BFTP: One monkey, one keyboard

A weekend Blue Skunk "feature" will be a revision of an old post. I'm calling this BFTP: Blast from the Past. Original post February 2, 2007.  Seems like blogging has dropped off - the original post contained a lot of names of folks who no longer blog (or at least I don't follow).

We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know that is not true. - Robert Wilensky

Vicki Davis asked me about how I go about writing my blog. She herself shares a well-composed, serious and insightful post on this topic. She will be disappointed in what she reads here, I am afraid. But then I have never yet let my own ineptitude stand in my way of doing something.

I write about what interests me. Period. I write about what is rattling in my brain at the time. I write about things I may wish to remember someday. I write in praise of other writers, but  not often enough. I write about things of no consequence but that I can say in a clever way.

When I write on professional topics, which is the majority of the time, I do it for the same reasons I write for professional publications. And that boils down to a little poem by Minnesota author Fredrick Manfred I like, "What About You Boy?":

…Open up and let go.
Even if it’s only blowing. But blast.
And I say this loving my God.
Because we are all he has at last.
So what about it, boy?
Is your work going well?
Are you still lighting lamps
Against darkness and hell?

OK, so that may be a little over the top, lighting lamps against darkness and hell and all, but you get the drift.

There are some absolutely delightful ways blogging is different from writing for print:

1. I can write to amuse and no other reason. For a genuine smart ass like me, the worst thing in the world is to come up with something I think is terribly clever and not have someone to tell it to. Now I do.
2. I can think out loud. I believe most blog readers don't expect fully polished, fully documented treatises on topics. This blog has been a source of rough drafts for columns and papers. I can be half-baked here, collect some feedback, and improve.
3. I can write in a more personal voice. It is really nice not having a editorial presence peering over one's shoulder saying things like, "You can't write bullshit," when bullshit is exactly the word that is needed. Some editors I've encountered feel humor has no place in professional writing. I'll bet they're fun at parties, too.
4. I can write on more personal topics. The blog writers I enjoy the most and respect the most are those who both write seriously and readably about their profession, but are not afraid to let their personal lives leak in. I will not forget Miguel Guhlin's moving tributes as his father was dying, Kathy Sierra's t-shirt modeling entries, or  David Warlick's tales of missed flights and workshops that have gone in strange directions. So this blog sometimes is my version of "Say, may I bore your with some pictures of my beautiful children and grandchildren? My lovely wife? My last vacation?" Which I can do because...
5. I can write knowing that the Blue Skunk blog is on nobody's required reading list and costs nobody anything but the time it takes to move to the next feed in the aggregator. No advertising revenue depends on the popularity of this blog. I have never checked the Blue Skunk's "rankings" nor do I intend to start.  I simply assume my blog is someplace in the middle of things - more read than some, less read than others. If you are not amused, informed, aggravated, or whatever by this blog, adios, nice knowing ya, and don't let door smack you on the way out. I am only writing for smart people who have taste anyway. The Blue Skunk is the bistro of blogs, not the all-you-can-eat buffet.

I write in my blog when I just plain want to write for fun. As anyone who writes regularly knows, the writing process can be excruciatingly painful or excruciatingly pleasurable. It's always a pleasure to blog.  This was as fine a way to spend a lunch hour as I can imagine. Well almost.

Sorry, Vicki. But you asked.

Save

Defining terms associated with e-book use

While the talk itself is as fun as can be to give, I sense that my session E-books, E-Gads: Promises, Pitfalls and Practicalities doesn't deliver as many answers to librarians' questions about how to provide e-books in a library program as they would like. As far as publishers and e-book vendors in attendance are concerned, I am sure I disappoint them by not recommending any particular product - or a full plunge into replacing print with electronic resources.

