Ratings scale

I've already written about my standards for reviewing, but I realized my ratings scale of one to five stars makes absolutely no sense without some idea of why I rate things the way I do. And so, what I'm looking for when I mark books the rating I do:

Five Stars—I want everyone I know to read this book so we can talk about how awesome it is. Reading this book changed my life. I thought about it when I wasn't reading it, and I see myself reading it again.

Four Stars—I greatly enjoyed it, and would recommend it to people who like that kind of thing. There were minor flaws and a few things I didn't like, but they didn't detract from my overall enjoyment.

Three Stars—I liked it, but I'm not going to be singing its praises from the rooftops. I can understand why people who do love it feel the way they do, but it's not for me. There were a number of faults, but not enough that I wouldn't recommend it.

Two Stars—I didn't like this book. I could barely get through it. I'm sorry I didn't listen to my gut, and discard this after the 100 pages I give a book to convince me I should finish it. There were more flaws than good points.

One Star—I couldn't finish it, or I'm sorry I did.. The themes were noxious, the characters unlikable, and I don't understand what people find appealing about it. I cannot strongly warn you enough not to read this book.

Review: Girl with the Silver Eyes

Girl with the Silver Eyes by Willo Davis Roberts

My rating: 4 of 5 stars



I read this book when I was younger, and I remember liking it very much, but I couldn't remember why.

Katie Welker is an unusual girl. She creeps people out, because of her flat expression and silver-colored eyes. That's even before they know that she can move small objects with her mind, call up breezes that can slam doors and scatter papers, and she can communicate with animals. When her grandmother, who's been taking care of her most of her life, passes away unexpectedly, she goes to live with her mother. Soon after, a man shows up asking odd questions about her, and she finds out she's not alone in what makes her different from so many others.

It's like the book was written for a young me. Young Katie is never happier than when she's curled up reading an excellent book. Her classmates don't like her and make fun of her, but she has ways of deterring bullies, though the bullies don't entirely realize what she can do. And her happy ending is finding other kids just like her.

But this could just as easily be an allegory for autism. While kids on the spectrum don't move things with their mind, they do tend to be shunned by their peers and have a sense of not fitting in, and there's been a debate, as at the end of this book, about whether they're better off sheltered from the general population or integrated into society. (We're moving more toward a model of integration, which is why I'm glad the book didn't end up with Katie and her newfound friends being shuttled off to an institution. The ending leaves it open to interpretation.)

Overall, while the writing style doesn't hold up to what I remembered, I did enjoy refreshing my memory about this book. The story held up well, and it told me a lot about my younger self, who loved this book to pieces.



View all my reviews

Progress post: Book 2, draft 3 (SWANoWriMo edition)

Image obtained from a Public Domain site

I started out the month with about 38800 words on "Reincarnation," which is the tentative title for the second book in my trilogy. I'd set it on the back burner while I did edits, because there are only so many hours in the day, but I spent a little time pecking at it to get back into the groove of writing in time for SWANoWriMo.

When I finished up my writing for the night last night, I had 42829. I haven't done any writing yet today, but 4000 words is a good start on a month where I'm hoping to make it to 50,000. I don't think a full NaNo-count is realistic, but we shall see. When I have momentum, I can really churn out a word count.

And, initially, I did have quite a bit of momentum. My conflict was coming together, my characters were motivated to find out what was going on, and the tension was perfect. I was patting myself on the back for getting over that initial stumbling-block I'm always dealing with when the execution doesn't match the awesome ideas I've been churning over.

But then I had to scrap about half a (single-spaced) page, and the momentum fizzled. I realized I was revealing too much, too soon, and that these characters would step more carefully. I liked the scene that resulted from taking out all of those words and being more mindful of the characters' motivations, but it slowed me down.

I'm almost done with a really long manuscript I'd been editing, so I'm hoping that, when I finish that monster, I'll have more focus to spend on my own novel. We shall see. I may have been able to do a double-NaNo the last time I participated, but I had a lot less going on that month.

Not that having things going on is bad. I have so much to look forward to, and I'm so excited about my February 28 post!

The not-writing jar

Before I explain the not-writing jar, as I promised I would in last night's post, I have some administrative details to get out of the way.

