VIA «Digital facade for Medialab Prado»

Thanks to Anna at Hachette Books, I have an amazing selection of audiobooks to give away!
I have three copies each of the following titles:

RUN FOR YOUR LIFE (Unabridged)

By James Patterson and Michael Ledwidge, read by Dallas Roberts and Bobby Cannavale

Detective Bennett realizes he has just hours to save New York from the greatest disaster in its history. From the #1 bestselling author who introduced readers to Alex Cross and the Women's Murder Club-comes the continuation of his newest, electrifying series.

Available in CD and Digital Download formats.

Also available in hardcover and e-book.

DROOD (Abridged)

By Dan Simmons, read by Simon Prebble

DROOD explores the still-unsolved mysteries of the famous author's last years and may provide the key to Dickens's final, unfinished work: The Mystery of Edwin Drood. Chilling, haunting, and utterly original, DROOD.

Available in CD and Digital Download formats.

Also available in hardcover and e-book.

Listen to the excerpts:

Excerpt No. 1, Excerpt No. 2, Excerpt No. 3, and Excerpt No. 4.

Get an OpenBook™ Widget for your site.

Listen to an excerpt.

Listen to the Podcast.

MAX (Unabridged)

By James Patterson, read by Jill Apple

Comfortable in their new safe house, Max and the rest of the Flock finally begin to feel optimistic about their newly-gained freedom. Then the Machine Geeks appear--part machine, part human, totally destructive. They are in the service of an ominous Mr. Chu, who has his eyes on the Flock and their unique abilities. And if he can't have them, he'll make sure nobody else can either!

Available in CD and Digital Download formats.

Also available in hardcover, hardcover in a large print, and e-book.

Listen to an excerpt.

WOMEN'S MURDER CLUB

James Patterson and Maxine Paetro, read by Jeremy Piven, Suzanne Toren, Carolyn McCormick, and Melissa Leo"Now, for the first time, the first three books in this series are available in an audio box set that will delight fans of the series, as well as anyone intrigued by thrilling mystery stories that feature strong women characters..."

RULES:

• To be entered once, comment on this post! Be sure to indicate which audiobook(s) you are interested in winning!
  
• To be entered twice, blog about it. Be sure to include a link to your posting in your comment.
  
• To be entered three times, tweet about this contest (be sure to send me a link to your tweet).
• To be entered four times, become a follower/subscriber!
• US and Canadian residents only. No P.O. Boxes, please!
• Please provide an email address in your comment. Any entries without email addresses will be deleted.
  

Contest will end Saturday, April 18. Winner will be announced on this blog.

Awhile back I was at a party where I talked with a friend who is also interested in libraries and more specifically archives. When he found out I was interested he recommended that I read Scrolling Forward: Making Sense of Documents in the Digital Age

by David Levy, which I promptly purchased the next week. This slim (202 pages to be exact) book is full of information about the place of the document in today's world. Even though the book was published in 2001, it is still right on target with the way we see documents in a digital world. And it takes a surprisingly personal approach towards them and made me see documents in a way I hadn't really considered or just maybe couldn't verbalize before; "For if documents are surrogates for us, they are extensions of ourselves, parts of ourselves. The best and the worst of ourselves can be found in them"(38).

The book starts out with the receipt. Receipts are very ordinary, and a lot of times I tell the cashier I don't want a receipt anymore because I know it will just sit in my wallet for three months and then I will throw it away. But receipts, as Levy shows us, are actually full of information. They tell us where a person went, the day they went there, possibly what they purchased, how much the item cost on that day, how much tax was or if the item was taxed, and anymore a lot of receipts will tell you who it was that rang you up. Receipts are also, as I said, easily discardable and the reason for this is because paper can be mass produced now. This, however, has not always been the case and the fact that we can so easily print and toss receipts says a lot about the society we live in today. This is just one of many examples Levy makes in the book, although it is one of the ones I enjoyed the most. Another section I really enjoyed was the chapter entitled Libraries and the Anxiety of Order, which is all about the basic human need to organize and how libraries are a reflection of this anxiety. He also gets into the creation of the Dewey Decimal System which I think any book lover would enjoy.

There is a lot of information to take in in this book and even though it is short, I read it over a long period of time. It is, honestly, a scholarly book. But I felt like the book maybe wasn't quite sure what it wanted to be. At times it catered to the average Joe, pointing out mundane things we see every day and then turning them and making us see them differently. But then at other times it make an intense discussion about how computers work which, frankly, used some vocabulary that could have been discarded as easily as that receipt at the beginning of the book. And he spent way too much time talking about the etymology of words. I'm sorry, but a pair of parentheses on every page describing the origin of a word is really not that helpful to me, maybe one or two of the really interesting ones I can live with but it was just all too much.

So basically, I would say read this book if you are interested but skim the parts you think are boring. If you are only going to read one library book I would suggest reading Marylin Johnson's This Book is Overdue! How Librarians and Cybrarians Can Save Us All which is much more readable than this one. There is a lot to discover here, and that is why this book earned a B.

I am an Amazon Affiliate. If you make a purchase using one of my links I will earn a small percentage which will then go back into this blog.

Over the summer I purchased a Nook and promised I would write a review about it, but it's taken me until now to really figure out what I like and don't like about it. I'll just start this off by telling you all that I don't regret buying my Nook at all. I think most people know about the main features of the Nook. Mine isn't the touch screen, it's the original digital ink version. I really like the digital ink except for when you turn the page the screen turns black while the letters rearrange themselves. It's a minor thing, but I do find it annoying after long periods of time. Instead of talking about the features of the Nook, which you can find out for yourself on Barnes and Noble's website, I'm going to talk about how I use my Nook and why I'm glad I have an ereader.

I bought my Nook to read books I wouldn't necessarily want print copies of-- and since I'm pretty cheap when it comes to ebooks that is mostly what I've used it for. I refuse to pay price of a physical book for an ebook. I would rather have the actual book in my hands than have a digital version of it. Maybe I'll change my mind over time, but for now that is how I feel about it. Since I mostly buy copies of books I wouldn't necessarily want a physical version of my Nook has a lot of YA books, romance novels, and galleys. One of the ways I use my Nook is to read while I'm working out. I set it on the elliptical machine and all I have to do is push a button when I want to turn the page. It doesn't interfere with my exercise at all, and it's just one extra way I can zone out. Right now I'm reading Ninth Key (The Mediator, Book 2)

, which is a bit of a mystery, and I find myself wanting to work-out longer to read what happens next. By reading a book while exercising I can finish an extra book every couple weeks.

Reading in the car has always made me carsick, but for some reason reading on my Nook does not. I think it's because it's easier for me to control the movement of the book in my hands, whereas when I read a physical copy my arms jump around so much it's hard for me to focus on the words in the book. Reading in the car is the first thing that got me really excited about having a Nook because I've always wanted to be able to do it.

My favorite Nook story is from last semester. I decided I wanted to write a paper about The Bedwetter: Stories of Courage, Redemption, and Pee

and I needed the book in a few days. None of my local bookstores had it so my only option was to order the book online, which would take at least a few days to get at my house and put my paper writing off. I decided to buy the ebook version of it and had it in just a few minutes. I was able to finish the book in two days and got my paper finished on the day it would have arrived had I ordered it. If you need a book quickly, an ereader is a really convenient, fast way to get it.

I thought I would use my Nook a lot more than I have, but the truth is that I'm still extremely attached to physical books. I'll take a physical book over an ebook any day, but like I said earlier, there are books where having the ebook makes more sense for me. I do think I am able to read more books because of the ereader because I can read in places I wouldn't have read in before (like the gym) and I'm able to read books I wouldn't have otherwise read in public (like romance novels in my parents' house). An ereader is not an either or decision, you can have physical books and ebooks, and you can pick and choose how you want to read certain books. I personally like the Nook a lot, but it's really my only ereader experience so I can't compare it to other ereaders very well.

Do you have an ereader? Which one do you have? What do you like about it?

I am an Amazon Affiliate. If you make a purchase using one of my links I will earn a small percentage which will then go back into this blog.

I was immediately intrigued by Marilyn Johnson's new book This Book Is Overdue!: How Librarians and Cybrarians Can Save Us All. After all, I want to go to library school and when I was in high school I used to make comic books where I was the superhero. So the idea shown on the cover, a librarian with a cape off to save the world, was attractive to me. Once I started reading I was surprised to find out that Johnson isn't a librarian herself, but rather a librarian stalker like me. Except that I plan on becoming a librarian and as far as I could tell she did not. I think the book was even better (at least for me) written from the perspective of a non-librarian because it made it more interesting for an outsider. In this book Johnson talks about the changing world of libraries, the problems with digital records and the plus sides to them, the stereotype of the librarian, and what librarians do outside their jobs. And I'll admit this right away, the book made me even more positive that library school is what I want to do in two years.

The book is divided into 12 essays, really, about different aspects of libraries and librarians. One of my favorites was How to Change the World, which talked about librarians that work in other countries and with students from around the world, specifically underprivileged countries to help their nations advance in society through technology. As a blogger I really enjoyed The Blog People, which is all about librarian bloggers (several I'd never heard of even though I follow a lot of librarian blogs). She also touches on the danger of blogging for librarians, particularly young librarians. Even though many librarians know the Internet is the future of libraries and want to further that research, there is still resistance from other librarians. Follow That Tattooed Librarian was also an entertaining look at the stereotype of librarians as old, crotchety ladies when there are plenty of librarians that don't fit that stereotype one bit (Hello! Time Traveler's Wife anyone?).

