What's The Time, Mr. Wolf?

Another week of being rather lax with blog posting - as I scroll down the section in the column which categorises posts by months, I'm astonished that I managed 28 in October and May. Well, 24 isn't bad for November. Especially since 30-days-have-September, April-June-and-November (do they still teach children that in Primary School? It all tails off in 'except for February alone, which has 28, unless it's a leap year...' - not so much with the scansion, there).

I'm currently at 'work' in the Bodleian - my Saturday duty, which I do once a month. Except term ended yesterday, and only the very dedicated have shown up to study once everyone else has gone home. Not run off my feet. And all this got me thinking about the blogging schedule - what time do you blog? What time do you read blogs, or go through the daily blog-crawl? Same time everyday? Whenever you have a moment?

With some exceptions (like today), I blog between 10.30-midnight just before I go to bed. That's because the mornings are invariably a rush, and the evenings seem more flexible - but also explains why I never had photographs taken in the light, and why I'm often ineloquent and sleepy-sounding...

My blog-crawl comes at about 10.00, when the morning rush is over in the library and I have time to look through some websites. That might change when I start in the main Bodleian on Monday... I've already talked about the blogs I visit daily, and it's nice to know which ones will have something new. Dovegreyreader seems to update at early o'clock, with Random Jottings not long after - Cornflower will be mid-morning, usually, and so it goes on. All gets a bit more confusing with US blogs, which probably get updated while I'm asleep, but a check at 10.00 will generally insure something different has arrived.

And all this is by way of a sort-of apology - because I daresay my regular visitors hope to see something arrive before midnight (or, rather, be there in the morning) so those of you who checked in early this morning... sorry. I was asleep!

And to offset an apology with a thanks - three of you lovely people offered me a cutting of the Guardian bit mentioning me, so thanks Julie, Carole and Peter (I assume Dark Puss can't read?) and especial thanks to Julie who was first, and thus to whom I responded first, and is responsible for the article now on my desk at home!

Freelance Class Action Suit

After years of wrangling and lawsuits (Tsanini v. New York Times), in 2005 freelance writers and publishers agreed to a settlement (worth about $18 million) regarding payment for work posted online or in databases. However, a few writers opposed it on the grounds that it did not allot enough funds for writers of unregistered works and appealed. Now the U.S. Court of Appeals has overturned the decision of the lower court to approve the settlement, saying they lacked the jurisdiction to do so, throwing everything into chaos again.

Here is a link from the Author's Guild to the decision.

Tom's Midnight Garden

I'm very bad - despite a teetering pile of books to be reviewed, a nostalgic conversation with a friend led me to take a break and read Tom's Midnight Garden. What is more astounding is that this is the first time I've read the book. Astounding because I know every word, more or less, already...

I have very vague recollections of watching Tom's Midnight Garden the first time it was shown on the BBC, but since I was 3 or 4, I'm not sure how genuine those memories are - but Our Vicar and Our Vicar's Wife wisely taped the programmes, six in all, and they joined a small filmography of videos to be Watched When Ill. Alongside the Chronicles of Narnia and Pride and Prejudice, this drama was akin to medication, and no day of lying convalescent was complete without one of them. Because I've seen it so often, it came as quite a shock the other day when I realised that I haven't seen Tom's Midnight Garden for about a decade - but it didn't take long before every detail came swarming back. My friend Clare and I had a conversation littered with squeals and 'oh yes's while each bit of the drama slotted back into place. They just don't make kids' shows like that anymore...

Anyway, before this becomes a 1990s nostalgia (or 1989, to be precise) I should probably fill people in. Some of you may not have heard of Tom and his Midnight Garden, and be wondering what on earth I'm talking about. Philippa Pearce's 1958 children's book, now a classic, is about a boy called Tom who must spend the summer with his Uncle Alan and Aunt Gwen to avoid his brother's measles. They live in a flat within a large, old house, one which, to Tom's disappointment, has no garden. He is bored, and cannot sleep - but his strict uncle ensures he's in bed for ten hours a night. The house has an old grandfather clock in the hall, which strikes loudly and inaccurately throughout the building. At night, Tom hears the clock strike thirteen (like the beginning of 1984, isn't that?) and reasons that he has been granted an extra hour to the day - and thus can spend ten hours in bed and get up now. When downstairs, he can't read the clock face, and so opens the door to get the moonlight... and reveals an enormous and beautiful garden.

The book takes us through Tom's adventures in the garden over the course of several months, and his friendship with Hatty, a little girl in the garden who can see him although the others can't. Some wonderful twists and events, and gradual comprehension, but I shan't spoil any of that for people yet to encounter Tom.

Having now read the delightful book, I am amazed at how accurate the BBC version was - my memory of it is not sharp enough to know whether or not they added things, but there was scarcely a line in the book which didn't make it onto screen. Impressive. If anyone's not read the book, do so now. If anyone's not seen the BBC version, I'm afraid you'll have to have deep pockets - the video goes for about £50, secondhand...

