How to use this Page

You aren't the one going to hell.

I have the feeling that somebody probably paid a publicity/social networking consultant a chunk of money for the idea to invite themselves over.

Ha. Good one.

I love Miss Manners.

Fantastic! Now Miss Manners knows where to turn when she needs a "guest columnist."

I always wish that I had something brilliant to say when you post things like this. Is it okay simply to say that on this very rainy day you made me smile? The fact that my word verification now reads exangl makes me marvel at your power. Ex Angel it is.

what is a blog tour?

Anon 11:50, the writer who sent Roger that ballsy invitation to host a Q+A about his book actually said his publisher mentioned Roger's blog as "a must-stop site." I can only hope it was a young marketing person who didn't realize the gaffe he or she was making in suggesting the writer contact Roger. I would be as mortified if one of our authors reached out to Roger's blog that way as I was when I invited someone to dinner and they suggested a recipe for me to try when they came over.

Roger, you are such a puppy-kicker!

I don't know that it was really so much a gaffe as an easy target (thus my prediction I was going to hell). We know that marketing departments are pushing authors to promote themselves, but are the publicists providing the authors with enough media training to make sure they are effective?

To mix metaphors--

Are you sure the marketing people aren't trying to push the envelope and using naive authors as cannon fodder? How much more annoyed would you have been if it had been the marketing department that contacted you?

Love this. I ask WWMMD all the time. You nailed her voice PERFECTLY.

Roger;

It could have been Miss Piggy.

why so coy? it's enough to say to youself: "You know who you are" but why not let the rest of us in on the matter? then we will recognize the book (or product) when we see it plugged

What would be the point in that, 9:24? So the author is clueless--it doesn't mean the book is bad. Besides, these kinds of "invitations" come to bloggers all the time, so it doesn't seem fair to single one out by name. When Miss Manners chides those with call waiting ("it's a case of last come, first served") she doesn't tell us which of her friends made the grievous error.

(9.24 speaking) You are right; I wasn't thinking. - it wouldn't be fair to name this particular promotion person. but one can hope that she or her employer knows how the technique redounds to the book's discredit. (and that the author doesn't find out what is being done in her name!)

I find this marketing thing a big black hole. I have asked questions to the publishing marketing "experts" (did you know that the marketing dept is a mostly entry level job?). My questions unanswered, even dismissed. I tell them to send me to the big conventions to sign books and never sent. I am given an antiquated marketing brochure or flyer and my marching orders to get out there and sell my book. No training. This blogosphere thing, really, who are we talking to, each other in the business? I do not buy books from these other people now because when I'm not working, I need that book money to eat. How are we reaching out to the public, who actually buy the books? I spent a whole year marketing and my book is still in the tank. Why? When asked to get out there and promote, I spent time, money and effort to reach out. I've been invited to speak at fairs and conferences. However, I am also required to shell out my own money for planes, trains, hotels and meals. All for no honorarium. I cannot afford this and I am not a charity. How is the marketing dept helping when they do not fund their people to sell that book and send them out to do so? It's really convoluted. Something has got to change. That naive (or stupid, greedy, pushy) blogger has no training or protocols to follow. Believe me, I've asked, many times.

Hello Anonymous 3:01,

I am your local bookseller. I also wrote a book. I think I answered your question in my comment #31 on the previous post, in describing what Daniel Pinkwater is now doing on National Public Radio. As a bookseller and author, I believe that the only way to sell YOUR book is to join with other authors and promote THEIR books too, as part of an informal collective. Isolation is the issue. Daniel promoted James Warhola's book on the radio this morning -- but of course Daniel was also reminding listeners of his OWN existence, and therefore that of his books'.

Maybe you don't have time for a radio show. Neither does Daniel, but he's doing one anyway. Maybe you can't get on NPR, but you can get on the internet.

Similarly, I sell my own book regularly, in the stores I help run.

Yes, the marketing department at the publishing company isn't helping you. The old days are over. But do not dismiss the help your peers can offer you, and the help you can offer them. Most importantly, write another book, and another, and another. Speaking as a bookseller, I can tell you it is much easier to promote an author with several books available. Do not despair. Share your voice.

