Article Series (6): How is your writing ability?

“Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it.  Our civilization is decadent and our language–so the argument runs–much inevitably share in the general collapse.  It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes.  Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.” (77)

This is how George Orwell’s essay titled “Politics and the English Language” begins.  It can be found in his collection of essays Shooting an Elephant New York: Harcourt, Brace & World (1950), 77-92.  Now, while this essay is a commentary on political writing it is also packed full of great writing advice.  I originally came across it through a series of emails that were circulating on campus amongst the faculty and one suggested that we should all go back and review this essay.  Seeing as I had never read it I decided to give it a try. 

Near the beginning of the essay, Orwell gives five examples of poor political writing, which he later comments on in detail, but all have two common qualities: “staleness of imagery” and “lack of precision”.  He then goes on to illustrate the ways that prose-construction is avoided:

• “Dying metaphors.  A newly invented metaphor assists thought by evoking a visual image, while on the other hand a metaphor which is technically ‘dead’ . . . has in effect reverted to being an ordinary word and can generally be used without loss of vividness.  But in between these two classes there is a huge dump of worn-out metaphors which have lost all evocative power and are merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves.” (80)
• “Operators or verbal false limbs.  These save the trouble of picking out appropriate verbs and nouns, and at the same time pad each sentence with extra syllables which give it an appearance of symmetry.” (80)
• “Pretentious diction . . . [results in] an increase in slovenliness and vagueness.” (81-2)
• “Meaningless words.“ (82)  Orwell describes this best, but I think the phrase is descriptive itself. 

Honestly, I recommend you take the time to read this essay.  It is a quick read and full of constructive advice.

“As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make their meaning clearer.  It consists of gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug.  The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy.  It is easier–even quicker, once you have the habit–to say In my opinion it is not an unjustifiable assumption that than to say I think.” (85)

I love his sarcasm here:

“By using stale metaphors, similes and idioms, you save much mental effort, at the cost of leaving your meaning vague, not only for your reader but for yourself.” (85-6)

He quickly moves to further advice:

“A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus:  What am I trying to say?  What words will express it?  What image or idiom will make it clearer?  Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?  And he will probably ask himself two more: Could I put it more shortly?  Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?  But you are not obliged to go to all this trouble.  You can shirk it by simply throwing your mind open and letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in.” (86-7)

As he gets further into his commentary about political writing, Orwell does not hide his opinion:

“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity.  When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink.” (88-9) 

Are you a cuttlefish?

And, predictably, the author admits he has probably committed many of these offenses himself. (89) He is in part, like others, influenced by his environment.

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.  A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation, even among people who should and do know better.” (89)

As he nears the end of the essay, Orwell makes several more writing recommendations and then clearly maps out six rules to follow when logical instinct fails in the writing process:

“(i)  Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

(ii)  Never use a long word where a short one will do.

(iii)  If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

(iv)  Never use the passive where you can use the active.

(v)  Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

(vi)  Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

These rules sound elementary, and so they are, but they demand a deep change of attitude in anyone who has grown used to writing in the style  now fashionable.  One could keep all of them and still write bad English, but one could not write the kind of stuff that I quoted in those five specimens at the beginning of this article.” (91-2)

So, how are you doing with your writing?  Well, I certainly have a lot of room for improvement.  In a time where self-publishing is so easy, I think we should make a conscious effort to review and revise what we publish on a regular basis.  Well, at lease I should.  Wish me luck!  And go read Orwell’s essay.

Article Series (5): Oh Bartleby! Do you know someone like him?

Melville, Herman.  (1962).  ”Bartleby The Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street.”  Three Shorter Novels of Herman Melville.  New York: Harper.  109-155.

***This is the copy I happened to find and read.  This has been published by a variety of different publishers over the years in various collections, etc.***

This post is more of a philosophical one than just a review of something I read.  It is really ‘food for thought’ at best.

On the morning of September 29th, I heard a piece on NPR, while driving to work.  Richard Russo was being interviewed about some of the books he likes to read.  Here is the link to the accompanying article.  Mr. Russo  spoke about loathing the idea of working in an office, but he loves reading stories that are set in offices.  Of the several books he recommended, the last was Bartleby The Scrivener by Herman Melville.  The recommendation intrigued me because he said the following:

“The question becomes: What happens in an office when you have an individual who would prefer not to? What if there isn’t, really, a shared sense of purpose?”