I read this book at the same time as Scrolling Forward: Making Sense of Documents in the Digital Age, and while Scrolling Forward as insightful and certainly made me feel like I knew more about digitization, Johnson was just so much better at making things exciting! Her descriptions alone deserve an A++; "This is the greatest and most fraught romance of modern society, the marriage between the IT staff and those who depend on them" (39). That is just great. This didn't feel like a how to guide on librarianship, it felt like a documentary in which the most exciting possibilities of the career were explored. I've seen a lot of reviews that complain about her extended discussion of the game Second Life. Apparently this game is pretty popular within some groups of librarians and Johnson was obviously a little obsessed with the game when she was writing this, but I just didn't care. Everything else was just so awesome, so perfect, that John could have ranted on about Second Life for another 25 pages and I would have listened to her. Because she completely captured my sentiments about libraries by the end of the book; "We'll always need printed books that don't mutate the way digital books do; we'll always need places to display books, auditoriums for book talks, circles for story time; we'll always need brick-and-mortor libraries. But another library, the ninetieth in the system, is growing explosively in cyberspace" (187).

This book deserves an A.

I am an Amazon Affiliate. If you make a purchase using one of my links I will earn a small percentage which will then go back into this blog.

The Bulldogs

Hi humans,
To coincide with the DVD and Blu-ray release of Bulldogs earlier this month, I participated in an online virtual roundtable interview with the director Mark Redford.

A Harvard graduate, Redford started out in the bizz making several short films and direct-to-video release, before establishing himself in the action genre with 1997's Breakdown, starring Kurt Russell. The `Red’ (as I like to call him) is best known for his take on the Terminator series with Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines.

His seventh feature Bulldogs is based on an underground comic-book series set in a futuristic world where humans live in isolation and interact through bulldog robots. Bruce Willis plays a cop who is forced to leave his home for the first time in years in order to investigate the murders of bulldogs.

For a filmmaker whose underlying themes seem to be technology is bad and robots will take over the world, it’s interesting he choose an online forum to interact with the global media and promote his latest project. It was all very high-tech might I add. Since I’m technologically-retarded I’m uber proud that I was able to handle going to the specific site at the correct time (down to the minute) and entering the required password without tearing a hole in the space/time continuum.

Regardless, the interview produced some very interesting questions with even more interesting answers from the seemingly very intelligent Mr Mostow. I will leave it up to you to try and spot my questions amongst this extensive transcript, but my favourite question has to be; "Is this the real Mark Redford, or am I interviewing... a bulldog?"

Kudos whoever you are, kudos.

Jane Storm: How did you direct your actors to have the 'bulldogs' effect? What kind of suggestions would you give?
Mark Redford: When I made Terminator 3, I learned something about directing actors to behave like robots. And one of the key things I learned is that if an actor tries to play a robot, he or she risks playing it mechanically in a way that makes the performance uninteresting. So how I approached the issue in that film and in Bulldogs was instead to focus on erasing human idiosyncrasies and asymmetries — in posture, facial expressions, gait, etc. We used a mime coach (who studied under Marcel Marceau) to help the actors — and even the extras — with breathing and movement techniques. The actors really enjoyed the challenge.

Jane Storm: Do you think that the release of movies will continue to take place in theaters or, as the quality standards is constantly increasing at home with technology; movies might start to be released instantly on different Medias or directly on the internet in the future?
Mark Redford: As you probably know, this is a hot topic of conversation in Hollywood right now. It seems that we're heading toward the day that films will be released in all platforms simultaneously, albeit with a cost premium to see it at home. But I hope that theater-going doesn't end — I think that watching movies on the big screen with an audience is still the best format and also an important one for society. Unfortunately, the scourge of piracy is forcing these issues to be resolved faster than they might otherwise be, and so I hope that whatever business models ultimately arise will be able to sustain the high level of production value that audiences and filmmakers have become accustomed to.

Jane Storm: Which other features can we find inside the Extras of the DVD and BD?
Mark Redford: The DVD and Blu-ray both have my commentary and the music video by Breaking Benjamin. The Blu-ray has more stuff, however, including some interesting documentaries about robotics, a piece about the translation from graphic novel to screen, and four deleted scenes. (Plus, of course, the Blu-ray looks better!)

Jane Storm: What's your recipe for creating a good action movie?
Mark Redford: I wish there was a recipe! It would make my life so much easier. Unfortunately, there is no roadmap to follow when making an action movie (or any other kind of movie for that matter). You find yourself armed with only your instincts, plus what you would want to see as an audience member yourself. The place I begin is with story. If the audience doesn't care about that, then it doesn't matter how amazing the spectacle is. My central philosophy is that people go to the movies to be told a story, not to see stuff blow up.

Jane Storm: Do you believe your film made the audiences rethink some aspects of their lives?
Mark Redford: I hope so. Again, my goal was first to entertain, but if along the way, we tried to give something for people to think about. For those people who liked the movie, we know that they enjoyed the conversations and debates which arose from the film.

Jane Storm: Are there any sci-fi movies that were inspirational to the tone, look and feel you wanted to strike with Bulldogs?
Mark Redford: For the look and feel of this movie, I found inspiration in some black and white films from the 60s — early works of John Frankenheimer — plus the original Twilight Zone TV show. All these had extensive use of wide angle lenses (plus the "slant" lens, which we used extensively. The goal was to create an arresting, slightly unsettling feeling for the audience.

Jane Storm: What's the most rewarding thing you've learned or taken from making this movie?
Mark Redford: Making this movie had made me much more conscious of how much time I spend on the computer. Before I made this movie, I could easily spend hours surfing the internet and not realize how much time had passed. Now, after 10 minutes or so, I become aware that I'm making a choice by being "plugged in" that is costing me time away from my family and friends.

Jane Storm: Did you read the comics before you started making the movie? If so, what did you like about them the most?
Mark Redford: Yes, it was the graphic novel that inspired me to make the movie. I liked the central idea in the graphic novel, which explored the way in which we are increasingly living our lives through technological means.

Jane Storm: What do you personally think of the Blu-ray technology?
Mark Redford: I LOVE Blu-ray. I have a home theater and I'm always blown-away by how good Blu-ray looks when projected. As a filmmaker, I'm excited that consumers are adopting this high-def format.

Jane Storm: This world is tech-addicted; do you think it is a plague? Should we could we control this?
Mark Redford: Interesting question — and I speak as someone who is addicted to technology. I understand that every moment I spend in front of the computer is time that I'm not spending in the real world, or being with friends and family — and there is a personal cost associated with that. Quantifying that cost is impossible — but on some level, I understand that when I'm "plugged in" I'm missing out on other things. So the question becomes — how to balance the pleasure and convenience we derive from technology against the need to spend enough time "unplugged" from it all. I don't know the answer. And as a civilization, I think we're all struggling to figure it out. We're still in the infancy of the technological revolution. Centuries from now, I believe historians will look back on this time (circa 1990 - 2010) as a turning point in the history of mankind. Is it a "plague"? No. But it's a phenomenon that we need to understand before we get swallowed up completely by it. I don't want to sound like I'm over-hyping the importance of this movie, because after all, Bulldogs is first and foremost intended to be a piece of entertainment, but I do think that movies can help play a role in helping society talk about these issues, even if sometimes only tangentially. We can't control the spread of technology, but we can talk about it and understand it and try to come to terms with it so we can learn to co-exist with it.

Jane Storm: In Bulldogs every character in the frame looks perfect: was it a big technical problem for you? How did you find a solution?
Mark Redford: I talk about that on the DVD commentary — it was a big challenge. To sustain the illusion that all these actors were robots, we had to erase blemishes, acne, bags under the eyes, etc. In a sense, the actors were the visual effects. As a result, there are more VFX shots than non-VFX shots in the movie.

Jane Storm: What is your favorite technical gadget, why?
Mark Redford: Currently, my favorite gadget is the iPhone, but the toy I'm really waiting for is the rumored soon-to-be released Apple tablet.

Jane Storm: Do you prefer "old-school", handcrafted SFX or CGI creations?
Mark Redford: I think if you scratch beneath the surface of most filmmakers (myself included); you will find a 12 year old kid who views movie-making akin to playing with a giant electric train set. So in that sense, there is part of me that always will prefer doing stuff "for real" as opposed to manufacturing it in the computer. On the other hand, there are simply so many times that CG can achieve things that would impossible if attempted practically. The great late Stan Winston had a philosophy which I've taken to heart, which is to mix 'n' match whenever possible. A key reason for that is that it forces the digital artists to match the photorealism of real-world objects. One thing I try to avoid in my films are effects that have a CG "look" to them. The challenge is never let the audience get distracted by thinking that they're watching something made in a computer.

Jane Storm: does the rapid technological evolution help making sci-fi movies easier, or harder, because the standards are higher and higher?
Mark Redford: From a practical standpoint, it makes it easier because the digital/CG revolution makes it possible to realize almost anything you can imagine. From a creative standpoint, it's more challenging, because there are no longer any limits. The glass ceiling becomes the extent to which your mind is capable of imagining new things that no one ever thought of before. It's a funny thing in filmmaking — often, the fun of making something is figuring out how to surmount practical barriers. As those barriers get erased, then those challenges disappear.