Thanks, Andy. That was a thoughtful reply. Wish you worked for my publisher.

Anon 3:01

I don't understand why anyone would host a book they're luke warm about, yet this happens all the time. What's the point of promoting a book you didn't love on your site. I just don't get it can someone please explain it to me. It's one of the many reasons I don't like blog tours.

Doret, I can't speak for all bloggers but what's happened to me (sometimes, not all the time) is that I'm asked to participate in a blog tour. I accept, not having read the book, because I find the premise of the book intriguing or others have given the book a good review. It sounds like something I'd be interested in, so I accept. I get the book, read it, and maybe I don't feel a great connection with the book but I've already committed to being on this blog tour. Hence, posting about lukewarm books.

It's not a perfect system, no. But I try to think of an audience for every book I review on my blog. Maybe I am not the best audience, but just because I didn't care for the book doesn't mean that no one will. Yes, it's easier and more fun to post about books I love, but if I can help a book find its audience I feel like I've done my job.

From a blogger perspective, too, I think people (myself included) are sometimes motivated to accept blog tours because it helps drive visitors to their blog. It might mean instant links from other blogs or promotion on an author's or publisher's website.

Someone asked above and never got an answer, so I will shamelessly reveal my own ignorance by repeating the question: What is this blog tour whereof you speak?

I know about blogs and how they sometimes feature titles for review or comment or promotion, but I don't understand the "tour" part.

Is this a case of the author going from one blog to another, making comments, making himself available to questions from regular readers of that blog on such-and-such a date? Or what?

Lyle Blake Smythers

I was reduced to going to Wikipedia to find out what SFW stands for, my best unaided guess being "safe for women" (after my initial reaction that you had meant SWF for single white female nd had made a typo). Oh, the horror, the horror.

Lyle Blake Smythers

I haven't Twittled yet, Roger, but if I do, I'll look you up.

Twats and beavers and horns oh my. I may have to lie upon my fainting couch with a lavender-scented silk hankerchief held delicately to my brow.

I think Lyle and GraceAnne should meet! Chris can play matchmaker.

New bio of Baum! 6-13-09 GLOBE has an interview with the author of a new bio, which cites the many influences on his book: he had an unpleasant mother-in-law, there was a yellow paved road in his town, some connection with hardware etc. etc. No mention at all of the political climate, economics etc. Maybe the interviewer was ill-prepared, and it was a brief piece - but it sounded as though the author had written an inspirational tome on
a favorite writer's "creative" influences.

Did another GLOBE reader see it? I couldn't believe it!

I laughed so hard at this post. But the new issue sounds fantastic, too. I'm especially looking forward to the fifty years of children's book trouble article.

I'm generally not left speechless when I see statements like this, but wow.

As the children's book editor, you should be ashamed of using language like that.

I wrote absolutely nothing improper. Wash your mind out with soap.

Really? No, really? Nothing improper?

"In between twats I and the other Mag editors have been beavering away ..."

Let's define twat ... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Atwat&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g2

If you said "In between tweets" or even "In between twits" I could understand, but you didn't.

Do you have another definition of twat that you would like to share?

I never thought I would have to tell someone to seriously consider watching more t.v. It's a Stephen Colbert joke that now, between the two of us, has been thoroughly beaten into the ground.

I haven't read this particular book, but I get similarly bugged by arguments that try to make us all feel good about each other by pointing out the one thing everyone has in common. Because, as you point out, there's always someone who doesn't fit in, no matter how general you try to get. So what then? If a baby has twelve toes, or doesn't have fingers, then it's okay to think of them as Other?

So many of the reviews emphasize the "obvious" reason to celebrate this book: that these are things "babies everywhere have in common". We know it isn't so. Sobering but true. You have a very good idea about why it bugs you -- and thanks for saying so.

I thought about that too, when reading it to my nephew. He has all ten fingers and toes, but sometimes because the fingers and toes are so tiny, you can do a quick look and it looks like there are more than ten... Anyway, it's interesting that no one has mentioned this issue in a review.