The narrator, who is Bartleby’s boss, had offices in Manhattan and practiced law.  Naturally he employed law-copyists.  He was not unfamiliar with the eccentricities of employees.  But, Bartleby left him perplexed with how to deal with him through to the end of the story.  As the narrator’s business improved he had more work to do and so employed Bartleby.  At the start, Bartleby was a quiet, hard worker.  And throughout the story he remained quite passive (some may say passive aggressive) and said very little.  Problems arose when Bartleby was asked to do things beyond sitting at his desk and copying documents.  His standard response to requests such as comparing copies, summoning someone from the next room, or doing general office tasks was “I would prefer not to.”  When pressed, Bartleby typically would repeat is original response.  The narrator found this disconcerting from the start:

“Nothing so aggravates an earnest person as a passive resistance.  If the individual so resisted be of not inhumane temper, and the resisting one perfectly harmless in his passivity; then, in the better moods of the former, he will endeavour charitably to construe to his imagination what prove impossible to be solved by his judgment.”  (123-4)

Because the narrator received very little feed back from Bartleby when questioned, he was inclined to develop a sense of pity for Bartleby.  This, most readers will find disconcerting.  What do you do with an employee or co-worker who refuses to participate and is virtually unresponsive when questioned?  Some may be inclined, as the narrator, to stop making requests of such a person:

“Now and then, in the eagerness of despatching pressing business, I would inadvertently summon Bartleby, in a short, rapid tone, to put his finger, say, on the incipient tie of a bit of red tape with which I was about compressing some papers.  Of course, from behind the screen the usual answer, ‘I prefer not to,’ was sure to come; and then, how could a human creature with the common infirmities of our nature, refrain from bitterly exclaiming upon such perverseness–such unreasonableness.  However, every added repulse of this sort which I received only tended to lessen the probability of my repeating the inadventure.”  (127)

And, despite all the narrator did to get Bartleby to work, and to eventually be rid of him, nothing resolved the matter:

“Indeed, it was his wonderful mildness chiefly, which not only disarmed me, but unmanned me, as it were.”  (128)

The story goes on to include circumstances we would never encounter in our workplaces.  The narrator found Bartleby was living in the offices.  Bartleby eventually stopped working altogether.  He was dismissed but would not leave.  Eventually, the narrator moved his offices.  Unfortunately, his former landlord sought him out to complain about the strange man who would not leave the previously occupied offices.  The narrator visited Bartleby but could not convince him to leave.  Bartleby was eventually arrested.  While Bartleby was in jail, the narrator visited him on a few occasions.  On the last visit, Bartleby was found dead. 

So ends the story of Bartleby.  But what about our stories?  Our situations?  Our circumstances?  How do we navigate the professional workplace, committees, associations, etc. when there are people who have conflicting work ethics?  Or there are persons who flatly refuse to participate in certain tasks, projects, or events?  What is to be done when people, to quote Mr. Russo, don’t have a ’shared sense of purpose’?  Is there anything to be ‘done’?  Should something be ‘done’?  What impact does such a colleague have on others?  What impact does such circumstances have on patrons/customers/students/faculty/members?  What impact does it have on your institution/library/association/company?  How does it impact other employees and co-workers?  Do we ask and/or expect less of such a person?   I will assume as employees we are expected to deliver a certain amount of work while at or workplace.  And, when asked to do something we respond accordingly.  What happens when a supervisor is met with a no response?  Are there consequences?  Is someone else charged with the task?  What does it mean when a co-worker gradually does less and less work?  And, like Bartleby, is largely passive and unresponsive?

I’m not even going to attempt to answer these questions here, partly because I am still struggling with the questions myself.  I’m not really sure how I would answer them.  Although each situation will probably warrant a different solution.  But, I think they are questions that need to be taken seriously in situations where we are faced with folks like Bartleby.  And of course, feel free to share your comments here.

Article Series (3): Lending e-books via interlibrary loan. When?

