Big Brother is Reading

Objects in the camera may be closer than they appear

Sun, 14 Mar 2010 02:36:19 GMT

All-star seasons of reality shows are basically my catnip, because the returning players are all aware of how they were portrayed the first time.

This season of Survivor is particularly great. Part of that is that some of these people are threepeaters, so they know how they were portrayed, then how they changed and how they were portrayed again. This doesn't mean they understand the game of "Survivor" any better than anyone else- that is, the game to win the million dollars- but they aren't necessarily playing for that, so much as playing the game of Survivor, where their interactions with the cameras and the ways they are ultimately edited actually become more important than winning. It becomes like theatrical improv, where they can make adjustments based on perceived audience reaction.

The second reason is that the fairly arbitrary designations of "heroes" and "villains" are actually influencing gameplay. I don't know why someone decided that Cirie's amazing social game makes her heroic and Parvati's makes her a villain (or, for that matter, why dudes are "charismatic" and ladies are "deadly flirts"). But I do know that what's happening this season, because of those labels, is actually making these scenes MORE meta. People want to be known or remembered in a very specific way- some of them have built their entire lives since the show off these charactesr they see themselves as. People like Rupert have a hard enough time choosing between playing the "game" and playing the game to begin with, and being labeled a hero is like the nail in the coffin. Heroes don't backstab their alliances, even when those alliances are making idiotic moves.

The effect is most significant on the heroes, because a lot of them seem to see their heroism as largely part of being a leader, and that means most of the alpha males (plus Steph) can't fathom how to maintain their label while actually taking someone else's advice. But while it's making the heroes tribe completely fall apart, it's not exactly doing the villains any favors either- they all want to be the MOST conniving, because they have to be the best of the best villains. It becomes a weird, Rube Goldberg-esque parody of the game.

Whenever I try to think of an easy way to explain critical media theory, I fall back to this kind of game. Even setting aside the extratextual information which makes it better (like the pre-show interviews where they explicitly address these points), there is SO MUCH HERE. Watch Survivor Australia, then watch All-Stars, and then Heroes vs Villains, and you can actually see the progression of how Colby and Jerri have developed their characters.

Every day I am that much more disappointed that neither "reader of children's books" nor "discusser of reality television" is considered a valid career path.

Sun, 28 Feb 2010 05:28:05 GMT

The reason Big Brother is my favorite reality show (side note: every time I say that, a little part of fifteen-year-old me dies) is that it offers the most opportunities to match up what ACTUALLY happened and what the show says happened. I think a lot about the representations of "reality" on BB, because it's the only one where it's possible to side-by-side it. With Amazing Race, you know that they're manipulating things for drama, but it's really hard to know WHAT, because the forty-two minutes are all that you have. You have to put lots of things together to get a coherent story. For example, the show always makes it seem like lots of teams are coming in right on top of the other, but because every team leaves exactly 12 hours after they get in, after episode (x+1) you can see how the timing actually worked on episode (x).

(Most people don't bother to do this, obviously, which is the basic divide in types of reality TV viewers, which is not unlike the split in Lost fandom between "people analyzing different timelines" and "people distracted by shirtless Sawyer.")

The cool thing is that, due to new social media, the lines between shows like Big Brother and shows like The Amazing Race are blurring, big-time. CBS and EW.com both upload "missing scenes"- fully edited glimpses into either confessoinals or camp life, if not both, usually between a minute and a half and eight minutes long- totalling between ten and twenty scenes per week, not counting interviews. Ethan Zohn, Jenna Morasca, Ashley Trainer, and Stephen Fishbach all have columns at various websites. Eliza Orlins can't get though five minutes of an episode without posting to her twitter about it. Jeff Probst's EW.com blog, designed to give an "inside look", is almost more interesting based on what you can get reading between the lines, filled in by obsessive fans (I count myself in those ranks) who know entirely too much about these people's lives. This week on Rob Cesternino's podcast, he and Jonny Fairplay dished gossip about the most recent episode for one hour, thirteen minutes, and forty-eight seconds- almost twice the length of the episode itself. And then there are the current Survivors themselves. Between Facebook and Twitter, they're everywhere, and they're not quiet about it. My personal favorite was Jessica "Sugar" Kiper, the first person voted off this season, tweeting that "I was never attracted to Colby,and J.T.slept with me pregame and told me we'd stick together.That edit really confused my friends & fam." But there's been plenty of gold from all sides.

Here's an example of the kind of conversation you have with me if I find you on IM while I'm watching the show, reflecting on the show, and then catching up on my Survivor gossip:

I like how Voiceover!Probst tried to claim that Russell outsmarted Parvati. You know she's a boxer, right? She could kick your ass.

25 minutes into ep 3 of Survivor HvV, Candice has already had more screentime than she did for ALL OF COOK ISLANDS COMBINED.

Nooooooooo, Randy! Don't throw your buff in the fire! HOW WILL YOU SELL IT ON EBAY NOW?

EXCITING GOSSIP: The reason Rupert targeted Steph last week? He apparently got to do Survivor promos from post-Pearl Islands through post-Palau, at which point CBS tapped her, the new most popular character. and he was all "THAT USED TO BE MY SPOT. ROAR :( "

(Fairplay and RobC give their Rupert imitation by saying whatever it is, and then adding "ROAR" or "GRAR")

ALSO. You know how the entire episode was evicting Parv v Randy, and then it was 9 votes Randy, 1 vote Rob? Apparently that was almost 100% wanting to fuck with the producers. Probst didn't ask Randy a question til an hour and a half into the tribal, and Randy was like "Thanks for talking to THE PERSON GOING HOME" and then said to enjoy the edit.

James's luxury items? HIS OLD IMMUNITY IDOLS. Of course they are!