I love the Cuffie awards. Although it does make the booksellers seem much more fun than the librarians- we take our Newbery SO seriously!

I think it might bother you because it stresses what is normal. I have to admit I haven't read it. I think in picture book I look for what is different and distinctive. People are all different, unique in themelves so a book that stresses where we are supposedly all the same does not draw me.

I have been selling the Peter Spier book "People" for decades. It's quite a standard. And about once a year someone calls me on the carpet for selling it. These "People"-Haters are quite energetic.

Recall that "People" is a big book jammed with teensy pictures that do an anthropology-like survey of world habits and appearances and fashions and foods and customs, with each page captioned something like "We all love to eat, but we do it in different ways." The book's comedy often comes from juxtaposing "normal" foods with "strange" 'indigenous' foods from various cultures.

"People"-Haters of course object to the stereotyping.

"People"-Lovers (of which there are many more, since it's a longtime bestseller), say that it gives kids a multicultural introduction to diversity.

"People"-Haters respond that it ignores individual variation that occurs WITHIN the world of cultural difference.

Anyway, I suspect that this lovely All Have Ten Toes book will similarly send a couple of customers every year into exclamations of irritation. Fortunately I can simply fall back on the First Amendment and profess no opinion.

One problem people have with People is the line that runs along something like "Most people are good . . . but some people are bad" and shows a man in jail--I remember Ginny Moore Kruse wondering what that image might say to a child whose parent was in prison.

But, Andy, as far as Ten Fingers goes you are dodging the question, save for your implication that people who might have a problem with it are tedious irritants. No one is talking about not selling it (or not buying it). Just that its theme might be contradicted by its conceit, which mightn't seem so bad had the book not been so damned virtuous.

Extra digits aren't actually all that rare, and they occur much more often in the US in black children than white children. Some food for thought?

This hadn't occurred to me, Roger, but I'm grateful that it occurred to you. Thanks for the insight.

Well, I think I do understand your idea: you're saying that the "theme" is Universalist and yet there's something importantly Intolerant in the "conceit"... Intolerant of physical difference?

And I'm agreeing with you. But maybe -- speaking as a bookseller -- in bringing up my experiences selling "People" I was making a sort of relativist argument.

Universalism is intolerant of intolerant people. This is a very big issue. Universalists do not like bigots. They can talk about loving all neighbors, so maybe they say "we don't HATE bigots, we simply want to ensure that people don't get hurt by bigots". So, for instance, Universalists would like to halt genocides. And that means that Universalism includes a form of Intolerance. Intolerance of social injustice. Intolerance towards dangerously harmful intolerant others.

So, I think you are making this point. You are aligned with Universalism. The book is Universalist. And, speaking as a Universalist, you are questioning a line of subtle intolerance in the book's Universalism. You are being intolerant of intolerance. And you know the authors of the book, who are also Universalists, would be dismayed to think of the intolerant aspect of their Universalist message.

However, I, as a bookseller, do sell all manner of books, including imperfectly and incompletely Universalist books. And so I'm constantly feeling compromised, and I frequently point out the flaws and special issues and subtle inconsistencies in books. Today I had a woman who needed books for a bi-racial couple. Her (white) daughter is married to a West African man. I recommended "Black Is Brown Is Tan" (imperfect because the races/genders of the depicted parents are opposite those in the customer's daughter's family) and "More, More, More Said The Baby" (I specifically showed her the white grandma and the black grandchild)...I showed her the Susan Kuklin book "Families".. I showed her "Everywhere Babies"...and I TALKED to her the whole time. I explained the way each book did or did not pertain to her situation.

(She ultimately purchased "The Grouchy Ladybug" in the Arabic language edition.)

This is why it's good to have professionals engaging with adults who are choosing children's books. The "Ten Toes" book needs to be sold with care because there's an issue with (accidental) presentation of (implicit) intolerance towards babies without ten fingers and ten toes. This should be considered, when recommending and choosing this book.

