I. The Away Team
Did I mention that three girlettes went to stay with HouseMate's five-year-old grandson after Christmas?
This little boy and his family had been staying here in the guest room. They live a couple hours away. I'd actually told this boy that he could have a doll or two for his very own––it was his suggestion that they'd just like to come visit.
Today his mother (HM's daughter) sent photos.
This one cracks me up so much; it touches me that the boy made a little structure for his visitors.
II. Analytics. Not.
I did not take the dog out today. It was 10ºF, and I spent the entire day inside, except for taking the trash out, which convinced me it was a good day to stay inside. The dog didn't even ask to go for a walk, in fact. If he'd done the Let's-Go-For-a-Walk dance (unmistakable), I'd probably have succumbed. But he seemed happy enough hanging out on my bed while I was reading about and working on social media for the store.
(I'd asked Big Boss if I could put in hours at home, and he said yes. The crowded noisy conditions at the store are not conducive to thinking.)
Advice about social media management can be intimidating––"You must track analytics", etc.––but after a while I thought,
Eh, it's all variations on storytelling. People like pictures and stories about people.
I'll do that.
The new IG is coming along well enough. Forty followers in four days is acceptable.
I'm a little proud of myself, too, for putting together an outfit to post. Fashion is not my area of interest, but, again, it's all variations on a theme--it's like a collage in fabric. (Plus, I help the girlettes dress up.) I enjoyed it.
Funny how much you know about something you don't think you know about. Advertising works. Without having paid much attention to fashion, I could recognize the names of big brands considered desirable--at least by "my" people (middle class, middle-aged, etc.).
III. I am not everybody.
Work continually reminds me that this group--"my" people––is a small fraction of the whole.
The other day a regular customer pulled me aside and murmured, "Maybe you didn't look closely...", showing me that she'd turned around a book I'd placed on display.
It was this book's cover she found ...
well, she didn't say, but I gather she thought the nudity was not suitable for public viewing.
She was right:
I hadn't zoomed in on the offending region.
I'd just thought,
"Oh, Chagall," and didn't SEE the picture.
I'd probably have put it on display anyway, because the signifier for me wasn't the art, it was the artist.
So, it's kind of cool--this customer made me LOOK!
I told her, "Oh, I see. I'll move it to the art section."
And I did.
I got the feeling she thought I should have taken it entirely away.
IV. Where's the Line?
A few weeks ago someone else at the store told me I shouldn't have Bill O'Reilly's series of history books on the shelves, saying, "He's a vile man."
It can be a hard call--I'd have to take off a lot of books if I were judging on how their authors lived...
But the next day I decided to take off off O'Reilly's books.
I'd looked them up, and a reviewer compared their historical accuracy to The DaVinci Code (here). Ha! (Also, no one ever bought them.)
Oh dear. Does that sound bad? Like I care more about historical accuracy than rape?
No!
But ...hm... this is complicated, but yeah, I do judge a created-thing differently than I judge its creator.
A lot of books on the shelves--(and not works of genius, either)--were written by vile men. There are worse examples, but the man Dickens disgusts me. But I still love A Christmas Carol.
Still, O'Reilly is a different case--it's not so easy to separate the works from the life of a living man whose whose criminal behavior was considered "normal" until very recently (and still some people think it's not such a big deal). O'R's sexual abuse of women––serial rape––represents a whole class of behavior undergoing much needed scrutiny right this very moment.
If his books were absolutely brilliant?
Hm. You know... I'd put them out with a sign!
Leave room for people to write feedback.
But they are so very much not brilliant, it was easy to put them in recycling alongside the outdated Triple-A Guide to New Mexico, the nth copy of The Bridges of Madison County, and the mouse-chewed Gone with the Wind.
(I put out copies of GWTW even though it's so, so racist. Someone buys them.)
I went to see Bombshell the other day and was viscerally glad I'd taken O'R's books off. I hadn't paid close attention to revelations about the Fox rape culture (which the movie is about) because I barely knew who any of the people were.
Now I do.
It's a good movie too.
The best scene is the first 24 seconds of this trailer--Kate McKinnon (playing a fictional character) explaining the Fox pov:
"The world is a bad place, people are lazy morons...".
V. We're still here, eh?
I check the news more than usual these days. The more I hear about Harry and Meghan, the less anxious I am. A distraction, I know.
I also know it's culturally complex and everything--an avalanche of analytics!––but isn't it hilarious that the announcement that the younger son of an aging, would-be king, and the son's wife will be spending half the year in Canada is a BFD?
I hope I see you and continue to see you all soon !
Did I mention that three girlettes went to stay with HouseMate's five-year-old grandson after Christmas?
This little boy and his family had been staying here in the guest room. They live a couple hours away. I'd actually told this boy that he could have a doll or two for his very own––it was his suggestion that they'd just like to come visit.
Today his mother (HM's daughter) sent photos.