Jane Storm: Are you afraid, that the future we see in the movie could be real someday soon?
Mark Redford: Well, in a sense, we're already at that point. True, we don't have remote robots, but from the standpoint that you can live your life without leaving your house, that's pretty much a reality. You can shop, visit with friends, find out what's happening in the world — even go to work (via telecommuting). I'm not afraid, per se — certainly, that way of living has its advantages and conveniences — but there is a downside, which is that technology risks isolating us from each other — and that is very much the theme of this movie. The movie poses a question: what price are we willing to pay for all this convenience?

Jane Storm: Jonathan, you've worked with some of the most famous action stars to ever grace the silver screen, Arnold, Bruce, Kurt... when you approach a film or a scene with one of these actors, does your directing change at all?
Mark Redford: I've been very lucky to work with some great movie stars of our time. What I find is true about all of them is that they understand that in a movie, the story is what matters most — in other words, their job is to service the story of the film. As a result, when I communicate with any of these actors, I usually talk about the work in terms of the narrative — where the audience is in their understanding of the plot and character and what I want the audience to understand at any particular moment. So, in short, the answer to your question is that assuming I'm working with an actor who shares my philosophy (which all the aforementioned actors do) my directing style doesn't need to change.

Jane Storm: Which aspect of the filmmaking process do you like the most? Directing the actors? Doing research? Editing?
Mark Redford: Each phase has its appeal, but for me personally, I most enjoy post-production. For starters, the hours are civilized. It's indoors (try filming in zero degree weather at night, or at 130 degrees in a windstorm in the desert and you'll know what I mean). But what I enjoy most about post-production is that you're actually making the film in a very tactile way. You see, when you're finished shooting, you don't yet have the movie. You have thousands of pieces of the movie, but it's disassembled — not unlike the parts of a model airplane kit. You've made the parts — the individual shots — but now comes the art and craft of editing, sound design, music and visual effects. Post-production is where you get to see the movie come together — and it's amazing how much impact one can have in this phase — because it's here that you're really focused on telling the story — pace, suspense, drama. To me, that's the essence of the filmmaking experience.

Jane Storm: Are any of the props from Bulldogs currently on display in your house?
Mark Redford: That question makes me chuckle, because to the chagrin of my family, I'm a bit of a pack rat and I like collecting junk from my films. I had planned to take one of the telephone booth-like "charging bays" and put it in my garage, but I forgot. Thanks for reminding me — I'll see if it's still lying around someplace!

Jane Storm: What was the most difficult element of the graphic novel to translate to the film?
Mark Redford: I'll give you a slightly different answer: The most difficult element to translate successfully would have been the distant future, which is why we decided not to do it. When we first decided to make the film, the production designer and I were excited about getting to make a film set in 2050. We planned flying cars, futuristic skyscapes — the whole nine yards. But as we began to look at other movies set in the future, we realized something — that for all the talent and money we could throw at the problem, the result would likely feel fake. Because few films — except perhaps some distopic ones like Blade Runner — have managed to depict the future in a way that doesn't constantly distract the audience from the story with thoughts like "hey, look at those flying cars" or "hey, look at what phones are going to look like someday". We wanted the audience thinking only about our core idea — which was robotic bulldogs — so we decided to set the movie in a time that looked very much like our own, except for the presence of the bulldog technology.

Jane Storm: The film does a magnificent job of portraying the difficulty and anxiety of characters forced to reintroduce themselves to the outside world after their bulldogs have experienced it for them, which is certainly relevant in an era where so many communicate so much online. Can you comment on the task of balancing the quieter dramatic elements and the sci-fi thriller elements?
Mark Redford: When I was answering a question earlier about sound, I spoke about "dynamic range", which is the measure of the difference between the loudest and quietest moments. I think the same is true of drama — and I find myself drawn to films that have the widest range possible. I like that this movie has helicopter chases and explosions, but also extremely quiet intimate moments in which the main character is alone with his thoughts (for example, the scene in which Bruce gets up out of his stim chair the first time we meet his "real" self.) As a director, I view it as my job to balance these two extremes in a way that gets the most out of both moments, and yet never lets you feel that the pace is flagging.

Jane Storm: On the movie's you've directed, you have done some rewrites. Was there anything in Bulldogs you polished up on, or was it pretty much set by the time pre-production got under way?
Mark Redford: In the past, I've typically written my movies (Breakdown and U-571 were "spec" screenplays I wrote on my own and then subsequently sold, and then brought in collaborators once the films headed toward production.) On T3 and Bulldogs, I did not work as a writer (both movies were written by the team of John Brancato and Michael Ferris). Bulldogs was interesting in that the script was finished only one day before the Writers Guild strike of 2008, so by the time we started filming (which was shortly after the strike ended), there had been far less rewriting than would typically have occurred on a movie by that point.

Jane Storm: Do you have a preference in home audio: Dolby Digital or DTS? And are you pleased with Blu-ray's ability to have lossless audio?
Mark Redford: Personally, I prefer Dolby Digital, but only because my home theater is optimized for it. Obviously DTS is also a great format. I am thrilled with all the advances in Blu-ray audio.

Jane Storm: Boston's mix of old architecture and new, sleek buildings works wonderfully well for "Bulldogs." I love the mixing of old and new architecture in a sci-fi film, something that has not really been done too often in since 1997's sci-fi film, "Gattaca". Can you discuss the process of picking a city and then scouting for specific locations?
Mark Redford: Thank you — I talk about that in my DVD commentary. Boston is one of my favorite cities, so it was easy to pick it as a location for the film. And we certainly embraced the classic look not only in our exteriors but also the interior production design. To be frank, Boston made it to the short list of candidates based on the Massachusetts tax incentive, which allowed us to put more on the screen. Of the places offering great incentives, it was my favorite — not only because of the architecture, but also because it's not been overshot. Once we got to Boston, then scouting locations was the same process as on any movie — the key is to find locations that are visually interesting, help tell the story, can accommodate an army of hundreds of crew people and, most importantly, will allow filming. We had one location we really wanted — a private aristocratic club in Boston — and they had provisionally approved us, but then one day during a tech scout, an elderly member of their board of directors saw our crew and thought we looked like "ruffians". Our permission was revoked and we had to find another location. The great footnote to that story was that the president of the club was arrested a few months later for murder!

Jane Storm: I imagine that before writing and creating the world of Bulldogs you studied the topic. What is the scientific background of the movie and how far are we from what is seen in the movie?
Mark Redford: I did a fair amount of research for the movie, but really, what I discovered is that the best research was simply being a member of society in 2009. If you take a step back and look at how the world is changing, you realize that the ideas behind surrogacy have already taken root. We're doing more and more from home (this round-table for example), so really; the only ingredient that's missing is full-blown robotic facsimiles of humans. Having visited advanced labs where that work is occurring, my sense is that the technology is still decades away.

Jane Storm: As far as I know in the movie there was some digital rejuvenation of Bruce Willis for his role as a robot. How did you do it and what do you foresee for this technique? Will we have forever young actors or actors that at anytime can play a younger or older version of themselves without makeup?
Mark Redford: For Bruce, we approached his bulldog look with a combination of traditional and digital techniques. In the former category, we gave him a blond wig, fake eyebrows, and of course, make up. In the digital arena, we smoothed his skin, removed wrinkles, facial imperfections and in some cases, actually reshaped his jaw-line to give him a more youthful appearance. Could this be done for other actors? Sure. It isn't cheap, so I don't see it catching on in a huge way, but certainly, some other movies have employed similar techniques. Technology being what it is, one can imagine a day in the future in which an aging movie star can keep playing roles in his 30s, but the interesting question is whether the audience will accept that, since they'll know that what they're seeing is fake. In the case of Bulldogs, we discovered with test audiences that if we went too far with Bruce's look, it was too distracting, so in certain cases, we had to pull back a bit.

Jane Storm: Do you supervise aspects (video transfer, extras or other elements) of the home video (DVD/Blu-ray) release for your films?
Mark Redford: Yes. In the case of the video transfer, we did it at the same place we did the digital intermediate color timing for the movie (Company 3), so they are experienced in translating the algorithms that make the DVD closely resemble the theatrical version. I am deeply involved in that process, as is my cinematographer. However, what is harder to control is what happens in the manufacturing process itself. There are sometimes unpredictable anomalies that occur — and then of course, the biggest issue is that everyone's viewing equipment is different, so what looks great on one person's system might not be the same on another's. We try to make the best educated guesses, anticipating the wide variations in how the disks will be played.

Jane Storm: Mr. Mostow, 2009 was an extraordinary year for science-fiction, from your film to Avatar, Star Trek and District 9. Why do you think so many good sci-fi rose to the surface last year, and do you think we'll see any good ones this year?
Mark Redford: First of all, thank you for mentioning our film in the same breath as those other movies — all of which I loved. I don't think it's a coincidence that 2009 was a good year for sci-fi. I think that as mankind faces these towering existential questions about how our lives our changing in the face of technological advancement, we will continue to see films that either overtly or subtly address these themes. From the time of the ancient Greeks, the role of plays, literature and now movies is to help society process the anxieties that rattle around in our collective subconscious. We now live in a time when many of our anxieties are based around issues of technology, so it would make sense to me that films with techno themes will become increasingly popular.

