Bryce Moore's Blog, page 255

In Which My Daughter Gets Her Ears Peered

As I mentioned a few days ago, one of the things DC wanted for her birthday was to get her ears peered. ("Peered", mind you. Not pierced. Every time I tried to correct her, she corrected me right back. All this time, I guess I've been saying it wrong. Go figure.) I know that ear piercing isn't a universally embraced concept, especially not for little girls.



Me personally? I don't really care. If a girl wants to get her ears peered, let that girl peer those ears! Denisa got hers done when she was about the same age as DC, so this seemed like a pretty easy request to grant. (Apparently in Slovakia, a lot of parents have their daughters get their ears peered when they're still babies, on the theory that "They're crying all the time, anyway." Or something like that.)



Denisa took DC off to the local site of all things high-culture: Walmart. Yes, you read that right. We had our daughter go to Walmart to get her ears peered. But it was cheap. :-) Also, it didn't involve needles and ice cubes, so that's a plus.



DC was all for the idea--until she got to the store, the earrings were paid for, and two Walmart employees had peering equipment in hand, ready to go. In all fairness, I think I'd be having some second thoughts then, too. They were going to do both at the same time, because once you've let someone jab a needle through your ear, you're not likely to let another person do it again just a few seconds later.



There was a lot of hunched shoulders and attempts to back out of the peering process, but in the end, vanity won out over common sense, and DC let them go ahead with the deed. She's very happy she did. She loves showing off her earrings, and is very proud of them.



Great job, DC!

Movie Review: The Cabin in the Woods

The Cabin in the Woods is going to be a tricky movie to review. Mainly because it's a movie that relies heavily on a fairly substantial twist, and a lot of the interest of the movie is generated by figuring out exactly how that twist fits in to place. Since I'm not one to spoil a movie for someone, let me just say that while I'll do my best to avoid outright spoilers, simply discussing the film and reading such a discussion might be enough to spoil it for you. Let me also say it's a very violent, bloody movie, and so that might exclude a whole lot of you right there. This is a cliche horror movie, but it's a very meta cliche horror movie, which is what attracted me to it. I mean, how do you pull of something like that?



Here's the short review, with absolutely no spoilers: I enjoyed the film, though I felt like the overall tone didn't quite work for the ending. Joss Whedon was a co-writer, and that gets some bonus points right there. The basics are simple. 5 teens go for a weekend of fun at a cabin in the woods, with horrific results. Need I say more? 3 out of 4 stars.



Now, here's where I write to people who've already seen the movie. GOT THAT? FULL SPOILERS AHEAD. I'll even page down a bit, to protect the eyes of the innocent.









I'm not kidding.









I'll wreck the movie for you, folks









Still here?









Okay, fine.









My real thoughts of the movie. The twist of it all being a sacrifice is played a little poorly for me. The problem is that it's just too obvious. I get it, and once I get it, I want there to be more to it. I'm very much intrigued by the concept, but it felt to me like it wasn't taken to its full extent. The thing is, I'm not sure I can point to a single thing that made me feel this way. It was more of an overall reaction.



I love the idea that these horror movies are an extension of human nature--the modern day equivalent of human sacrifice. And in many ways, I can see that. I guess I felt like you could do all of that, without taking it quite as far as the movie takes it. I see no need for actual real old gods of wrath. The creepy crawlies in the movie could just as easily have been from technology as from reality.



Maybe that's what feels off. So much of what happens in the movie is technology based. The pheromones. The holograms. And then the climax is all fantasy. The creatures are real. The gods are real. For me, the more interesting movie would be the one where these horror films aren't there to appease the gods. They're there to appease the people. To appease us. You just can't tell me that the old gods weren't satisfied by the carnage of the finale. That doesn't feel right to me. One lousy fool was supposed to die, and since he doesn't, the world ends? Even though something like 200 people just got slaughtered in the same process?



Please.