However the book shouldn't be blamed for this fact. It simply is best when hand-sold.

No Universalist message will ever be wholly consistent, since Universalism contains that pesky strain of Intolerance, willy-nilly. (I personally, when checking out customers at the cash register who have selected this book, will deal with this problem by sometimes quietly mentioning this "diversity" problem with this book, in a friendly way.)

I really like this book (as a bookseller and a mom), but it's the end that really bugs me. Why does the final mother and baby have to be white? Aren't there enough precious baby books featuring white people?

And, in fact, why does it have to be a mom at all? Aren't there enough precious baby books featuring moms?

Thanks, Roger. I thought I was the only person who didn't love this book. I think it's not so much showing children from all over with ten fingers and ten toes that's a problem, it's the refrain "as everyone knows" that makes such a sweeping generalization, over and over. I also hated the way it leads up to the "divine" little white child at the end. It reminded me of the Robert Louis Stevenson poem from "A Child's Garden of Verses" that ends "Don't you wish you were me?"

Roger, I had the same thoughts in the MIDDLE of reading the book during a baby storybook hour at the library! I had already perused the book and was excited about reading it, but as I looked around the room during the reading, I realized that I didn't know for sure if the babies (or adults, for that matter) present had ten fingers and ten toes. I finished the book, and it certainly remains on the shelf and available to kids, but I am not going to read it aloud again. There are so many wonderful read-alouds out there that I don't feel bad keeping this one out.

At storytime my regular gag is to do the rhyme "if you're wearing red today..." for a few rounds, then say, "Let me see if I can find something that EVERYONE is wearing. Hm. If you're wearing HAIR today..." ...and it always gets a laugh. But I always make myself check the audience first, and finish up by saying "I'm glad that one worked--not everyone has hair." I did catch myself once before it was too late--thank goodness.

My adorable niece has 12 toes, and so this book is quite irksome to me.

Ron Meshe, I think you might be missing the point of the RLS poem ("Foreign Children"), which I'm almost sure is a sardonic take on the attitudes of the fine Brits and Americans who traveled abroad at the time.

I don't think RS is saying that the book is intolerant. I think he's just saying that its internal logic is inconsistent.

Well the internal logic may be inconsistent, and the perception of some readers may as a consequence be that the book exudes a form of intolerance, but I will sell it anyway! This book is really very good compared to many other books which I comfortably sell. I could take you on a tour of my store and pull out many books and tell you what it is that irritates me about them.... I am personally extremely picky, and I allow my customers to drive my buying to a large degree. I sell more of what's selling. Evidently, what I like or accept about the books I stock is more important than what I dislike or cannot accept!

I simply think that this particular book has lovely pictures and a fun rhyme and a good message, and its problematic aspects aren't terribly problematic. If used at a storyhour, you can always start by having all present count their fingers and toes. If someone has an unusual number, you can celebrate, and change the text as read to "ten or twelve" as an act of empowerment for all present. Lots of books get edited by the storyteller during the reading, depending on who's in the audience.

being deaf, my pet peeve is this world is designed for hearing people :D oh well, that's life.

<<<<<"everyone has ten fingers and ten toes, and that while we celebrate each baby's uniqueness, isn't it great that they (and, by extension, we) have this particular array of anatomy in common? "And both of these babies, as everyone knows, had ten little fingers and ten little toes.">>>>>> it sounds to me that she is trying to explain how we are alike as human being. I remember watching Disney Jungle book where the mother gorilla told the human boy to listen to her heart... and told him that it beats the same as his.

other than that, she probably could have worded it better though

Everyone knows...
The first thing you do after your baby is born is to count their fingers and toes!

I love this book!

I don't think the book is so much intolerant as it is oblivious.

Last Anon, we count the fingers and toes of a new baby to make sure they're all there. As we know from countless heartwarming moments on TV, finger- and toe-counting is warm-and-fuzzy shorthand (heh) for "our baby is normal." And I'm asking: how would this book make a not-normal, digit-wise, child, or parent of a such a child, feel? LEFT OUT. Which is ironic, seeing that the theme of the book is "we're all in this together."