RANDY IS REALLY INTO FARMVILLE.

Fairplay on his FvF Buff: "I went to throw it in the fire in solidarity, and then I remembered they're going for like $500 on EBay."

"And then you get a million dollars?" "Only if you're Rupert or Colby."

JFP on Probst: "Tribal council is his time, and that's his time to fuck up your game!"

FAIRPLAY: "The only good Boston Rob stories I've ever heard are from Jenna Lewis."
CESTERNINO: "And a lot of them end with him passed out."

Fairplay is friends with Randy in real life. For some reason I am completely delighted by this.

FAIRPLAY TOLD THE FULL COACH PYGMY STORY. CBS apparently did not include all the cannibalism and rape.

Courtney's imitation of Russell is basically the BEST THING EVER.

THINGS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL TO EDIT INTO THE EPISODE: Apparently the tribe thought Randy got rid of the machete. Oh, CBS, why so sloppy?

In an older podcast, RobC talked about how he thought social media was really improving the fannish experience, and I couldn't agree more. The best thing about all-star seasons, in my not-so-humble opinion, is the way the text becomes inherently self-reflexive. Rob refers to being on "the buffoon tribe" and it's an explicit reference to something he said before. When Jerri says that she can state, from personal experience, that the villains' shelter isn't actually the worst shelter ever made on Survivor, it's a clear reminder of Rupert's rock shelter on the first All-Stars season. Jerri's reaction to Coach taking down Colby isn't just a response to their budding relationship on s20, but also to her interactions wtih Colby on 2 and 8. People talk about seasonal alliances (most commonly Palau- Steph and Tom- or Micronesia- Amanda, James, Cirie, and Parv) and it's hard not to start drawing the mental maps.

If you're interested, castaways on s20 who've previously been in tribes together:

Colby and Jerri (Ogakor, Australia, and Mogo Mogo, All-Stars)

Sandra and Rupert (Drake, Pearl Islands)

Jerri and Rupert (Saboga, All-Stars)

Rupert and BRob (Chapera/Moga Moga, All-Stars)

Steph and Tom (merged Koror, Palau, and also their original pre-tribal alliance)

Cirie and Danielle (Casaya, Panama)

Parvati and Candice (Rarotonga, Cook Islands)

James, Courtney, and Amanda (Fei Long, China)

Parvati, Amanda, James, and Cirie (Malakal, Micronesia)

Randy and Sugar (2nd switch Fang and Nobag, Gabon)

Tyson and Coach (Timbira, Toncantins)

JT, Tyson and Coach (Forza, Toncantins)

Or, for season by season breakdown:

Australia - Colby and Jerri

Marquesas - Boston Rob

Pearl Islands - Sandra and Rupert

All-Stars - Colby, Jerri, BRob, and Rupert

Palau - Tom and Stephenie

Guatemala - Stephenie

Panama - Cirie and Danielle

Cook Islands - Candice and Parvati

China - James, Amanda, and Courtney

Micronesia - Parvati, Amanda, James, and Cirie

Gabon - Randy and Sugar

Toncantins - Tyson, Coach, and JT

Samoa - Russell

And what's interesting here is that this doesn't actually include who knows who because of the incestuous social circle that is reality television in general, and CBS reality in particular. There are a bunch of references during the episodes about possible past-season alliances (the "Micronesia Alliance" seems to be the biggest concern), but what's carefully edited out is the references to the ways that these people know each other in a social context. Just look at Facebook, or at Twitter, or MySpace. Hell, just look at the guest list on any given night at Les Deux or Dolce. There's this really interesting double-play going on, where All-Star seasons acknowledge that these people have been on previous seasons and know each other's televised personalities, but pretend that that interaction hasn't brought them into this bizarre pseudo-fraternity where there are actual real-life interactions on the line. For all that I laugh at Lex's "stack of greenbacks" speech from the first All-Star season (and will continue to laugh at it, to infinity), it's the natural result of superficial relationships becoming real and then being forced back to superficiality again.

Reality TV is a sociological goldmine, is basically what I'm saying here. And that's what makes it fascinating.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have about a million Sporcle quizzes on reality television to do embarrassingly well on for this Saturday night. I have the most exciting social life EVER.

As if he had never seen the world from up so high before.

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:40:29 GMT

Finnikin of the Rock came out yesterday. Today was a snow day, which is good, because I read straight through until I finished it at 8 AM this morning.

Here are five nonspoilery and five spoilery reactions to the book, with the note that this is all day-after-first-read first-impression stuff, and doesn't get into a lot of the things that I thought were the biggest issues of the text:

1. The writing is gorgeous, and the book is impossible to put down. When penmage told me that, I figured she meant it makes more sense to read it all at once, not that once you pick it up you can't make yourself stop reading. That is why I was up until 8 AM.

2. This is a big departure for Melina Marchetta: high fantasy instead of realism or magical realism; third person instead of first; male protagonist instead of female. I was pleased to see, though, that even though a lot of the main characters are male, this is not a story lacking strong female characters. And the fantasy is rooted in reality, the way all really good fantasy is. The world doesn't make perfect sense to me the way the Jellicoe one did, but I don't think it was supposed to.

3. This is a dark book. This is a really, really, really dark book, and as much as I loved it I am not entirely sure I'd recommend it to nearly as many people as I tried to push Jellicoe on. This is the story of an idyllic kingdom which is destroyed and cursed, and the book doesn't pull any punches. People are killed. People are enslaved. People are raped. Like Jellicoe, this is a story about ultimately finding a way back to a better path, but while Jellicoe was more emotionally wrenching, this book is more viscerally violent.

