Text Size
English Spanish

Librarian Blog

A truly great book if ...

My son and daughter-in-law had their first and probably only child last July, and for the first many months they didn't expect him to sleep through the night.
Then, a few months ago, they wondered if they would ever again get a full night's rest themselves. You know how it goes: up and down, up and down.
About that time, I ran across a book called "The Rabbit Who Wants to Go to Sleep," and I looked at it and read it and thought, Wow, what a great idea for a book. I bought it and gave it to them.
I guess it didn't do much good because a couple of weeks ago, they actually bought the services of a professional child counselor to tell them how to get the boy to sleep through the night. (They don't ask their grandparents because, well, we only raised seven children between us, and most of them learned to sleep through the night before they were 10 months of age.)
Mark O'Connell, who writes for The New York Times Sunday magazine, is not quite so stubborn. He got the book for his child, and, voila!, it worked.
I think it will work for your child, too.
It will have you nodding off right with them at bedtime.

Heroes vs. Action Heroes

Have SuperHero action movies killed the comic spirit that spawned them in the first place?
Yes, according to the writer of a piece on the subject in a weekend edition of The New York Times.
The movie versions are chliches, trite embodiments of the same super powers over and over again, all designed to make money not, well, cultural significance.
Maybe action comics from the '50s and '60s were more authentic, more purely incandescent than today's movie of a similar genre. Maybe not. Ask my mother and father. (Only you can't; they died long ago.)
They were not impressed with my all-too-abiding interest in Superman and Batman, et al. They wanted me reading Jack London and the Hardy Boys.
The issue was not action heroes. The issue was the medium: the comic book.
I paid them no nevermind.
Just like I pay no nevermind to reviewers of today who think the Super World is going to heck in a handbasket because of the movies.
Probably not.

Maybe no bias

I wrote last week about the financial difficiulties faced by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, one of the great art institutions in the world.
Seems that the Met is having troubles; the Museum of Modern Art, also a great institiution, is having no such problems.
Why would the Met be facing money issues while MoMA is not? Is there some bias in the art world against more traditional art and toward modern or contemporary art, I wondered.
So, I asked my daughter, Julia, who is a professor of art history at the University of California at Berkeley, about this.
She replied over the weekend: The problem is more mismanagement at the Met. That, plus the Met doesn't charge a large fee to enter, which MoMA does.
So, in alignment with Occam's Razor, the simplest answer prevails: No cultural bias in favor of modernism.

They're still reading

Forecasts about the death of books are pretty much just wrong.
The Association of American Publishers just released data from last year. Sales of books for consumers were up about 1 percent in dollar volume. Overall, though, revenue was down about 3 percent.
Ebook sales were down a lot in children and young adult categories. Growth continued in audiobooks.
Paperback sales were strong.
Here at the library, we see fewer and fewer people who want to learn to download ebooks or audiobooks. Maybe that process has gotten easier or people are more adept at trying those tasks by themselves.
Still, it looks as if the doomsayers are nowhere near right. Yet.

I'm stumped

My wife and I used to go quite often to New York City, and one of our first stops was at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
We would sprint up to the floor with the Impressionists and start where we left off on the previous visit.
We never tired of the exhibits, both permanent and temporary, at the Met.
I can remember only one time that we also made it to the Museum of Modern Art. I guess I'm just not a big fan. And I guess that's because I don't own a modern art vocabulary. I don't understand the context.
So, I'm a little stumped by the front-page article in today's New York Times that says that MoMA is far outpacing the Met in funding, audience reach, etc.
The NYT doesn't say why that is the case.
And I wonder. Is mainstream art just passe? What makes modern art more digestible, interesting and fund-worthy?
I honestly don't have a clue.
Do you?
DMC Firewall is a Joomla Security extension!