First: to the individuals googling whether "let it be" is bad grammar or not, and who stumbled across my blog without getting an answer, it's perfectly correct, and I don't know why it wouldn't be. It's only incorrect if you use "it" to denote a "her," "him," or "them."

Second: I'm looking forward to my post on Tuesday, February 28th, and I'm not telling you why. You'll just have to wait and find out. I think you'll like it.

Third: if you've been thinking about reading Mira Grant's Feed, this is a good month to do it, because then you can join the readalong. I know I already posted about it, but I wanted to make sure you know that you're welcome to join in, whether you have your own blog or not.

Onto the tale of the not-writing jar.

It was my husband's inspiration. He brought it to the first SWAG write-in (SWAG being our writing group). If people needed an incentive to be writing rather than browsing the free wifi or chatting with all the other writers, the not-writing jar was there to ask for pocket change if you strayed. It's on the honor system; only you know if you're writing when you're supposed to be, or if you've failed. It's there as a way of reminding us that, while write-ins are a good way of making writing a social activity, we're still there to be productive.

And, up until last night's write-in, it was not mandatory. For this month, it is, because we're all trying to succeed at our SWANoWriMo goals.

I can't speak for the rest of the giggly crew, but it helped me. I may have taken some time to type up last night's blog post, and I lost my focus a few times, but I still added over 2300 words to my novel during the write-in. The jar took in $16.83 from six writers, and I personally contributed $3.00.

We don't have the money earmarked for anything, but I'm sure we can figure out something fun.

SWANoWriMo

Back during NaNoWriMo, a lot of the members of the writing group bemoaned that it took place in November. Most of us had family visiting, dinners to cook, shopping to start, and houses to scrub down. The timing was just awful, and those of us who participated dropped out fairly quickly.

We bounced that around the writing group, and found that we all had the same thought: that it took place during the wrong month. Now, granted, if you wait to have time, you'll never write. But we are nothing if not a flexible and practical group.

The always-clever Catt suggested that we instead hold it in February. We poked at the idea, looking for weak points, and realized that a cold, dreary winter month in upstate NY had lots of room for staying under a blanket and tapping away at a computer keyboard. We're adapting it to our own uses, of course; my goal is simply to write for at least 15 minutes a day and during at least 2 hours of any write-in I attend. What I would really like to do is use this month to finish this draft of my novel.

SWANoWriMo, by the way, stands for SWAG Novel Writing Month. SWAG is the acronym for our writing group, the Social Writing Assistance Group.

The group has already made me pay into the not-writing jar for writing up a blog post instead of writing, so I'll sign off here. I'll tell you all about the purpose of the not-writing jar some other time.

Review: Daily Life in Medieval Europe

Daily Life in Medieval Europe by Jeffrey L. Singman

My rating: 4 of 5 stars



It turns out that I'd already read this a few years ago. The reread did a lot to refresh my memory, though, so it was a wise move.

The Daily Life in History series was once recommended as a resource for getting into the texture and details of a time period in order to write about it. These books focus on what life looked like to the people living it, rather than famous people or events or architecture. Those details certainly appear, but as context for the rest of daily life rather than the focus of the book.

As a cover-to-cover read, this book is rather dry. Some of the details are interesting enough, but it's better formatted as a reference book to find details as one needs them. Of course, for mining story ideas or inspiration, one might read chapters at a time, but it's best kept on hand and notes taken from.

There are a lot of fascinating details within the text. There's an appendix of medieval recipes, and another of games people played during the time period in question. The book contains floor plans of several styles of residence and a lot of illustrations of costumes and people. There are also dozens of resources listed to dig deeper into particular details.

This book is incredibly useful for anyone who wants to write a story set between the years 1100 and 1300, or for someone who wants to write a fantasy setting based on the time period. It's not the best read as a narrative, but, as a reference to consult as needed, it's excellent.