4. I've only read the first book in the Attolia series, but this reminded me of it a lot, and reminded me I want to read more of that series. I liked this better than I'd liked The Thief, actually, but I fully own that is largely because I am predisposed to like anything by Melina Marchetta, and this made me want to go back to read the Megan Whalen Turner books, so... good job? :D?

5. I'm back to wanting to decorate my walls with quotes from Melina Marchetta novels. As I was reading, I was remembering pages to go back and look at when I had time to go slowly, rather than devour the story.

6. Going back to #3 for a sec- this is such a brutal book. The description of what people do to the slaves- that's going to stay with me. I feel like this is the book I intend to hold up whenever people say that young adult books are less sophisticated. There's no graphic rape, and very little graphic description of the slavery, but there's just enough said- and more than enough implied- to make it really terrible. The narrative said so much that when there was something characters didn't want to think about because of the sheer horror, it hit home a lot. When characters who share a lot find things unspeakable, it says a hell of a lot more than when the narrative just artfully dodges.

7. I loved that they were the Five Days of the Unspeakable. It tied back to what Isaboe said: the people lost their voice, and with it they were losing their culture. Finnikin was trying to keep track of the dead, and Isaboe was helping them live. (I took a course in the Unspeakable at grad school, and today I appear to be pondering that entire course through the lens of this book. Have I mentioned I love when books make me think a lot? Because I do.)

8. Finnikin was a pretty good character. He's not up there with my favorite Marchetta characters, but I liked him enough. And Isaboe is a wonderful character, and from the second she showed up I was enthralled. As much as this is ostensibly Finnikin's quest story, to me it felt more like Isaboe's story told through the eyes of Finnikin. Part of me was irritated by the amount of male characters driving the narrative, but it's Isaboe who's at the center, and that made it okay. I love everything about her so much. Playing with the boys from the time she was little, figuring out how to get her entire country back together, GETTING her country back together. All the little details- she's the character I want to be when I grow up. At the end, with the realization that she was making herself bleed so she could rescue her people- I love her. I love her a LOT.

9. I figured out a lot of the twists here much earlier than the plot reveals, but I think that was kind of the point. Evanjalin being Isaboe occurred to me from near the beginning, and nothing contradicted it- er, obviously- but it wasn't one of those plot things where people had to be stupid to not pick it up, because most people did pick it up. Finnikin was blind with grief over his friend and wanted to believe Balthazaar was out there so much that he missed what was right in front of him, and plenty of people who realized who she was respected her wishes not to be identified. And that's why it hit me so hard when there was the realization that no, Balthazaar was really dead. I didn't realize how much hope Finnikin had put into that until it was crushed. And it wasn't til then that I realized how much I was actually invested in Finnikin's happiness. :D

10. The book is a roller coaster, with all the terrible fates and all the hopes and the ways they clash. Balthazaar really is dead. The royal family really was brutalized in every conceivable way and then murdered. But there are seeds of hope: the novices hidden in the two Cloisters, Finnikin throwing his dagger to end Seranonna's pain, everything about Isaboe. Somehow, the hope makes the brutality more harsh, but the brutality makes the hope stronger.

I cannot think of a better use of my snow day than drowning in this book.

Reading Rainbow

Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:33:42 GMT

It's ALA Midwinter right now, obviously, which means lots of people are in Boston having an awesome time. I considered it, honestly, but couldn't justify going. Besides, this gives me more time to read 2009 books in the hope that I'll read the winners of the Newbery and Printz sometime before they're announced tomorrow.

Since my last post, I've read Eyes Like Stars, which I probably would have appreciated more if I could remember any Shakespeare I've read, and Flygirl.

I want SO BADLY to discuss Flygirl at length at some point. Specifically, I want to talk about war and passing, in conversation with Leviathan. Both books take place during a world war, where a girl's love of flying prompts her to disguise herself so that she can be a part of the effort. I liked Leviathan a lot (well, the Deryn parts of Leviathan), but despite the text's repeated assurances that she could get in serious trouble for masquerading as male, even the most tense parts of Leviathan I felt less anxiety about her being caught than at the idea of someone revealing Ida Mae isn't white during the calm moments of the story.

Anyway, it was good and I recommend it.

I also reread When You Reach Me, which I liked well enough on first read but absolutely loved on second. I feel like being a giant dorky fan of On the Jellicoe Road has made me better at reading a book closely. I mean, the structure of WYRM is less convoluted than the structure of Jellicoe, but I had a moment where- well, like in the book. The veil lifted for a minute. I am terrible with understanding time travel narratives in general (just ask the poor people who tried to explain it to me at ComicCon a few years ago after the Sarah Connor Chronicles panel), but I feel like this one clicked for me, which is huge. In fairness, I also give credit to Lost, because once you see Locke telling Richard to tell Locke something because he remembers Richard telling it to him, your brain breaks and then repairs itself as best it can. But mostly I give credit to Jellicoe, and to me growing as a reader, which I don't think is entirely unconnected. Since I started reading children's books seriously, I feel like my critical literacy has skyrocketed.

Right now I'm reading The Evolution of Calpurnia Tate, and I'm hoping to finish both that and (probably) Ash before the awards are announced tomorrow morning. I have a half-dozen other library books sitting around, which I'm hoping I'll read even if they don't win anything. I'm not sure how much I trust my commitment to Sparkle Motion on this one, though. Last year, after ALA, I opted to take a break, and I don't think I even read Graveyard Book for a good six months, never mind all the honors. Plus, once THESE are done, I Kissed a Zombie and I Liked It comes out, and then Scarlett Fever, and then of course Finnikin on the Rock, which I could not be more excited about if you paid me, and I should finish Looking for Allibrandi before I get to that one, and also I ordered a few out-of-print books from Amazon so I should be getting those soon.