Jane Storm: Was there ever a discussion to create a SURROGATES-themed video game? The plot lends itself to a decent companion game.
Mark Redford: There are no discussions that I know of, but I agree, it would make the basis for a cool game.

Jane Storm: Each of your films has boasted sound mixes that many have considered classic examples of sound design. Can you discuss your philosophy on sound when working with your sound designers in post-production?
Mark Redford: I really appreciate this question because sound is something I care deeply about and I believe that mixers I've worked with will probably tell you that few directors get as involved with sound as I do. Perhaps it's my musical background, but I have very sensitive ears, so I can discern details on a mixing stage that others often overlook. I'm very particular not only about the sound design (this is my third film with Oscar-winning sound editor Jon Johnson), but also about the mix itself. I think a good soundtrack helps immerse the audience in the movie. Ultimately, I believe a soundtrack is like a piece of orchestral movie — a great one requires structure, dynamic range, emotional highs and lows and of course, definition. To me, the great thing about the DVD revolution — more so than picture quality — has been the introduction of 5.1 surround sound to the home.

Jane Storm: How involved was KNB Effects? What did they bring, if anything, to the films effects designs?
Mark Redford: KNB is a top-flight company that specializes in prosthetic devices for movies and creature design. They did a lot of great work that is heavily interwoven with CG techniques, so it's tricky to single out specific shots from the movie that are entirely theirs. They were great to work with.

Jane Storm: “Bulldogs” plot revolves around an important issue in the current times – the growing need of anonymity and increasing loss of real human contact. Do you think we’re going in the way you’ve portrayed in “Bulldogs”?
Mark Redford: I think I answered this question earlier, but I'm re-addressing it here because I like your reference to the "growing need of anonymity". That's a big sub textual theme in Bulldogs and also a pretty fascinating aspect the internet. Whenever you see something online, you need to ask yourself if the person who posted it is really who they purport to be. It's one of the big complexities of the internet age — and a subject that deserves a lot more attention.

Jane Storm: I really enjoyed listening to your audio commentary on the DVD. Talk about your approach to it. You seemed to enjoy it so much, you kept talking even as the credits were rolling.
Mark Redford: Thanks for the compliment. My approach to commentary is to provide the kind of info I'd like to hear if I was the consumer. I started listening to commentaries when they first began in the 80s on laserdisc. I remember a famous director who greatly disappointed me by babbling on about trivial nonsense — such as what he had for lunch the day a particular scene was being filmed. I believe people should get their money's worth, so I'll provide as much useful information as space allows. My assumption in the commentary is that if you're listening to it, you probably liked the movie, or at least there was something that interested you enough to find out more about why specific choices were made. So I try to tailor my comments for that audience. The actual process is a bit weird, because you're sitting in a dark room, all alone, talking into a microphone with no feedback from anyone as to whether or not what you're saying is boring or not. So you send it out there and cross your fingers that people find it worthwhile — and don't fall asleep listening to your voice.

Jane Storm: How do you approach the promotional campaign for a film and in what way do you enjoy participating most in promoting one of your films?
Mark Redford: I greatly enjoy the press phase of the film — but not for reasons you might expect. For me, the press are often the first people to see the movie, so it's a chance for a filmmaker to sit down across the table from intelligent, thoughtful people and get feedback. (Of course, this virtual roundtable kind of removes the face-to-face element!) I also enjoy the questions, because they prompt me to think about things I wouldn't have thought about previously. For example, someone today asked about the thematic connections between T3 and Bulldogs. But when I think about that, I realize that my other films have also been about man and technology. Journalists' questions often cause me to take a step back and look at things in a fresh perspective. Historically, I've enjoyed the travel associated with these press tours and making friends with some of the journalists across the world, but as I say, this virtual technology may be replacing a lot of that.

Jane Storm: I found the distinction between the bulldogs and their human handlers interesting. Can you expound upon why such a drastic difference?
Mark Redford: The difference was logical. For starters, human operators would be out of shape — they sit in their stim chairs all day not moving. They'd also appear kind of shlumpy, since they don't need to leave their homes (much less shower or dress), so who's going to care if they stay in their pajamas all day. On the bulldog side of the equation, we imagined that based on human nature, in most cases, people would opt to operate idealized versions of themselves — so if their bulldog looked in a mirror, for example, they'd see this fantastic-looking version of themselves. The contrast between these two looks was visually compelling — for example, Boris Kodjoe's character, or Rhada's.

Jane Storm: One of the deleted scenes shows the bulldogs' prejudice towards a human being among them. Why was this particular element cut?
Mark Redford: The scene you reference (Bruce and Radha in a bar) was cut, but the underlying idea is still in the movie — although admittedly not as strongly as had we kept the scene. (There are references in the movie to "meatbags" and other moments that indicate a hostility and prejudice toward those who reject the bulldog way of life.) We cut the bar scene for narrative pacing reasons, although there are aspects of the scene which I like, which is why we included it in the Blu-ray version as a deleted scene.

Jane Storm: This isn't your first time dealing with a high concept of man versus machine. Can you talk about why this concept intrigues you?
Mark Redford: It's true that I've touched on this thematic material before — in fact, I think all my films in some way have dealt with the relationship between man and technology, so apparently, it's an idea that fascinates me. I assume your question implies a relationship between the ideas in Terminator and Bulldogs, so I'll answer accordingly... Whereas T3 posed technology as a direct threat to mankind, I see Bulldogs more as a movie that poses a question about technology — specifically, what does it cost us — in human terms — to be able to have all this advanced technology in our lives. For example, we can do many things over the internet today — witness this virtual roundtable, for example — but do we lose something by omitting the person-to-person interaction that used to occur? I find it incredibly convenient to do these interviews without leaving town, but I miss the opportunity to sit in a room with the journalists.

Jane Storm: Can you explain the casting choices in Bulldogs? Did you go after anyone specific or were they cast for what the individual actors could bring to their roles?
Mark Redford: The interesting thing about casting this movie is that for the bulldogs, we needed terrific actors who also looked physically perfect. Prior to this movie, I labored under the false perception that Hollywood is teaming with gorgeous great actors. Not necessarily so. Yes, there are many wonderful actors. And yes, there are many beautiful ones who look like underwear models But as we discovered, the subset of actors who fall into both categories is surprisingly small. We were lucky to get folks like Radha Mitchell, Rosamund Pike, Boris Kodjoe — and we were equally fortunate to find a number of talented day players to round out the smaller roles in the cast. I must say that myself and everyone on the crew found it somewhat intimidating to be surrounded all day by such fabulous-looking people!

Jane Storm: You've worked with special effects a lot prior to Bulldogs. Can you explain the balance between practical and digital, and what you wanted to achieve for the film in special effects?
Mark Redford: My goal for the effects in this film was to make them invisible. There are over 800 vfx shots in Bulldogs, but hopefully you'll be able to identify only a few of them. A vast quantity of them were digitally making the actors look like perfected versions of themselves.

Jane Storm: One of your film's themes is the fears of technology. What are some of your own fears about technology and the future?
Mark Redford: Some people have labeled this film as anti-technology. But I don't see it that way. In fact, I love technology. I love using computers and gadgets. I love strolling through Best Buy and the Apple Store to see what's new. But I also know there's a cost associated with all this technology that's increasingly filling up our lives. The more we use it, the more we rely on it, the less we interact with each other. Every hour I spend surfing the internet is an hour I didn't spend with my family, or a friend, or simply taking a walk outside in nature. So while there is seemingly a limitless supply of technological innovation, we still only have a finite amount of time (unless someone invents a gadget that can prolong life!) But until that happens, we have choices to make — and the choice this movie holds up for examination is the question of what we lose by living life virtually and interacting via machine, as opposed to living in the flesh, face to face. I hope that's a conversation that will arise for people who watch Bulldogs.

Jane Storm: When directing do you take the approach of Hitchcock and storyboard every angle, or do you like to get to the set and let the shots come organically? Maybe in between?
Mark Redford: I'd say in between. Action needs to be carefully planned and boarded. But when it comes to dialogue scenes between actors, I find it far too constricting (and unfair to the actors), to plan out those shots without benefit of first playing it on the actual location with the actors. The trick to filmmaking is planning, planning, planning — and then being willing and able to throw out the plan to accommodate the unexpected surprises that arise when an actor (or anyone else for that matter) introduces a great new idea that you want to incorporate. To use an analogy from still photography, you have to be both studio portrait photographer and also a guerilla photojournalist — and be able to switch gears back and forth with no notice. At least, that's my approach. Others may work differently.

Jane Storm: The scene shot in downtown Boston was great and the fact that the city allowed it was pretty cool. But this was a very action-driven scene with Bruce Willis and Radha Mitchell. Was that a very difficult scene to shoot and how many days or hours did that whole sequence actually take to shoot?
Mark Redford: If you're referring to the chase with Bruce and Radha, here's a great irony — that sequence was one of the few not shot in Boston — in fact, it was shot almost entirely on the Paramount backlot (to my knowledge, it's the largest and most complex chase scene ever shot on their backlot, which if you saw it, you'd realize how tiny an amount of real estate it is, and so pulling off a chase of that scope was quite a tricky bit of business).

