Everything changed today.
You’d think I was overreacting,
that the sky had fallen,
or that I’d kissed a chicken.
The sea isn’t boiling,
not yet, but even so,
Tomorrow,
it will likely change again.
Month: February 2006
I don’t know what the plural of “haiku” is, but I refuse to say “haikus”. I imagine, like geese, it could be “heeku”, or perhaps “haaku” or “hiiku” (but absolutely not “hooku”, which is obviously the plural for “hookah”). However, I’m going to go with the “moose” methodology instead, which remains “moose”, and which stands as a testiment, when combined with “goose” and its plural, that the English language really doesn’t put forth a whole lot of effort towards being consistent. And that’s exactly why I love it.
In any case, here are two haiku that I wrote. Afterwards, I decided I didn’t like them in haiku form (it was actually their choice and not mine), so from their loins sprung (that’s a really ghastly image) the poem underneath. Actually, haiku are hermaphroditic, but will rarely spawn anything but more haiku when left on their own. When two haiku spawn together, you’ll often get a poem. Haiku orgies often result in odes, ballads, sonnets in iambic pentameter, and children’s songs. Don’t look at me. It’s the natural order! Without further ado …
one
it’s not too late yet;
i want conversation past midnight and
to fulfill your smile’s promise.
two
you smile like moonlight.
fingers brush fingers.
your cheek is smudged with stardust.
it’s not too late yet
it’s not too late yet;
minds wrapped around distant angles,
long exposures drawn out and
sometimes so long that I become aware
of nothing but your presence beside me.
it’s not too late yet;
stepping back into the night’s
artificial flicker.
stars make wishes on our cities.
we hazard fingertips brushing,
too hot to be a holy palmer’s kiss.
it’s not too late yet;
as you smile like moonlight,
your cheek is smudged with stardust
and there’s so much time left to go.
it’s not too late yet;
i want conversation past midnight,
and to fulfill your smile’s promise.
Perhaps I’ll watch that show. After the city has turned its lights off and the pre-midnight rainbow has become a sea of flashing yellow down State street, I’ll huddle quietly and try to dissolve the mystery surrounding musical and television pop culture. Reality TV? Maybe, but you know it can only be real when people don’t know they’re being filmed, and some of these people are really, very obviously, aware of the cameras. I’ll watch it though not on TV and I won’t vote, but part of me is curious about this pervasive pop phenomenon. It’s interesting, but I can’t get past a skeptical detachment (nor do I want to). Some people spend more time communicating with this show, about this show, than they do with their children, their spouses, their books or their dreams.
Once, when we were all in black and white, television seemed so wholesome. It was a reasonable extension from the family sitting around the radio, listening to the Little Orphan Annie show, news radio, or dramatic productions of great (by “great” I mean pulp) mystery stories. Then we had Bewitched, Leave it to Beaver, I Dream of Jeanie, etc etc. The shows were limited and wholesome, the time spent in front of the television set was balanced by time reading, talking about the news, playing chess, checkers, cribbage, bridge, being a family.
[long rant deleted]
Now, huddled in the blackness as my screen flashes lightning and laugh tracks guide me, sometimes I shiver quietly, and wonder how television could have been so subtle in devouring my integrity.
an anti v-day haiku.
lip-locked lovers at the movie;
while you made kissy face,
I ate all your popcorn.
Happy Valentine’s.
The first thing
these days
after I get home:
a cup of tea
(mint please).
I set the cup near the plants
to watch the steam caress their leaves.
I think they find it erotic.
I watch the sky redden,
then darken
against the sloping horizon,
and the city becomes
a sea of flickering lights
dancing outside my window.
By now I’ve moved on from tea;
something with a kick,
and while Miles takes five
I close my eyes and lean back.
Sometimes,
alone and listening,
staring out into the black
and the ground littered with stars;
sometimes every night is perfect.
Categories
Keirsey’s Rational Ravenclaws
So I took this Keirsey personality type test, which gave me the same results pretty much every other personality test I’ve ever taken says. And which, according to this Keirsey version of the sorting hat, makes me a Ravenclaw. This, as well, is nothing new.