So the conversation seems to be picking up about e-books in the interlibrary loan community and how we can loan them.  I’ve been asking around for about the last  six months to find out if anyone knows how this is going to eventually happen.  I’m not getting much of a response.  This week the conversation popped up on one of the interlibrary loan listservs.  As part of the conversation someone posted the following article:

Vigen, Jens and Paulson, Kari. (2003)  “E-books and interlibrary loan: an academic centric model for lending.”  Proceedings of the 8th Interlending and Document Supply Conference, Canberra, available at: http://www.nla.gov.au/ilds/abstracts/VigenJ.pdf.  (10/26/09)

So, I read it, but I don’t really think that it is really that current.  And, the authors were really only promoting their particular project.  I’m also a bit reluctant to blindly accept the ideas in the paper because of the authors’ corporate connections (CERN and eBooks Corporation).  Those connections make me wonder if they had any agenda meant to serve their companies, some of what is in the paper makes me believe they did.  Yet, we also cannot dismiss that our vendors will play a role in our eventual solutions to this question.  And, despite any agenda and the age of the paper, about 6 years, some of the issues they address are still relevant today.  Although I have to say, it amazes me that these issues are still unresolved today in 2009.  As a result, I’m not sure this article is really that useful today.  But, I will share some of the more interesting quotes anyway because I think it is an important issue.  E-books will eventually be lent through interlibrary loan, it is just a question of when and how.

“Ebook library solutions have not yet fully made their impact in libraries mainly because of a lack of relevant content and a failure to create a library platform which satisfies librarians’ needs.  Ebook library vendors have also failed to embrace the kinds of new lending models and interactivity that technology makes possible.”  (2)

This quote addresses some of the major problems that keep us from lending ebooks at this point.  No, I have no solutions myself, but it would be nice to be part of the conversation as it moves forward.  I do wish I knew what publishers were thinking about this issue.  Do they even really care at this point?   

“Including functionality such as traditional interlibrary loan into an ebook lending model would no doubt be hard to sell to publishers. To suggest that making ebooks available for ILL would be like creating a librarian’s Napster would certainly be overstating their objection. But publishers do have valid concern about the vulnerability of content in digital format. While publishers may have control over who gets to their content initially, unless a contract governs what the user can do with the content afterwards, they have no control over what happens with the book after that. Without careful consideration of lending permissions, ebooks could threaten to cannibalize the already suffering print book. Publishers do not wish to find that, by making ebooks too accessible, they one day face a market where one ebook serves the need that was once served by ten print books.”  (3)

Maybe these are some of the same issues that they have today.  Maybe there are more.  But the authors make an interesting argument:

“Making ebooks available for ILL may not be appealing to publishers at first glance. However, the publishing industry has much more to gain by introducing an ebook lending model for ILL than by preserving the present situation which favours the courier and leaves the author, the publisher and the librarian out of pocket.”  (4)

So, what are the answers to this conundrum?  I don’t think we are even close to a solution, but there are definitely more people asking questions about how this can happen.  How soon before we start making progress?  Does the solution lie first with the publishers?  The aggregators/vendors?   Libraries?  Well, to start, I’m sure there are more recent blog posts and articles about this issue.  The search continues . . .  

               

 

The publication of our chapter is coming out this month

I am happy to announce that two colleagues and I have a chapter in a book that is coming out at the end of this month from IGI Global.  The title of the book is the Handbook of Research on Practices and Outcomes in E-Learning: Issues and Trends and comes in at a hefty 626 pages.  Our chapter is in Section IV: Professional and Disciplinary Implications and is titled “Librarian as Collaborator: Bringing E-Learning 2.0 into the Classroom by Way of the Library” (Chapter XVI or 16).

This book’s focus is on higher education, but does not cut it so fine as to only be about libraries.  We thought it would be nice to submit to a non-library specific, but academic, publication.  Happily, our proposal and eventual chapter was accepted.  I want to thank both my colleagues for allowing me to be a part of this project.  It was a great, although tough, experience that I  can now build on in the future.