Presents and I-Wish Presents!

Thank you Danielle!

You may remember that I recently offered Miss Hargreaves up for a book swap, having happened upon her in a secondhand bookshop in Oxford, and she was sent off over the Atlantic to Danielle. Danielle has her own blog here, and it is great fun, and very popular. The amount she manages to read and blog about puts me to shame, truly. Anyway, she very kindly reciprocated with not one but two books - here they are:

The Haunted Bookshop and Parnassus on Wheels by Christopher Morley. I haven't read either of them, but have heard about Morley, and The Haunted Bookshop has been mentioned to me with glee a few times over the years. So glad to have beautiful copies of them, and they've slotted right into the tbr mountain. What with review books, and lovely gifts, and impulse buys, I'm not making the dent in the pile I envisaged for this season... especially since I keep getting lured off on side-tracks. Wait until you hear what I've been reading at the moment...


So, those are the genuine gifts. And what is it I wish I had? Only available in America so far, but...

How could you NOT want this?? Amazon.com, you are too tempting...

WGA Strike Survey

Variety conducted a poll to determine public opinion about the strike, and more than 2/3rds of the respondents felt the writers are presenting their side better than the producers, and the same number agreed that the writers were being more honest in their discussions of the key issues.

My own little poll was less detailed, but also skewed heavily in favor of the writers.

To Loan or Not To Loan?

One of the things which came up during the How Clean Is Your Book? debate (sorry, that will probably mean nothing to non-UK visitors) was a question which links into the to-scrawl-or-not-to-scrawl dilemma. Well, not really a dilemma - don't think I've encountered anyone who was indecisive or unsure on this point - whereas the subsidiary question provokes, I would imagine, rather less black-and-white reactions.

To loan or not to loan?

While we all agreed we wouldn't write in books which were borrowed, do you borrow? Do you follow old Polonius' advice and avoid being either a lender or a borrowed, knowing that one loses the friendship with the one, and something about keeping, or.... ok, I can't remember the *exact* quotation, but I'm sure you know the one about which I'm talking. One of the defences for scrawling was that the book is for one reader's eyes only - if they're never loaned out, then nobody can object.

It must be the librarian in me - I love lending and borrowing books. Love it. Must admit, when I borrow books I tend to end up buying them anyway, since I like to have copies of books I've read - partly, to go full circle, because I can then lend them to other people. The main argument against lending books, of course, is that they somehow don't find their way back - I must have been fortunate in the people I chose, because I've never had that problem. Each of my books is like a homing pigeon... yes, there is one person who's had a pile of my books for four years, but I have had a pile of her books for the same length of time, and I know the piles will be exchanged in good time. Something about borrowing a book makes it even more special than following up a recommendation (though that is also great) - a real connection between reading friends.

Exceptions and Problems...

1) I don't lend Miss Hargreaves... she might be the only one. I'd be distraught if she went missing. While I'm on her, think there's a UK copy on ebay at the moment... Just checked, there are actually two. Go to it!

2) Isn't it awkward when you lend to someone who isn't as keen as they sound, and the weeks go by, and you know they're never going to actually read it... how does one ask for it back politely? I tend to let book-love go about etiquette, and just ask for it back...

3) And in reverse - when someone presses something on you. You quite like it, but don't want to be trapped in a spiral of reading things by that author until your friend's collection has run out. "I enjoyed it - will let you know if I'd like to borrow more, thanks" never sounds convincing, does it?

4) Please don't lie to me. If you didn't notice that about thirty pages are accidentally reprinted, then you didn't read it... this happened to me once...

Despite these issues, I love lending and borrowing! By post, in person, all good.
Howsabout you??

Fame and/or Fortune!

Just spent a very nice weekend at The Carbon Copy's in Bristol, wandering the parks and getting lost, that sort of thing. Since his hair has grown a bit, and mine has been cut (the sketch is not quite accurate anymore) and we both have glasses now (for distance only, not reading, so the sketch is on the ball there) we look more alike than ever. I've missed those lingering 'are-they-twins-or-aren't-they' glances, which we received in bucketloads over the course of two days. The novelty never wears off for me - I love people getting us mixed up, or staring, or commenting. Fun fun. Our Vicar and Our Vicar's Wife also popped up, and we had a first read-through of our Christmas sketch, to be performed at the village show. More on't later...

And now to the FAME. Thanks, Lynne, for bringing this to my attention - I've been mentioned in the Guardian's 'From The Blogs', follow this link and read down a bit. Lynne is mentioned too, I must add. Sorry for sharing my excitement so unsubtly, but it's virgin territory for me, and I get a definite kick out of seeing my name in print. In fact.... I don't know if this is just a web thing, or if it's a copy of the Saturday paper - if the latter, does anyone have a spare copy of the article they could send me?? Shameless, I know, but it *would* be a lovely piece to keep in a scrapbook or something... let me know on simondavidthomas@yahoo.co.uk and receive my undying gratitude!