The test describes me thusly:
Rationals, are the problem solving temperament, particularly if the problem has to do with the many complex systems that make up the world around us. Rationals might tackle problems in organic systems such as plants and animals, or in mechanical systems such as railroads and computers, or in social systems such as families and companies and governments. But whatever systems fire their curiosity, Rationals will analyze them to understand how they work, so they can figure out how to make them work better.
In working with problems, Rationals try to find solutions that have application in the real world, but they are even more interested in the abstract concepts involved, the fundamental principles or natural laws that underlie the particular case. And they are completely pragmatic about their ways and means of achieving their ends. Rationals don’t care about being politically correct. They are interested in the most efficient solutions possible, and will listen to anyone who has something useful to teach them, while disregarding any authority or customary procedure that wastes time and resources.
Rationals have an insatiable hunger to accomplish their goals and will work tirelessly on any project they have set their mind to. They are rigorously logical and fiercely independent in their thinking–are indeed skeptical of all ideas, even their own–and they believe they can overcome any obstacle with their will power. Often they are seen as cold and distant, but this is really the absorbed concentration they give to whatever problem they’re working on. Whether designing a skyscraper or an experiment, developing a theory or a prototype technology, building an aircraft, a corporation, or a strategic alliance, Rationals value intelligence, in themselves and others, and they pride themselves on the ingenuity they bring to their problem solving.
Rationals are very scarce, comprising as little as 5 to 10 percent of the population. But because of their drive to unlock the secrets of nature, and to develop new technologies, they have done much to shape our world.
This, in turn, seems to match fairly well with my monkey traits, and perhaps my ram traits as well.
I feel like I know myself pretty well, and I know how I feel about these results. I’m curious to hear from those who know me, and those who don’t know me but through my writing here, how well YOU feel these traits fit me. I know other Aries, and other Monkeys, but I don’t know if I know any other Aries Monkey Rational Ravenclaw types, so I don’t have a very good mirror in that respect, and chances are if I met one I’d hate them.
Which leads me to another question. If you met someone exactly like you (a veritable, or perhaps literal, clone), would you enjoy their company?
I came across an interesting paper written as a masters thesis
(around 2000, I think), that addresses this topic pretty well.
“The implications of name changes for library and information
science schools” – JULIA ANNE MURPHY
the link is: http://www.crowbold.com/homepage/topic4.htm
Of particular interest concerning this topic:
Positive and Negative Aspects of Name Changes
Most proponents of library school name changes agree that the changes are important in recruiting a new type of student. Changing librarianships’ negative stereotypical image is cited as an important reason. Maurita Holland of the University of Michigan says that the term “library” conjures up archaic images (Davis, 1998) and Jose-Marie Griffiths, Director of the Graduate School of Library and Information Science at the University of Tennessee agrees. “We are striving to recruit students of a different type who wouldn’t think about entering a library and information science program because they have the traditional view of what it’s all about” (Dean’s list, 1994, p. 60).Another important factor is psychological. Name changes show academe and potential students that the field of information science is not limited to librarianship, and that information science education can lead to non-traditional, higher paying jobs (once again, usually in the corporate world). Library schools today are adamant about divorcing librarianship from the physical institution of the library. “Information science” connotes that information is everywhere and that therefore graduates of a program can work just about anywhere, whether that is in a library, corporate setting, or as a freelance information broker. Nancy Van House, former Dean of the now-defunct School of Library and Information Science at the University of California at Berkeley agrees. “If we focus as ‘library schools’, on the library, then we are tied to an institution that is changing and that could disappear”(Dean’s list, 1994, p.62).
Naturally, others disagree heartily with the name changes, finding them superficial at best and an utter betrayal of the profession at worst. While proponents of the changes believe the name changes will improve relations with the rest of academe, critics feel that universities will see the new titles as simply another attempt by a
low-ranking discipline to manipulate words in order to raise its status (Crowley, 1998). And while name changes may appear to be a token effort to address the reality of the information paradigm shift, it takes time and strategic planning to develop a corresponding curriculum that is properly balanced between theoretical and practical education. In this sense, name changes, especially with the plethora of permutations of the word “information”, can be evidence again of the identity crisis within which library schools are involved (Bohannan, 1991). What are such schools, really? More library school than information science school? Or vice versa? These questions lead one directly back to the definitions described above — definitions that provide few answers except to show that as a profession, librarianship is still struggling to define itself and its schools.