Universalists, Andy? Aren't those the people who pray To Whom It May Concern? ;-)

My small daughter thinks the most interesting thing about President Obama is that his Chief of Staff is missing one of his fingers.

I would add to some of the comments above that even if you went to far as to check everyone's fingers and toes at story hour, you don't know about the friends and family of those people. I'm not advocating oversensitivity, just saying that this book may not be as great as it seems.

There's also something I'm having trouble articulating about it being sort of weird in the first place to bring our human similarities down to a physical characteristic like that. It just doesn't seem that interesting.

Overall, this seems more like a book for adults (who are the ones obsessed with counting baby fingers and toes and want to feel good about Encouraging Diversity) than for kids--if you've seen a bunch of babies and toddlers from vastly different backgrounds interact with each other, you know that they recognize each other as equals immediately.

Gosh I am really confused at why this is so hard.

I just re-read the book and it certainly does not say that all children have ten fingers and ten toes! It says that everyone knows that the babies IN THE PICTURES IN THIS BOOK have ten fingers and ten toes. Everyone knows it because everyone reading the book knows how to count to ten. Count the fingers and toes of the babies in the pictures and those babies have ten of each. The book does not say that all children have ten fingers and ten toes, but that a counting reader knows how to count the fingers and toes presented in the pictures. All nine babies in the book have ten fingers and ten toes. Count for yourself! That is all the book says. It says nothing about "all children have ten fingers and ten toes". To assume that the book is making a blanket statement about all children in the entire world is a big extrapolation.

We are now overthinking this. Next topic!

Sorry for being overbearing in the previous post.

This whole kerfluffle reminds me of the way some people get upset about how in "The Very Hungry Caterpillar" the butterfly emerges from a cocoon, not a chrysalis. These people say that the book therefore teaches children something which is not scientifically true. I know that lots of teachers have to spend some extra time disabusing children of Eric Carle's version of events. The problem is big enough that there's a response to the complaint on the Eric Carle Studio website.
(www.eric-carle.com/q-cocoon.html -- The response points out that there is indeed a species of caterpillar that comes out of a cocoon, and then goes on to explain the metaphorical nature of the book's meaning.)

So -- should "The Very Hungry Caterpillar" be kept from children because it can be misinterpreted or is somewhat inaccurate? That's not the correct solution. It's simply a matter of mentioning at some appropriate point to the child -- at a teaching moment -- that "The Very Hungry Caterpillar" isn't, in all cases, entirely correct. And that's how the Ten Little Fingers book's issue might be approached.

I'm sort of at a loss. I think this is wonderful book, but I don't see it as story-time pick. Oxenbury's books have always seemed to me to be directed very strongly toward a one-on-one interaction between a loving adult and a single child. With their large simple pictures and their rhythmic rhyming language, they are like primers for how to cuddle a baby and share a book with a very small child.

If a book is not suitable for every audience and venue, I don't see that as a flaw. And I really don't see that the outcome of reading this book to your little one would be deleterious.

Cognitively, children are very busy sorting out what things have in common and when variations mean that an object fits into a different category-- this is a dog, this is a dog with three legs, this is not a dog. Telling them that everyone has ten little fingers and ten little toes is not going to make them see those who are different as "not real babies."

The emphasis on fingers and toes comes from our fascination with them, not just as because they are markers of "normal." Because they are darling. We play with them and we count them, long after we know how many of them there are, and kiss them, and send the little piggies to market over and over again.

So, no, don't read this one to a random sample in a story time. And for the same reason, when you are handselling the Oxenbury board books point out the one that says, "Wave to Daddy, Wave to Mum," just in case. Not everyone has a daddy and mum to wave to. There's nothing wrong with the book, it just might not fit the audience.

I'm sort of at a loss. I think this is wonderful book, but I don't see it as story-time pick. Oxenbury's books have always seemed to me to be directed very strongly toward a one-on-one interaction between a loving adult and a single child. With their large simple pictures and their rhythmic rhyming language, they are like primers for how to cuddle a baby and share a book with a very small child.

