In article <4ae35815$0$28113$80460...@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com>, dsg...@iphouse.com says...
> I recently saw in my local library a lesbian Afro-American romance, > which is a rather specialized subgenre.
I'm not sure... if it is a 'lesbian' novel, it would seem that it would naturally fall within one of only three categories: romance, porn, or social realism. And the 'Afro-American' context doesn't really seem like a genre-defining tag!
Gerry Quinn wrote: > In article <4ae35815$0$28113$80460...@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com>, > dsg...@iphouse.com says...
> > I recently saw in my local library a lesbian Afro-American romance, > > which is a rather specialized subgenre.
> I'm not sure... if it is a 'lesbian' novel, it would seem that it > would naturally fall within one of only three categories: romance, > porn, or social realism. And the 'Afro-American' context doesn't > really seem like a genre-defining tag!
A romance novel about lesbians falls in the _subgenre_ of lesbian romance. And making it about Afro-American lesbians puts it in a smaller subgenre.
The cover copy and cover art were stylized in the fashion currently used for romance novels.
-- Dan Goodman Journal at: dsgood.livejournal.com dsgood.dreamwidth.org dsgood.insanejournal.com
On Oct 27, 7:55 am, netcat <net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> wrote:
> In article <4ae6d98c.4206...@news.btconnect.com>, > s...@sofluc.co.uk.invalid says...
> > As a data point: the library where I live (one main library, and several > > local branches) decided to shelve all the books together.
> All the libraries in Estonia have always done that, except children's > libraries, possibly. And no tagging, either.
> rgds, > netcat
There are a couple in the US that have experimented with non-library shelving. They've done away with the Dewey Decimal System and are using the shelving scheme used in bookstores. Patrons seem to like it and more libraries are looking into it.
Our library system shelves fantasy with fiction and gives SF its own section. Some branches have broken with that and moved fantasy in with SF, which was what I did in my previous branch. Sure, it's labeling, but it's more a convenience for readers than any real categorization of the books, IMO, because I believe there's a crossover of genres, and more blending and blurring than ever. But I never understood why fantasy and SF were separated, which I first noticed close to 30 years ago when I joined the library system.
Libraries are getting more creative/innovative in shelving. Strict cataloging may become obsolete.
ShellyS <shell...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Oct 27, 7:55 am, netcat <net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> wrote: >> In article <4ae6d98c.4206...@news.btconnect.com>, >> s...@sofluc.co.uk.invalid says...
>> > As a data point: the library where I live (one main library, and several >> > local branches) decided to shelve all the books together.
>> All the libraries in Estonia have always done that, except children's >> libraries, possibly. And no tagging, either.
>> rgds, >> netcat
>There are a couple in the US that have experimented with non-library >shelving. They've done away with the Dewey Decimal System and are >using the shelving scheme used in bookstores. Patrons seem to like it >and more libraries are looking into it.
>Our library system shelves fantasy with fiction and gives SF its own >section. Some branches have broken with that and moved fantasy in with >SF, which was what I did in my previous branch. Sure, it's labeling, >but it's more a convenience for readers than any real categorization >of the books, IMO, because I believe there's a crossover of genres, >and more blending and blurring than ever. But I never understood why >fantasy and SF were separated, which I first noticed close to 30 years >ago when I joined the library system.
>Libraries are getting more creative/innovative in shelving. Strict >cataloging may become obsolete.
>--Shelly
Some people want to walk around and find something to read, and with Dewey shelving they're in a world of hurt. Other people want to look something up, and as long as the catalog tells where it sits on the shelf, they just have to walk over and pick it up.
I recall one occasion last year at our library (Dewey shelving) when two books I was looking for in the same genre were placed on different floors, since one was classified as "fiction" and the other as "literature". Apparently becoming a classic can get you evicted from the old neighborhood.
Dewey is better than nothing, and probably a great advance for its time... but with computer catalogs, it just seems silly.