I still don’t know how I feel about getting rid of the word “Library” from graduate programs. Perhaps I’m biased because I do want the degree to pursue work IN libraries, which I realize isn’t the case for everyone.
Here are some more links I’ve run across that seem relevant.
There’s a lot to read, just thought I’d throw it out there.
http://www.si.umich.edu/cristaled/postings/V52.html
http://walt.lishost.org/?p=231
http://www.slis.ualberta.ca/cap03/regan/unitedstates.htm
In addition, library schools are choosing to drop the word ‘library’ from their faculty names in order to disassociate themselves with the low status occupation of librarian. Farley suggests that librarians can improve their status and pay by: 1) standing firm on wage negotiations despite economic downturns, 2) disseminating information on fair pay, 3) embracing the title of librarian instead of information specialist. She generally recommends marketing the librarian as important to society and refute the common misconceptions of the librarian.
McGill’s Graduate School of Library and Information Studies is evidently considering dropped the words “Graduate” and “Library”, which has some students up in arms. School of Information Studies? I don’t think it sounds as nice, or fits as well the role of the school, which just added three specializations this year: Knowledge Management, Archival Studies, and Librarianship. If you’re going to offer a specialization in “librarianship”, wouldn’t it make sense to keep “library” in the name? The crux is this, what does the word “library” mean in the 21st century, and how is it viewed outside of the library community? Removing the word would likely be based on the idea that “library science” has fallen far enough out of its specialization in libraries and into a more general idea of information management. Is there an viable instance where “library studies” are outside of and distinct from “information studies”?
If you do a wikipedia search for library science it automatically brings up the entry for LIS (Library and Information Science). For wikipedia, library science automatically incorporates information science, but the reverse does not seem to be true.
Library and information science (LIS) is the study of issues related to libraries and the information fields. This includes academic studies regarding how library resources are used and how people interact with library systems. These studies tend to be specific to certain libraries at certain times. The organization of knowledge for efficient retrieval of relevant information is also a major research goal of LIS. Basic topics in LIS include the acquisition, cataloging, classification, and preservation of library materials. In a more present-day view, a fervent outgrowth of LIS is information architecture. LIS should not be confused with information theory, the mathematical study of the concept of information or information science a field related to computer science and cognitive science.
Programs in LIS are interdisciplinary, overlapping with the fields of computer science, various social sciences, statistics, and systems analysis.
Doing a search for “information science” points you to informatics, where the language points much more into the realm of computer science and information management via databases and software engineering.
Informatics or information science is the study of information. It is often, though not exclusively, studied as a branch of computer science and information technology and is related to database, ontology and software engineering.
Informatics is primarily concerned with the structure, creation, management, storage, retrieval, dissemination and transfer of information. Informatics also includes studying the application of information in organizations, on its usage and the interaction between people, organizations and information systems. Within information science attention has been given in recent years to human computer interaction (HCI) and to the ways people generate, use and find information.
In the academic world, it’s easy to think that being a librarian is all about creating databases, utilizing new software, being technologically innovative, and so-on and so-forth, ad technologicum. However, many LIS graduates find work in small public libraries, where you still find a lot of patrons who don’t want to use computers or databases, and who want to ask the librarian anytime they have a question. For a lot of librarians, patron interaction and reference work are what make their jobs worthwhile, and while younger library users will likely jump on the technology bandwagon, utilizing the software and databases created by the librarian instead of the librarian directly, we have a more conventional generation, who having grown up with card catalogs and print indexes, aren’t keen on skipping the middleman and jumping straight into information overload.
Day by day the line is blurring between LIS and Informatics. We, as librarians and library students, are at a point where we need to try and straddle the gap between the two, and eventually build a bridge. I think that it is important to maintain the distinction between information study as a librarian to information study as a computer science student or software engineer. Yes, as “librarians” we want to be able to branch out. We are versatile, and can offer many skills outside of the library setting. But if that is our explicit goal, then the field of library science will decline, and the importance of the library as place will eventually be swallowed by technology, computer science, and the internet. The library can always expand its purview, and incorporate innovation and technology to its heart’s content. We can make the words “library science” mean “information expert”, rather than letting “information expert” destroy the word “librarian”.