Your assignment, and mine: Saying and doing-keeping up with current topics in the profession

Not too long ago I was in a meeting where a colleague asked me what I do to keep up on the current issues in librarianship.  My response was almost immediate, ‘I read blogs and RSS feeds.’  In this day and age, it seems like the thing to say, yet my answer lacked substance and detail.  As soon as I said it I had the feeling that I had just fallen flat on my face.  Now, when think of that moment, I always feel as if I could have answered that better.  But beyond that I can do far better in my efforts to keep up with what is being discussed in the library profession.  Naturally, my next question is: ‘How does one really keep abreast of the current issues in librarianship?’  Everyone has their methods.  Yes, reading library-related blogs and rss feeds (and making comments of course, being part of the conversation)is important.  But also, picking up the latest (or not so latest but valuable) books being published, staying on top of what is being published in the journals, and of course going to workshops, symposia, presentations, and conferences are also key.  Ok, easier said than done?  You got that right!  I’m not sharing anything that is breaking news to the average librarian. 

That being said, there is something I want from all of you, fellow librarians (lurkers included!).  Post in the comments what you do to keep up on current topics in the profession.  And I want substance.  What do you do that works for you?  And, for those of you who are not librarians, what do you do to keep up on current topics in your profession?  We can seriously learn  a lot from each other if we can share some substantive answers.  So comment away!

For me, I need to adopt one colleague’s organizational methods.  While I am not what I would call organized I need to establish a bit more routine when it comes to staying well read.  The particular colleague I am referring to, while a fairly new librarian, had always been highly organized.  She even has a schedule for posting to her blog.  I need one of those too, but for now I am going to attempt a schedule for staying a bit more current.  I at first thought I would do an article a day and post my thoughts here.  But I realized that was far to ambitious to start with.  Instead, I’ll try an article per week.  Then, I thought it would also be nice to do a book each month.  However I’m worried that will be a bit too much to do four articles and a book.  I don’t want to set a schedule that is not, ultimately, going to work for me.  So I will start with four articles, plus a post for each, each month.  Maybe soon I will do the same with posting on others’ blog posts . . . maybe.  And I expect to be held to that goal by all of you.  If anyone can think of an incentive for me to keep to the goal, by all means make a suggestion.  Maybe if I have a giveaway for the first person who notices I haven’t done four articles in a month and points it out to me.  Good idea?  Or no?  If yes, what should I have as the giveaway?  Please, share your ideas!

Ok, now we all have an assignment.  I, am going to read and post on an article per week.  And you, are going to share what substantive ways you keep up with the current topics in the library, or your respective, profession.

Max Cleland and A Farewell to Arms

Yesterday, while driving to work, I heard an interview of Max Cleland on NPR, he was promoting his book Heart of a Patriot.  And what struck me was what he said near the end of the interview.  I have recently finished reading A Farewell to Arms by Hemingway and absolutely loved it.  Yet the way it resonated for me was very different from the way it resonated for Max Cleland.  I was struck more with Frederic Henry’s relationship with Catherine Barkley and what eventually happened with them.  But for Max, who had lost both legs and an arm in the Vietnam War, he connected with Frederic’s experience of being wounded, almost loses his leg, and what he takes away from it all.  It just seems kind of amazing how two very different people with very different backgrounds and experiences can love a book for very different reasons.  Although, this revelation is probably not new to anyone, such moments always make me pause to reflect when I come across them.

D is for Digitize (Not Just Another Google Book Settlement Conference)

This conference announcement popped up in my email today.  I’m just sorry it is next week, a bit too short notice  for me, but it looks good!

D is for Digitize (Not Just Another Google Book Settlement Conference)

The proposed Google Book Search settlement appeals to one of the most complex questions faced by an evolving library community: What is the future of access to books and digital information? The settlement touches on many issues central to libraries, such as information access, reader privacy, fair use, and freedom of inquiry. Through a class action settlement, the agreement combines complicated legal, economic, and policy questions that many feel should be carefully scrutinized through the lens of equitable public access to information. Libraries have been key players in digitization initiatives, years before the Google Book settlement. Do our strategies change in light of the settlement?  How can we continue our mission to be stewards of the world’s cultural heritage? The D is for Digitize conference brings together leading public interest, academic, legal and business minds to tackle these important and timely topics.