In message <4ukqe55nmo03ei6churacoeveti0be7...@4ax.com>, Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> writes
>I recall one occasion last year at our library (Dewey shelving) when >two books I was looking for in the same genre were placed on different >floors, since one was classified as "fiction" and the other as >"literature". Apparently becoming a classic can get you evicted from >the old neighborhood.
>Dewey is better than nothing, and probably a great advance for its >time... but with computer catalogs, it just seems silly.
Sorry... just to clarify... Are you saying they used Dewey for _fiction_? Errr....
The simplest method is still to file fiction by alphabetical order of author or editor, and as a librarian I'd stick to that, though as a reader I'm not averse to having genre books filed together, as long as the catalogue clearly indicates which genre section to look in. You might also need to make an exception for media tie-ins so all the Star Wars and Trek books get filed together. If you have to tag genres in some way it's easy enough to use a colour coded dot at the bottom of the spine and still file everything in one alphabetical author sequence.
Dewey is great for non-fiction because you can browse a subject area if you are looking for a suitable book on (say) gardening, or even, more specifically, on the ring-culture of tomatoes and you don't know titles or authors. In a public library - as opposed to an academic one - most non-fiction customers are looking for books on a subject rather than specific books. It can, of course, get a little woozy in some areas where you end up with a history of costume in the 300s (costume) instead of the (IIRC) 600s (sewing), the 700s (crafts) or the 900s (history).
> >> > As a data point: the library where I live (one main library, and several > >> > local branches) decided to shelve all the books together.
> >> All the libraries in Estonia have always done that, except children's > >> libraries, possibly. And no tagging, either.
> >> rgds, > >> netcat
> >There are a couple in the US that have experimented with non-library > >shelving. They've done away with the Dewey Decimal System and are > >using the shelving scheme used in bookstores. Patrons seem to like it > >and more libraries are looking into it.
> >Our library system shelves fantasy with fiction and gives SF its own > >section. Some branches have broken with that and moved fantasy in with > >SF, which was what I did in my previous branch. Sure, it's labeling, > >but it's more a convenience for readers than any real categorization > >of the books, IMO, because I believe there's a crossover of genres, > >and more blending and blurring than ever. But I never understood why > >fantasy and SF were separated, which I first noticed close to 30 years > >ago when I joined the library system.
> >Libraries are getting more creative/innovative in shelving. Strict > >cataloging may become obsolete.
> >--Shelly
> Some people want to walk around and find something to read, and with > Dewey shelving they're in a world of hurt. Other people want to look > something up, and as long as the catalog tells where it sits on the > shelf, they just have to walk over and pick it up.
I know that. It's why many libraries are experimenting and trying bookstore shelving, which more people these days are used to. Fiction has traditionally been by author, not Dewey, though there are fiction Dewey codes, and biographies are typically shelved by the name of the person written about instead of Dewey, anyway. Some libraries haven't used Dewey for many years, and have been using Library of Congress classification in the US.
> I recall one occasion last year at our library (Dewey shelving) when > two books I was looking for in the same genre were placed on different > floors, since one was classified as "fiction" and the other as > "literature". Apparently becoming a classic can get you evicted from > the old neighborhood.
That's not a Dewey problem. That's a staff choice. Proper library shelving typically demands on location/classification for a book. Bookstores can shelve a book in a number of places, if they desire. The only library exception is typically a new book section, or having copies of, say, Harry Potter books in children's, young adult, and adult fiction sections.
> Dewey is better than nothing, and probably a great advance for its > time... but with computer catalogs, it just seems silly.
Dewey is an elegant classification system for non-fiction that isn't well suited for today's world and modern technology. Trying to create Dewey numbers for computer tech, interent, etc, makes for some very long numbers hard to fit on book spines.
In message <5444e656-9007-4e47-89b1-be1e946bf...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, ShellyS <shell...@gmail.com> writes
>That's not a Dewey problem. That's a staff choice.
