this short, insightful book is about more than just the uses and abuses of the American Revolution and Founding Fathers by the Glenn Becks of the nation: it’s a reflection on the complexity not only of historical inquiry, but also of history itself. it bounces back and forth between the revolutionary past and the contested present, with several stops in between and glimpses into the lives of Americans of various stripes and statures, some of whom I’d never encountered before.

Lepore thoughtfully and patiently reflects on what the Revolution has meant over time, even detailing the many different meanings it has had simultaneously. without passing too much judgment or caricaturing her subjects, she interviews and profiles modern Tea Partiers and tries to place their concerns–and their claims–in a proper context. she thinks about the proper approach to and application of history, making a subtle apologia for the work of academic historians.

most interesting of all his her case that the Tea Party represents more than just ahistory or anti-history; it is a historical fundamentalism on par with (and closely paralleling) religious fundamentalism. I would love to have read a much longer, more detailed work, and look forward to seeing what else the author might have to say on the matter over the next few years.

So this year my topic is intellectual history, mostly from the Enlightenment until now, with an even more specific focus on U.S. intellectual history.  Now, there are all sorts of topics I can’t cover, for which I even have a few good books (e.g., history of medicine, history of science, biography of Freud).  Those will come later.  Right now I want to create a better framework for understanding the growth of these enterprises, along with the intellectual climate of Revolutionary America and a basic overview of 20th-century intellectual history, specifically with the rise of the various academic disciplines with which we’re now so familiar.

Think I can (will) do it?  I’m have my doubts, but I’m hopeful.  There’s a logistical problem, of course, namely, the fact that many of these books are hefty volumes, the sum total of which approaches 7,500 pages or so (including the notes and bibliographies, I think, so that brings it down a bit).  But I may also revisit a few books, such as Susan Jacoby’s Freethinkers, which I enjoyed.

My interest in intellectual history is not to be good at trivial pursuit or to have pointlessly pedantic conversations (or monologues).  I really want to be able to place people and ideas in a better historical context, to situate important and even radical ideas in the world of ideas in which they grew.  I want to be able to appreciate better the significance of the ideas that we take for granted now and understand where they came from, how they were argued or supported or opposed.  I don’t pretend for a moment that I’ll really be getting my hands super dirty and that I’ll come out of this an expert on any of these ideas.  I don’t pretend (or even hope for) that at all.

I just want some blessed perspective.  In short, I want to have a clue.

Ghostbusters, improv, ghosts in libraries–it’s all very “ha ha,” right?  Apparently not.  It turns out that libraries are not unpopular places for specters to reside (or to be thought to reside). Over at the Britannica Blog, one author has compiled various lists of libraries around the globe that are allegedly haunted.

Aren’t ghosts supposed to hang around due to some awful incident of injustice?  Or to complete some unfinished work?  As far as the latter goes, the librarian in Ghostbusters clearly had some more books to shelve or catalog cards to file.  But I wonder what horrible events are thought to have taken place in these libraries?

Perhaps one of the more familiar (at least according to Google) library ghosts is the Gray Lady of the Willard Library in Evansville, Indiana.  They are so confident of this ghost’s existence (or so eager for some PR) that they’ve even set up a ghost cam so that you can keep your eyes peeled 24/7.

Here is a nice lady explaining the lore and taking a tour of the ghost’s usual haunts.  (Spoiler: they don’t see anything.)

Apparently, one of those lame ghost-hunting shows even came to film an episode in the library and didn’t find anything either.  Quelle surprise.

I don’t think I’d be stepping too far out on a limb to say that most of the “ghosts” that people have seen in libraries are in fact doctoral students, whose life force and grip on reality fades with each passing year that does not see the completion of their dissertations.  If it takes them long enough, they just might roam the stacks forever or, worse, succumb to the gristly fate of an overeducated, underskilled aspiring academic: ghost writing.

There are many contradictory claims and a certain amount of argument about what deserves the title as the first public library in the country, much of which centers on the criteria one chooses.  For instance, is it important that a library (even if subscription based) was theoretically open to all citizens?  Or that a library (again, even if subscription based) was free?  BPL’s claim to fame, of course, is that it was the first free library open to all and supported by municipal funds, which is closest to what we understand a public library to be today.  It was also, apparently, the first public library to let people take books home to read, rather than staying there and reading them.  Which would have looked something like this.

Before moving to its current Copley location, the library (est. 1848) had been located in this building on Boylston Street.