If a book is not suitable for every audience and venue, I don't see that as a flaw. And I really don't see that the outcome of reading this book to your little one would be deleterious.

Cognitively, children are very busy sorting out what things have in common and when variations mean that an object fits into a different category-- this is a dog, this is a dog with three legs, this is not a dog. Telling them that everyone has ten little fingers and ten little toes is not going to make them see those who are different as "not real babies."

The emphasis on fingers and toes comes from our fascination with them, not just as because they are markers of "normal." Because they are darling. We play with them and we count them, long after we know how many of them there are, and kiss them, and send the little piggies to market over and over again.

So, no, don't read this one to a random sample in a story time. And for the same reason, when you are handselling the Oxenbury board books point out the one that says, "Wave to Daddy, Wave to Mum," just in case. Not everyone has a daddy and mum to wave to. There's nothing wrong with the book, it just might not fit the audience.

My daughter received this book at Christmas. I had the exact same response and I, too, have a problem with over-sensitivity. Go figure.

I have to say that count their toes was not the first thing I did with my three children.

For the first one, it was revealed that he had a heart condition so the number of toes he had was really the least of my worries.

And for the other two, ensuring their hearts were ok also eclipsed the number of their toes and fingers.

I like the book but I shall be careful in read-aloud situations from now on. Thanks Roger for making me aware. - Daphne

I'm overwhelmed with over-sensitivity! What can I read at story time that WON'T offend someone, somewhere? :)

Sorry about the double post. I hit a glitch and wasn't sure if it had been sent or not.

All babies can breathe and swallow at the same time, which is something adults can't do.

If your child didn't have the required digits, you wouldn't read this book. You might also never be able to do 'this little piggy' if your child had one extra, or one less digit. But, you know what? If your child had extra/missing digits, you'd probably have a lot more on your mind that getting all heated up about a Mem Fox book.

(insert tongue in cheek) You know what bugs me? People who have ten fingers and ten toes, getting all affronted on behalf of people who don't.

I guess I maybe should keep my seeing-person's thoughts on The Black Book of Colors to myself! ;-)

my cousin lost one of his fingers when we were playing "roll down the hill in a barrel" as children. does anyone want me to email him?

b

Two absolutely amazing talents put out a book that can rival Goodnight Moon (or my lamented out-of-print favorite, Catch Me, Kiss Me, Say It Again) as a very first book. And it comes under fire because it's only 99 and 44/100ths percent universal.
Wow, talk about no good deed going unpunished!

"And it comes under fire because it's only 99 and 44/100ths percent universal. "

Actually, the percentage is much, much lower thanks to the white mom and baby at the end. Am I really the only one posting in this (admittedly out of control) thread who is bothered by that?

We have books about birthdays. There are children who are not allowed (religion) or who are never offered the chance to celebrate birthdays. There are books about hair (nappy and other types)...some kids have illnesses which cause baldness. Please. If you are concerned about your child reading a particular book, then don't read it.

I'm only going to make my point one more time. The theme of the book is that however different we are and wherever we may live, in one way we're all the same, and isn't that comforting? But, when it comes to fingers and toes, we aren't all the same. The moral is defeated by the metaphor.

Over and out.

This is one child who will probably not be getting that book for his birthday: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7870769.stm

As one who’s logged time in JP I’d call Rhythm & Muse more eclectic than random, but others’ opinions may vary. Anyway, from experience I can say, stop by or call ahead and Dave will order you any book or CD that you’d like, it’ll be in the store in a couple of days, and when you swing by to pick it up from a fine human being with a genuine love of books and music and a real and metaphorical investment in them both, the good feelings will be so overwhelming that you may have to sit down and have a glass of water, which Dave will be happy to provide, no fee.

Thanks (I guess) for introducing me to A. Bitterman. Boy, is he verbose! Can't there be a surtax on blog length? But rewarding to slog one's way through.