I would have loved to have seen the movie go even more meta. To have the people controlling the horror movie actually end up being part of the horror movie sacrifice themselves. Because I really enjoyed the parts where we're watching the people watching the people getting killed. That was incredibly inventive. It makes us, the audience, a willing participant of this awful ritual. I think the movie would have worked better if it had played this angle up more.



No need for old gods.



Plus, the end-of-the-world ending doesn't fit with the humorous sub-tone throughout the film. It's like two different movies.



That said, I loved so much of this movie. The way the cliches get used and explained. The concept of someone controlling these horror movies--because someone inevitably is, be it the writer or the director or whatever. "Chad doesn't even have a cousin." Some really great things are there. But the movie tries to be too many things at once, and that duality brings it down from 4 star heights.



But what did YOU think? I'd really like to get some other reads on this one here.

Downton Abbey: The Reckoning (3.6-3.7 Review)

I was a quarter of the way through with this double header of an episode before I realized it was a double header. So I got less sleep than I planned to, but it was worth it. These two episodes were complete power houses, and Denisa and I thoroughly enjoyed them. The show was firing on all cylinders, and it was a prime example of everything I like about Downton, and what makes it such a riveting show to begin with. No cheap plot tricks (well--almost none), and straight up pure drama. Here are my responses--and of course, SPOILER WARNING:




Bates and Anna--My golly. Finally. the two of them can get down to being happy. Or at least to living their lives. I was worried for a bit that the writers would somehow contrive to have some of Bates' prison contacts start popping up around Downton. Thank goodness they didn't. I will say that after all that crummy murder mystery, trial, investigation, it was supremely anti-climactic. The episode starts with Bates getting free? It was like the writers were as fed up with all of it as I was. Thank goodness it's over.
Matthew and Mary--It would be interesting to rewatch the first season. Mary can still be harsh at times, but she's changed as a character, and it's a change I completely buy into. Really like this couple and their interactions. Happy for them they can try to start having children. A little coincidental that they ran into each other at the doctor's, but we'll forgive this little O. Henry speed bump.
Lord Grantham--Wins the award for "Person Who Says 'So You're Against Me, Too' the Most Times." You're a dinosaur, gramps. Get over it. And thankfully, he does just that, setting up what promises to be a continued source of good genuine conflict in season four. Love the Matthew, Tom, Grantham debates. Very nice.
Tom--Speaking of, I really like him as a character now, something I thought would never be possible after Season Two. He's grown into himself, and the loss of Sybil really changed him. I loved the scene with him and Matthew playing Cricket.
Speaking of Cricket, apparently it's what we need here in America to solve all our political problems. If the Republicans and Democrats could just get together for a good old game of cricket, I'm sure it would be all better. Even if none of us have any idea what the heck it is they're doing out there, and why there are things called wickets. That's all good. I was amused by how this cricket game magically became THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN LORD GRANTHAM'S LIFE EVER all of a sudden. But whatever.
And speaking of politicians, Jimmy should be one. The kid is an absolute idiot, or at least that's how he's portrayed. Is anyone but a politician that weak willed? O'Brien might as well have started parading him around like a marionette. This was particularly disappointing, since up to that point, I'd thought Jimmy had been making a good name for himself as a character. Goodwill, goodbye.
Ethel the Aardvark gets reunited with her son--Happy for her. Also happy I don't have to have any more Ethel the Aardvark Burns the Porridge conflicts. And that's enough about that.
Edith--Maybe I've got something against girls with E names on the show. This might be a personal thing. Though I must say I've been liking Edith more and more, now that she's not hellbent on screwing up Mary's life whenever possible. HOWEVER . . . the guy who's falling for her *just happens* to have a crazy wife in the loony bin? Should we just rename him Mr. Rochester and be done with it? Edith is Jane Eyre? Bizarre, people. Biz. Arre. But what do I know. Maybe marrying insane people is a very British thing to do. Princess Di took Prince Charles, after all.
Thomas--Very complex plot, very convoluted. Hard to sum up my thoughts. First--I felt bad for Thomas, which isn't easy to do. I could see the soap schtick from a mile away, and knew that's how they'd get out of it. (Though I personally think the Thomas I know and hate would have gone straight to O'Brien and threatened the spit out of her. What's the point of having an evil villain if he gets all gooey eyed when things don't go his way?) That said, what he did to Jimmy . . . was wrong on so many levels. If they'd already been boyfriend and boyfriend, fine. But switch it around for a moment, and make Jimmy a Jenny. Not right. Didn't like. Watching the responses of everyone to it, however. That was intriguing. And again, I do wonder how historically accurate it was. Very forward thinking of all of them, but I'm not sure that's how it would have played out. Whatever. I love the setup of Bates saving Thomas's job, only to now have Thomas be ranked higher than him. Beautiful, even if the show had to do some acrobatics to get it there.
Rose the Flapper--Interesting side story, and I appreciated it for throwing in a bit of a glimpse of what the social scene is like away from Downton. Also very glad it was handled through Rose, and not, say, through Lord Grantham all of a sudden deciding to join a jazz band, which is what I tend to think would have been the approach in Season Two. She was here, she was gone. Fine.
The same goes through for Branson's drunk brother. He popped up to let Branson shine and make some good choices, then thankfully disappeared just as quickly.
Lady Violet continues to kick butt and take names, granny style. Mrs. Crawford and she are having some great rows, and I love watching them go after each other. I also like how Violet sees the world, and how she can be so consistent--and yet so surprising--so much of the time. Fantastic character.


