Thursday, November 15, 2007
Nearly a year ago, in this post I extolled the virtues of Library Thing, a site that gives interesting book suggestions (and "unsuggestions") based on statistics of users' libraries.
Well, we have now finally decided to bite the bullet and start recording the contents of our own library there as well. I must admit this has become a bit of an obsession in the Dunce house (who would have thought?!), but there's a long way to go. Despite the handy options to find books easily (looking up by ISBN using Amazon, Library of Congress or quite a few other databases) it's still taking us a long time. Mainly due to UK editions which don't always come up on Amazon or any of the others we've tried. So we're still working on our first room, the dining room. The main consequence of this is that cookbooks are relatively over-represented at the moment.
It gives all kinds of interesting information; perhaps the most interesting to us at the moment is the number of users who have a particular book in their collection (although this may not be exactly right due to variations in titles, editions etc. For example I find it extremely hard to believe that only two Libray Thing users have a copy of "Wrestling's Heels and Heroes", or that nobody but us has the Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics), and also the other books owned by people whose libraries are similar to ours so far.
Our catalog is visible to public view here, although please note that we have a long, long way to go before it will be complete. So don't use this as a definitive guide to gift book selection. Especially if the good book stores near our workplaces keep trying to clear out their second-hand books (I think we are +5 in the last couple of days for this reason).
Rumors that we are planning to convert the attic into a library are not completely true.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
I have a possibly unhealthy obsession with picking up things from the ground, especially when they look like handwritten notes. A lot of the time they turn out to be uninteresting (e.g. someone's name, phone number and/or address) but once in a while they are quite interesting or mysterious. For example, the handwritten notes below, apparently an outline of a very depressing letter:
--------------------------------------------
-I have this decision to communicate this to you in writing. I am to outline how I feel abt what you have done.
-Extremely-
-I have had 4 years of the worst relationship
-You have been in many respects a complete enigma to me
-I am not a vengeful person
-With deliberate intent to commit the evil act
-malicious
-I saw you as a wonderful, caring and loving woman, who in sicken and in health, is richer and would stay by me
-I put my whole life in you, I trust you constantly to me
-Unscrupulous tendency to lie, and scheme your way to get what you want
-And when you have drained all the blood
-You have left me when I was in my lowest ebb
-You humiliated me in front of my kids
-I expected you after all that meant though to
--------------------------------------------
And that's the end. If that wasn't strange enough, it's written on the back of a piece of scrap paper, the other side some kind of police-related administrative data (it has to be police-related, because it has entries like CID, Operation Sapphire, CMU, Vehicle Crime, etc.). It seems to be some kind of inventory records, apparently keeping a running total on the number of [something] with a particular focus upon outstanding inventory (boldface columns indicate "Total Out of store for 5-27 days" and "TotalOut of store for more than 28 days"). It's cryptic enough to seem like an interesting puzzle (there are all sorts of mysterious abbreviations, never mind what exactly they are tracking, which could perhaps be guessed by looking at the relative numbers for different groups), but I've decided instead to shred it.
I think there are a couple of important lessons here:
If you must write an outline of an important, heartfelt letter to a loved one (or former loved one), it's probably best not to use the back of a sensitive document.
If you must write an outline of an important, heartfelt letter to a loved one (or former loved one) on the back of a sensitive document, it's best not to discard it on the street.
For that matter, it's probably best just not to litter.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
On the way from our house to the bus stop, I walk through a handy pedestrial underpass to avoid crossing the very busy, high-speed deathtrap of a road that is Westbury Avenue (two "newsworthy" accidents in the last month alone: exhibit A, exhibit B). It's nice and well-lit, but on the other side is a large, plain wall which often attracts scrawled graffiti. It was recently painted over, but more graffiti has sprung up. It seems like it might be a roll of gang names, all written in black marker in the same handwriting. If so, I think some of the gang members might have gotten a bum deal when names were handed out. The list is below, in the order in which they appear. Is your gang name on there?
Lucifer
Satan 666
TMD
Flying Sqod
NPK
Love of Money
SW1 Crew
Assasins
Rowdey
Shower
Mob
Mob H Town
Buger Bar
Clap Town South
28
My favorite among these is Love of Money, which is a great gang name for reasons that are made clear in T.E.Cliffe Leslie's 1862 essay of the same title.
And I can hardly pick on those names that evoke evil or violence, as these sorts of names are crucial for instilling a sense of dread and fear. Included among these are Lucifer, Satan 666, Assasins, Mob, Mob H Town ("H" possibly referring to Haringey [local area] or Hackney [nearby and with perhaps more street cred than H'gey]), and to a lesser extent Rowdey, and possibly Flying Sqod. The latter is especially notable, as at the time of writing it yields exactly zero Google hits (Did you mean: "flying squad". No standard web pages containing all your search terms were found.). No doubt this is a clever ploy to separate oneself from the zillions of Flying Squads out there (Results 1 - 10 of about 203,000 for "flying squad").