I meant random in the sense of it--to me--having no particular profile. I do agree that the ambience is wonderful and I know they will order books. The problem is that when I come in to pick up my order I won't find three or seven other books I didn't know about but wanted immediately, which is for me the real lure of a bookstore.

Um, the Brookline Booksmith is on the T, Roger. Just a block or two from Coolidge Corner.

Yes but to get to that line I have to go into Back Bay (where there are two chains) and then back out again--Boston public transit has this spoke system that unfortunately neglected the wheel!

Chicago is the best. I am *one block* from Unabridged and it is a terrific store. They're also NICE: they run a free weekly storytime in the library of the Chicago Public School across the street. Not only that, within a few miles we have two additional indies (one of them relatively new): Women & Children First in Andersonville, and the Book Cellar in Lincoln Square. I've never lived in a place with so many thriving independent bookstores!
--Diane F.

I find myself appalled at the state of bookstores in the Boston area. I worked at Waterstone's (in Faneuil) Hall the summer it, Laurriette's (I'm sorry I know that's wrong, but I can't remember the exact name of the store) in Copley Place, and Rizzoli's, also in Copley all closed. I worked at Curious George Goes to Wordsworth in Harvard Square only a couple of years before the parent/adult store closed. There are very few independents left and there aren't that many chains. I find it a sad state when other cities have well known huge independents and Boston seems to barely have bookstores.

yes, the bookstore situation in Boston is a disgrace! I think it's like the old Boston joke: out-of-town bride to new mother-in-law: "And where do you get your hats?"
Mother in law: "My dear, we HAVE our hats."

And Bostonians do read. I notice that our subways have a greater proportion of people reading books than Chicago's or New York's.

Roger, I feel your pain. I should be buying every damn book I own from Bitterman's fine establishment, (that's Reading Reptile in Kansas City, for you midwestern folks) though I would have to drive an hour down and an hour back to get my fix. Instead I hit the Border's on the way home. Or persuade the library to buy the book for me, because they're so nice and I am such a cheapskate.

The better solution is to persuade my awesome mother-in-law to get me a gift certificate for Reading Reptile. Man, I really like her.

Have you been to Porter Square Books?

When I lived in Brookline, I had 3 bookstores in walking distance--head one way to Coolidge Corner and I had the Booksmith and the B&N, head the other way toward the D line and right there off the line is the Children's Bookshop--which, granted, is a children's bookstore and not a full-service one.

Here in po-dunk Orem, Utah, all I have is a 10-minute drive to the local B&N. I have to drive to Salt Lake City for any independents (an hour's drive). So I look back on my days in Boston as pretty good, bookstore-wise. But if you don't live off the C or D line, then that does present a problem.

Roger you're having last year's conversation.

The Bitterman blog's message is that the chain superstores are right now in quite serious trouble.

Between 1960 and 1980 the number of indie bookstores dropped from 10,000 to 2,000. The chains were dominant. But by 1991 there were 5,000 indie bookstores and the chains (B. Dalton, Waldenbooks and Crown) had basically imploded.

Barnes & Noble and Borders are currently getting nailed by Amazon and Cosco. They may be convenient for you today, but they will not be there in five years. However, their former employees will have opened some new indie bookstores and you'll have those to shop at.

Your Eternal Optimist,
Andy Laties

Dude... more than half the total internet is about this very thing. Google Ron, Harry, slash if you don't believe me. Or any other two male characters in, well, anything. (Harry Draco is more the done thing.)

Oh, yeah, there is a lot of this on YouTube, and some of it is well done, as this one is. When I saw the last movie, there was quite a bit of giggling among the mostly teen and early 20s audience in scenes that were clearly fodder for future YouTube m/m slash.

So wonderful, thank you! On a dreary Sunday, it brings in the sun. But I thought it was going to be called "Harry Potter and the ...... Deadly Secret."

Dude.

By the way, have I ever mentioned that "I am so going to hell" is my favorite label on the internet? It's up there with the quite remarkable "sit down, man, you're a bloody tragedy" (on blogger).

I am such a mom sometimes. I would've had no idea why they were (as anon says) all giggling.