But I do emphasize a few things that I do believe are helpful to librarians and teachers. The first is that we as digital resource professionals need to be more precise about how we use e-book terms. Here is how I try to refer to materials when talking about "e-books":

• E-books are downloadable files of individual book titles - those things you might buy from Amazon or Barnes & Noble. Commerical titles usually contain some form of DRM that controls the use of these titles.
• E-book readers are more-or-less single purpose devices on which e-books can be accessed, stored and (mostly, I hope) read - the Kindle, the Nook, the Kobo, etc. (I suspect this type of device will lose a lot of ground to multi-purpose devices like the Fire and Nook Color 2 over the coming months.)
• E-book reader apps are small software programs that run on multi-purpose computing devices such as the iPad, Android tablets, smart phones, and regular computers. Kindle and Nook apps as well as generic apps like GoodReader and Stanza are examples.
• E-book apps are self-contained programs that contain book content that are opened on tablets and other devices. They do not need a separate reader app to read them. The Scholatic I Spy Spooky Mansion, the Boynton picture books and lots of other children's book titles are examples. Many of these titles have extensive interactive features. (I suppose Broderbund's Just Grandma and Me computer program from the mid-90s might be the ancestor.)
• E-books in the cloud are titles that are accessed and read with a web browser. The International Children's Digital Library and TumbleBooks - as well as reference books like WorldBook Online are examples of these cloud-based books. (Thanks to the OCM BOCES participants the addition of this category.)

So some of our institutional confusion about how to use digital materials might be lessened if we start using common terminology.

The second term we might want to think about more carefully is perhaps surprisingly "book" itself. The word book identifies a very broad range of content used in many different ways. From a dictionary, encyclopedia or index that is used in a non-linear way and only in small parts to longer works of fiction, biography and narrative non-fiction that are read from front to back over a days or weeks, the amount of access and portability needed for individual types of books varies greatly. Providing access to a reference book on the libraries computer work stations or on student devices through a browser makes perfect sense; providing the latest young adult novel in a computer lab makes no sense at all. And just where do picture books, textbooks and anthologies fall along the "need for continuous access" continuum?

 I would argue that libraries will not be able to provide access to digital materials using any single method.

Finally the third understanding that even in this time of uncertainly in e-publishing is that librarians still must be the digital content masters and that e-content carries it all the collection development/management tasks of regular print:

• Selection
• Acquisition
• Promotion
• Cataloging, circulation, control
• Inventory
• Evaluation

And I would add that in the transition from dead trees to digits we constantly ask ourselves and our vendors why we are changing formats at all:

• Can I do the same thing I’ve been doing, but a significant cost savings?
• Can I substantially improve learning opportunities for students and staff?

It's urgent that all librarians start figuring out how to provide e-book resources in practical ways to their users. If we don't, the tech department will take on this task which they are not trained or equipped to handle.

Why you should take a job nobody else wants

I always get a chuckle when I show this "inspirational" poster:

Why might your principal regret cutting your library position? Might it be because she/he now has to find another teacher to do some tasks that it's hard to get others to do? Such as:

• Webmaster
• Test proctor
• Parent newsletter editor
• Sponsor of ____________ club or activity
• The United Way staff organizer
• Keeper of the passwords
• PTO liaison
• Gifted and Talented coordinator
• And ....

In any school there are jobs that nobody wants. That are outside of one's regular job description. That are a pain in the ass. Unless I was 100% sure of my job or I didn't care if the next round of budget cuts would impact my position, I would not just take on such jobs, I would seek them out.

Why? Budget reductions are always about choices. Cut librarian or cut the music teacher. Cut the librarian or cut the textbook budget. Cut the librarian or raise class sizes.

Here's the thing. Your boss should pause for a very, very long time before cutting you if it means finding some other teacher to take on the jobs nobody wants. It's not noble. It's not ideologically pure. It may not even be professional.

But it's practical.

If nothing else if you do get cut, you will have the satisfaction of knowing the idiot who did it will be suffering as well.

*********

Oh, for regular readers, our district tech levy passed by a 2-1 margin and with all 10 precincts voting in favor. No increase in funding, but no cuts either. Yeah!