It's also fine to self-identify with a particular location as this follows a long tradition of geographically based gang names. Here we have Clap Town South perhaps referring to Clapton in east London, or Clapham in south London (see the similarly named Clap Town Kids from Clapham who have received some attention in the press), Mob H Town as mentioned before, and the SW1 Crew (SW1 referring to a London postcode with serious credibility on the streets, being home to Buckingham Palace, the Houses of Parliament and 10 Downing Street).
Then we have the cryptic ones, which are also just fine as they protect the identity from the authorities. For example, TMD. Could this be noted author Thomas M. Disch? Or maybe this person suffers from temporomandibular joint disorder (also known as TMJ) and has adopted its name as a statment of strength through adversity. NPK is much easier to figure out; this name is clearly a reference to fertilizer (N: Nitrogen, P: Phosphorous, K: Potassium). 28 is cryptic as well. It could either refer to the atomic number of nickel (hence a very clever reference to wealth, a subtle take on "Love of Money" mentioned above), or perhaps a shout-out to street hero Zbiegniew Brzezinski who was born on March 28, 1928.
And finally, there are the real losers. I think these are the gang members who were not present when the names were being handed out, and were assigned names for their insult value. I'm talking about Buger Bar (presumably this name is a degenerate form of Burger Bar, aka fast food joint, and I suspect its owner is above average in girth and displacement), and even worse, Shower, presumably a filthy young gentleman whose name must be a form of comedic opposition. Perhaps I, the Dunce, should count myself among their number.
From the names, I think these are all young gentlemen; ladies' names on such lists tend to contain one or more of the following: {Miss, Ms, Lady, Queen, Baby}, as in MS FLYING SQOD. Anyway, I look forward to meeting these young gentlemen and discussing their branding strategy in great detail.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
I've read a number of pub reviews (mainly at Beer in the Evening which include the word "use", as in "I use this pub regularly" (source), "I used this pub a lot in the early 70s" (source), "I used this pub for the first time today" (source). To my midwestern US English ear the verb "use" sounds very strange in this context; my strongest interpretation is a running visit (if you will) to use the toilet and nothing more. But in the examples above (and the many others you find using search terms like "(use OR used OR using) (this OR that OR the) pub") quite clearly indicate a more leisurely sort of visit, likely involving having a drink or three, and possibly some craic as well. Of course US English permits the use of "use" when there is a specific purpose designated ("we used the pub for our party", "we have been using this pub as a meeting place", but "use" on its own doesn't quite sem kosher.
However, it seems like a very ordinary (UK) English usage and I wondered whether it extended to other institutions besides the public house (the only context in which I have noticed its use). Restaurants? YES (apparently, don't use this one). Hotels? YES (use this one). Museums? Apparently so ("a broader range of people used the museum": link).
So it seems like speakers of UK English can use just about any establishment, while I can only use their toilets.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Lately I've been playing with the quick search option in my web browser. It's a text box that gives search results right away (i.e., without having to go to a search page like Google). It can be set to use various different search engines (although I try non-Google options on a regular basis as a matter of principle, I have to admit that Google best serves my general searching needs. Or maybe I've just been Google-brainwashed into taking its idiosyncracies into account when I search). In any event, my main interest in the quick search option is its predictive search suggestions (active only for a few search engines, it seems): based on the letters typed so far, it attempts to guess my search terms, and displays them below the text box. Presumably this is based on frequency in some way (and definitely time-sensitive as you'll see below). So I've been playing with it a bit to see what it thinks I'm looking for. What better than the ego search? Below are the terms that are suggested as I attempt to search for myself on Google:
D: dictionary (followed by Dell, dictionary.com [interesting to see that people are using search for this, rather than just browing to it], dancing with the stars, debenhams [UK department store])
DA: Dancing with the Stars (currently popular US TV series based on the BBC format "Strictly Come Dancing". Followed by Dallas Cowboys, Daylight Savings Time [currently relevant], Daily Mail [UK newspaper, subject of much sneering in the Dunce household], dating).
DAV: Davids Bridal (US chain of bridal shops David's Bridal. Followed by David Beckham, David Copperfield, Dave and Busters, and only then David's Bridal [the web-searching public do not seem inclined to use apostrophes. see also "Dave and Busters").
DAVI: Davids Bridal (again)
DAVID: Davids Bridal (again)
DAVID : David Beckham (UK Ambassador to People's Republic of Southern California, followed by various other Davids not including me: Copperfield, Jones [Aussie department store, and a very common name], Bowie, Letterman).
DAVID V: David Villa (Spanish footballer currently playing for Valencia. Followed by David Vitter [US senator from Louisiana], David Vendetta [French band], David vs Goliath [Bible story used metaphorically all over the place]. I still don't feature)
DAVID VI: David Villa (again, followed by Vitter, Vincent and Virtue)
DAVID VIN: David Vincent (Morbid Angel frontman, followed by Vine [UK sports presenter], Viner [blues musician] and Vinson [Dunce!])
DAVID VINS: The only suggestion given is my name (shared with many other DVs, of course). So I am a relatively unpopular search until you reach the world of phrases beginning with "DAVID VINS".