The problem with books- and by "problem" I mean "aweosme thing," in case that is unclear- is that you never run out. There's always something else just waiting to grab your attention and refuse to let go.

For example, Calpurnia Tate, which is really a perfect companion to relaxing at home on a cold day in January. Even better, I would say, than my Lost DVDs, which is high praise right now, but also completely true.

If you liked it then you should have put a shiny gold sticker on it

Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:36:58 GMT

I've been neck-deep in books from 2009. I've got a bunch from the Cybils- as a second-round judge, I got two gorgeous books sent to me from publsihers, and just looking at the other picks in the library motivated me to purchase some others, although I'm not mentioning which because we are supposed to be maintaining levels of secrecy re: the final results- and, of course, it's almost ALA time, so I'm in overdrive from that.

Let me tell you something, internet! Children's and young adult authors produce some amazing books. I mean, you probably knew that already, because I already knew that, but when I'm all of a sudden drowning in what different lists have picked out as the best books of the year I think it's natural to get overwhelmed with just how awesome everything is. I'm up to reading a middle grade or YA novel a day, give or take, and every single time I'm just blown away. Since January 1- well, let's say since January 5, because that's when I stopped spending all of my time sneezing and feeling dead- I've read Once Was Lost by Sara Zarr, Confetti Girl by Diana Lopez, Leviathan by Scott Westerfeld, Going Bovine by Libba Bray, The Doom Machine by Mark Teague, Claudette Colvins: Twice Toward Freedom by Phillip Hoose. Upcoming books from my shelf make me giddy, although I'm thinking I may take a break from all the new books to go for a few rereads of the best from 2009.

I've been assuming some of the awards will go to the most likely candidate. Pigs Make Me Sneeze</i>, for example, will probably get the Geisel, and I'd say The Lion and the Mouse has a near lock for the Caldecott- although, of course, last year everyone said that about Wabi Sabi. When You Reach Me is my pick for the Newbery, in terms of what I think will actually happen, although I enjoyed a few other middle grade books (Confetti Girl, for one) just as much if not more. So I'm hoping Confetti Girl gets at least a Belpre honor, although I don't know how likely that is, and out of the "likely" contenders for the Newbery which I've read, WYRM is definitely my favorite. I'm reading Flygirl by Sherri Smith right now because that was my completely random pick for the CSKing award, but I want to see if I actually believe that or if I've been swayed by all the discussions on the blogosphere about what does/does not count. I think Lion and the Mouse could be a contender here for the award for illustration. I would be pretty shocked if Claudette Colvin didn't at least get a Sibert honor.

I don't really feel like there's a standout book in YA that's definitely going to be Printz material, which is why most of the books I'm reading right now are YA. I was hoping it would clarify what I think, but no. I just keep squealing over how good whatever book I happen to be in the middle of is.

In short: This field is so great. So great.

(What? One post for children's books, one for reality TV. That's how it works.)

The tribe has spoken.

Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:12:39 GMT

This is by far my favorite article on the Survivor 20th reunion party, because it is full of gossip and an understanding of its subject matter. The latter comes across in some ways as a lack of respect for the subject matter, and I don't feel that way at all, I think kind of in the same way that you can make fun of your own brother but no one else can. That article has a few typographical errors (Ethan Zohn, guys), but it also shows that the writer knows what he's talking about, unlike the articles that suggest Jerri Manthey was in season 1 or whatever.

But the truth is, I'm fascinated by all of the articles, because the party is really just a way to gather a lot of people at a place with an open bar and marvel at the fact that they've lasted (almost) ten years and (almost) twenty seasons. It's really hard to remember that ten years ago, this kind of reality TV wasn't even on most people's radar. Reality programming meant Cops and seasons of the Real World. In one interview, I learned that Sue Hawk's rats vs snakes speech was ranked in a list of top ten memorable speeches. They put her with Martin Luther King Jr. I don't actually condone that comparison (game for $1 million dollars: not the same as institutionalized racism!), but I can still see how it fundamentally altered the way that television is perceived by audiences, and that's pretty amazing.

I've been saving any pictures from the reunion party that I can find, in case the internet mysteriously swallows them, and I'm pretty consistently delighted. People are glad to squeeze a few more seconds out of their 15 minutes, and I'm really fascinated by how these people act once they've been on the show and know how they were portrayed and how people see them and are reacting to that. It's one thing to follow all of this on Twitter, but quite another to see pictures of people who backstabbed each other and vowed sweet revenge hanging out and hugging. Some people actually talk about how ashamed they are at former performance (Colby is horrified at how badly he did on All-Stars; Russell H can't believe he didn't win the million), but more than enough others just behaved in ways which consciously reflected who they had been, who they had been seen as, and what they wanted to be seen as now.

CBS reality continues to feel creepily incestuous; beyond Rob and Amber, who have a baby, and Jenna Morasca and Ethan, who are also engaged, Courtney from China is with Stephen from Toncantins, there are rumors of Sugar from Gabon and JT from Toncantins, and Eliza from Vanuatu brought James from Big Brother 6 as her date.

In February, there's going to be a Survivor special recapping the cultural influence of the show, and then season 20 starts. I'm really ridiculously excited about February television. Between this and Lost, I'm starting to have a Pavlovian response to any kind of image of a beach with water lapping against the sand.

Not dead, just sleeping

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:42:50 GMT

I haven't updated here in a while, because I got a seasonal job at Barnes and Noble in the children's section. On the one hand: LOTS OF EXPOSURE TO BOOKS, YAY! On the other hand: LOTS OF EXPOSURE TO GERMS, LESS YAY! What I thought was a cold that lasted for close to two months turned out to be a bad case of bronchitis. Um. Oops?

I feel like I'll be a much more pleasant person to be around once I'm no longer made entirely of disease.