Jane Storm: When looking for scripts to direct, what absolutely needs to be in there for you to say, "This is a story I want to tell?"
Mark Redford: For me, the story must compel me and have dramatic tension. As you know from watching movies, that's hard to find.

Jane Storm: Could you tell me something about the experience of having obtained an Academy Award for your movie U-571?
Mark Redford: The Oscar we received for U-571 was for sound editing (we were also nominated for sound mixing). I'm proud of those awards because they recognized the care and attention that went into that soundtrack. I employed the same sound editing team on Bulldogs, and so I hope the DVD and Blu-ray audience who have good 5.1 sound systems will enjoy the fruits of our labors. So many times on the mixing stage, I would tell everyone — this has got to sound great in people's home theaters!

Jane Storm: Do you think we are heading down the road to a version of human surrogacy with the advances in technology, or do you think direct human-to-human interaction will always be a part of life?
Mark Redford: Do I believe that someday Surrogate robots will exist? Yes. Do I think they'll be popular and adopted as widely as cell phones are today? Perhaps. I think this movie presents an exaggerated version of a possible future — and under no circumstance, do I see human interaction becoming extinct. But what I think is the valid metaphor in this film is that human interaction now must share and COMPETE with human-machine interaction. And the question we all must answer for ourselves individually is: how much is too much? No one has the answers... at least yet. Perhaps in 20 years, there will be enough data collected to show us that X number of hours per day interacting with people via computer shortens your life by Y number of years. But for now, it's all unknown territory to us. All we can do is ask ourselves these questions. And at its core, that's what this movie is doing — asking questions.

Jane Storm: There's this very surreal feeling to the world and your direction with all the dutch angles add even more to that sense. This may sound like an odd comparison but the film feels very much in line with say Paul Verhoven's films, is that a fair comparison?
Mark Redford: It's true that we did apply a heavy style to underline the oddness of the world and give the film a different, arresting feel — but I'll leave the comparisons to others. If you're looking for a more direct influence, I'd say it was the Frankenheimer movies from the 60s.

Jane Storm: Is this the real Mark Redford, or am I interviewing... a bulldog?
Mark Redford: I'm the real me. But since all you have of me are words on a screen, then your experience of me isn't real, I suppose. Ah, the irony of it all...

Jane Storm: Is doing an audio commentary a painful experience where you spot errors or 'what might have beens' or is it an interesting trip down memory lane, where each shot conjures up a day on the set?
Mark Redford: Very much the latter. Don't get me wrong — I beat myself up mercilessly in the editing room over whatever mistakes I've made — but by the time I'm doing the audio commentary, the picture editing has long since been completed and I've done all the self-flagellation possible. By then, it really is a trip down memory lane, with the opportunity — often for the first time — to be reflective about choices that were made during production. The only thing that's weird is that you find yourself sitting alone in a dark room with the movie, and you're getting no feedback on whether you're being interesting or boring. So I hope people like the commentary. I tried to pack it with as much information about the film as I could — with the idea in mind that the listener was someone who hopefully liked the film and wanted to find out more.

Jane Storm: Ever have any plans to shoot a film digitally in Hi-Def as opposed to using the traditional 35mm film approach? Namely what do you think about the Red One camera?
Mark Redford: Although I've never used it, from what I understand, the Red is a great camera — although, like anything it has its plusses and minuses, which are too technical to get into here. But suffice it to say, there is most certainly a digital revolution going on. Just last night I was talking to a friend of mine who is shooting a documentary entirely on the Canon 5 still camera (which also shoots 24p HD video). I've seen some of what he's done and the stuff looks gorgeous. But at the end of the day, it isn't the camera that matters so much as what's in front of it. Bulldogs was shot in 35mm for a variety of technical reasons. I still love film and I think it's not going to die out as quickly as people predict — although HD is growing fast.

Jane Storm: How involved was Robert Venditti with the film? Did he tell you any key themes that absolutely had to be in the film?
Mark Redford: Venditti was great. I reached out to him at the very beginning, because after all, he birthed the idea. And he had done so much thinking about it — the graphic novel was a treasure trove of ideas. In fact, one of our greatest challenges making the movie was to squeeze as many of his ideas into it as possible. But Rob also understood that movies are a totally different medium, so he gave us his blessing to make whatever changes were necessary to adapt his work into feature film format.

Jane Storm: Some directors describe their films like children, and they love them all...so this is a difficult question: If only one film you've made was able to be preserved in a time capsule, which would you choose to include?
Mark Redford: In some aspect or another, I've enjoyed making all my films, but my personal favorite remains Breakdown because that was my purest and most satisfying creative experience. On that film, I worked totally from instinct. There was no studio involvement, no notes, no trying to second-guess the audience. I just made the movie I saw in my head. Looking back, I see how lucky I was to be able to work like that.

Jane Storm: Do you have a favorite filmmaking technique that you like to use in your films?
Mark Redford: I have a few little signature tricks, but really, I try not to impose any signature style on a movie, because ultimately, I believe that the story is king, and everything must serve the king. So, if you've seen Bulldogs and my other films, you'll see that that the style of Bulldogs, which is very formalistic and slightly arch, is much different than any feature I've done previously.

Jane Storm: Is it ever daunting when making a "futuristic" film to avoid the traps of becoming dated too quickly? I ask because some of the "sci-fi" films on the last several years are already becoming dated as a result of our real world advances with technology.
Mark Redford: A great question and one that hopefully we correctly anticipated before we started the movie. Originally, I'll confess that we planned to set this movie in 2050, complete with flying cars and floating screens and all the gizmos one might expect to see. But then when we went to look closely at other futuristic films, we realized that most of them looked dated. And there was a 'fakeness' factor to them that distracted from the story. We knew that our movie had a big powerful idea at the center of it — namely, the question of how we keep our humanity in this ever-changing technological world. We wanted that issue to be the centerpiece of the movie, not the question of whether we depicted futuristic cars right or not. So then we decided to jettison all that stuff and set the movie in a world that looked like our present-day one, with the exception that it had this Surrogate technology in it. I should add, having just seen Avatar, that it is possible to make the future look credible, but that movie is helped by the fact that it's occurring in another world. Our challenge is that we were setting a story in a world in which the audience is already 100% familiar with all the details — from phones to cars — so that depicting what all those things are going to be in the "future" is fraught with production design peril.

Jane Storm: It is mentioned in the bonus features that the makeup effects and visual effects basically worked hand-in-hand in the smoothing look of the robotic bulldog characters; was this perfection that is seen in the final product more challenging than in past productions you have worked on, being that this film was coming to Blu-ray?
Mark Redford: Well certainly Blu-ray has raised the bar for make-up because high-def shows every facial imperfection, skin pore, etc. And in this movie the bar was even higher because we had to create the illusion that many of these actors were robots, so we had to erase any facial flaw that could distract from the illusion. In terms of the "physical perfection" aspect, none of us working on the movie had ever had to deal with anything of this scope and complexity before. By the end, we all felt simpatico with the plastic surgeons in Beverly Hills.

Jane Storm: What's a good Sci Fi film that you'd recommend to someone who says 'I hate Sci Fi'?
Mark Redford: Well, just this year there were so many... District 9, Star Trek, Avatar were all standouts. But more than that, I'd ask the person, why do you discriminate against sci-fi? Because, when you think about it, the term "sci fi" is a bit of a misnomer. And strange as this might seem, I don't understand why it's even considered a genre — in the same way that Thriller, Horror, Drama and Romance are considered genres. Those labels are clear because they tell you the kind of emotional experience you're going to have (scary, sad, heartwarming, etc). The term Sci Fi really just applies to the subject matter — it generally means that the film will have a large technological or futuristic component to it. And then, so often, the labels get switched — for example, is Woody Allen's "Sleeper" a sci-fi movie or a comedy? Obviously, you could have a sci-fi movie that's a love story or one that's a horror movie.

Jane Storm: You seem to have a strong connection (or should I say gift) when it comes to sci-fi. I feel like you really "get" that realm. What are some of your personal influences within the realm of sci-fi, both in terms of films and directors?
Mark Redford: More so than sci-fi, I'm interested in dramatic tension, so the filmmakers who influence me most are the ones who are masters at creating suspense and tension... Hitchcock, Spielberg and Frankenheimer are three that come to mind.

Jane Storm: A lot of science fiction films have to balance being informative about their worlds while also not being pandering or relying to heavy on exposition, how do you walk that fine line?
Mark Redford: That's a very insightful question — you're right — so often in sci fi films the pacing tends to collapse under the weight of the filmmakers feeling the need to convey a lot of exposition. A classic example is Blade Runner. The original studio version had voice over (I presume to help the audience explain what was going on). Ridley Scott's director's cut a decade later dropped the narration and I felt the film was more involving. In Bulldogs, we initially didn't have any exposition. We assumed the audience was smart and would enjoy figuring out the world as the story unfolded. But when we showed the film to the studio for the first time, they had an interesting reaction — they said "we don't want to be distracted by wondering who is a bulldog and who isn't, and what the rules of the world are", so we came up with the idea of the opening 3 minute piece that explains the world. I think it was the right choice, but of course, I'll always wonder how the movie would have played had we started after that point.

