How to use this Page

Endless Possibilities

When was the last time you did something out of your comfort zone?

Behind the question

What was the last klutzy thing you did in public and how did it make you feel?

Why do you love the number 13?

What has surprised you recently?

Lauren, Publicity Assistant

For years, the public has not been able to get enough of Paris Hilton. She’s famous as a socialite, heiress, model, and now for joining the likes of Socrates and Mark Twain on the pages of the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. No, she’s not quoted for saying, “That’s hot.” Ms. Hilton is instead immortalized for her advice, “Dress cute wherever you go. Life is too short to blend in.”

But Paris’s entry is only one of more than 20,000 new quotations added to 7th edition. Other notable inclusions come from Sarah Palin, Stephen Hawking, Aung San Suu Kyi, and Philip Pullman. Here, Oxford Dictionary of Quotations editor Elizabeth Knowles reflects on the history of the almost 70-year-old treasury, and how new entries are chosen.  To learn more check out the companion site here.

A classic reference book like this has to be regularly remade, without compromising its essential identity. Can we in fact have the modern and frivolous without damaging our book? I would say most definitely yes, where usage so dictates, and adduce in support two luminaries of the Oxford University Press of over sixty years ago. In 1931, planning the book, Kenneth Sisam, who identified an “intelligent elasticity” as an essential editorial quality, wrote to a colleague, “We shall have to guard against things quotable, as apart from things commonly quoted.” And in 1949, when the second edition was being planned, Humphrey Milford (formerly Publisher to OUP) commented, “I think the levity—comparative—of ODQ is partly the reason for its success.” In other words, the diversity of the book, and its mixture of the deeply serious and the frivolous, based on what people are quoting, is part of its essential nature.

Quotations are part of the fabric of the language: we use, and meet them, every day. We quote when we find that the words of another person, in another time and place, express exactly what we want to say. Or, events bring certain quotations to prominence, as the last year has given new relevance to Thomas Jefferson’s comment that, “Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.”

A dictionary of quotations is not a roll-call of the great and the good, nor a listing of an editor’s favorite passages. Although having said that, of course we all do have items in which we take a particular pleasure. I was especially pleased that the formulation, “We must guard even our enemies against injustice” (attributed to the radical Tom Paine) was revealed as the writer Graham Greene’s paraphrase of Paine’s more formal eighteenth-century diction. The history of this misquotation—linking two significant figures across the centuries, and coming to light through its resonance today—was very satisfying to explore.

At Oxford, we track language to ensure that we have the quotations people are most likely to look up, so that the next time a half-remembered quotation is on the tip of your tongue, the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations is ready with the answer. Inclusion is based on usage: evidence that a spoken comment or written passage is being quoted by others. And while there is a common quotations stock (Shakespeare, the Bible), we all have our own quotations vocabulary, that which we remember and quote because we encountered them at a time when they were particularly significant. The antique and serious often rubs shoulders with popular culture. The same newspaper column, for example, may quote from both the Book of Common Prayer and the Rolling Stones. The result is marvelously diverse, and properly so.

Did you know that…

1. London Lost and Found Bureau holds more than 11000 wallets, 10500 credit cards, 15000 umbrellas, 13000 hats, 11000 mobile phones and so on…
2. Mammals called Pangolins living in central and south Africa have their stomachs in their teeth
3. 70% of the living organisms on earth are bacterias.
4. Snails have about 25000 teeth
5. It takes 4 hours to boil peacocks egg
6. Polo is only animal who has 4 knees
7. Dynamite is made from peanut butter
8. If you scream for 8 years 5 months and 6 days energy you will produce will be enough to boil a cup of coffee (don’t try this at home)
9. If human lets out gases for 6 years and 9 months its will be as destructive as atomic bomb (DEFENETLY don’t try this at home)
10. Every time you hit your head on the wall you loss 150 calorie
11. Flea can jump 350 times longer than his body is, it is same as human jumping over a football stadium.
12. Sheat fish can feel more than 27000 tastes
13. Butterflies feel taste using their feet
14. Tongue is the strongest muscle of human body
15. Sea star doesn’t have any brain
16. Ducks croaking doesn’t has any echo (nobody knows why)
17. Statistically human is more afraid of spider than death
18. Every White Bear is left-handed
19. Crocodile cant put his tongue out of mouth
20. Cockroach can live 9 days without his head and it will only die because it won’t be able to eat anything
21. You will never be able to sneeze with your eyes open
22. 111,111,111*111,111,111=12345678987654321
23. Tomas Edison ( person who created light bulb) was afraid of light
24. In French and California sun bathing is not allowed until age 18
25. In USA judge on the court is allowed to call dog as eye-witness
26. “Restaurant” is the most common mistakably written word
27. To create a mobile phone 75 KG materials are needed