View all my reviews

January 2012 recap

I mentioned that I might do a recap post, and no one howled in protest, so here it is. January 2012, in review:

Book reviews
Road Rage by Richard Matheson, Stephen King, and Joe Hill (3/5 stars, read on audio) — thriller/horror; two novellas about terror on the highway
The Stepsister Scheme by Jim Hines (4/5 stars) — fantasy; another take on fairy tales that has the heroines heading out to rescue the prince
Discord's Apple by Carrie Vaughn (4/5 stars, read on audio) — urban fantasy; a young woman inherits a legacy of protecting objects of lore
Fluke: Or, I Know Why the Winged Whale Sings by Christopher Moore (4/5 stars, read on audio) — humor/urban fantasy/weird; a whale researcher gets in way over his head, but gets his answer
Grave Surprise by Charlaine Harris (Harper Connelly #2)(3/5 stars, read on audio) — horror/mystery; a woman with the ability to locate the dead finds a grave with two bodies buried in it
11/22/63 by Stephen King (5/5 stars, read as part of a readalong) — time travel thriller; a man finds a portal to 1958, and goes through to prevent the assassination of JFK
Sunglasses After Dark by Nancy A. Collins (4/5 stars) — horror/urban fantasy; invokes the root of vampires-as-monster, while establishing the whole vampire hunter genre so prevalent today
Dexter by Design by Jeff Lindsay (Dexter #4)(4/5 stars, read on audio) — horror/mystery/thriller; serial killer killer Dexter is nearly unmasked
Plum Lovin' by Janet Evanovich (3/5 stars, read on audio) — humor/mystery; Stephanie Plum plays matchmaker
Also, because people keep reading these reviews:
Life Before Man by Margaret Atwood (3/5 stars, read on audio) — literary fiction; two women and a husband deal with the aftermath of the wife's lover's suicide
Alcatraz Versus the Scrivener's Bones by Brandon Sanderson (Alcatraz #2)(4/5 stars) — YA/urban fantasy/humor/weird; Alcatraz goes to the Library of Alexandria hunting a clue about his father

Most popular posts in January
Readalong post #1, covering parts 1 - 3 of 11/22/63 by Stephen King
Antici-, where I build suspense for my stories about taking authors to dinner by talking about building suspense. Raise your hand if you figured that out before I told you.
Libraries, about the closest I can get to Heaven without dying
Responding to reviews, about the Writer's Big Mistake and the steps I vow to take if and when it becomes relevant to me
Rules to review by, about the standards I hold my book reviews to
Dinner with a fantasy writing icon, about the time I nearly giggle-shrieked aloud in a very crowded place
Writing by the seat of your pants, being one of my oldest posts, still gets a decent rate of hits. Apparently people still want to know what the heck a pantster is.
Bad grammar makes me [sic], about how one grows up to be a member of the grammar police

Coming next month: a readalong of Feed by Mira Grant (I've already read it, and will be sharing my second-time-around observations), SWANoWriMo, more book reviews, and a post about repetition, foreshadowing, or repetition.

Vanity Presses, or throwing your money and words down a hole

Yog's Law (as coined by James D. Macdonald): "Money should flow toward the author."

I hope everyone reading this has heard, and understands, the above quote. When an author signs a contract, that author doesn't pay the agent, publisher, editors, or publicist. Instead, that author should expect to be paid for the intellectual copyright, for the time and energy it took the words to get onto the page.

No, publishing isn't the most lucrative of operations, especially for writers just starting out (with a few notable exceptions). But there will be income. There may be an advance (though I understand those are falling by the wayside these days). There will be royalties, once the advance is paid out. There will be royalties from sales of the back catalogue, which a lot of writers experience a surge of with each subsequent book.

If the money is flowing in the opposite direction, you're dealing with what is politely called a vanity press. Less politely, they're a scam.

I'll take a moment to separate out vanity press and self-publishing. There's a difference, and an important one. The vanity press will sound like a legitimate publisher. They'll make it sound like paying them to publish your book is the way the business works, and that those evil gatekeepers at the traditional publishers won't touch your book until after you have some publishing credits under your belt. They prey on a would-be author's vanity. Hence, the name.

Self-publishers, on the other hand, are honest and up-front about their intentions. They serve an important function. Without self-publishers, a lot of local- or limited-interest books wouldn't be put together in a nice hardcover (or paperback) package with editing and legal graphics and the like. A lot of ebooks you see flooding the market these days are self-published under these honest and open guidelines, making it perfectly clear the writer is in charge of marketing and distribution, and the writer is pleased simply to have the book out there for people to read. Those who achieve success without going straight to a traditional publisher don't go through a vanity press, first.