This one cracks me up so much; it touches me that the boy made a little structure for his visitors.
 |
| Jayne, Bubblepop, and Sparkle |
II. Analytics. Not.
I did not take the dog out today. It was 10ºF, and I spent the entire day inside, except for taking the trash out, which convinced me it was a good day to stay inside. The dog didn't even ask to go for a walk, in fact. If he'd done the Let's-Go-For-a-Walk dance (unmistakable), I'd probably have succumbed. But he seemed happy enough hanging out on my bed while I was reading about and working on social media for the store.
(I'd asked Big Boss if I could put in hours at home, and he said yes. The crowded noisy conditions at the store are not conducive to thinking.)
Eh, it's all variations on storytelling. People like pictures and stories about people.
I'll do that.
The new IG is coming along well enough. Forty followers in four days is acceptable.
I'm a little proud of myself, too, for putting together an outfit to post. Fashion is not my area of interest, but, again, it's all variations on a theme--it's like a collage in fabric. (Plus, I help the girlettes dress up.) I enjoyed it.
Funny how much you know about something you don't think you know about. Advertising works. Without having paid much attention to fashion, I could recognize the names of big brands considered desirable--at least by "my" people (middle class, middle-aged, etc.).
III. I am not everybody.
Work continually reminds me that this group--"my" people––is a small fraction of the whole.
The other day a regular customer pulled me aside and murmured, "Maybe you didn't look closely...", showing me that she'd turned around a book I'd placed on display.
It was this book's cover she found ... well, she didn't say, but I gather she thought the nudity was not suitable for public viewing.
She was right:
I hadn't zoomed in on the offending region.
I'd just thought,
"Oh, Chagall," and didn't SEE the picture.
I'd probably have put it on display anyway, because the signifier for me wasn't the art, it was the artist.
So, it's kind of cool--this customer made me LOOK!
I told her, "Oh, I see. I'll move it to the art section."
And I did.
I got the feeling she thought I should have taken it entirely away.
IV. Where's the Line?
A few weeks ago someone else at the store told me I shouldn't have Bill O'Reilly's series of history books on the shelves, saying, "He's a vile man."
It can be a hard call--I'd have to take off a lot of books if I were judging on how their authors lived...
But the next day I decided to take off off O'Reilly's books.
I'd looked them up, and a reviewer compared their historical accuracy to The DaVinci Code (here). Ha! (Also, no one ever bought them.)
Oh dear. Does that sound bad? Like I care more about historical accuracy than rape?
No!
But ...hm... this is complicated, but yeah, I do judge a created-thing differently than I judge its creator.
A lot of books on the shelves--(and not works of genius, either)--were written by vile men. There are worse examples, but the man Dickens disgusts me. But I still love A Christmas Carol.
Still, O'Reilly is a different case--it's not so easy to separate the works from the life of a living man whose whose criminal behavior was considered "normal" until very recently (and still some people think it's not such a big deal). O'R's sexual abuse of women––serial rape––represents a whole class of behavior undergoing much needed scrutiny right this very moment.
If his books were absolutely brilliant?
Hm. You know... I'd put them out with a sign!
Leave room for people to write feedback.
But they are so very much not brilliant, it was easy to put them in recycling alongside the outdated Triple-A Guide to New Mexico, the nth copy of The Bridges of Madison County, and the mouse-chewed Gone with the Wind.
(I put out copies of GWTW even though it's so, so racist. Someone buys them.)
I went to see Bombshell the other day and was viscerally glad I'd taken O'R's books off. I hadn't paid close attention to revelations about the Fox rape culture (which the movie is about) because I barely knew who any of the people were.
Now I do.
It's a good movie too.
The best scene is the first 24 seconds of this trailer--Kate McKinnon (playing a fictional character) explaining the Fox pov:
"The world is a bad place, people are lazy morons...".
V. We're still here, eh?
I check the news more than usual these days. The more I hear about Harry and Meghan, the less anxious I am. A distraction, I know.
I also know it's culturally complex and everything--an avalanche of analytics!––but isn't it hilarious that the announcement that the younger son of an aging, would-be king, and the son's wife will be spending half the year in Canada is a BFD?
I hope I see you and continue to see you all soon !
I think whoever was offended by the Chagall needs to get a grip. It's ART, for God's sake.
ReplyDeleteI assume stocking your shelves is a bit like us stocking the library -- we want to be sensitive to people, but we don't want to censor. There has to be room for contradictory ideas, within reason. Having said that, if O'Reilly's books weren't selling, that's enough of a reason to ditch them.
And "Gone With the WInd," while racist, is literature. Like much literature it has to be read with consideration of the time it was written, among other things.
I loved the review of O'Reilly's "Killing Jesus"--very amusing! I agree that there is no worthiness in leaving his books on the shelves. Good fiction by bad people...bad fiction by good people...that's one thing but inaccurate non-fiction by anybody, that's where I agree you should draw the line. It's one thing if non-fiction is rendered inaccurate because of new discoveries or out-dated ideas, it's a whole 'nother think to do shoddy research or write a book to confirm your bias: both of which O'Reilly does. Plus, as you say, he's vile. Straight to recycling for him!
ReplyDelete