The president of the U. of Michigan gave an excellent speech yesterday on Google’s book digitization and its impact on libraries, information, and publishing. (full text)
New technologies and new ideas can generate some pretty scary reactions, and Google Book Search has not been immune. The project, for all that it promises, has been challenged: on the editorial page, across the airwaves, and, with your organization’s endorsement, in the court system.
It is this criticism of the project that prompted me to accept your invitation to speak — and explain why we believe this is a legal, ethical, and noble endeavor that will transform our society.
Legal because we believe copyright law allows us the fair use of millions of books that are being digitized. Ethical because the preservation and protection of knowledge is critically important to the betterment of humankind. And noble because this enterprise is right for the time, right for the future, right for the world of publishing, right for all of us.
Relatedly, a lot of discussion has been happening about “library 2.0”. ACRLog has a good post with lots of links here. Stephen Abram has a post here that covers the spectrum of web 2.0, library 2.0, and the 2.0 world. I guess it’s the 2.0 revolution, hope you brought your mittens.
The coolest news story, ever.
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27 Today the Paris Guardian reported on the hottest new trend in Parisian gang weaponry: attack monkeys. “They’re ultra-fashionable,” said Didier Lecourbe, a police officer from the depressed Paris suburb of Aubervilliers. “Now that the authorities have cracked down on pit bulls, Dobermans, and rottweilers, apes are becoming the new weapon of choice.” Imported illegally through Spain from Gibraltar, Morocco, and Algeria, the Barbary apes are known for their powerful limbs, sharp teeth, and short tempers; removed from their natural habitat, they can become highly aggressive, and their favored method of attack is to hurl themselves at people’s heads. Police believe as many as 500 Barbary apes have been smuggled into France in the past two years.
Thanks to Jason for the link.
We’ve a ways to go yet,
time to spend,
waiting …
for me to get nervous.
Will this whole financial aid thing work out? Will I be able to go to Montreal? I’ll sell me soul to do so, but I hear they’re not going for much these days.
In this regard, I was price-checking colleges again the other day. McGill is a good choice, financially. For instance: U. of Wisconsin: Madison charges about $500 per credit instate, and over $1500 per credit out of state. Simmons College in Boston, as a private institution, charges just under $900 per credit, across the board. If I were lucky enough to be a resident of Quebec, McGill would only cost $60 per credit. As it is, it’s still only $375 per credit, which is chump change compared to my other options. So that’s good, but I still don’t know, as an international student, exactly how my aid works out. US Aid should apply to me just as if I was attending a US school, but I need to doublecheck that. Instead, I’m writing about how I should be doublechecking it. Priorities, I know.
Rent is affordable in Montreal as well, according to their Craigslist. Bearing in mind that those numbers, as well as the tuition numbers, are in Canadian currency, actual price is about %88 of the amount listed. Even better.
Wikipedia has (as usual) a great article on Montreal, with lots of links, shiny buttons, and pikters. If you like that sorta thing. Back in the day I was reading the Montreal City Weblog, which has fun dirt on local political stories, and well as news on various artistic events. Good times.
Montreal proper is about three times as populated as Seattle, which gives you an idea of how big it is. Visually, I find it to be an attractive city.
So how close am I to getting there? Well, I got my official acceptance packet from McGill, which was exciting in its own right. Included were immigration papers for Canada and Quebec, seperately, to let them know that I’ll be there attending school. I filled out my FAFSA, always a joy, and I’ve started filling out mad scholarship applications. Between four years of library employment and good references from coworkers and professors, I think I demonstrate a dedication to the job and the ability to excel that scholarship committees are looking for. But having never been through this process before, I admit to no small amount of trepidation.
My undergrad process was so easy. I filled out the FAFSA (not entirely easy, but easy enough), and the state and federal government practically threw grants, aid, and loans in my face. After four years I ended owing a little over $20k, which isn’t horrible by any means, which is now down to about $7k. I’m a giant fan of subsidized loans for education, and if they want to offer me a whole ton of money in loans, I’d be happy to take it. The education is the thing, and I can’t think of a cost too great to not make it worthwhile. Which is all well and good, but doesn’t mean they’ll give me the money, anyway.
So that’s my state of the union, as it were. I’ve been out dancing a lot, again, which is great fun, and I’ve been meeting some super people. And it helps me not worry so much about the grad school money thing, because it will work out, one way or another. Until it does, I’ll just keep dancing.