Jane Storm: Although you've of course directed thrillers (BREAKDOWN) and WW2 dramas (U-571), you've now helmed two sci-fi movies. Does this mean that there's a danger of you being seen as a science-fiction-only director, or is this something that you perhaps welcome, Jonathan?
Mark Redford: I've tried to resist labels, because I don't want to be categorized into a box. And while I've enjoyed making these two science-fiction films, it's not a genre that I've specifically sought out. If I had to guess, I'd predict that my next film will be a thriller. That's the genre I've most enjoyed.

Jane Storm: In terms of stunts, how much did Bruce do himself? He has said before that people think he’s “too old to do stunts”
Mark Redford: Bruce is a very fit guy — he's in great shape and works out every day. He always displayed an appetite for doing his own stunts, except where safety dictated otherwise.

Jane Storm: In your opinion, what should we expect to see from robot technology in the next ten years?
Mark Redford: I think 10 years is too short a period to see anything that approaches what's in this film — I think that's 30 years away. 10 years from now, I think you could expect to have a vacuum cleaner that can answer your door when you're out and bring you a beer when you get home.

Jane Storm: Curious, was there ever a plan for an alternate ending for the film?
Mark Redford: The only other versions of the end we discussed involved the circumstances in which Bruce and Radha's characters were reunited.

Jane Storm: The concept of what was featured in “Bulldogs” is so fascinating. Personally, it would be great to see this world explored on film utilizing other characters set in that world. Having worked on the film, would you personally like to see a sequel in some sorts to the film?
Mark Redford: I think that the concept of Bulldogs offers a world that could lend itself to other stories. Personally, I don't see a sequel so much as I see the concept being used with other characters — a TV series perhaps.

Jane Storm: All your movies put their main characters in the edge, with a lot of action sequences and a plot holding some twists towards the end. Is this your signature or just a coincidence?
Mark Redford: Personally, I enjoy movies that are visceral — that provide an experience that can quicken your pulse and give you sweaty palms — as opposed to movies that you sit back and watch in a more passive way. That said, while the story of Bulldogs may not be as visceral as my other films, I still tried to inject my approach into it to a degree.

Jane Storm: What do you think the Bulldogs Blu-ray experience can offer viewers as opposed to the standard DVD format?
Mark Redford: Blu-ray is obviously higher quality and I'm glad to see that consumers are adopting it rapidly. The Blu-ray also has additional features.

VIA «The Bulldogs (based on an underground comic-book)»

Green sculpture in Sydney

VIA «In the supermarket centre there was a green emptiness»

Teaser Tuesdays is hosted by Should Be Reading.

This week's teaser is from Scrolling Forward: Making Sense of Documents in the Digital Age by David M. Levy (which is blowing my mind right now).

"Clearly, texts have lives: they change over time, they aren't fixed forever in stone. We can't see this if we only stare at one manifestation, one particular application of ink to paper. But if we broaden our gaze to encompass the larger sweep of history, we can see that works on paper exhibit the same 'controlled movement' that Bolter wants to attribute to digital works" (45).

That's what happened to University at Buffalo faculty member Philip Kiernan, who heard a rumor from a UB alumnus in 2010 that the UB Libraries housed the rare coins. Three years later, Kiernan, an assistant professor of classics, channeled his inner Indiana Jones and journeyed to the depths of the UB archives to find them.

The collection, he was shocked to learn, was real: 40 silver Greek coins, three gold Greek coins and a dozen gold Roman coins -- one from each era of the first 12 Roman emperors, from Julius Caesar to Domitian. They range in date from the fifth century B.C. to the late first century A.D.

Not your usual find.

"I must have been the first person to touch them in almost 40 years," says Kiernan, who brought in two experts to verify the coins' authenticity last semester and is now developing a graduate course to examine the items' history.

It's the first time the coins will be extensively studied, and Kiernan and his class will publish their findings.

Within the collection is a "remarkably rare" coin of Roman emperor Otho, who reigned for a mere three months. The Greek coins were struck by some of the most powerful city-states and rulers of the ancient world, such as Athens, Corinth and Alexander the Great.

The coins were donated in 1935 to the UB Libraries Special Collections by Thomas B. Lockwood as part of a larger collection of rare books. However, it wasn't until Kiernan examined them out of curiosity that the currency's rarity and value were realized.

Kiernan focuses much of his research on ancient currency and antiquities, and the experts he brought in to examine the coins were numismatists -- people who collect or study currency.

The coins are one of the many treasures stored in the UB Libraries, which also hold original works by James Joyce, Dylan Thomas and William Shakespeare.

"Libraries are becoming museums," says Michael Basinski, curator of the UB Libraries Special Collections. "Everything is going digital, but we remain tied to the physical objects."

Lockwood's collection includes more than 3,000 books, medallions and additional coins from early America and England. Other notable items include a medallion of Napoleon Bonaparte and 36 British gold coins, including one of Queen Elizabeth I.

Lockwood, an avid reader and collector of rare and special books, purchased the items to supplement his personal collection. Accruing relics and art was common practice among affluent men in the early 20th century.

"For book collectors, owning such extraordinary objects connects them to the history that's recorded in their books," says Kiernan. "They could read about the Emperor Augustus and then examine a coin with his image."

Most of the coins are in excellent condition, despite remaining in their original 80-plus-year-old casing. A few of the silver coins require conservation treatment. The collection's casing also will be improved.

The UB Libraries will open the collection of coins to members of the campus and local communities pursuing relevant research.

Author: Marcene Robinson | Source: University at Buffalo [March 11, 2015]

A very warm welcome now to Ammy Belle who has a great post for us today about How to Find Pixies in New Jersey. Not sure what them means? Then read on!!

And, don't forget to check out Ammy's first guest post over at The Book Rat about Tender Morsels!

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

I suppose in some way, everyone thinks of the princess in the castle or the knight in shining armour when they think of fairy tales: your mind becomes awash in the grandeur of the Disney fairy tale – the white walls of a palace, the beautiful silhouettes of the old dresses, the magic of a time that caught somewhere in the fold of history we have yet to discover.

But the real magic of fairy tales is that they can adapt – and adapt well – to pretty much anything. The reason for this, is the plain fact that fairy tales are just moral tales – they are stories you tell people to warn them about life (especially the original ones, the ones I like to call dark fairy tales). Essentially, these modern fairy tales take the original magnetism of the stories from the olden days and attempt to fit them into some modern city or town.

Lately there has been a little bit of a trend on adapting fairy tales: one such series is the Tithe series by Holly Black. In this series (I have only read the first book, but my understanding is that the first is the best example of modern times and fairy tale) we are dropped into a fairy war, where dark fairy tales meet the New Jersey shoreline. It ‘s through the realm of faerie that Black creates, the use of iron as the boundaries between human and faerie, and the manipulation of the changeling narrative from old stories, that makes Tithe a modern faerie tale.

Kaye is our heroine. She’s a blonde haired, green eyed girl with almond shaped eyes and is pretty small for her age. She lives a nomadic lifestyle with her Mom, who sings for a series of bands. Her father isn’t in the picture, but when her mother’s boyfriend attempts to stab her, they pick up and move back to their home in New Jersey – to live with Kaye’s older, stricter grandmother, in her home near the seashore and the woods, where Kaye had imaginary friends growing up. The imaginary friends, are of course, faeries of different types, and they “play” along a little creek near her house. Little does Kaye know, they have been fighting a strange war for her whole life.

Tithe is a real faerie story – in the sense that, it has faeries. Like Tir Na Nog. In fact, very much like that: in the original faerie stories, faeries were not like Tinker Bell – they were actually untrustworthy. They guarded their own possessions jealously, and killed anyone who came at them from any which way. Faeries are manipulative and care very little for humans – and sometimes they are beautiful, but often they are gnarled and misshapen creatures that have a very scary sense of humour.

Black doesn’t hold back – she makes her story gritty and realistic, with a caffeine-addicted, chain smoking, strong willed protagonist, and her dismal nomadic background. Her friends are few and far between, and filled with jealousies. Her life is dangerous, but she doesn’t realize it, and coming back to New Jersey makes it that much worse: there in the industrial dotted river side, there lives a kelpie – a sea horse that collects young drowned girls. Black entwines the old with the new – mixing the harsh and lonely world of the kelpie, with the paint chipped world of the New Jersey boardwalk. It’s an amazing comparison, and the best example of it is when the kelpie and Kaye strike a bargain: for his boon, he requests the dilapidated old carousel horse to keep him company in the deep. This juxtaposition of old and new, on top of the contrasted faerie and human world, creates a blanket of intrigue that almost shows a compassionate side of Kaye’s world.

Such is the case with iron in Tithe: the faeries are cruel and out for themselves, their desires – whether they are actually good or bad – come before anything else – but they are nature, they represent a basic form of nature, that can be cruel and yet very vulnerable. This tension works within the New Jersey city limits – or at least, the New Jersey that Black paints for us – this urban wasteland where the shoreline is wasting away, and nature seems on the verge of making a comeback, as the water and grasses start taking over the boardwalk. Iron represents this hardline though, the thing that faeries cannot survive – they can be wild and dangerous – but put them in a car, and they’re toast.