A lot has happened since I've updated here. Two months of exposure to kids' books (and let me tell you, the BEST PART of working in a bookstore is spending my lunch break every day reading kidlit)! The season finales of Survivor and Amazing Race! The fall and rise of Kirkus! My finally seeing a doctor!

(Some of these are more globally important than others.)

And now that I can spend more than 15 minutes without lapsing into a disgusting coughing fit, I can get back into blogging here.

Reality TV-wise, Twitter has been an amazing boon; I am drowning in gossip and commentary. I want to talk about last season of Survivor, because it's sparked a lot of discussion about what makes a good player of a reality show. The upcoming season of Survivor is going to be another all-stars season (heroes versus villains), and I've already started a post about what that means. I adore all-star seasons, because from an academic meta standpoint they're the most fascinating thing you can hope for. Jordan and Jeff from Big Brother are going to be on Amazing Race, which I hope will showcase their talents at not being able to tell time or spell as much as BB did. Oh, and the scandal about this season of the Bachelor (which I don't even watch)!

Children's lit has just as much exciting stuff happening. I want to start making predictions for the ALA Midwinter awards, because I predicted Jellicoe last year literally an hour before it was announced and was so freaking proud of myself you don't even KNOW. I read a few books that I kind of fell in love with and want to press onto everyone I know. The Baby-Sitters Club is being rereleased, which is kind of the epitome of joy for me, because those are my favorite preteen guilty pleasure series, but I am upset about the changes they intend to make. I have Thoughts about the Children's Literature Ambassador thing.

Plus I'm on the Cybils picturebook committee! That's pretty awesome.

Happy 2010, everyone!

"Inspirational Stories," Coach? Really?

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:09:36 GMT

Apparently it's been up for a few weeks now, but I just stumbled upon CBS's new former-Survivors-comment-on-current-Survivor-seasons page, "The Immunity Blog".

I love watching people who've played the game before comment on the game, because they tend to have very specific insights, viewing the entire game through the lens of how they played the first (or second) time. I don't disbelieve anyone who says that you can't understand the Survivor game until you've lived it, but I do think that there's really no way to understand anyone's gameplay unless you are that person and that person usually has a seriously skewed view of the game anyway. So it's fascinating to me on levels.

I can't tell if Coach parodying himself or being sincere. I SERIOUSLY CAN'T. Which I guess is what turns a good character into a great character, although I'm not entirely sure what it says about a person.

Still, Survivor cast members obviously still have a lot to learn. Sure, Hatch was jailed for not paying taxes on his $1 mill, but you don't see HIM arrested for using his profits to start a drug-smuggling ring, do you? DO YOU?

Big Brother makes me so proud and so ashamed, frequently at the same time.

This entire article is one giant "That's what she said."

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:50:28 GMT

You want to know why I deny all of BB9 except for the existence of Chelsia and Big She and Sharon's interactions with the guinea pigs?

THIS IS WHY.

Jasinski allegedly confessed that he had been selling thousands of oxycodone pills all along the East Cost over the past several months, and had been funding his enterprise with the $500,000 price he won from the “Big Brother Season 9” show.

Stay classy, Big Brother.

(This is particularly awesome because, ON THE LIVE FEEDS, he and Matty- who lives in Massachusetts, I should note- discussed their drug dealing. GUYS, YOU'RE ON CAMERA. YOU KNOW THAT RIGHT?)

[Yeah, I know, the whole "collaging book covers" thing came to an abrupt stop. I got new art supplies! I had to organize them into tiny perfect drawers! Maybe "one collage a week" is a more reasonable plan?]

STEP 1: Roar your terrible roar.

Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:50:27 GMT

Has anyone else read Dave Eggers's The Wild Things? I know I posted yesterday about acquiring the book. Right at this minute I am on page 83 (of 285- the beginning of Chapter 12), and I am having Thoughts and Feelings about it, and specifically the way Dave Eggers's book portrays childhood versus how Maurice Sendak does. But my thoughts are half-formed and I need someone to discuss it with.

Any takers?

Where the Wild Things Post

Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:31:15 GMT

Who is Max? What is a Wild Thing? Is it ever okay to eat someone's head? What if it falls off? Then can you eat it?

The movie's coming out later this week, so to get ready I'm reading the Dave Eggers book that's based on the movie that's based on the picturebook. (I got the normal hardcover, not the one with fur. Because I am not that creepy.)

I'm trying not have any expectations except for a good story, because it's not fair to the book. But there are so many places this can go on a meta-level. Part of me is infuriated that they need to label this "an all-ages novel," because I find that troubling in the assumption that most kidlit has a cut-off age. On the other hand, from a marketing perspective, it's genius, because a lot of people do think there's a cut-off age, and between the involvement of McSweeney's and the Junk food tees and everything, this is a way to at least get hipster adults interested, which I guess is a step, even if it's ironic love of kidlit instead of the pure joy I wish everyone had.

As I am less of a hipster and more of a nerd, I have been looking forward to this since I saw the presentation at ComicCon, and I'm currently trying to figure out if there's any way I could make myself a wolf suit to wear to the movie opening night. It could be mischief-friendly!

In which I am defensive of Eric Carle

Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:37:23 GMT

When I was in high school, my favorite movies were The Princess Bride and Heathers. I did my homework to these movies. I fell asleep watching these movies. I bought the scores to the movies and listened to them at school. Somewhere along the line, they went from "favorite movie that engaged me completely" to "comfortable background noise." They were reassuring and delightful. I would look up at key moments occasionally, but it wasn't any particular part of the movie I needed. It was having it there that mattered, and it was probably part of what got me through high school in one piece. I do not think I am permanently scarred from that.