I think Dorothea's Very Big Mistake was marrying that sad, controlling old guy in the first place. But Roger, you are really making me want to reread, or listen to, that book.

Anyway, I actually went up to two teenagers at B+N today who were haunting the teen shelves and asked them what they liked to read. Usually I just stalk them to see what they pick up, etc. Anyway, one of the said Tamora Pierce and Sarah Dessen, and the other didn't answer.

This could possibly explain my strange quirk of refusing to tell people the name of the book I am reading while I am actually reading it. I can ramble on about the book while it is in the next room, over on the table, so on; but if it is IN MY HANDS AND OPEN, I won't tell you what it's called. Maybe it's a way of protecting the inner reaches of my mind from prying.

I love to do this! Though most of the time it's more of a test for me to see how many books I can identify when I can't fully read the title. It's like a brain teaser for me.

My super-nosy husband managed to read a *line* from a book over someone's shoulder on the T, but was then unable to see the cover. The power of Google revealed the book to be "Middlesex" (like "Middlemarch," but not).

A librarian friend and I always joke about our obsession with other peoples' public space reading habits. We would like to have badges that say "Library Police" so that we could go up to strangers, flash our badges, and demand to know what they are reading. Not to police their tastes, of course, but just to give us the right to be officially nosy!

Do you ever try to read the titles of the books that decorate the shelves in furniture catalogs? The Pottery Barn catalog is fun that way. IKEA's no good for me, though, because the books are in Swedish.

Ooo, kinda like peeking in people's medicine cabinets, except you don't have to lie about it.

My other peek (and no, I don't mean other than medicine cabinets--cause I would NEVER do that-- I mean other than sneaking a peek at book titles) is into grocery carts. I'm always amazed at people's food choices.

Orange soda?? Really??

Barb Kerley

Orange soda is delicious.

Oh...I try to read the book titles in catalogs too! I'm glad it's not just me!

I like to read the books on the shelves when I go into somebody's office. It's like taking a look at what's on their i-Tunes. Though I think I tend to do this because I want to see what I'm missing, more than I want to peek into their minds.

I'll zero in on a book more if a young adult is reading it, though.

Also, you know, books! I just like looking at books!

Who are those three people in the photograph? It is assumed that we will all recognize them. Maybe characters in a sci-fi movie? (Surely not Middlemarch folks?) Too much credit given to readers' familiarity with blogger's private enthusiasms.

Those people are what came up when I did an image search for "mindreading machine." Blame Google.

re photos: this one reveals
a fallacy common to children's books folk: there MUST be illustrations to get readers' attention and explain. some readers are capable of understanding clear writing. and pix can often distract

I'm wondering why you neglected to cite where you found the picture at the top of this post. "I found it on Google" isn't an answer I would accept from my students.

I bet your friends don't try to get away with that, either. They've learned.

To paraphrase Michael Kors (or is that too insider-y for you), "lighten up, it's just blogging." I think Roger was just having fun posting an image to go along with his blog post, for Pete's sake. I think we could do a whole separate chain about the use of illustration in children's books, (and why children often are very glad illustrations are there) and another one about the importance citing sources. But can't you guys recognize a little camp fun?

Elizabeth - I just had to respond to your comment. Referencing Michael Kors as an expert on blog etiquette is akin to checking Turabian for the latest fashion trends. Giving citations for images is a matter of respect in my mind. I'm not always a stickler regarding format but I do believe that it is always important to give credit to the creator of an image or other work. I'm certain that Michael Kors wants his name attached to his designs, whether they are shown on the runway, in print, or in a blog.

I know, right?!

Bam -- you got me! This one's moving from "check it out someday" to must-read.

I so TOTALLY agree with your -sob- review!

Love your round-up, monkeyed or not. You have some of my favs on the list as well.

Merry Christmas to you and your family.

You did it AGAIN!

I think this is my favorite review ever.
linda urban

Thx for sharing it. I loved it and it broke my heart into teeny pieces. Must read her first one now.

I loved this book too! I have yet to blog it, but it made me want a sleeping porch!