Which leaves us with just the Christmas episode to finish out the season. Overall, I thought this third season was superb. Maybe not quite as good as Season One, but much much better than Season Two. Now if only they'd start showing them in the US at the same time they do in the UK . . . 

My Daughter Turns 5

[image error]
Hard to believe this little girl is already five. She's been so excited for this birthday, she's been talking about it for months and months, and she couldn't sleep at all last night. I have to say, having a girl has been such a different experience than having a boy. TRC was all about trucks and space ships and explosions. DC? Fashion accessories. For her birthday, she wants her "ears peered." Something she and Denisa are going to go do tomorrow during the day. Not that TRC hasn't made his influence known. DC also wants a bike or a scooter (she's getting a scooter).



Interesting things about my daughter:




She's extraordinarily tall. Like almost 50 inches. Just for kicks, I checked out the growth charts. 50 inches is the average height of an 8 year old. The girl is 5. 99th percentile for her ages is just under 46 inches.
She loves her hair, but hates to have it styled. For a girl as crazy about accessories as she is, you'd figure she'd be all over that kind of stuff. But she can't stand combs or brushes. Too many tangles.
The girl is notoriously slow. Just sayin' it like it is. Denisa's dad would say about Denisa at her age "She has two speeds: slow and stopped." The same goes for DC. Not always, but she's got time to grow into that slowness.
She's a regular dare devil. She loves to be scared, although only after the fact. The actual scaring part is something she could do without.
She likes to pose for pictures. This typically involves doing something with her arms and--preferably--her fingers. I have no idea where she gets this from.
She loves to dance. It's mainly interpretive dance at this point. The more twirls, the better.
She demands EQUALITY in everything we do. If TRC gets to do something, she should get to do it. If parents can do something, why not her?
She regularly plans out all the upcoming holidays and family events, just to keep tabs on them. Very much a party planner.


She's adorable, and we're very proud of her. Happy birthday, DC!!!

Budgeting Time is Much Like Budgeting Money

I had an interesting conversation the other day, where I sort of stumbled across an idea that--while it's probably not original--was original to me. Meaning, I hadn't thought of it before, or heard it espoused. Basically, it boils down to a riff off the old "time is money" schtick.



I don't pretend to make a lot of money. I'm a librarian as my main job, and a newbie author on the side. Denisa works a lot of various other jobs--tutoring, baking, teaching, grading exams--in addition to keeping the house in order, but still, even combined, we don't exactly bring in a seven figure salary. (Or a six figure . . .) But still, we have enough to do the things we want to do.