Having trained with Dewey at library college back in the 70s I quickly came to realise that there are no right and wrong answers when allocating Dewey numbers because there are always grey areas. (Is this history of costume a history book or a book about costume? And if it's both, which has the most content? And _in my library_ where do all the similar books hang out, in costume or in history?)
In the end there is only opinion - and consistency.
When I took over my first children's library in 1972 the non-fiction was a mishmash of previous librarians' ideas - stuff scattered all over the place. It took me a year, but I checked and reclassified the whole library. It may have been wrong when I'd finished but it was consistently wrong and therefore usable.
Thank goodness I didn't actually have to do the re-labelling. My assistant must have cursed me up and down the aisles. We used green stickers for the new labels (instead of white) so it was easy to see what we'd missed and pull books out for checking as they came in from a loan.
Jacey Bedford <lookin...@nospam.invalid> wrote: >In message <4ukqe55nmo03ei6churacoeveti0be7...@4ax.com>, Eric Ammadon ><n...@spam.thankee> writes >>I recall one occasion last year at our library (Dewey shelving) when >>two books I was looking for in the same genre were placed on different >>floors, since one was classified as "fiction" and the other as >>"literature". Apparently becoming a classic can get you evicted from >>the old neighborhood.
>>Dewey is better than nothing, and probably a great advance for its >>time... but with computer catalogs, it just seems silly.
>Sorry... just to clarify... Are you saying they used Dewey for >_fiction_? >Errr....
I'm not a librarian. It looks to me like Dewey, with the decimal notation, but the fiction area (as I recall from stale memory) all has the same decimal code and within that is shelved alphabetically. The classics are downstairs with lit-ra-chur.
Next time I'm there I'll see if I can remember to pay more attention to how things are organized. Heinlein is upstairs with the rest of the sci-fi and the Harry Potter books are downstairs with juvenile fiction though for the life of me I can't see why those are separate aside from the sci-fi vs fantasy orientation, as Heinlein and Rowling seem to have targeted a nearly equally juvenile audience.
Basically the most organized library I've run into seems far less organized than the least organized bookstore I can recall. Maybe it has to do with bookstores needing to have people moving through checkout counters and libraries needing to have people milling around in the stacks, I don't know.
ShellyS <shell...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 1, 1:30?am, Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote: >> ShellyS <shell...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Oct 27, 7:55?am, netcat <net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> wrote: >> >> In article <4ae6d98c.4206...@news.btconnect.com>, >> >> s...@sofluc.co.uk.invalid says...
>> >> > As a data point: the library where I live (one main library, and several >> >> > local branches) decided to shelve all the books together.
>> >> All the libraries in Estonia have always done that, except children's >> >> libraries, possibly. And no tagging, either.
>> >> rgds, >> >> netcat
>> >There are a couple in the US that have experimented with non-library >> >shelving. They've done away with the Dewey Decimal System and are >> >using the shelving scheme used in bookstores. Patrons seem to like it >> >and more libraries are looking into it.
>> >Our library system shelves fantasy with fiction and gives SF its own >> >section. Some branches have broken with that and moved fantasy in with >> >SF, which was what I did in my previous branch. Sure, it's labeling, >> >but it's more a convenience for readers than any real categorization >> >of the books, IMO, because I believe there's a crossover of genres, >> >and more blending and blurring than ever. But I never understood why >> >fantasy and SF were separated, which I first noticed close to 30 years >> >ago when I joined the library system.
>> >Libraries are getting more creative/innovative in shelving. Strict >> >cataloging may become obsolete.
>> >--Shelly
>> Some people want to walk around and find something to read, and with >> Dewey shelving they're in a world of hurt. ?Other people want to look >> something up, and as long as the catalog tells where it sits on the >> shelf, they just have to walk over and pick it up.
