R.I.P. Goldy

This morning we had to say goodbye to the coolest, fattest koi in the land. Goldy, we'll miss your entertainingly voracious appetite and the way you hung out at the end of the tank that faced the TV and watched movies with us. Rest in fishy peace, friend. :)

*Gag*

Dear Jordan Catalano,

If you really must insist on looking like a complete tool, at least be original about it. Ripping off the emo/transgender/little old lady/fucking creepy style of the also toolish singer from that AFI band all the kids like these days is doing nothing for you. Seriously. Get some Noxzema and wash that shit off.

Thanks!

It's Banned Books Week!

And in honor of it, I'm going to reread one of my favorite books, To Kill a Mockingbird. It's number 41 on the list of the 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990-2000. (One of my other favorite books, The Outsiders--the book that made me want to be a writer, for those of you who haven't heard that story a billion times--is number 43.)

To Kill a Mockingbird is also on the Radcliffe Publishing Top 100 Novels of the 20th Century list and has a fairly lengthy write-up on ala.org about its challenges in the past (click here for that).

Its challenges, it seems, have been largely based on racial issues, which I find really interesting. The book is, pretty much, about racism--one of its main storylines is about a black man who is on trial for raping a white woman--but I've always thought that it was a great exploration of the many ways in which the "system" screws over non-white people, especially in the south in the early 20th century (the setting of the book).

That some would call this book out because it contains "the N word" without noting its overarching comments on race and justice, seems, well, narrow-sighted to me.

But this makes me think, you know, I've always read it from the viewpoint of the white, middle class, 20th-21st century woman that I was/am. So now I'm going to reread it and try to look at it objectively. Are these people's objections valid? Is it really that offensive? Or are its objectors, as people on the whole are wont to do, making a big deal out of nothing and just completely missing the point?

By the way, the most challenged book(s) of the 21st century so far? The Harry Potter series. Yes I can understand how some people may not like them because they promote witchcraft and whatnot, and that may conflict with some people's religious views, but fer pete's sake I really think that these books have brought many people to reading who might otherwise have never picked up a book. How can that be bad?

Yaaaaaaaaaaaay

Fifteen minutes 'til vacation YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!

More Evidence of People with Too Much Time on Their Hands

Author, NYC Publisher Settle Suit Over Lies In Memoir: "Under a tentative legal settlement, readers who said they were defrauded by [James] Frey's best seller, 'A Million Little Pieces,' can claim refunds, an agreement called unprecedented -- and understandable -- by a leading publishing attorney."

They can do this by claiming consumer fraud--that is, I guess, that Frey did not sell them what he was advertising. A little bait-and-switch, perhaps.

Which makes me think. When I was 15 or 16 (most of the teen years run together in my mind these days), I read Anne Rice's Interview With the Vampire and seriously, it changed my life (remember, 15 or 16--cut me some slack). I have since learned that in all probability, vampires do not exist, and thus cannot be interviewed. I call b.s. on Anne Rice, and I want my money back!

Oh, wait. I borrowed that book from my sister. Crap. There goes my $6.95 (it was a paperback).