But the only way we're able to do that is by budgeting pretty severely. I don't mean that we live like the Amish, but . . . we have to make a lot of decisions as to what we really want and what we don't want. I love me some television, but we gave up television years ago now. It was costing $600 a year, and that was about $500 too much for the amount we really got out of it. We very rarely eat out. Very rarely go out, really. A lot of what we do, we do together as a family at home. And that's just fine--we love doing things together, and you don't have to spend a lot of money to have a lot of fun.



But this isn't a post about budgeting money. It's about budgeting time. Because suddenly--all in a flash--it occurred to me that the two things are very similar. You're working with a fixed amount of something. You have to make decisions about where you're going to spend it. And the closer you keep an eye on it, the better chance you have of being able to do everything with it that you want to do.



I find that on the days when I have nothing planned, I generally get much less accomplished. Time slips through my fingers, I blink, and suddenly it's the end of the day, and I'm looking back at what did (or didn't) get done, wondering why in the world it wasn't more. On the days when I have a lot to do, I can be amazed at how much I accomplish.



There's no difference between the amount of time available to me on those two contrasting days. It's the same 24 hours. The difference is that in one, I'm careful about how I spend my time, and in the other, I don't pay any attention to it at all.



I'm a firm believer in the principle of paying attention to the small things, especially when it comes to budgeting. If you find a way to save a little money here and a little money there, it eventually all ads up to a lot of money. The same is true about time. Finding ways to be more efficient about something--even a small thing--can have a big long term impact.



Silly case in point. My eyes still don't like wearing contacts, ever since my fun in Europe. So I've been wearing glasses. Putting in and taking out contacts probably took me all of ten minutes each day, and yet somehow I'm amazed how much faster I can get ready in the morning and before bed. I really do notice that extra five minutes each time. Another example: I recently switched from wearing lace up shoes most of the time to wearing slip on shoes most of the time. And yes, I really do notice a difference in the amount of time it takes me to get ready to go somewhere.



I'm not saying that because of that 15 minutes total saved each day, I'm able to lounge around in a life of luxury, but it's the principle behind it I'm focusing on. Finding ways to do things more quickly. Maybe a better example is Denisa baking bread. Back when she started, it would take her a good ten or fifteen minutes per loaf to get it formed properly and done just right. These days? It's like five minutes, maybe. She's got it down to an art form, and it means it takes her a half hour to do six loaves of bread instead of a couple of hours.



When I want to get things done, I make lists. Very detailed lists. And I then look at the time available to me, prioritize the list, and go to work. When I don't make lists, I don't get things done. It's that simple.



But one last note. I think it's also important to decide when enough is enough. I decide what needs to get done, and as I go about doing it, I also look at the list and start reevaluating what doesn't need to get done, and then just cross those things off the list as I go, too. If I do nothing but work, I feel sorry for myself, overwhelmed, and depressed. Taking some of that time and spending it on myself is just as important as budgeting it in the first place. Not hours and hours, of course--but a little goes a long way.



Anyway. There you have it. My moment of insight for the day. Have a nice weekend, everyone!

Two More Great Vodnik Reviews

It's been a while since I put up some more reviews of my book, Vodnik. Part of that's due to the book receiving fewer as it gets closer to the anniversary of its release. And part of that is due to me just intending to post them, and then forgetting. Well today, I'm going to fix that. :-)


First up is a review over on I Am, Therefore I Write. You can click over for the full review, but here are some snippets:

It's set in Slovakia! There is little to no romance! There is an emphasis on family loyalty (but not TOO much family loyalty)! There are many mysteries that weave in and out of the story only to be RESOLVED at the end! It's a standalone! . . .

Those are a few reasons of why Vodnik stood out as a special book, and of why I loved it. I gave Vodnik five out five stars for being a well-crafted, fleshed out story with loveable characters (even the murderous ones).