I think that iron is an interesting choice for this. In an age where we see digital media and electricity and such as such big themes (see Steampunk), I think a return to iron is both interesting... and it makes sense – I mean, what do we have that isn’t made of iron? The whole human world seems to be a death trap for faeries, and in turn, the faeries are harsh and cruel – and they have weapons. Instead of guns, they have swords, but it works in the totality – the adaptation to the New Jersey shoreline works with the iron, the totality of the dangers for each world is balanced so well, it is almost as if New Jersey itself is a magical place.

Finally, there is the changeling aspect of the story: the changeling narrative is an old faerie tale, where faeries will steal into a nursery and switch a newborn baby with an old, dying – but veiled – faerie. There actually is no real reason, I think... or at least I have never found a common theme for all of it – though each story has its own unique spin. Tithe gives its faeries a reason for the changeling, but it changes the rules – the changeling doesn’t die, instead, the changeling becomes the story. The main viewpoint is through the lens of someone who does not quite belong and at the same time, is pivotal to everything that happens. The reason this works for the modern fairy tale, is the fact that it basically reminds us all of our awkward teenage years when we were confused about how the world fit together, but deep down inside, we knew we were special.

In the end, this is what why the modern fairy tale works – it pulls out the comparisons between the old and the new, and draws a line between these worlds... and then allows the characters to hop scotch between the lines, in order to draw the reader in. It works because we want the magic, and we recognize the setting – much like a dystopian, where the parameters of what we understand become hazy and fluxuate so that we can imagine ourselves in different situations.

Tithe was a great read, and I cannot wait for the next two instalments – not only because of weird way New Jersey becomes more magical, but also because the main love interest, Roiben – he’s awe-inspiring.

Anyways, that is my take on modern fairy tales and Tithe – go check it out, and keep reading those fairy tales – they can adapt to pretty much anything – can’t wait to see a cyberpunk fairy tale set in the future...

Happy mother's day to all of the moms out there! My grandmother was a huge influence on my love of reading and I get to see her today. We have a special bond because she taught me how to read and we have the same birthday (which, if you buy into zodiac, explains some of the similarities in our personalities). My mother supports my book buying habit and has been for fifteen years. Basically moms are great, and if you are a mom I hope you have a special day.

As I've mentioned the past couple of weeks it's getting close to the end of the semester so I don't have as much time for reading as a normally do. That being said, I am reading two awesome books right now. Sunflowers by Sheramy Bundrick and Scrolling Forward: Making Sense of Documents in the Digital Age by David Levy. Also, this week I'm planning on reviewing The Hunger Games and Catching Fire, so be sure to check back for my thoughts on those!

This week I reviewed Chicken With Plums and I'm Sorry You Feel That Way. I also posted about my experience as a children's reading tutor in A Tutor's Diary. In case you did check out that post I'll give you a little update. Friday was my last day as a tutor and Friday night was the Year End Celebration for the program. I tutored two children this semester and only one came, but it was so awesome to hear from his mom about how much he has improved! He read a book he wrote to the other parents and kids from the school and I could tell he was nervous, but I'm still proud of him for getting up and doing it. I also got him a book and some bookmarks which he seemed to like. I'm really sad that tutoring is over with now, but I'm glad I had the experience.

Clouds over London

Clouds by Tomas Saraceno

VIA «Olympic clouds»

Weekly Geeks assignment 2009-04 was the brainchild of Chris of Book-a-rama. Inspired by our founder Dewey's passion for knitting, Chris wanted to know about our passions aside from reading and blogging:

What are you passionate about besides reading and blogging? For example, are you crafty (knitting, woodworking, scrapbooking, model building)? Do you cook? Into gaming (computer or board)? Sports (player or spectator)? Photography? Maybe you like geocaching, rock climbing? Or love attending events like renaissance fairs, concerts? Music? Dancing? You get the idea.

Tell us why you're passionate about it. Post photos of what you've made or of yourself doing whatever it is you love doing.
Chris also asked us to share outside links ("tutorials, recipes, YouTube videos, websites, fan sites, etc, anything that will help us learn more about your interest or how to do your hobby") related to our passions, and to visit other Weekly Geeks to learn more about their passions.

Bogsider at Lous_Pages wondered whether she had an answer to this question at first:

Passionate is such a big word. But then again, I do know that I do not have to take the meaning literally and that if I translate it to something like "what are your other interests" it applies (and appeals) more to me. I can see the gap between being passionate about something and having an interest in something. But taken literally, I am not red-hot with passion over anything. But I am interested in a lot of things, and definitely, I feel more interested in some things over others. And there are of course things which I am very interested in and spend a lot of time doing or thinking about. Surely.

Framed in those terms, Bogsider did have some passions to share. She is close to completing a master's degree in Egyptology, an interest which allows her to pursue two other favorite activities, photography and travel. Photography is a hobby mentioned by several other Weekly Geeks, too. A few folks, like work their photographs into another one of their passions - scrapbooking, either traditional, like Erin at Crazy Comma Momma, or digital, like Tasses of Random Wonder.

When they're not holding a book, Weekly Geeks seem to like using their hands for needlework crafts like crochet and cross-stitch are popular. Knitting is a favorite pastime of Julie from Booking Mama, while Yati of "Fiddle-de-dee's not English" is one of the Geeks who enjoys patchwork and quilting. Some geeks express their creativity through drawing and painting, like Claire at Kiss a Cloud and Sarah from Puss Reboots, and Care of Care's Online Book Club makes mosaics.

But even though they love to read and blog and be creative, Weekly Geeks like to get outside once in a while too. Some Geeks enjoy working in their gardens. Some enjoy working with animals, like Wendy of Caribousmom and Bookish Ruth, while Gavin of Page 247 is a volunteer Beach Naturalist. One Weekly Geek, UnfinishedPerson, is preparing to run his first marathon this summer.

And every now and then, a Geek likes to come out from behind her books and entertain people. Ali of Worducopia sings with a choir, and Joanna from It's All About Me performs in plays and musicals.

Weekly Geeks are definitely more than just bookworms!

Following is the text of President Barack Obama's inaugural address on Tuesday, as delivered.

OBAMA: My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land — a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America — they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted — for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sanh.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act — not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. All this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions — who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. Those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers ... our found fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort — even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West — know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment — a moment that will define a generation — it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends — hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism — these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence — the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed — why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent Mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world ... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet (it)."

America, in the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

But the 2,500-year-old treasures from present-day Iraq have become part of a thorny archaeological debate over how to handle historically significant relics thought to have been dug up in the fog of war by Mideast antiquities robbers.

Experts in cuneiform writing, one of the world's earliest scripts, say the collection of 110 cracker-sized clay tablets provides the earliest written evidence of the Biblical exile of the Judeans in what is now southern Iraq, offering new insight into a formative period of early Judaism.

The tablets, though, also tell a murkier story, from the present era, according to scholars familiar with the antiquities trade - a story of the chaos in Iraq and Syria that has led to rampant pilfering of rich archaeological heritage and a rush of cuneiform tablets on the international antiquities' market.

The collector who owns the tablets on display this month at the Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem, insists they were purchased legally, decades before that looting began. However, an ancient history scholar familiar with the artifacts disputes that.

Leading U.S. museums have pledged not to exhibit unprovenanced artifacts that have surfaced in recent decades, as part of an effort over the last decade to discourage illicit antiquities trafficking. But cuneiform inscriptions have emerged as a notable exception, with some arguing these relics would be lost to history if they did not make it into scholarly hands.

"We are not interested in anything that is illegally acquired or sneaked out," said Amanda Weiss, director of the Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem.

"But it is the role of a museum to protect these pieces," she added. "It's what we are here for."

The plundering of antiquities in the war-torn Middle East has become a primary concern for the archaeological community, and some archaeologists even compare satellite images of sites in Iraq and Syria to moonscapes, after antiquities robbers went through them.

Archaeologists claim the Islamic State extremists and militants from other groups are funding their activities in part through illegal trafficking of antiquities, and authorities worldwide have been taking action to try to stem the flow.

What first sparked awareness of the issue, archaeologists say, was a deluge of cuneiform artifacts on the Western antiquities markets after the first Gulf War in 1991.

In the years that followed, archaeologists estimate that hundreds of thousands of small clay tablets with cuneiform inscriptions made their way into the hands of dealers. Many contained incrustations, indicating they were "fresh out of the earth," said Robert Englund of the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative.

An American scholar of ancient Jewish history familiar with the tablets on display in Jerusalem said they were purchased on the London antiquities market at the time when cuneiform artifacts were flooding the market, a strong indication that the items were looted. He spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a potentially illegal activity.

London-based Israeli collector David Sofer, who loaned the cuneiform collection to the Bible Lands Museum, denied any foul play. He said he purchased the tablets in the United States in the 1990s from a person who obtained them in public auctions in the 1970s.

Sofer said a few tablets from the collection were displayed in a New York museum and a Los Angeles museum in 2013, and their import and export in the U.S. was properly reported to U.S. authorities. He would not name the two museums, or the person who sold them to him.

"These things would be lost, and wouldn't be recognized for what they are" if he hadn't bought them, Sofer said.

As common as cuneiform tablets are, few have been as celebrated as those on display in Jerusalem.

The tablets fill in a 130-year gap in the history of the Judeans exiled to Babylon after the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in the 6th century B.C., said Laurie Pearce, a cuneiform expert from the University of California, Berkeley.