This was my first reaction to reading Daniel B. Smith's article on Slate maligning Eric Carle's work. Actually, it was my second reaction. My first was to rant at my roommate for a while about how unreasonable and unfair it is. Apparently I love Eric Carle's work enough to get epically defensive of him.

Part of this is that I spend an absurd amount of time with collage stuff. I know how hard it is. Nearly all of my favorite artists work with mixed media and/or collage. What Carle did was amazing. Yes, because of the things that the author acknowledges in that post- how it's developmentally appropriate and how kids love it- but it's also GOOD. It's visually striking even to an adult, which is a way that grown-ups can consistently derive pleasure. The narrative isn't that interesting? Dude, it's not for you.

Which is not to say a parent reading the same thing every night isn't allowed to be bored, or annoyed, because s/he totally is. The problem comes from branching out to say that the issue is because of the author or book. Saying "Eric Carle... sucks" is basically sacrilege to me, especially when the logic is as follows:

Anyone who thinks that writing a good book for a 2-year-old is easier than writing a good book for a 32-year-old is deluded. The children's author has a monumental task. First, he must entertain, educate, stimulate the imagination of, etc., the child. That's primary. But he must also entertain, educate, stimulate the imagination of, etc., the parent. This is secondary but, for the continued sanity of the reader-parent, of great importance. Toddlers are strong-willed; they will choose the books they want to read, and the parent has to comply at pain of tantrum. Lesser writers manipulate this fact. They serve only the child. Pat the Bunny is like this: flat, rote, simplistic—cheaply exciting for the toddler, who is happy to know what's coming next and how everything is going to end, but a source of excruciating boredom for the parent.

First of all, STEP BACK FROM PAT THE BUNNY >:(. She did nothing to you and she serves a very important purpose.

But more importantly, there is a time and a place where I genuinely believe that one of the most important things about a picturebook is its appeal to adults. That time is the first few months of a child's life, when the reading is largely to demonstrate what reading IS and develop closeness between the reader and the read-ee. The sound of voices reading, the tactile benefits of holding the book-- when it's all about that, I don't really think it matters much what you're reading as long as you're reading. Once a child is old enough to have preferences, though, the book is for them. Appealing to the adult is a nice bonus, but when it's time for bedtime, the adult isn't there for the story. Adults serve as conduits between the story and the child, and by being that conduit it's possible to develop a stronger relationship. But the adult's primary response isn't supposed to be to the text, it's to the kid.

Which is not to say Sendak (who he holds up as the anti-Carle) is not amazing. Sendak is AWESOME, and he wrote and/or illustrated a lot of things that I love deeply. But the idea that one or the other is "better" by anything besides purely subjective aesthetic preference isn't just laughable, it's insulting, both to children who have favorite picturebooks and to adults who still enjoy children's lit.

No matter how simple the narrative supposedly is, as any academic can tell you, there are always layers to be found. Background noise can be static, but it can also provide benefits that, at the time, are completely unnoticed. I ended up writing papers in college about Heathers, and its portrayal of spectacle and gender. When I became really interested in fairy tales, I used the way The Princess Bride twisted tropes as a way to guide some of my research.

And then I went to grad school for children's lit, and while I didn't write any of my papers on Sendak or on Carle, I totally could have. In twenty years, so could Daniel B. Smith's daughter. She could revolutionize the field with insight we've never even thought of.

Or one day she could find a new book, fall in love with Mo Willems's illustrations, and never think about Carle again. That's okay too! As long as it's her choice to make.

ART: Tithe, by Holly Black

Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:59:26 GMT

I actually read this one when I was a camp counselor, and a bunch of the girls told me I had to read it and one of them loaned it to me. That entire summer is kind of a haze of not sleeping enough, making friends, getting into the kind of wacky adventures you think only exist in YA novels about summer camps until they happen to you, and reading this book. (Well, this book and Ella Enchanted, but this is the one that stuck with me.)

So of course people are trying to get it banned. It causes people joy.

I know that the cover art for these was redone, and I respect that- abstractly- but this was seriously SUCH a gorgeous cover. The fact that it was replaced makes me sad. This approximation is nowhere NEAR as pretty as the actual cover. But hey, it was on the list, and my water colors are RIGHT HERE, so I had to try, right?

(I know. I need to clean my scanner.)

Any suggestions for next week's theme?

Better late than forgetting I even had a blog to update, right?

Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:34:17 GMT

...Hey, did you know that if you make covers and don't scan them they don't show up on your blog?

Oops.

Tuesday I took the Praxis, so did not actually do anything BESIDES take the Praxis

Wednesday was The Bermudez Triangle.

Thursday was My Heartbeat.

And Friday will be up once I finish it.

ART: An Abundance of Katherines, by John Green

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:46:19 GMT

I had a conversation with someone (don't remember who) about this book, because it is probably my third-favorite of John Green's novels. (That is the same as saying "least favorite," I guess, except that implies I did not like it, and it's just that I like the other two MORE.) The conversation centered around why I clicked more with the other two books. I thought it was because I have this weird gut-level bias against any book which paints an academically-talented kid as not understanding that school intelligence does not translate to social intelligence, which is entirely less a judgment on the book than on my own inability to separate personal experience from literary. But the other person pointed out that Abundance of Katherines is very much a story about math, and the other two are very much more stories about words. And once they pointed that out, I will very much cop to the way that equations make my brain go on the fritz a bit. Once again, my issues with high school calculus rear their ugly heads.

This is not to condemn the book, but rather to say that it is my least favorite of John Green's books, and I still cannot even comprehend why someone might possibly want to CHALLENGE it.

The best part of these challenges, though, is that they make me go back to books that didn't like with me so much the first time, and I reread them and realize I actually like them quite a bit, not just in a "John Green books tend to be awesome!" kind of way but in a "This particular book happens to be awesome!" way.