 Very nice to see the book so well received by complete strangers. :-)



And on an "Also nice to see the book well received by friends" note, here's what my bud Dan Nosheny had to say over on Amazon.

Unctuous elemental spirits, magical powers, and souls of bygone eras. Mash that together with teen angst, social issues, and as many pop culture references as you can fit in a teacup; well, that gives you an idea of what you have in store with Vodnik.

Bryce Moore has combined traditional Slovakian folklore with some clever new twists of his own and created a vibrant and rich world. The protagonist Tomas has more than his fair share of problems to deal with, of which the scar on his arm is just the beginning. There's his uprooting from the United States to a new life in Slovakia, culture-shock, bigotry and racial violence, and deep family secrets. Then he has to deal with a supernatural spirit trying to take his soul, a complicated potion recipe, and making deals with Death, ahem, herself. Heavy stuff.

Fortunately, Moore is able to deliver with a modicum of humor in the form of references to the best pop-culture from western culture. It's not all exotic and foreign here; fans of Star Wars and The Princess Bride will feel right at home.

Great pacing, intriguing mystery, and more than a few out-loud laughs. If this is what I can expect from Bryce Moore's writing, I can't wait for the next one.

Thanks, Dan! And you--yes you!--if you haven't taken the time to share with the world your love of Vodnik, nothing says "Have a great Valentine's Day, Bryce," like posting a review to Amazon, Goodreads, or anywhere else you get your reading. (This also works as an excellent "Happy Late Groundhog Day, Bryce" present. Just sayin'.)

On the New Monopoly Token

It's comforting to see that in this day and age, with so many important things happening in the world, the news organizations can take the time to report on a company's ad campaign with such in-depth coverage. Thanks, news people. Now I know that the iron finally got the boot, allowing the cat to finally have a dog in the fight.



I'm looking forward to more cutting edge reporting in the future. Maybe we can finally get to the bottom of who really killed Mr. Body. I've heard so many different theories over the years. Colonel Mustard. Miss Scarlet. Billiard Rooms. Guns. Lead pipes. Wrenches. (Wrenches?) Or maybe we could have someone figure out what Professor Plum's real name is, and why he's so big on purple?



Better yet, someone ought to finally expose King Kandy for the despot he is. Look at him. Standing there like he owns the whole world.



Somebody's got to take him down a rung or two. Him and Queen Frostine. What evidence do we really have that Lord Licorice is evil, after all? And what about poor Gloppy the Molasses Monster's feeling. Monster? Maybe he's just misunderstood. Maybe Gramma Nut's been running a smear campaign on the poor guy.



And that's not all. Why do they call it "Sorry" when no one really is? Why do Q and Z get all the points in Scrabble, leaving the poor vowels out in the cold? Why does sinking your opponent's battleship not end the lousy game? Why do the lower numbers in Stratego beat the higher numbers? Who said it was okay to operate on every single bone in that poor guy's body at once in Operation? And when will those poor poor hippos finally be free from their never-ending struggle for food?



Maybe I'm jumping the gun. Maybe more crack investigative reporting is on the way. And once board games are covered, we can move on to weightier matters. Like why the Hamburglar has never been caught.



In other news, I have nothing noteworthy to post about today. You may now resume with your normally scheduled activities.

Downton Abbey 3.5 Reactions

As always, there be SPOILERS in this post, so don't read if you haven't seen the latest Downton.