>I know that. It's why many libraries are experimenting and trying >bookstore shelving, which more people these days are used to. Fiction >has traditionally been by author, not Dewey, though there are fiction >Dewey codes, and biographies are typically shelved by the name of the >person written about instead of Dewey, anyway. Some libraries haven't >used Dewey for many years, and have been using Library of Congress >classification in the US.
>> I recall one occasion last year at our library (Dewey shelving) when >> two books I was looking for in the same genre were placed on different >> floors, since one was classified as "fiction" and the other as >> "literature". ?Apparently becoming a classic can get you evicted from >> the old neighborhood.
>That's not a Dewey problem. That's a staff choice. Proper library >shelving typically demands on location/classification for a book. >Bookstores can shelve a book in a number of places, if they desire. >The only library exception is typically a new book section, or having >copies of, say, Harry Potter books in children's, young adult, and >adult fiction sections.
>> Dewey is better than nothing, and probably a great advance for its >> time... but with computer catalogs, it just seems silly.
>Dewey is an elegant classification system for non-fiction that isn't >well suited for today's world and modern technology. Trying to create >Dewey numbers for computer tech, interent, etc, makes for some very >long numbers hard to fit on book spines.
>--Shelly
It might be easier to create information than it is to organize it. After all, before you can organize it you have to understand what it is, and to create it you just... well, create it and let someone else figure out what it is should anyone care.
I wouldn't take a librarian's job for anything, at least not until the point at which each book can be tagged with something like a LoJack transmitter hooked to the library catalog, and then any high-school kid could do the job cheaper than I would.
I hope that doesn't sound too heretical to the librarians here, but physical libraries are so much more frustrating for me than the web that I usually either just cruise the new-book area or go in with a specific author/title.
If I'm going to actually purchase <gasp!> new fiction, it's marketed in so many supermarkets and department stores that I seldom go into an official book store anymore because I've snagged something to read before getting to the point of thinking about bookstores.
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:16:26 -0700, Eric Ammadon wrote: > Basically the most organized library I've run into seems far less > organized than the least organized bookstore I can recall. Maybe it has > to do with bookstores needing to have people moving through checkout > counters and libraries needing to have people milling around in the > stacks, I don't know.
And, of course, both are subject to constant randomization by the patrons, many of whom, if they decide not to get a particular book, will shelf it again _anywhere_, thinking that they are being helpful.
Yes, I once worked as a library assistant. How did you guess?
-- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
> >In message <4ukqe55nmo03ei6churacoeveti0be7...@4ax.com>, Eric Ammadon > ><n...@spam.thankee> writes > >>I recall one occasion last year at our library (Dewey shelving) when > >>two books I was looking for in the same genre were placed on different > >>floors, since one was classified as "fiction" and the other as > >>"literature". Apparently becoming a classic can get you evicted from > >>the old neighborhood.
> >>Dewey is better than nothing, and probably a great advance for its > >>time... but with computer catalogs, it just seems silly.
> >Sorry... just to clarify... Are you saying they used Dewey for > >_fiction_? > >Errr....
> I'm not a librarian. It looks to me like Dewey, with the decimal > notation, but the fiction area (as I recall from stale memory) all has > the same decimal code and within that is shelved alphabetically. The > classics are downstairs with lit-ra-chur.
Dewey does have subclasses for fiction but these are mostly for separating different language groups or forms like poetry, drama, essays etc. Literature is the main class(800) that it all fits under.
My language doesn't have a term for separating "literature" from "fiction" either, it's all the same thing. When I was in the US, seeing "literature" as a subgenre in bookstores amused me to no end.
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:16:26 -0700, Eric Ammadon wrote: >> Basically the most organized library I've run into seems >> far less organized than the least organized bookstore I >> can recall.
Certainly not my experience.
>> Maybe it has to do with bookstores needing to have people >> moving through checkout counters and libraries needing >> to have people milling around in the stacks, I don't >> know. > And, of course, both are subject to constant randomization > by the patrons, many of whom, if they decide not to get > a particular book, will shelf it again _anywhere_, > thinking that they are being helpful. > Yes, I once worked as a library assistant. How did you > guess?