I honestly don't think this information can be too readily available. If vanity presses didn't make any money, they wouldn't be in business. And they make money the same way as any other scam: people fall for it. All of those who know better have an obligation, then, to shield those who don't know enough about the publishing industry to avoid vanity presses. Otherwise, a Google search for a publisher will have them stumbling across one of the vanity presses, and it'll all sound so reasonable. A few dollars there, a small fee for editing there, and they're in bookstores? Where do they sign up?

Vanity presses deliberately make it sound like they're the best avenue for success, when they're the exact opposite. A writer listing a publication under a vanity press will be regarded as naive, at best. In one case of spectacular author fail (I alluded to it in this post), the vanity press's promises led to the author feeling a sense of entitlement where her dreck was concerned, and she lashed out at anyone who dared question her right to hear only wonderful things about her terrible book.

If you're a writer just starting out and you don't know anything about publishing yet, beware the vanity presses. Beware anyone asking for money up-front, and promising more than they can deliver. Beware anything that sounds too good to be true. As my husband writes, writing is hard. Anything that shortcuts that process he discusses in his post should be regarded warily.

And if none of this is news to you, please, find a newbie writer to warn away from these leeches.

Finding time to write

I've already written about making the most of your writing time, but I haven't posted so much on where you find that time to begin with. At most of the writing workshops and conferences and panels I've been to, about half the time, someone asks, "But where do you find time to write?" What follows is a long list of obligations that take up their time, then, a helpless shrug.

You don't find time to write. There isn't a bank of free time out there that, if you chant, "I'm going to be a real writer" while you're staring at a blank page in your word processing program, magically opens. Writers have the same 24 hours in their day as you or I. The difference is how they choose to spend it.

I don't know about you, but when I think I'll have time to write, I'm in trouble. I might take some days off with the intention of spending those 8 hours I'd normally be working instead working on my writing. Instead of that, though, I clean, I run errands, I spend time with friends, and I catch up on sleep. Planning to cram all my writing into my weekend is an exercise in distraction. When I'm at my most productive, I'm cramming a few minutes of writing in before I go to bed, even though I should've been in bed an hour ago.

It's frustrating, I know. You want to have an uninterrupted spate of time to get it all down, to get to the good part, to not be distracted. If you want that time, though, you'll have to take it from other things you're spending your allotted 24 hours on.

If you want to go about it in an organized way, use a day planner to track what you're doing every hour, or 15 minutes, or however often you can track without making yourself crazy. At the end of the week, divide out your time by what you spent it on. I picked this up by reading a business column based on this book, which I haven't read. But I did absorb the idea that I'm wasting more time than I realize, and that I was stealing this time from myself. Every minute I spend picking at my split ends is one less minute I have to write, which can add up to a lot of minutes by the end of the week. Every minute I spend with commercials screaming at me is another minute I could be editing or typing. Every minute I spend going back to twitter to check if someone's @-replied me is another wasted opportunity.

That isn't to say I never waste my time anymore, and I'm definitely not saying you should never go online (because then you couldn't read my blog), but I am saying to be aware of it. Maybe you need to set a timer to limit yourself to surfing and checking twitter, like some people in my writing group advocate. Maybe you need to actively block the internet for an hour or two to get rid of the temptation.

Or, maybe you need to cut other activities out of your life to find the time. Being active and involved is important, and exercise is usually good for letting ideas churn around in your head. But if something takes you a half an hour to drive to and from, and then an hour or two of meeting time, that's time you could be writing. Sure, it's fun and enriching, but is it more important than getting to work on that story idea you're finally ready to put down on paper?

I can't answer that question for you. Maybe something is more important. But, if you've looked at your time expenditures, and you've poked at your activities, and found nothing that can be sacrificed so you'll have the time to write, it's time to stop kidding yourself. If writing is the least important thing to you, why do you want to do it at all?

Review: Plum Lovin'

Plum Lovin' by Janet Evanovich

My rating: 3 of 5 stars



I listened to this on audio. It was meant to be a fluffy palate-cleansing sort of read, and it most certainly accomplished that. I wouldn't say it accomplished anything more.

