January 30th, 2003 — brain-candy
The always-excellent Bookslut site has terrific conversation between two of the site’s principals, Jessica (the bookslut) and Michael, about the advantages and disadvantages of the two major types of bookstores: the independent store and the chain store.
They particularly go off on one local (Austin, TX)independent/feminist/lesbian bookstore called Bookwoman. Jessica — a woman — was looking for
a book about gay studies. Lesbian and male. It happened to be written by a man. This was for the Sexuality Education Center I worked at, and they knew I was from there. I read the title and the author and I was told, “We wouldn’t have that, because that’s by a man.” And I said, “Yes, I know, that’s why I’m asking you to order it.” And when I went into pick it up, she said, “Oh, you’re the one who ordered the book by the man.”
M: Oh my God. So they don’t carry any male authors?
J: None.
I must admit, I approach articles like this with quite a bit of trepidation. I’ve worked in indy stores and in the big chains, my wife has managed multi-million dollar stores for both of the big chains. Usually, these kinds of articles are so full of the “spirit” of the independent and the soul-crushing evilness and conformity of the chains. Not so for this article.
Both participants in the conversation were very realistic, bringing up pluses and minuses for both types of store. Besides the “Mom & Pop”-store-killing aspects of the chains, most of their ire was reserved for the local indy stores. Indies used to have the monopoly on “alternative-lifestyle” books, but now, “All bookstores, even bookstores in fucking Kansas have gay studies sections…” Indies don’t have the selection of the big stores: “The small bookstores don’t have the space, so they tend to go for what they think will sell. The big bookstores can put anything they want.”
Besides the selection, they also talk about the employment practices of the stores:
J: …For an independent bookstore to say they’re better than the chains, they should a) pay their employees better; b) I don’t know if they offer health care, but I’ll go out on a limb and guess no; c) and hire people who know something about literature.
M: And Borders does. My brother worked at Borders, and they gave you a test. And they name books and you are asked to name the author. It’s not all easy. It’s not all John Grisham and Danielle Steele. They ask you about Kathy Acker. They really want to make sure people know their stuff. And the people who work there, there are a lot of graduate students, a lot of college students who are really smart. They’ve helped me find stuff before.
J: When I first moved to Austin I got applications for the bookstores, and Borders offered a higher pay baseline than any of the independents.
Good article. Makes much sense.
January 30th, 2003 — brain-candy
In an interview with the leftist In These Times magazine, Kurt Vonnegut, one of my favorite writers and an unabashed pacifist and socialist gets a chance to rant about the state of the nation and the world. At 80 years old, he has lost none of his humor or his sharpness, as in this quote:
…those now in charge of the federal government are upper-crust C-students who know no history or geography, plus not-so-closeted white supremacists, aka “Christians,” and plus, most frighteningly, psychopathic personalities…
I think I’m going to go back and read Slaughterhouse Five again. It’s been a few years, and, since our nation is once again on the brink of war, it seems an appropriate time.
On his site, Vonnegut announces the release of a musical collaboration with Simon Heselev, entitled “Tock Tick”. Heselev composed a piece of electronica, then cut and chopped and looped a performance by Vonnegut, reading from Slaughterhouse Five over the track. Sounds interesting. (You can find a sample here, and you can order it here.)
January 30th, 2003 — impolite company
David Ehrenstein has produced a line-by-line commentary on Bush’s State of the Union address, filled with very funny inuendo, asides and revelations of what the speechwriters really meant.
Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great nations, built armies and arsenals, and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world.
They were called Republicans!
In each case, their ambitions of cruelty and murder had no limit. In each case, the ambitions of Hitlerism, militarism and communism were defeated by the will of free peoples, by the strength of great alliances and by the might of the United States of America.
Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror.
Box-cutters.
And David Weinberg pointed me to Steve Yost‘s QuickReview-enabled posting of the SOTU, where anyone can add a comment to any paragraph of the speech.
Lots of fun, but almost too easy a target.