One does *not* have to have worked in a library or bookshop to have noticed this! I did work in a college library one summer while I was in high school, but I was mostly accessioning and shelving new books and shelving returned books; I've had *much* more experience of mis-shelved books as a library patron and bookshop customer.
I started this thread with a post in which I mentioned that someone had used one of the ideas on my page of story ideas for a story, and I liked it. I have now webbed his story with his permission:
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:16:26 -0700, Eric Ammadon wrote:
>>> Basically the most organized library I've run into seems >>> far less organized than the least organized bookstore I >>> can recall.
>Certainly not my experience.
>>> Maybe it has to do with bookstores needing to have people >>> moving through checkout counters and libraries needing >>> to have people milling around in the stacks, I don't >>> know.
>> And, of course, both are subject to constant randomization >> by the patrons, many of whom, if they decide not to get >> a particular book, will shelf it again _anywhere_, >> thinking that they are being helpful.
>> Yes, I once worked as a library assistant. How did you >> guess?
>One does *not* have to have worked in a library or bookshop >to have noticed this! I did work in a college library one >summer while I was in high school, but I was mostly >accessioning and shelving new books and shelving returned >books; I've had *much* more experience of mis-shelved books >as a library patron and bookshop customer.
>Brian
It isn't a property that's the exclusive property of bookstores, many's the time when I've grabbed a dozen whatsits out of a bin to find on unpacking my bag of whatsits that I'm short on whatsits and have some unwanted whatevers. The nice thing about people is that there are basically only three types: stupid, inattentive, and endangered.
In article <ddfr-1F2EE9.21003603112...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds- media.com>, d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com says...
> I started this thread with a post in which I mentioned that someone had > used one of the ideas on my page of story ideas for a story, and I liked > it. I have now webbed his story with his permission:
Mmm. Y'know, the bad thing about it is that since you didn't write it and the author isn't here, we can't nitpick it to death. The idea is interesting, but the way it has been treated raises too many questions.
netcat wrote: > In article <ddfr-1F2EE9.21003603112...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds- > media.com>, d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com says... >> I started this thread with a post in which I mentioned that someone had >> used one of the ideas on my page of story ideas for a story, and I liked >> it. I have now webbed his story with his permission:
> Mmm. Y'know, the bad thing about it is that since you didn't write it > and the author isn't here, we can't nitpick it to death. The idea is > interesting, but the way it has been treated raises too many questions.
> rgds, > netcat
I've got to agree with netcat about the open questions. Are the houses like Star Trek Holograms, so the building follows whatever template the Key encodes, or is it something else. Is pulling the key on a house with occupants going to harm them, or just leave them in an empty room? Why is our hero forced to live in a different house than the one he considers home?
Bill
-- Living on the polemic may be temporarily satisfying, but it will raise your blood-pressure, and gives you tunnel vision.
> netcat wrote: > > In article <ddfr-1F2EE9.21003603112...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds- > > media.com>, d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com says... > >> I started this thread with a post in which I mentioned that someone had > >> used one of the ideas on my page of story ideas for a story, and I liked > >> it. I have now webbed his story with his permission:
> > Mmm. Y'know, the bad thing about it is that since you didn't write it > > and the author isn't here, we can't nitpick it to death. The idea is > > interesting, but the way it has been treated raises too many questions.
> > rgds, > > netcat > I've got to agree with netcat about the open questions. Are the houses > like Star Trek Holograms, so the building follows whatever template the > Key encodes, or is it something else. Is pulling the key on a house > with occupants going to harm them, or just leave them in an empty room? > Why is our hero forced to live in a different house than the one he > considers home?
Also, consider that he knew his old house was being demolished after being scanned in. So why did he just so blithely go back to it thinking it would still be there waiting for him, and became enraged when this wasn't so? Was the protagonist retarded, or amnesiac, or something?