1. Eat a pickle
2. Call 9-1-1
3. Scream at your cat/dog
4. Strangle a teddy bear
5. Run after the ice-cream man NUDE
6. Put a potato in his exhaust pipe
7. Look at the ice-cream sales person and yell/scream
8. While eating a pickle call 9-1-1 and tell them, that the ice-cream man is yelling at a Teddy bear while in the nude
9. Buy some ice-cream

1. Eat a pickle
2. Call 9-1-1
3. Scream at your cat/dog
4. Strangle a teddy bear
5. Run after the ice-cream man NUDE
6. Put a potato in his exhaust pipe
7. Look at the ice-cream sales person and yell/scream
8. While eating a pickle call 9-1-1 and tell them, that the ice-cream man is yelling at a Teddy bear while in the nude
9. Buy some ice-cream

10. Coconut crabs will climb coconut trees to eat

9. An Octopus has 4 different hearts.

8. There are more stars in the universe then grains of sand on earth. (O.o)

7. It takes an oysters take about 5 years to make a pearl

6. The first cell phone ever made weighted 1 kg.

5.  No words rhyme with purple or orange.

4. Dogs can smell cancer, and low blood sugar levels.

3. Animals can rain the sky.

2. It’s possible to have an erection after death.

1. Your heart beats 10,00 times a day.

If you want you can post some of your interesting facts in the comments.

1. Do you know what is the most beautiful thing in my eyes… the reflection of yours.
2. NEVER say NEVER, but say that you love me FOREVER and EVER.
3. I hope you think of me each night before you fall asleep.
4. My heart beats to the rhythm of our love.
5. Love is what I feel when I see you beside me.
6. If you were ice cream, I would melt you with the heat of my love.
7. When you gaze at the stars remember me, for in each one is a kiss for thee.
8. I would ride a rocket to the stars, to be with you when you are far.
9. I was looking for an angel, but I suddenly stopped when you flew into my life.
10. If heaven is full of angels like you, I would ride an air balloon to meet you.

1. Do you know what is the most beautiful thing in my eyes… the reflection of yours.
2. NEVER say NEVER, but say that you love me FOREVER and EVER.
3. I hope you think of me each night before you fall asleep.
4. My heart beats to the rhythm of our love.
5. Love is what I feel when I see you beside me.
6. If you were ice cream, I would melt you with the heat of my love.
7. When you gaze at the stars remember me, for in each one is a kiss for thee.
8. I would ride a rocket to the stars, to be with you when you are far.
9. I was looking for an angel, but I suddenly stopped when you flew into my life.
10. If heaven is full of angels like you, I would ride an air balloon to meet you.

Today I am excited to introduce Michelle Rafferty who has been a Publicity Assistant at Oxford University Press since September 2008. Prior to Oxford she interned at Norton Publishing for a summer and taught 9th & 10th grade Literature. She will be chronicling her adventures in publishing on this site so be sure to check on Friday’s to hear more about what she is learning.

It began when I was sifting through what I like to think of as the “want ads” for journalism. Everyday reporters across America are looking for experts to quote in their stories. These queries pile up in my inbox daily, and I sort through them like a scavenger in hopes that an Oxford author can provide their insight and subsequently garner some free publicity. Earlier this week one reporter inquired: Is romance back? And I began to think, when was it gone? And for how long? And if it’s back, can it stimulate the economy? The more I wondered, the more perplexed I became, and I soon realized that it is because it is virtually impossible to logically sort through the deluge of findings and instructions I receive daily on matters of love. I fear that unless I abstain from books, film and the internet, I am forever doomed to remain utterly confused on the present state of romance. Let me explain.