The story was much shorter and less complicated than the numbered volumes. In this, Diesel returns to inform Stephanie that she has to take over for matchmaker Annie Hart, who Stephanie has been trying to track down with no luck. Along the way, she meets skeezy pawn brokers, aged mob bosses, and the usual cast of nutty characters, who lose some of their charm for being crammed into this light piece.

I noted in a review of one of the earlier books that I thought Stephanie's strength was in her willingness to help out and fix the situations that got people bonded out in the first place. I'd been growing impatient with how this is often used as a liability in more recent books. I was glad to see that it became an asset in this book, and that she got to really shine. None of her matchmaking quests went as she expected (though I saw the pairing-off as cliche and inevitable from the start), but they all ended well.

Unfortunately, a lot of the things that irritate me about the Stephanie Plum books were in this, as well. There was the parade of weirdos marching through Stephanie's life for no purpose except comic relief, there was the sexy guy inexplicably attracted to Stephanie and hitting on her relentlessly, and there were a lot of incidents where logic took a back seat. There's a wedding by a justice of the peace in this book, and, though the justice witnesses the guy's being threatened with being zapped by a stun gun and the guy never says, "I do," apparently the wedding is legal. I guess it wouldn't have been as funny if he had, or something. And I could've done without Lula's weight having a number attached. Her characterization is insulting enough without the knowledge her BMI is lower than mine.

I'm just going to pretend that Stephanie had an allergic reaction, overdosed on Benadryl, and dreamed this whole book to explain all the weird changes she found when she woke up. It's less weird for me that way.



View all my reviews

Readalong: 11/22/63 Parts 4 - 6

Everything below the jump is going to contain spoilers. If you haven't already read the book and you don't want to know how it ends, please don't click to read further. (Spoilers begin after the fourth paragraph, if you clicked to get to this post directly.)

What a ride! Stephen King knows his stuff. He knows how to string along a reader so that we keep coming back for more. He knows how to write a time travel tale (rather difficult to pull off, most writers acknowledge) in his own, fresh way, while being respectful to those who've come before. (He sprinkles a few suggested titles into the narrative.) He knows how to give us hints about what's going on and what'll happen, while still surprising us at the end. I know he has writing chops, but he still surprised me with what an enjoyable book this was.

Without the readalong, this would have been a different experience. There's something to be said for reading, discussing, and enjoying a book together. Others in the group noticed details I'd skipped over or deemed not important enough to pay attention to, and that awareness increased my enjoyment. Matt made me wonder, as I read, what 11/22/63 looks like to someone who hasn't read much Stephen King. Britt brought my focus on the Yellow Card Man, which pays off significantly before the book is done, and not in the way I thought. Grace talked about the style, how the book is essentially addressed to the reader. Rachelkiwi questioned the logic of going back in time to save things, especially when changes wreaked early on ended poorly.  Jennifer's post brought to my attention how much King kept upping the stakes, which is both necessary and difficult in a first-person narrative.

Stopping to think about a book before plunging on also made me notice a lot of the literary aspects. There's foreshadowing galore, and this is a well-constructed tale. With one exception, the things I wondered in my write-up of Parts 1 - 3 were answered.

Your writing soundtrack

Listening to music isn't directly related to writing. Authors have produced classics in relative silence since the advent of the novel. Some authors in the '70s and '80s admitted that they listened to the radio while they wrote, but that was nothing on the distractions of the modern age. Most computers have a built-in CD player, and anyone can import music into the computer to carry around their entire music library, accessible at a click. There are also music services like Pandora and Spotify where you can listen to just about any songs online (and I've discovered a ton of new music through both). Go to any coffee shop, and you'll see most people plugged in with earphones, some of them bopping their heads to the beat while they type away.

I'm listening to music right now, in fact, and I don't get far in my writing without music playing in the background. TV, conversations, and unexpected noise are a distraction. Music is part of the writing process for me.

Not the editing process, though. I find I'm more willing to read over awkward phrasing or typos with music playing, even when the volume is low. Music's rhythm encourages me to keep moving, so it's not conducive to pausing at something I need to fix.

I'm not the only one who writes with music. At write-ins, everyone else in the writing group pops in headphones as soon as we're getting down to it, and any interruption involves taking one out to hear what someone is saying. It's to keep us focused, to show others that we're busy and not up for conversation, and to keep up the momentum.