So thanks to all of the jerks who are trying to keep perfectly good books from impressionable youth. Your rage is putting books back into my hands, and I appreciate your sacrifice!

Anyway, cover of the day:

In the interest of full disclosure, it's the cover of the audio book rather than the over of the book itself, because I was looking for a good picture online and did not bother comparing it to the book cover itself. Close enough, though, right?

When You Reach Me (Rebecca Stead)

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:02:53 GMT

When You Reach Me is the kind of book that you post about before 8 AM on a Saturday, and only then because you didn't want to get out of bed at 1:30 AM to say !!!!!.

This morning, I want to say... something. But I don't know what. Everything seems like it might spoil the book, and I would not want to spoil this book.

I have to reread it. And then reread A Wrinkle in Time. And then reread When You Reach Me again. Maybe then I can post to say more than just "I loved it, and you should totally read it."

But I loved it. And you should totally read it.

ART: Gossip Girls, by Cecily von Ziegesar

Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:09:04 GMT

Because it's banned books week, and nothing is banned quite like these.

I find that I have issues with every level of the criticism of the Gossip Girl books. I don't love them, personally, but I fail to see how reading a book- any book- is wrong. Not as a gateway into anything, except a few hours of enjoyment. I hate basically everything that sucks the joy out of reading. I love On the Jellicoe Road by Melina Marchetta beyond the telling of it- as, er, anyone who's talked to me in the past ten months probably knows- but the idea that I'm getting 'better' enjoyment because it's more 'literary' makes me SO ANGRY. This may or may not be influenced by years of reading Baby-Sitters Club and Nancy Drew and Archie comics. They're what got me to this very mature place in my life! :D?

And censorship isn't just challenging/banning it in schools. There's also the self-selection of librarians, teachers, and booksellers of what they're going to have. Every time a librarian says they don't have Gossip Girl in their library because it's not the kind of thing they think kids should be reading, a little part of me dies, because it's SO classist and offensive. Banning books doesn't stop kids with money; they may CHOOSE to spend the money on something besides books, but they have that option. So basically banning books says that kids who can't afford it should be punished, and saying that adults can decide for an entire community of children, rather than just for their own child.

I also have issues with the seriously misogynistic criticisms of the books, but this is getting kind of long.

Taking the weekend off of art. Next week, it's all books that were challenged this past week.

ART: Catcher in the Rye, by JD Salinger

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:05:03 GMT

People talk about this as, like, the First Real YA book, and I always think of it as, like, one of the middle chimps on those posters demonstrating how evolution works. It's not a YA book, but it's one of the steps towards getting there.

I can understand why this book was complained about at first, but I have a hard time wrapping my brain around the book being banned today. It's already made an indelible mark on the literary landscape, so banning it... what's the point? You can maybe manage to shield your three-year-old from gay penguins for a while, or protect your twelve-year-old from anything by Chris Crutcher, but... it's Catcher in the Rye, dude. You already lost the battle. Why fight it?

(I said some would be less complicated than others.)

ART: In the Night Kitchen, by Maurice Sendak

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:22:53 GMT

It seemed appropriate, in honor of banned books week and all.

I can never decide which horrifying explanation of the plot of this book is my favorite, the one where it's all about sex or the one where it's all about the Holocaust. Either way, though, I love that neither of those is the focus of people's complaints: they're just horrified at the one picture of Mickey's full frontal nudity. This is just one of many reasons why book banning is ridiculous to me.

Although if the problem were either the symbolic Nazis or the symbolic birth, I probably would not have been so delighted over the story that well-meaning parents and librarians drew little black sharpie diapers onto Mickey. So maybe it all works out.

(I, um, possibly went overboard for the first collage? Maybe a little? I can almost guarantee there will not be this level of crazy detail every day. Probably.)

YAY

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:01:03 GMT

Now seems like an excellent time to mention that I'm one of the Round II judges for fiction picturebooks in this year's Cybils (that's Children's and Young adult Bloggers' Literary Awards).

To say I'm excited is putting it mildly.

I love the smell of Elmer's Glue in the morning.

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 02:09:52 GMT

So you know, it was one thing having this blog when it was just to talk about my grad project. But now that I'm branching out, I feel like there's an obvious question.

What is this blog bringing to the kidlitosphere that you can't get anywhere else?

Well, a bunch of things. But since I'm pretty sure my wit and charm aren't really selling points across the internets, and also because I just moved into a new place and don't have a job [side note: hire me! I'm witty and charming!] and need decorations and like to collage, I'm going with this:

Every day, I'm going to do a small cut-paper collage of a different children's book cover. Each one will be done on a 4x6 index card, and it will go on the wall above my work area. (I will have to relocate what's currently up there, which is a cardstock representation of Adam Rex's Guide to Boovs, but those should fit elsewhere just as well.)

Everything beyond that is up to you. Any suggestions for book covers? Should I only do books I've read? Books I like? Books that have critical acclaim? For books with multiple editions, should I do the covers I like best or the covers I own or the covers that are easiest?

Guide me, kidlitosphere! I want to bring something into your lives!

Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:08:05 GMT

There's a new American Girl doll on the market! Her name is Gwen, and she's homeless.

Andrea Peyser of the New York Post has a problem with this, because it's all-out political indoctrination. Admittedly, the entire article is (I hope) tongue-in-cheek, and it's clearly op-ed rather than ~serious journalism. But come on:

Barbie, the feminists long complained, gave girls body issues.

But she never attempted to politically indoctrinate me.

I'll stick with the thin girl.