The season continues to make me so much happier than season two did. Not in an "I'm actually happy and all these episodes are so darn cheery" sort of a way, but more of a "Yay! The episode conflicts arise from actual character developments as opposed to random problem-of-the-week silliness." So bravo for that. Here's a run down of my thoughts of the various plot lines so far:




The Times They are a'Changin--Loving the push toward new thoughts and new societal norms. The maids wanting to dance. Lord Grantham wanting to continue to control everything and insist he's right all the time, while Matthew pushes for changes to the way things are run. Carson having a heart attack anytime anyone does anything slightly different. Some very nice conflicts here. Especially enjoy seeing the women begin to exert their own will and start making some stands.
Ethel the Failed Cook--Still enjoying this line. I think it really showcases the changing views of society on a person's past. Love that Carson is so strict in his disapproval of the woman--in an "I don't have to deal with her directly, so I can just keep this firmly planted in abstract thought" sort of way. 
Daisy--Denisa made a very good prediction yesterday. She suggested that all this talk of Daisy becoming an heiress might make some of the footmen begin to notice her more for her potential money than for her earnest simplemindedness. That might be intriguing. As it is, I like her conflict--and like her more now that she's not in full on She-Harpy mode every second she's on screen. The love hexagon the downstairs people have going on right now is quite a bit of fun to watch.
Thomas--Not entirely comfortable with the direction this is heading, but it makes sense that it would go that way. O'Brien is still evil evil evil, but in her own spiteful way. Prediction? Bates comes back, so Thomas tries to get his job back. Carson moves to bump Jimmy, but Jimmy plays the homosexual card, and Thomas loses his job, and we're all happy he lost his job, but appalled at the way he lost it. I don't like Thomas. He's a weasel. His sexual orientation doesn't enter into it. (Though it might have been nice if they made the token gay character an actual nice person, as opposed to an awful sack of yuck.)
Anna and Bates--For. The. Love. Please make this plot end already. Or else introduce a young CGI Clint Eastwood to help Bates to plan a masterful escape from Generic Prison. This is a plot that arrived worn and has only gotten shabbier since then. And then they spoil the whole resolution by showing Bates' return to Downton in the tease for the next episode? Somebody ought to shiv whoever came up with this.
Catholic vs. Anglican--Some interesting conversation there. At times I watch the show and wonder just how much of it is true to the historical time period. I think I might take the series on face value a little too easily now and then. Just sayin'. (And to answer that question somewhat, read this fine article.)
Fall Out from Sybil's Death--Very sad and depressing, but I do enjoy the conflicts that have come about because of it--particularly Branson vs Lord Grantham over the fate of the baby. Poor thing. And I actually feel bad for Branson, something I thought I never would. So there's that.


Really, it's almost great all around. My biggest recommendation would be for PBS to air Season 4 at the same time the Brits get it. Then again, I suppose a lot of Europe has to deal with old episodes of their favorite shows all the time, so turnabout it fair play. But in this day and age of the internet, sticking to old media-style approaches to television seems idiotic.




They could make a Downton episode about that . . . 

Bryce Reviews the Superbowl Commercials

Heading into this game, I didn't really have a favorite team. I leaned toward the Niners a bit, simply out of old loyalty to Steve Young, but the Ravens have former BYU player Dennis Pitta on the team, so I wanted to see him do well, too. (I don't follow pro football too much. I'm an Eagles fan when I do follow it. Neither of those teams are the Eagles.) All I really wanted was a good game. Thankfully, one power outage later, I got a good game.



Halftime? Meh. Beyonce really should have just given up on singing, gotten a pole, and turned the routine into the pole dance she clearly wanted it to be. She definitely wasn't lip syncing. You could barely hear her half the time.



The commercials, though. That's where we all know the real action is. Some are going to soar. Some are going to flop. But we shall be ENTERTAINED. And I was, some of the time. I felt like there were some that really stunk, and a bunch that were just so so. A few stood out to me. And because I have a blog, and I feel like it, here are my thoughts on the ads of the superbowl this year.



There were too many for me to review all of them. These are the ones that I had the strongest reactions to.







What kind of woman dates a piece of chocolate. I mean, really? A giant, talking chocolate morsel? We're supposed to look at these bits of chocolate like thinking autonomous beings now? I get the joke, people. It's just not that funny. And it's kind of creepy. Me no likey.



[I'm not putting a clip of GoDaddy's ad here. I'm not even linking to it. I wish I'd never seen it, and friends don't do that to friends. It's a model making out with a fat computer nerd. Close up. You don't want to watch it.]