I've heard some published authors talk about the music they listen to while they write. One clever YA author made an index of of the songs she listened to while she was writing the book, which helped me connect with the words on a whole different level.

It seems that writers approach this as different as any other technique or tip, though. They adapt it to their own needs. I can't listen to anything slow or droning when I'm writing, or I start writing maudlin treatises on why the characters' lives suck. So I have a playlist I call "Motivation" of peppy, upbeat, high-energy songs. I also listen closely to the lyrics when I'm not writing, to see if a character whose head I'm having difficulty getting into might relate to the song. If I find that to be true, I'll play that song or the group who played it until I've figured out the character's motivation.

Others in the writing group separate out their music into moods, or types of scenes, and play the music for inspiration. That doesn't work for me, but to each one's own.

Recently, Lifehacker posted an article about using timed playlists to increase one's productivity. (Giving credit where it's due, my husband Josh was the one who linked it to the writing group's email list.) I could quickly be mired in the time-consuming process of crafting well-balanced playlists, so I'm giving that a pass.

Other writers choose not to listen to music at all because it distracts them, or choose to only listen to certain genres, or to listen to one song on repeat until they've finished a particular scene.

Like a lot of writing techniques, there is no absolute right or wrong way to use music. It's what works for you. The only advice I'll give you is to be aware of the effect music has on your writing. See if it distracts you, or if you produce more words when you're listening to a particular type. Even if you don't particularly like an artist or a genre, you might find that listening to it in the background so that you can barely hear it keeps the distractible part of your brain from acting out. It's worth a try, isn't it?

Review: Dexter by Design

Dexter by Design by Jeff Lindsay

My rating: 4 of 5 stars



This is the fourth installment in the Dexter series, and I'm glad to see it's back in its stride. While the supernatural elements that bothered me so much about the last one aren't entirely gone, they're pushed back into the realm of subtlety, leaving more room for the story and our charming-but-murderous narrator.

In this one, the mystery begins with bizarre tableaux of dead Miami tourists, and things are ramped up when Dexter's sister, Deborah, is stabbed. She's hospitalized and in a coma. Dexter's sense of helplessness about whether she'll live leads him to make several sloppy mistakes that put him into the sights of a madman who wants to show the world what Dexter is. With Deb out of commission, he has to rely on some unusual allies to stop the killer.

This book has a lot of the elements I liked about the other books. Dexter's trademark dark humor is put to good use, with several one-liners that made me laugh. One has to have a certain sense of humor to find him funny, but it does help that the narrator (I listened to this on audio, as I did the others) knows Dexter well by now, and is able to deliver these darkly funny lines with a good sense of comic timing.

Though a lot of the plot relies on Dexter making several sloppy, amateur mistakes, the book makes it easy to understand why he does without Dexter ever admitting as much. He makes multiple claims that he's without emotion, but it's clear he's unaware that he's lying. It takes some skill to use an unreliable narrator and still get the message across clearly, but Jeff Lindsay has a good handle on irony.

The book makes good use of side characters, too. I never felt like they were getting a walk-on role to make sure they came up, unlike some series I'm also reading. Every character who appears has an important role to play, beyond mere comic relief.

I will definitely be reading the fifth book, and, one of these days, I really need to make time to watch the series.



View all my reviews

Libraries

I just got back from picking up a book I requested from the library, so I thought I'd use today to discuss the institution of the public library.

Where I live now, the library isn't much to look at. It's a one-story building, and the library takes up the same space as your average store in a mall. It's organized well with good lighting, but there's a clear space crunch. They simply don't have the room for rows upon rows of every genre.

What they do have, though, is access to the Upper Hudson Library System, which is extensive and well-stocked. I can request a book through any member library, and it will be delivered to my local library, usually within a week. That's why, if you browse my book reviews, you'll find a number of them on audio. I couldn't possibly afford to buy that many audio books, but the library has a ton. If it's available on audio, chances are good the library has it. They even have recorded audio performances of Shakespeare's plays, which I will have to go through if I start running low on modern works.