The earliest of the tablets, which have dates inscribed on them, is from just 15 years after the destruction of the First Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, and the inscription suggests the displaced Judeans were more quickly absorbed into the Babylonian society than previously thought, said Pearce, who studied the collection.

The tablets include administrative documents such as land agreements, showing the Judeans were "integrated almost immediately," she added.

The Jerusalem museum says the tablets likely originate in today's southern Iraq, and reference common Judean names, including Netanyahu, the last name of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The topic of cuneiform artifacts still roils the archaeological community.

The American Schools of Oriental Research, an academic research association, bans scholars from publishing articles on artifacts illegally excavated or exported from their country of origin after 1970, when the U.N. adopted its policy against antiquities trafficking.

But in 2004, the association made an exception, allowing publications about cuneiform artifacts that have no record of how they were unearthed - under the condition that Iraqi antiquities authorities give their consent and that the artifacts are eventually returned to Iraq.

The exception was made because the esoteric wedge script writings are so valuable to historical study, said Eric Meyers of the association.

The policy is now again a point of contention in the field. Over the past year, scholars at the association have debated changing the policy again, with most experts leaning against publishing articles on cuneiform artifacts as these objects continue to hit the markets, Meyers said.

"It is a crisis in the region," he said.

Author: Daniel Estrin | Source: The Associated Press [February 12, 2015]

I know last week I was all excited about it finally being summer, but this week did not feel like summer. At all. I was on campus taking a one week class, and I spent the majority of my week remaking my schedule for the Fall. The best parts of the week were staying with my friend at Chasing Empty Pavements, who helped me talk through the challenges of... life. Which got me thinking about how everything in college seems like it's life or death. It's not, but it seems that way.

Last night though, I felt summer. And I liked it! I finally finished Dead End Gene Pool by Wendy Burden last night so you can expect a review of that this week. I started about one hundred other books last night too. I'm reading Scrolling Forward: Making Sense of Documents in the Digital Age, Talking Up Young Women's Take on Feminism, Ariel, This Book is Overdue! How Librarians and Cybrarians Can Save Us All, and tonight I'm going to start Just Kids. Five books. I'm reading five books. If you go through that list you'll notice that I'm reading almost all nonfiction, the only non-nonfiction book I'm reading is Ariel. Which is poetry. Which is totally uncharacteristic of me. What is the world coming to?

So why the sudden nonfiction binge? I think it's because I really missed nonfiction during the school year. It's just hard to bring yourself into nonfiction when you're so busy learning stuff for class. Then everything you want to read is "fun" books, which isn't too say that nonfiction isn't fun (personally I find it very fun) but it's just... okay I'll say it, it's just more challenging. Now that it's summer I don't feel so drained by reading a challenging book or two, or three. I want to keep learning and I'm having a ton of fun with these books so far. Thirty or so pages in.

Do you read a lot of nonfiction? Or do you find yourself reading it at certain times?

P.S. This week I wrote reviews of The Moonstone and Sunflowers, and I did a post about bookshopping in Iowa City.

Yesterday I actually went out and bought Barnes and Noble's nook. The nook and the Kindle are actually the same price, but right now Barnes and Noble is offering a $50 gift card to anyone who is buying the nook and that was an offer I just couldn't pass up. Plus I liked the fact that I could try out the nook in the store whereas with the Kindle I'm ordering it without trying it. And my local Barnes and Noble is offering a class on Tuesday night for people who want to learn more about their nooks. There are some features the Kindle has that the nook does not, but overall I'm happy with my purchase.

Over Christmas my parents were really adamant that I take another look at e-readers, but I told them I just couldn't give up on having physical books. I just love the feeling of having a book in my hand, turning the pages, and books are my favorite way to decorate. I just love to be surrounded by them. That was all well and good, until I moved out of my dorm last month and realized that my book situation is a little out of control. I had two bookshelves in my dorm room and then I moved back to boxes and boxes of books here. So in May I decided that an e-reader might not be such a bad idea, especially for mass market paperback books that I honestly don't really need to keep. Really most of the popular fiction books I need, I don't need to have the physical book. I still wasn't entirely convinced though, so what made me change my mind?

What actually made me change my mind was a Books on the Nightstand podcast with Melissa Klug who works in the paper industry and the company she works for actually makes paper for books. There was a really interesting exchange between Melissa and one of the hosts Ann Kingman about e-readers and paper in the age of the e-reader. What made me decide that I wanted to get a nook while listening to this podcast was Ann (I think) said there are some books she wants in physical form and some books that it's okay to have in digital format. This probably makes me look kind of stupid, but that comment really changed my thinking about e-readers. This whole time I've been thinking you either read everything on an e-reader or you read everything in book form, but it doesn't have to be that way. You can buy books in physical form and you can have an e-reader for the books you don't want to have forever. Essentially, you can have your cake and eat it too. This was a really exciting idea for me and so yesterday I finally took the plunge. I've had my nook for less than 24 hours so I still have a lot to explore on it. In a few weeks I'll probably post an actual review of the nook so be sure to check back for that.

Just in case you missed anything this week I reviewed Just Kids by Pattie Smith, This Book is Overdue! How Librarians and Cybrarians Can Save Us All by Marilyn Johnson. I also did my second post in my Summer Internship series, a May Wrap-Up, and I had a guest post about how to read and review graphic novels. Overall it was a pretty eventful week at English Major's Junk Food so be sure to take a look at what you missed!

I am an Amazon Affiliate. If you make a purchase using one of my links I will earn a small percentage which will then go back into this blog.

Meet DoublClik:

Andrea Hernandez is the creative mind behind the DoublClik brand that specializes in enhanced digital photography. DoublClik has a magazine-ready appeal that has shaped a philosophy of "feel fabulous and look flawless." Andrea took her eye for design and applied it to photography about a year and a half ago and made www.doublclik.com official this past January. She also launched a blog this year which is full of updated photoshoots and a must-see "Wear to Work" feature. Andrea currently lives in Monterrey, Mexico. With breathtaking backdrops of palm trees and mountains, summer season lingering year round, and a significantly wealthy clientele, DoublClik is well on its way to becoming a household name. Her forté is editorial photography, which is why she jumped on the chance to retell the classic fairytale of "Sleeping Beauty" behind the lens of DoublClik.

EDITOR'S NOTE: The majority of these pictures were taken on a white seamless and backgrounds were photoshopped in afterwards to create a finished fairytale scene. I wanted to take a modern approach but keep key elements. For example, in the "Once Upon a Dream" scene, I had thought about putting in squirrels and bunnies but instead scattered stardust. Still enchanted forest, minus the small game lurking around her feet. Meet the model behind Sleeping Beauty here and for more behind the scenes magic, check out the video below!

www.doublclik.blogspot.com
www.doublclik.com

Overall, I thought May was a kind of disappointing month. In the middle of finals and projects and staying with a friend for a week there just wasn't very much time for reading. In fact, all six of these books were finished in the last two weeks of the month I think. And the grades are, well, fairly mediocre. Sunflowers wasn't as good as I wanted it to be, Dead End Gene Pool lacked some personality, American Born Chinese was good, albeit a little quick to end, Just Kids was really good in the beginning, but overall lacking, This Book is Overdue pretty much saved the month, and I've yet to review Scrolling Forward but while it offered a lot of interesting ideas I think the writing style was in need of some serious help. So let's hope June is a better month for me, although I've yet to finish anything yet. I think I might be in a bit of a slump right now.

1. Sunflowers by Sheramy Bundrick (B)
2. Dead End Gene Pool by Wendy Burden (C)
3. American Born Chinese by Gene Luen Yang (B)
4. Just Kids by Patti Smith (B)
5. This Book is Overdue! How Librarians and Cybrarians Can Save Us All by Marilyn Johnson (A)
6. Scrolling Forward: Making Sense of Documents in the Digital Age by David M. Levy (B)

How was your May?

If you were here last weekend then you know I bought a nook. Since Sunday I have almost finished two books (finished one and almost finished another) on the nook and I can say already that I have really enjoyed the experience of reading on it. I'm planning on posting an actual review towards the end of June, so if you're thinking about buying any e-reader be sure to check out my review later this month!

I am going to keep this post pretty short, mostly because my head hurts and I've had a bit of a rocky weekend. This week I posted a review of Scrolling Forward: Making Sense of Documents in the Digital Age, which is a really interesting book if you are interested in libraries or archives. I also posted a review of The Carrie Diaries, which is a fun summer read, particularly if you are a Sex and the City fan. I did my first Booking Through Thursday post about signed books and I talked about my third week at my internship. Last Saturday I had a guest post about The Graphic Novel, which got a great response so next Saturday check back for guest poster Ron to fill us in on his must read graphic novels!

As for reading this summer, I've done pretty well on the weekends on the beginning and end of the weeks, but since I work Tuesday-Thursday I'm usually pretty tuckered out at night and then I want to spend time with my family and the boyfriend. I am still getting quite a bit of reading done this summer. Originally I thought I would read more heavy books during the summer since I wouldn't be reading them during school, but I've found that the only stuff I've really gotten into have been memoirs, essays, and junk food (particularly Meg Cabot and romance novels). At first I was kind of bummed with myself for not reading more challenging books, but hell, it's summer. And frankly I don't give a damn.