Libraries are the most wonderful places on the planet, hands down. One of my dreams is to be a library tourist, going around the world just to visit libraries. They are my cathedrals, with the OED at the altar.
Now, with the Fantasy Library Project, the power to design your very own paradise is here! Laurie King is asking for submissions of magical fake libraries. (Which, of course, will be filled with Hypothetical Books, as is only natural.)
Need some inspiration? Check out these gorgeous real life libraries (including Vassar's!) and drool at the beauty.
I may have to get a PhD just so I have an excuse to visit some of these.
Showing posts with label books. Show all posts
Showing posts with label books. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Sunday, August 9, 2009
When I grow up, I want to be...
I have recently been enjoying the movie versions of Pride and Prejudice and Little Women, and they reminded me of a conversation I had with my roommate last year. We were chatting about Jane Austen novels, and how people relate to them, and she came out with what I thought was a pretty spot on assessment.
“Everyone thinks they’re Elizabeth Bennett, but they just aren’t.”
She’s right. We want to believe that we’re the pretty, smart, witty one, who loves to read and take long walks and in the end always finds her Darcy. We forgive Elizabeth her pride and vanity because we love her so much—we want to have as good a reason as she does to be proud. I stumbled upon Jane Austen rather late into my teenage years, so for me it was more Jo March who I always aspired to emulate, but it’s exactly the same.
So if we want to be the Lizzie’s and Jo’s of literature, but know in our hearts we can’t be…then who are we really? One of the many dreaded Facebook quizzes that’s been circulating is “Which Famous Character from Literature are you?”—I took it and got Jane Eyre. No offense, but if I know I’m not Jo, then I definitely know I’m not Jane. Another, which attempts to narrow this question, is “Which Shakespearean Character are you?” but I think that makes it even more difficult. Now I remember how much I would also love to be Beatrice from Much Ado, or Hermione from Winter’s Tale.
The horror of these questions is realizing in the end you’ve grown up to be Lydia, not Lizzie, or Helena, not Hermione. (Of course, the notion that you’ve grown up at all is itself horrifying.) Is there, perhaps, some middle ground? Some character that no one dreams of, but that in the end would be perfectly acceptable?
I wish I could think of one.
“Everyone thinks they’re Elizabeth Bennett, but they just aren’t.”
She’s right. We want to believe that we’re the pretty, smart, witty one, who loves to read and take long walks and in the end always finds her Darcy. We forgive Elizabeth her pride and vanity because we love her so much—we want to have as good a reason as she does to be proud. I stumbled upon Jane Austen rather late into my teenage years, so for me it was more Jo March who I always aspired to emulate, but it’s exactly the same.
So if we want to be the Lizzie’s and Jo’s of literature, but know in our hearts we can’t be…then who are we really? One of the many dreaded Facebook quizzes that’s been circulating is “Which Famous Character from Literature are you?”—I took it and got Jane Eyre. No offense, but if I know I’m not Jo, then I definitely know I’m not Jane. Another, which attempts to narrow this question, is “Which Shakespearean Character are you?” but I think that makes it even more difficult. Now I remember how much I would also love to be Beatrice from Much Ado, or Hermione from Winter’s Tale.
The horror of these questions is realizing in the end you’ve grown up to be Lydia, not Lizzie, or Helena, not Hermione. (Of course, the notion that you’ve grown up at all is itself horrifying.) Is there, perhaps, some middle ground? Some character that no one dreams of, but that in the end would be perfectly acceptable?
I wish I could think of one.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Enchantress of Florence
Enchantress of Florence, by Rushdie, is very enchanting. So enchanting, in fact, that it seems to have blinded people into thinking it's good. (I won't give a synopsis, because if you need one there's hundreds out there, and I'll try not to give spoilers, but any details I do give away aren't huge and wouldn't affect the plot if you want to read it and haven't yet.)
Don't get me wrong--the prose is beautiful, and the story is sweeping in that wonderfully epic way. I adored all the historical detail and references, and I enjoyed many of the smaller moments, such as the painter who gets absorbed into a painting he so loves.
HOWEVER: I found this book to be incredibly sexist. Before I go into details, let me first say: I'm a history major, so I do understand that the time period was in many ways inherently sexist, and I also have no trouble believing that a Sultan and a fictional Machiavelli, among others, were themselves sexist.
This book is entitled the EnchantRESS of Florence, so I assume I can be forgiven for my presumptions that somewhere along the way we would meet a strong, powerful woman, or at least that a modern writer like Rushdie wouldn't stoop to the prejudices of the time.
Every woman in this book is either a whore or is treated as one. Reviewers have commented that the overwhelming sexuality of the book can be off-putting; it is that overwhelmingly sexual because there is not a single female character who is doing anything BUT have sex. The men fight wars, contemplate the meaning of life and power, travel, paint, hunt, read, write, and listen to stories, before getting back to their women who have sex.
If a woman's not having sex, she's contemplating sex, or venting her frustration about the fact that she's not having sex, or showing her jealousy that her husband really wants to have sex with other women more than her. In fact, most of the book seems to be about women who aren't good enough at having sex, and so the men have to go off and imagine other women (or find prostitutes) who are good at having sex.
And our Enchantress, for whom the book is named? Guess what her wonderful, magic powers are? She makes men want to have sex with her! This is called, in Rushdie's elegant prose, "falling in love," but in the end no one actually ever gets to know her, so how on earth can they be in love with her?
She's slightly different from the others, though, because she happens to also have sex with another woman. WOAH. Talk about empowering. I'm so glad all those feminists worked so hard for us to achieve equality, so that our literary sisters could have sex with not just men, but also women.