Funny thing is, I think that bearded gentleman can still be found hanging outside of the library today.

Finally, public pretentiousness without having to bother with all that dull bookishness.

I kid, I kid.  Actually, I think this is an excellent example of what I blogged about recently, namely, the rise of nostalgia for books and libraries and the impact (even if slight) this is having on fashion and design.  If I were a celebrity, I would lug around an entire fake set of the OED on the red carpet.  Heck, maybe I’d even get dolled (or rather, don‘d) up and go full-on James Murray.

Some people seem to have pretty loose standards in defining what constitutes the “librarian” in librarian fashion.  Throw on a thick pair of horn-rimmed glasses and you’re halfway there.  (In fact, that’s about 90% of the “sexy librarian” Halloween costumes.)  It’s as if, in their minds, all it takes to get a library degree is a sweater and an astigmatism.

Over at eHow, an author has a few suggestions for vamping up a modern library look.  What’s on the list?  First, “pastels, neutrals, blacks, and jewel tones” to go with your “subtle hair and make-up.”  Next, bohemian moccasins or (dear God!) Uggs paired with a pair of skinny jeans.  Top it all off with stylish scarf or some antique or ethnic jewelry. (“Boring librarians wear predictable matching necklace and earring sets with a plain watch. Sexy librarians are modern and let current jewelry trends inspire them.”)

Moving on to the actual fashion world, some have pointed out that a few pieces in Michael Kors’ fall 2008 collection bore more than a little resemblance to librarians of yesteryear.

Although, as Tom & Lorenzo put it, this may have more to do with the much stronger impact that Mad Men is having on fashion and so may be more of a general period throwback than any attempt to sex up the proverbial spinsters.  Here’s a video of the show.

Moving on, Vice Magazine even did a photo shoot in 2006 of Swedish librarians in their places of work.

Excuse me, Sweden, but where are the male librarians?  So much for having one of the highest levels of gender equality the planet…

There are also all sorts of popular representations, whether through advertising or film, of what librarians look like, in the past, present, and future.  This, by the way, is something we should also aspire to.

So what’s your library chic?  Personally, I have my own J. Crew-ish style preferences that, I suppose, are more or less compatible with being a librarian (although not necessarily a cataloger or archivist, in which case anything goes, really).  I guess one of the appealing things about working in libraries is the more relaxed and casual atmosphere garment-wise.  Although I think I could get into this.

In the end, I guess I don’t really care how librarians dress, or what constitutes the “librarian look,” just as long as librarians don’t look like this any time soon.

Yes, I take donations, and no, I am not too proud for charity (or 2 proud 2 beg).

Here’s a shot of one of the massive volumes pre-auction.

And here’s another picture with a man who looks nothing at all like Bertram Cooper.

Also up for auction was a 1623 edition of Shakespeare’s works–the first full printed collection–which went for a measly £1.5 million.  Seriously, that’s bargain bin prices, folks.

I give this a full-on Liz Lemon “I want to go to there.”

I take it back; I want to live there.

This is, I think, a big step forward in the evolution of e-readers.  Granted, there are Kindle versions for different devices, including computers and phones (and iPods), but you still have to purchase your books (and even download public domain ones) through Amazon.

Here’s Google’s introductory video.

Another great feature of the new release is the ability to purchase books through independent sellers.  You can purchase books directly from Google, or you can choose a local shop.  This is unlike Amazon’s approach, which is to fight for control at every stage along the way.  Google’s approach is “reading unbound,” as the store’s motto says.

Things are still getting going (I even tried to get the app before it was available this morning), and so the current selection, even though comprising millions of volumes, is not exhaustive.  For instance, I searched for Philip Roth’s Everyman, one of my favorite books, and I couldn’t find it.  There were only a handful of Roth books available right now.  But that will surely change very quickly, especially as independent booksellers set up their online stores.

So how will this affect libraries?  I’m sure there will soon be reactions from all over about this development, with a wide range of opinions, but my hope is that this will help libraries in their attempts to provide digital books for people to check out and read.  There are some e-readers, like Sony’s, that have been compatible with libraries from the get go, but if Google makes it much easier to access e-books across a variety of media, then hopefully this will reduce some of the obstacles facing libraries now, at least as soon as the lending and copyright issues are all worked out.  If nothing else, companies like Amazon, which have been less than helpful with regard to libraries, will surely be forced to extend privileges and control on the user’s end.