GoDaddy? Um. That's just plain disgusting. This falls into the category of "Ads so bad I actively don't want to use your product--assuming I was using it to begin with." Which is pretty much where GoDaddy has been every year with its ads, so I guess this is par for the course. But this one was particularly nauseating.



I'm also not linking to Calvin Klein's underwear ad. That was far more of a muscley man than I wanted to see. I guess . . . yay for objectifying men to the same extent women are usually objectified? Sorry. I'm just not buying it.







I really enjoyed this ad, though I wish it hadn't been an ad. Once the Ram logo appeared on the screen at the end, I felt like it cheapened it. Paul Harvey didn't make that monologue to sell Ram trucks, I don't think. Sort of felt like using Martin Luther King Jr's I Have a Dream speech to shill McDonald's.







This one was funny. Screaming goats? I laughed. Doritos actually had quite a lot of funny this evening. The guys dressing up for the princess party was pretty hilarious, too. Here it is:











What sort of a librarian would I be to not mention the Oreo library whisper fight commercial? Part of me liked it. The huge fight where everyone's whispering in the library. I get it. Funny. Part of me didn't like it, because I felt like it showed a misunderstanding of the modern library. Libraries are about so much more than whispering these days. But then again, I'm a librarian, and probably too sensitive.







This one was just plain awesome. The kid wrestling the bear? Pure genius. I loved it.







This one was awful from beginning to end, and this is coming from a movie nut. Yes, I got all the movie references. No, they weren't funny. And what in the world would possess me to care enough to actually go online and vote about any of this? And why in the world would it make me want to buy a Coke. Dumb.







Really? We're down to PSY promoting pistachios? What idiot came up with this? Can't blame PSY for milking his one hit for all it's worth, but some ad team should get the can for this garbage. Moronic.



Aside from those . . . the others were a mixed bag. The beer commercials let me down for the most part. You had the stupid ones that were too serious, and then the requisite heartstring-tugging Clydesdale commercial. And then there were the random car ads. Wish-granting car genie? Rastafarian white man? (Which they apparently ran through a test group of Jamaicans to assure themselves they weren't being racist. Um . . . guys? When you need a test group to prove something isn't racist . . . maybe you should just come up with a better ad.)



Overall, I had a very good Superbowl. The game was good, there were some good ads, and I ate far too much food. And that's what the Superbowl's all about, right?



What did you think?

Heading to ALA--Come Say Hi!

It's official. I'm heading back to Chicago at the end of June for another five days of fun and excitement at the American Library Association conference. More than 25,000 librarians will descend on the city like a plague of . . . book reading locusts? Not sure on that one. It's going to be massively huge, and I'm very much looking forward to it.



Of course, I'll be there as a librarian, not an author. The last time I went to ALA, it was as an aspiring librarian. I was just finished with my Masters of Library Science, and I headed to the big conference in an attempt to find jobs. (Despite all the big talk about how many librarian jobs there are out there, I found the reality to be far from the case.) I did score quite a few interviews, and the trip netted me 2 solid offers and a few more pretty good prospects, but it was a very stressful experience. (When you don't have a job, and can't find a job you want . . . I'd rather not live through that again, thanks very much.)



This time, I hope for it to be less stressful. I'm planning on going to a slew of panels (something I missed out on last time) and find out all the latest and greatest trends in library world--particularly the technology side of things. And if a few Advanced Reading Copies of books manage to stumble their way into my swag bag, that's a price I'm willing to pay.



ALA isn't just for librarians, of course. Any time you have that many people interested in books in one place (and that much potential buying power), you get a whole flock of camp followers. There'll be authors, agents, book bloggers--you name it.



I'm not typically a fan of big huge crowds, but I really wanted to give ALA another shot, mainly because the last time I did it, I couldn't enjoy it. I hope to change that this time.



Anyway--if you're going to be in the area from June 27th to July 2, drop me a line. I'd love to say hi and catch up on old times.