumber/nuttier/tasteless...er. i don't know about you, but my smart, stylish, savvy friends are all refusing to have kids, and i suspect it's partly because they believe they'll have to give up their style and savvy immediately upon being fertilized. i can't really blame them. The 'What To Expect' book series, widely regarded as the Holiest Of All among its peers, looks like the book equivalent of the culottes your Great Aunt Janice would buy for your Christmas present at her local Salvation Army.

The other books have groan-worthy titles you're embarrassed to be seen purchasing, like 'The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding'. (Why yes! There IS a beatific, 70s-era woman serenely-yet-brazenly breastfeeding a Perfect Baby on the cover! Enjoy landing with that book at the 18 yr old male checker's station at Borders.) Lordy. Is there any other word as gaggy as 'womanly'??

If you've never had the pleasure of reading this literature, trust me, it's nearly all cheese, all the time. i'm not sentimental (surprise!!!!!), but i have to wonder if even the sentimental, 'feeeeelinggggg' preggos out there don't get tired of all the saccharine-covered blathering in these books. The problem is that they established themselves as The Sources for information decades ago when there was little competition and have been stalwart ever since. Yes, they're informative, but only in between all the filler.

To be fair: there are more recent additions to the genre that eschew the poetry and propaganda, or at least have updated cover art and layout design. i am deeply thankful for them and hope they take their own advice and procreate. So far one favorite is Dr. Oz's 'You: Having a Baby', which tells it like it is (very efficiently and informatively) and has an easy, relatable voice. Ie:

In the world of fetal development, the 10-fingers, 10-toes test gets all the attention, but we all know that this digital obsession is a mere symbol of the bigger picture: making sure everything's humming along perfectly during the 40 weeks of gestation. That's especially true when it comes to the newborn noggin'.

i also love 'The Baby Name Wizard' which ditches the notions of listing every name's meaning (pointless) and origin (nebulous) and opts instead to give you an idea of just how many other 'creative' parents are naming their future car salesmen Cayden. (Hint: a bajillion. Avoid.) There are a growing number of fun, savvy pregnancy/child-rearing memoirs like 'It Sucked and Then I Cried' and 'Didn't I Feed You Yesterday?' and i'm all for those, but i would really like it if the staples were updated for the new generation of breeders.

Por ejemplo, i'm going to rewrite the atrociously painful 'Womanly Art of Breastfeeding' and call it 'Milked: How to Master the Art of Feeding Your Little Sucker'. Instead of nauseating bologna like, "with his small head pillowed against your breast and your milk warming his insides, your baby knows a special closeness to you. He is gaining a firm foundation in an important area of life: he is learning about love", (i'll pause a moment to give you the chance to gag and/or throw up) (their unspoken alternative: a bottle-fed baby will never know love and therefore will be a sociopath) i will say things like, "it's pretty spiffy how you get to be a human crock pot complete with every nutrient another human needs... and it's FREE!" And due to the absence of cheese and propaganda, my book will be just as informative without being 460+ pages long, because i happen to know that being pregnant actually REDUCES the hours of productivity in a given day and we, the fertilized, are busy people who don't have unlimited time to sit in a holy pool of light reading about how suckling an infant is "beyond even one's wildest dreams." (Sorry if that made you gag again. And yes, it says that. Apparently its target reader does not have very wild dreams.)

Argh. For the record, i'm not anti-breastfeeding at all. What i am opposed to is telling women who are physically or situationally unable to breastfeed that they're failures and their kid is doomed. (Exaggeration? perhaps, but unfortunately not as much as you'd think.) i realize this is part of what comes out of literature published in 1958, but for that and other reasons i think it's time to trim the propaganda and give the modern pregnant woman what she needs: reassurance in her abilities and encouragement to take it all on with style and grace and guns blazing.

....i swore that having a baby would not mean that i'd start posting posts chock full of awkward words like 'breastfeeding'. Fail.