This is clearly supporting the weird pervasive belief that "neutral" is white, male, upper-class, heterosexual, and (for lack of a better term) not-homeless, and the only way to not be "politically indoctrinating" is to enthusiastically support what's already there. But I don't actually disagree with that point, because I do believe that everything produced- whether it opposes or supports the status quo- is inherently political in some form. The choice of what to make visible and what to leave hidden is ALWAYS political. I also believe that literature is by its nature subversive, and that a piece of fiction which doesn't reflect any ideology is probably not a particularly good piece of fiction.

So I don't disagree with Peyser for some of that. I think American Girl is working very hard to politically indoctrinate its consumers. I think she's kidding herself if she believes Barbie isn't working equally hard to do the same. I know that this is a world where people ban books about gay penguins and Harry Potter ~promotes devil worship or whatever, but come on, expecting a series of books designed to teach kids about issues in history to be apolitical? Really?

In the article, Peyser briefly explains the plot ("Gwen's father walked out on the family. Her mother lost her job... Gwen's mom lost her grip. Mother and daughter started bedding down in a car."), and then extrapolates from it the meaning AG is trying to convey:

For starters, men are bad. Fathers abandon women without cause. She's also telling me that women are helpless. And that children in this great country, where dolls sell for nearly 100 bucks a pop, are allowed to sleep in motor vehicles. But mothers don't lose custody over this injustice. Because, you see, they are victims, too.

I don't see where the immediate connection is, entirely. First you accept as a given that rich/white/heterosexual/male/not-homeless is neutral, and then you also have to accept the idea that all children's literature is not just political, but actively didactic, in a way that adult literature categorically isn't. I mean- I am not the only person on earth who's read Bastard Out of Carolina, I AM PRETTY CERTAIN. And I've never seen this kind of reaction to that.

For the record, I read Bastard Out of Carolina in tenth grade, because I'd read Cavedweller, and loved both of them and would recommend them with very few reservations, but I am PRETTY SURE I would want my eight-year-old learning about abandonment, homelessness, and victimization from American Girl instead.

In short, sometimes I want to go to my parents' house, drag my American Girl dolls out of storage (I had Molly, Samantha, and an American Girl of Today), and use them to beat people over the head until they stop being stupid about kidlit. Is that wrong?

PSA

Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:34:40 GMT

I'm going to start moving more of my children's lit stuff over here, not just children's lit in the context of reality television.

Because, as it turns out, I miss grad school a LOT. Or, well, at least discussing children's lit for hours on end with people who don't just take it for granted or dismiss it.

I also kind of miss writing papers. WHAT IS MY LIFE, I SWEAR.

(Look! I have a new default icon!)

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:18:22 GMT

The Big Brother season is over (and Survivor's just begun- it's a reality cornucopia around here, really), and wiht that comes my traditional fights with other people who watched. I don't actually know why it bothers me so much, how other people feel about reality television. I mean, I know it's the Somebody is WRONG on the internet phenomenon, but while I totally own that that's what my issues during the season are, I feel like during post-show it covers different grounds. It really, really bothers me that people attempt to monitor reality contestants' lives for the rest of their lives.

Which, you know, I'm a hypocrite. I read up on the blogs, I own some Kirby Dermaceuticals products, because it is HILARIOUS, and god knows my twitter feed is basically a giant reality where are they now. (Answer: last weekend, in Vegas; currently, in Houston.)

I'm sure this could just be me overrationalizing, but I feel like there's a difference between following them like this, and following their relationships.

Case in point: fans are CRAZY about the relationship between Jeff and Jordan. The fact that they're still dating all of two weeks out of the house causes absolute giddiness. It's not like this is a new thing, either; it's been going on at least as long as I've been following reality fandoms. I've been guilty of it at some points- not at the level of "paying a few thousand dollars for a gift basket with the secrets to their relationship," but definitely in a "I hope those crazy kids work out" kind of way. Jeff and Jordan had a chat last night and BB fans exploded with the news that they're still together. (Note: "still" = ten days after the show ended.)

And I guess I just find it creepy. When they're in the house they're in a vacuum, and anything/everything they say is influenced by their situation and production, but once they're out of the house all of a sudden the relationship becomes a new level of performative, and it feels like that level of humanity is gone. It's not the presence/absence of fans, to me, but rather their sudden introduction to a developing relationship. Of course no Big Brother relationship has ever worked out; how could it, with that kind of pressure? The one reality relationship I can think of that worked out was Amber and Boston Rob, and they had a ton of time between when the season stopped filming and when the audience caught up on their relationship to be together, outside of the pressure cooker but also outside of the public gaze.

I still don't want to spoil Catching Fire here, so I'll keep it super-vague, but the parallels ring true: it's HARD to be performing a relationship 24/7, because outside of the arena it's a whole different game, and life doesn't work like a reality show, generally, but people still want the editor-friendly happy ending. And I, once again, feel awful for all the people who were on this show, who are out in the real world and dealing not just with getting their lives back but also with getting the crazy fans, so they become this weird blend of Leading Their Life and Appeasing The Audience.

Or maybe I'm just creating an artificial dichotomy. Is it reasonable for me to expect a serious distinction between the characters in the house/on the show and the people in real life?

This is why I prefer fiction. :(

Sun, 13 Sep 2009 04:55:52 GMT

Police Rescue 9 Women From Fake Reality Show

Subtitle: Women Held Captive 2 Months Initially Believing They Were On A Show Similar To 'Big Brother'

Which is... kind of like Hunger Games. If you mix it with Sold. And take away some of that lingering faith in humanity.

I don't have anything really smart to say about this, but I feel like it's at least worth documenting. This is absolutely horrible, and at the same time, I don’t feel like the most easily accessible anti-reality television moral is necessarily the right one. I don't know what is the right moral, though, except that humanity is a horrible entity.

Go team?