When: October 8-10, 2009

Where: New York Law School, 185 West Broadway, New York, NY 10013

For more information, see:

http://www.nyls.edu/centers/harlan_scholar_centers/institute_for_information_law_and_policy/events/d_is_for_digitize

Trying to resurface

Oy Vay!  Where the hell have I been?!?!?!?!  Doing some serious recovering.  My tonsillectomy on August 6th was the beginning of about two weeks of misery.  My ear, nose and throat doctor told me it was going to be rough, but there is no way for him to tell me what it would really be like.  It also did not help that I had re-injured my pulled calf muscle (that,  pain I cannot even begin to describe).  The surgery itself went fine and so did the healing.  I’m not 100% healed yet but I’m getting there.  The bad parts were everything else.  I had to be at the surgery center at 8:30 and have eaten nothing.  They didn’t take me until 10:30.  The prep involved a very painful IV insertion.  The first one on the left hand didn’t work, so the nurse had someone else do one on the right hand.  It was probably about 11:30 before I actually had the surgery.  Of that, I remember nothing, thank goodness.  And then the real hell began.  Waking up from the surgery was very rough.  The anesthesia made me very very nauseous and had a lot of difficulty getting up, dressed and out of the surgery center.  It did not help that there was one nurse in the recovery room that wasn’t really sympathetic to my situation and wanted to get me out of there.  Thankfully, my sweetheart was very good throughout the entire thing.  Although, he said he did expect to see me come walking out, instead he got to sit by me in my groggy and nauseous state, help me get dressed and get me home.  I eventually left the center in their wheelchair around 3:30 and got home in a crazy haze.  Thank goodness home was only about ten minutes away.  Then the days of the pain from the surgery and nausea from the pain medication began.  I spent a lot of time in bed sipping water and juice, occasionally hobbling to the bathroom on my bad leg and wishing I was far far away.  Sleeping was pretty much the priority for the first four days.  Thankfully I had a wonderful nurse.  He got me popsicles, apple sauce and jell-o when I asked and helped me when I needed it.  Ultimately I lost about twelve pounds just from not eating, but of course I have already gained some of that back.  Honestly, I had no idea how bad it would be.  And for someone who loves to read and at least check-in online everyday, I had no inclination to do either for an entire week.  My post-op check up went well but it really only marked the second phase of my recovery.  The pain migrated into my ears, which is normal, and it was still very hard to swallow anything.  I wanted to go off the medication because it made me feel so lousy but no, I had about six more days of that.  Well, now that I am just over two weeks out from the surgery I am feeling much better, I’m not 100% yet but I’m well enough to go back to work on Monday.  And thankfully, this second week I have been able to do some indulgent reading (which I will share in a later post) but haven’t ventured very far from the apartment much, especially since I’m still nursing my leg.  Yesterday I drove my car for the first time in about three weeks and walked around the downtown near my apartment for about an hour.  So, yeah, a pretty bad surgery and recovery, but it is almost over and it is time to get reconnected to the world and get back to business.  Now, if food would start tasting like food, instead of metal, and if I could get rid of this annoying cough . . .

Still not completely convinced about the Google project

Just read this article in IHE.  While I love the idea of equal access being promoted there is still one big if.   Well, maybe even a few.  You have access if you have a computer and if you have the money to pay for them.  Or you have access if you can afford to go to a college whose library can afford to pay for access.  The other thing that bothers me is the promotion of this equal access idea as if it is a shiny and new concept that no one has ever thought of before.  I know I don’t have to point out the obvious here, but I’m going to.  Libraries have been working on the equal access thing for . . . well, let’s just say a very long time.  As for access, for those who don’t have a computer or money to buy electronic books . . . you can go to the local library and borrow books for free.  Gasp!  Do they not have something you want?  Oh my gosh, the library can borrow it from another one!  OMG!  While I would like it to be 100% true, equal access is not perfect, even in physical libraries.  Bravo for Google trying to make equal access closer to a reality, but keep the rose colored glasses out of it.  Hey, maybe if Google comes up with a way for everyone to have a computer with internet access we could be even closer!

A whole website on the Google book settlement

Hey, check this out.  Someone has created an entire site on the Google book settlement.

It is called The Public Index and is a project by a faculty member and students at New York Law School.  I have only looked at the site quickly, but it looks like there is loads of useful information.