I'm putting these in the same post because I happened to read them back-to-back and found a similar theme. I started with The City of Ladies on 8th of March - International Women's Day - and finished with Veblen's two days later. Both books have been hailed as feminist literature, and reading them so close together sparked lots of comparisons in my mind. All brilliant, all very intellectual. Sadly, I can't remember any of them now, I don't think.
Showing posts with label order or no order. Show all posts
Showing posts with label order or no order. Show all posts
Sunday, April 03, 2011
Monday, March 07, 2011
The new masthead ...
... which will probably be up for the next five years seeing as how it took me five years to make it at all, ha ha ha, was done with the aid of mr Bani, who knows how to handle the proper camera. He is sorely unhappy with the photo (started mumbling immediately about lightening it up in Photoshop at the VERY LEAST), so don't judge him. I rushed him a bit. We did two sets of pictures, this and a different setup that was longer, with more books. But I tried adding this first, found that it worked, so I left it. He isn't pleased, thinks it's too high. Well, yes, it is a bit. But I had to fit all those books in, didn't I? The masthead gets its own page, with explanations, see above.
I counted 35 books, and only 15 female authors. That annoyed me quite a bit, and in the second photo session I added on a few women. However, I did go with photo nr 1 for now, and I do think that it is another bit of proof that we're living in a patriarchal society, innit. I think of myself as someone who is forever reading books written by women, but when I'm choosing books that I feel represent a sort of cross-section of my reading, men dominate. Just like all research shows that when teachers feel that they're giving boys and girls equal time in the classroom, they're giving boys more, and when they do split it equally they feel like the girls are getting more time. I read just last week some columnist in the paper (can't find it now) who wrote about a visitor who had remarked grouchily that "you seem to read only women writers!" after looking in her bookshelf. The reality was a pretty accurate 50/50. So there we are.
Another side-effect: trying to find the books I wanted to photograph made it clear how impractical colour-sorting is. Christ. So it has to go. Project Alphabetical Order is being drafted. I gave it a go yesterday, after taking the photos, but you need to take EVERYTHING down, and dust, and sort, and put EVERYTHING back, and make some tough decisions ... so it'll have to wait.
I counted 35 books, and only 15 female authors. That annoyed me quite a bit, and in the second photo session I added on a few women. However, I did go with photo nr 1 for now, and I do think that it is another bit of proof that we're living in a patriarchal society, innit. I think of myself as someone who is forever reading books written by women, but when I'm choosing books that I feel represent a sort of cross-section of my reading, men dominate. Just like all research shows that when teachers feel that they're giving boys and girls equal time in the classroom, they're giving boys more, and when they do split it equally they feel like the girls are getting more time. I read just last week some columnist in the paper (can't find it now) who wrote about a visitor who had remarked grouchily that "you seem to read only women writers!" after looking in her bookshelf. The reality was a pretty accurate 50/50. So there we are.
Another side-effect: trying to find the books I wanted to photograph made it clear how impractical colour-sorting is. Christ. So it has to go. Project Alphabetical Order is being drafted. I gave it a go yesterday, after taking the photos, but you need to take EVERYTHING down, and dust, and sort, and put EVERYTHING back, and make some tough decisions ... so it'll have to wait.
Friday, February 05, 2010
The sorting of books
Today I stayed home with Minimus, who is sick, and on a whim decided to sort our books according to colour. Which is the only way to sort them if you're at all aestethic, I understand. I'm sort of a dormant aesthete myself. I want pretty, and it makes me feel bad when things aren't pretty, but I can't be bothered to make them pretty and I don't seem to have a great talent for it. If you see what I mean.
But anyway, I like this colour-sorting lark. It does make the whole clutter of books look more harmonious. Several problems did arise though - for example, I agonized over whether to break the colour-coding rule and keep a series of books together anyway, but in the end I stuck to the rules pretty well. I decided on whites to beiges to yellows to oranges to reds to purples to blues to greens to browns to blacks to greys. Almost consistently.
Most books, I've discovered, have white spines. Quite a number have black. Red are not rare, but brown is. There are a surprising amount of yellows or peachy tones, and blues are often very mottled, not so many pure blues.. Purples may be the rarest. I'd have thought there'd be more greens... Make of this what you want.
But anyway, I like this colour-sorting lark. It does make the whole clutter of books look more harmonious. Several problems did arise though - for example, I agonized over whether to break the colour-coding rule and keep a series of books together anyway, but in the end I stuck to the rules pretty well. I decided on whites to beiges to yellows to oranges to reds to purples to blues to greens to browns to blacks to greys. Almost consistently.
Most books, I've discovered, have white spines. Quite a number have black. Red are not rare, but brown is. There are a surprising amount of yellows or peachy tones, and blues are often very mottled, not so many pure blues.. Purples may be the rarest. I'd have thought there'd be more greens... Make of this what you want.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)