And who leaves their keys (or Key, even) _outside_ their door?
In article <MPG.255b84d01732aa68989...@news.octanews.com>,
netcat <net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> wrote: > In article <ddfr-1F2EE9.21003603112...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds- > media.com>, d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com says... > > I started this thread with a post in which I mentioned that someone had > > used one of the ideas on my page of story ideas for a story, and I liked > > it. I have now webbed his story with his permission:
> Mmm. Y'know, the bad thing about it is that since you didn't write it > and the author isn't here, we can't nitpick it to death. The idea is > interesting, but the way it has been treated raises too many questions.
What I liked was the twist at the end, which hadn't occurred to me.
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:32:58 +0200, netcat wrote: > In article <ddfr-1F2EE9.21003603112...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds- > media.com>, d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com says... >> I started this thread with a post in which I mentioned that someone had >> used one of the ideas on my page of story ideas for a story, and I liked >> it. I have now webbed his story with his permission:
> In article <MPG.255b84d01732aa68989...@news.octanews.com>, > netcat <net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> wrote:
> > In article <ddfr-1F2EE9.21003603112...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds- > > media.com>, d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com says... > > > I started this thread with a post in which I mentioned that someone had > > > used one of the ideas on my page of story ideas for a story, and I liked > > > it. I have now webbed his story with his permission:
> > Mmm. Y'know, the bad thing about it is that since you didn't write it > > and the author isn't here, we can't nitpick it to death. The idea is > > interesting, but the way it has been treated raises too many questions.
> What I liked was the twist at the end, which hadn't occurred to me.
Y'mean it hadn't occurred to you that leaving the key outside would be a glaring security hole?
> > > In article <ddfr-1F2EE9.21003603112...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds- > > > media.com>, d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com says... > > > > I started this thread with a post in which I mentioned that someone had > > > > used one of the ideas on my page of story ideas for a story, and I > > > > liked > > > > it. I have now webbed his story with his permission:
> > > Mmm. Y'know, the bad thing about it is that since you didn't write it > > > and the author isn't here, we can't nitpick it to death. The idea is > > > interesting, but the way it has been treated raises too many questions.
> > What I liked was the twist at the end, which hadn't occurred to me.
> Y'mean it hadn't occurred to you that leaving the key outside would be a > glaring security hole?
My description of the idea didn't have the key left outside, it had a light by the doorknob to signal whether the house was occupied--i.e. had taken the form defined by the key of someone who has entered and not left.
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: > On 2009-11-04, netcat <net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> wrote: >> And who leaves their keys (or Key, even) _outside_ their door?
> I believe it's pretty common in areas where burglary is not widespread.
I believe it is not unknown to come down in the morning and find one has left the front door wide open.
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 03:26:25 +0000, JF wrote: > Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: >> On 2009-11-04, netcat <net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> wrote: >>> And who leaves their keys (or Key, even) _outside_ their door?
>> I believe it's pretty common in areas where burglary is not widespread.
> I believe it is not unknown to come down in the morning and find one has > left the front door wide open.
>> (I haven't read the story being discussed.)
I live in a working-class neighborhood, and there is an occasional news item about a burglary taking place. In my 17 years here, there have been a couple of occasions in which I absent-mindedly left keys stuck in the door overnight. Fortunately, no burglars came along and checked the door.
-- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
>> Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: >>> On 2009-11-04, netcat <net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> wrote: >>>> And who leaves their keys (or Key, even) _outside_ their door?
>>> I believe it's pretty common in areas where burglary is not widespread.
>> I believe it is not unknown to come down in the morning and find one has >> left the front door wide open.
>>> (I haven't read the story being discussed.)
> I live in a working-class neighborhood, and there is an occasional news > item about a burglary taking place. In my 17 years here, there have been > a couple of occasions in which I absent-mindedly left keys stuck in the > door overnight. Fortunately, no burglars came along and checked the door.
|