Libraries are useful for so much more than just taking books out, though they are very useful for that, as well. Most bibliophiles I know (and anyone who loves books has a good chance I'll glom onto them) can't walk into a library without finding a stack to take home. Books are irresistible, and books you can take home for free have a way of grabbing hold of the imagination and folding time in one's head. This is why I request books; I can't find more if I stick by the desk where they put the requests and keep from wandering. My to-read pile is plenty high already.

Libraries are also where people used to start their research before the internet took over. The library was where you'd look for tidbits of writing advice, where you'd check to find out in what year the Walkman became  ubiquitous, or where you'd look up the capital of Estonia (Tallinn, which I didn't have to look up, because I've been there).

I've heard recent remarks that libraries are obsolete, that no one uses them in the digital age, that people don't need outmoded ways of looking things up now that we have the internet. When I'm being nice, I call such people naive.

Librarians are still the best friend to have if you want to know something. They don't know it all, but they do have access to most modern opinions and a lot of classical ones on almost any subject. They have information that's been peer-reviewed, substantiated, argued, and tested. They have multiple sources you can trust. They have magazines where all the latest research is published, or where the newest ideas are tried out. And most librarians know how to integrate all the shiny new tech with older ways of finding information to give you the best possible range of data. They're also a human element to point you in the right direction when a Google search might latch onto a keyword and get distracted.

And libraries are constantly updating their technology, albeit more slowly than in the private sector, because they're grossly underfunded. In my library system, I can, in theory, take out ebooks. I haven't, because it's clunky and I have plenty to read (see above), but the option is there. They have several online databases I can access through their computers, which contain information beyond your average Wikipedia search. And there are hundreds of people looking for jobs just in my county who wouldn't be able to do so without the computer access libraries provide.

When I was a young, strange child, I would forget to wear snow boots to school. This meant that I couldn't play out in the snow, and therefore had to stay inside. There was no teacher to be spared to watch me, so I got to keep the librarian company. She put me to work neatening up, stamping due date cards, finding books that were shelved wrong, and generally being useful. It had been one thing to find refuge in books, but, to me, that place was more than a refuge. It was heaven.

As I've grown up, most things in life have lost their magic, or the shine's been rubbed off. Libraries, however, have endured. Libraries, to me, will always be my paradise.

Grammar peeves: subject to ridicule

I don't see this in published works, luckily, but I do think it's an important grammar rule to have down. I didn't even learn about verb conjugation until I took French, so I think some people may need a remedial course in subject/verb agreement.

Basically, a verb changes based on what it's modifying. For the verb "to write," the conjugation looks like

I write                       We write
You write                  You (plural) write
He/She/It writes        They write

In the English language, it doesn't usually follow a neat, predictable pattern, and the conjugation changes from one verb to the next, which is why you can often tell someone isn't a native speaker by how they write verbs. Also, homonyms and silent letters and odd letter combinations are apt to trip them up. Don't judge them; we have a weird language, okay?

Where most native English speakers run into problems are when you're talking about a group. Though there are many members of a group, as a collective, they're treated as a singular entity. So, say you're talking about a high school football team. You might say, "The players write their papers on the bus whenever they have an away game." Talking about the whole team, though, you'd say, "The coach makes sure the team [it] writes its own homework."

It gets even more confusing when you have a word you're not modifying next to the verb. You'll usually find this to be the case in a prepositional phrase (one that begins with "with," "of," "from," or any of the words on this list.) As an example, let's see another sentence about the football team: "Every member of the team writes his own papers." The verb is modifying "every member," not "the team."

I also want to call your attention to the second half of that sentence, where I wrote, "his." You already know the subject is singular. I used "his" because I'm talking about an all-guy football team. Were this a coed team, though, I'd have to allow for the possibility of the female pronoun. I might write "his or her," which makes the sentence clunkier and more unwieldy.

Grammar rules say I can use "their," which I hate to do. English teachers and grammar experts alike are teaching people that it stands in as a gender-neutral singular pronoun when needed.

I refuse. I will rewrite the first part of the sentence to make it plural before I'll substitute "they" for a single person. I will use the unwieldy "his or her" or even "his/her" before I break out "they" to refer to a single person. I'll also use the already-singular, gender-neutral "one" or "one's," snotty as it makes me sound.

I hope someone finds this useful. High school and college English teachers, feel free to point your students this way.