I read the entire book, because I felt I couldn't properly judge it otherwise, and I desperately hoped it would get better, but it doesn't. If you're the kind of person for whom this would be a bother, I definitely do not recommend this book. If, on the other hand, a narrative that degrades females at every opportunity sounds like your kind of thing, enjoy.
[Sigh. It seems all my posts lately have been of the ranting quality. Perhaps I'll write one soon in which I'm actually happy about a book. I do love reading, really I do!]
Don't get me wrong--the prose is beautiful, and the story is sweeping in that wonderfully epic way. I adored all the historical detail and references, and I enjoyed many of the smaller moments, such as the painter who gets absorbed into a painting he so loves.
HOWEVER: I found this book to be incredibly sexist. Before I go into details, let me first say: I'm a history major, so I do understand that the time period was in many ways inherently sexist, and I also have no trouble believing that a Sultan and a fictional Machiavelli, among others, were themselves sexist.
This book is entitled the EnchantRESS of Florence, so I assume I can be forgiven for my presumptions that somewhere along the way we would meet a strong, powerful woman, or at least that a modern writer like Rushdie wouldn't stoop to the prejudices of the time.
Every woman in this book is either a whore or is treated as one. Reviewers have commented that the overwhelming sexuality of the book can be off-putting; it is that overwhelmingly sexual because there is not a single female character who is doing anything BUT have sex. The men fight wars, contemplate the meaning of life and power, travel, paint, hunt, read, write, and listen to stories, before getting back to their women who have sex.
If a woman's not having sex, she's contemplating sex, or venting her frustration about the fact that she's not having sex, or showing her jealousy that her husband really wants to have sex with other women more than her. In fact, most of the book seems to be about women who aren't good enough at having sex, and so the men have to go off and imagine other women (or find prostitutes) who are good at having sex.
And our Enchantress, for whom the book is named? Guess what her wonderful, magic powers are? She makes men want to have sex with her! This is called, in Rushdie's elegant prose, "falling in love," but in the end no one actually ever gets to know her, so how on earth can they be in love with her?
She's slightly different from the others, though, because she happens to also have sex with another woman. WOAH. Talk about empowering. I'm so glad all those feminists worked so hard for us to achieve equality, so that our literary sisters could have sex with not just men, but also women.
I read the entire book, because I felt I couldn't properly judge it otherwise, and I desperately hoped it would get better, but it doesn't. If you're the kind of person for whom this would be a bother, I definitely do not recommend this book. If, on the other hand, a narrative that degrades females at every opportunity sounds like your kind of thing, enjoy.
[Sigh. It seems all my posts lately have been of the ranting quality. Perhaps I'll write one soon in which I'm actually happy about a book. I do love reading, really I do!]
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Honey Honey, how you thrill me
I had a pretty wonderful day today, as it was full of reading and writing, and I even managed to take a quick trip to my favorite bookstore in the world, Kramers Books, and gaze longingly at novels I cannot afford and history books I really do not need.
BUT what made my day particularly special is another topic this blog is meant to encompass: TEA!
First, some background: I used to be the kind of person who always put milk and sugar in their tea. I don't know why, but it tasted particularly delicious to me that way. Unfortunately, I eventually moved to college, where I discovered that milk goes bad very, very quickly, and that sugar is kind of a wasted expense. The solution? Well, there wasn't one for a while. I simply started drinking all tea black.
Until one fateful day when I was introduced to wonders of wonders: honey. Specifically, honey in tea. Not only is this completely delectable, but it naturally sweetens the tea, and there's really no need for milk (though milk and honey is its own special thing). On top of all that, honey doesn't need to be refrigerated, which is just tons of points in its favor from the dorm room perspective.
I'm sure many people have been putting honey in their tea for hundreds of years, so this is nothing terribly exciting. However, I do believe that there is a bit of a science to honey in tea. In fact, I would argue, not all types of honey work in all types of tea, and furthermore not all types of tea taste good with any type of honey.
In my rather limited experience, I have decided that Earl Grey tea always tastes good with honey. Now I just have to experiment a bit, and figure out what doesn't work. As always, suggestions would always be welcome.
As for me, I'm off to make more tea. Perhaps I'll try some honey in de-caf variety?
BUT what made my day particularly special is another topic this blog is meant to encompass: TEA!
First, some background: I used to be the kind of person who always put milk and sugar in their tea. I don't know why, but it tasted particularly delicious to me that way. Unfortunately, I eventually moved to college, where I discovered that milk goes bad very, very quickly, and that sugar is kind of a wasted expense. The solution? Well, there wasn't one for a while. I simply started drinking all tea black.
Until one fateful day when I was introduced to wonders of wonders: honey. Specifically, honey in tea. Not only is this completely delectable, but it naturally sweetens the tea, and there's really no need for milk (though milk and honey is its own special thing). On top of all that, honey doesn't need to be refrigerated, which is just tons of points in its favor from the dorm room perspective.
I'm sure many people have been putting honey in their tea for hundreds of years, so this is nothing terribly exciting. However, I do believe that there is a bit of a science to honey in tea. In fact, I would argue, not all types of honey work in all types of tea, and furthermore not all types of tea taste good with any type of honey.
In my rather limited experience, I have decided that Earl Grey tea always tastes good with honey. Now I just have to experiment a bit, and figure out what doesn't work. As always, suggestions would always be welcome.
As for me, I'm off to make more tea. Perhaps I'll try some honey in de-caf variety?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