According to an article I recently read in the New York Times, science has brought us ostensibly close to developing an actual love potion. Dr. Larry Young believes that a “cocktail of ancient neuropeptides” could actually increase our urge to fall in love or booster a dwindling romance. But, what if these drugs have disastrous side effects? According to In the Name of Love: Romantic Ideology and Its Victims, a book I came across this week at work, some of the most sinister acts in history have been done in the name of love. Even more disturbing is that 30% of all female murder victims have died at the hands of a former or present spouse or boyfriend. Couple these statistics with a love potion, and we could have murders of mass proportions on our hands.

The film He’s Just Not Into You [Spoiler alert!]begins to touch on these love hinged neurosis, but then opts for the happy ending route—I assume that producers felt Scarlett Johansson’s character was better off absconding to India, rather than hacking her new lover to bits after he makes love to his wife as she sits in the closet nearby. Test audiences might disagree, but I think this could have worked. The majority of the film spends its time offering both men and women those much needed cold doses of reality (If he doesn’t call you, it’s because he doesn’t want to call), so I think a murder would suit the film’s depressing appeal. But instead, in the last 15 minutes viewers are told to discard all the previous advice given and believe that there are in fact exceptions to the rules of dating and that women can change men.

Are all the complications and twists and turns necessary to get a happy ending? In film yes, because catharsis doesn’t only apply to Greek tragedy. But perhaps in real life we can get a happy ending without all the drama. According to a recent article in Newsweek, the key to happiness can be narrowed down to one thing: an irrevocable decision. Psychologists once believed that people are happier when they can change their minds, but in 2002 Daniel Gilbert found that people are happier when they are locked into a decision because it leaves no room for doubt. For example, if you are stuck in a marriage, you might as well focus on the positive. That is why according to Gilbert, “I love my wife more than I loved my girlfriend.”

But in terms of love, why does marriage have to define the “irrevocable decision”? Why not a six figure contract for a hit reality show? When Jay Lyon signed onto MTV’s new reality show The City as protagonist Whitney Port’s love interest, he surely considered the consequences of high ratings—he and Whitney could be together as long as the show remains popular. Thus viewers are perfectly poised to perpetually compare their own fated toils with his, which are equally fated but in a more artistically appealing, seamlessly stop-motion sense. The longer contracts keep these reality stars together, the longer we feel bad about our own comparatively humdrum relationships.

So is romance back? At a time when we are on the verge of reducing love to a “magic” pill, it seems the answer would be no. But when Ben Affleck’s character in He’s Just Not That Into You makes the requisite romantic gesture (hiding the engagement ring in the pockets of the pants Jennifer Aniston’s character once told him to throw out), and 300 giddy movie goers “ooo” and “aww,” I lean towards yes. This is the problem.

What are we to do when we are told to simultaneously denounce and clamor for romance daily? What if you, despite all logic, have welcomed romance back into your life and are using all restraint possible to avoid a moment very much like the one that marked the beginning of the end of Tom Cruise? Perhaps I can provide one ounce of solace. As Milan Kundera writes in The Unbearable Lightness of Being, “No matter how we scorn it, kitsch is an integral part of the human condition.” What this means is that the author of perhaps the most pragmatic fictional expose on love that has ever been, has granted you permission to indulge. If this isn’t enough justification, perhaps a certain upcoming Hallmark Holiday is.

Last week Lorcan pointed to an interesting article [Even Gen X is aTwitter] with data about who’s using twitter. In addition to 57% being from California (really?) and 63% being male “…the age demographics of Twitterers show a dramatic shift. When the site became popular in early 2007, the majority of its visitors were 18-to-24-year-olds. Today the site's largest age demographic is 35-to-44-year-olds.”

David Lee King recently posted on his blog about how many patrons are already using twitter and other social media tools. “Yes, people in your community are already connecting and engaging with others via social media tools,” says David, “Are you?”

Over the last several weeks at WebJunction we received a number of support requests about user inability to view some of our videos about the new platform (here's an example with others linked here). In exploring the reasons why, we realized that some of our users in libraries still work in libraries that block access to youtube, blip.tv and the like. Reasons cited include bandwidth for networks that are already stretched. What should we say about our own Internet use and access to our IT admins? Our security and privacy colleagues? Our funding councils and governments?

Very simply, we must continue to articulate our need for access to both social media and social tools in terms of relevance to our patrons and our community. Without our knowledge of and participation in the social spheres where our patrons engage with each other, where new content is published and knowledge emerges, we can't stay relevant. And without relevance, we won't be around.

Update: let me just add that I don't care about twitter in particular. It's just a tool and one of many examples of things we should be exploring.