Yahoo (I will not add the !) gives slightly different results which could say something about the typical Yahoo vs. Google user:
D: Daylight Savings Time 2007 (dictionary, daylight savings time, daylight saving time, driving directions)
DA: it's all Daylight Saving/Savings related
DAV: Davids Bridal (followed by Harley Davidson [the first case in which the search term doesn't begin with the letters specified!], Copperfield and Beckham)
DAVI: Davids Bridal (again)
DAVID: Davids Bridal (again)
DAVID : David Copperfield is first (followed by Beckham, Blaine, Letterman, Lee Roth. Seems to be more USA-centric than Google)
DAVID V: David Victoria Beckham (or maybe I spoke too soon! followed by Villa, Vetter and Vendetta)
DAVID VI: David Victoria Beckham (followed by David and Victoria Beckham wedding pictures, would you believe?)
DAVID VIN: David Vine is more popular than the Morbid Angel (followed by Vincent, Viner, Vinson)
DAVID VINS: My name, but many other suggestions too (David Vins, A David Vinson, David Vinski and so on).
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
I found someone's "to do" list on the ground near our local post office parcel delivery substation thingy*. I was impressed by the extremely general nature of the items on the list. But my main thought was sympathy for the poor person who lost the list, sitting in a house full of boxes, with a hire van parked outside, and no idea what to do next:
TO DO!!!
Pack up house
Clean up
Collect van
Move
Unpack
Return van
* We "missed" a special delivery on Saturday because the weekend post officer didn't bother to ring or knock. So I had to cycle a couple of miles to the aforementioned post office parcel delivery substation thingy, then wait a half hour or so while they looked fruitlessly for the missing envelope. They were able to tell me many things I didn't care about, such as the fact that the weekend post officer only works on Saturday and has braids, and that the missing delivery was indeed returned to the post office at the end of rounds on Saturday. "So it's probably around here somewhere, or else someone has picked it up by mistake and might find it in their bag at the end of their rounds today". Grrrrrrrrr.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
For many Americans whose dialect doesn't include the handy pronoun "y'all" or "youse", the phrase "you guys" serves as a very handy second person plural of perhaps a rather informal register. But it also has the interesting property that, at least in this particular form, the word "guy" no longer necessarily refers to men. "You guys" can refer not only to a group of men, or a mixed group of men and women, but even to a group only of women:
I’m not here to make friends with you guys. -- contestant on season 7 of America's Next Top Model engaged in light conversation with some other (female) contestants.
As far as I know, UK English does not have a comparable phrase deployed in similar situations (although of course there's no shortage of ways to express second-person-plural should the need truly arise); the closest equivalent I can think of is "lads" which is obligatorily masculine.* Indeed, I've seen some female UK-ites take offense to being addressed as part of "you guys". This is no surprise, because it seems to me that only this particular use of "guy" permits female reference. (Not just "you guys". "Guys" can also stand alone in this manner when used for second person reference: "Guys, you'll never believe this forwarded email I just got")
For example, it would not sound at all right** to say "a guy" to refer to a female person (assuming one is not making a specific point about masculine appearance or manner, e.g. "one of the guys"). Plural "guys" also doesn't sound right when used to refer to a group ("All the guys were there. Bob, Mike, Tom, Donna, and Louise"). If I start talking about "sexy guys" there is no possibility that I am talking about a group that includes women. In fact, modifying "guys" with any sort of adjective seems to remove women from the equation, even in the pronoun(ish) sense:
"You guys" = can include women.
"You sexy guys" = doesn't include women.
"Sexy guys" = doesn't include women.
"You stupid guys" = doesn't include women.
"You female guys" = doesn't make sense.
Quantification, hmmmm, this seems OK in the female-permitted sense of "you guys", but only when used in the second person. Third person female guys are still a no-no:
"You three guys" = can include women.
"Three guys" = none of whom are women.
Of course this subject has attracted more scholarly attention, and at least to some, "you guys" is a hugely big deal. The excitement practically drips off the page in George Jochnowitz's 1983 article "Another View of You Guys" (appearing in American Speech, 1983) "The rapid spread of you guys through the United States during the last decade [i.e., the 1970s] is the only major change in the prononimal system of English that has occurred since the loss of thou and thee four centuries ago". At the time of writing, (Jochnowitz claimed) "you guys" was the most frequently used second person plural pronoun in the United States, although I'm not sure whether he includes the ambiguous "you" in his count. He also points out that the pronoun is somewhat broken compared to others (you can say "You linguists" but not "you guys linguists"). So, what do you guys think?
* There's a wikipedia entry here which (at the moment) claims that "chaps" is "increasingly used for people of either sex". But I can't think of any cases in which I've actually heard the word "chaps" used in this manner (except perhaps where someone has used it in a weak attempt at comic effect, complete with faux upper class accent).
** All judgments are according to my own intuition only. Your mileage may vary. If so please leave a comment.
*** How can I not mention Guy Fawkes, the etymological grandfather of "you guys"?
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Overheard on the bus today:
HE: Are you saying you want me to give you some space? Cause I'll do that if that's what you want.
SHE: Yeah, that's what I want. Space.
HE: Well OK, you just had to say so.
SHE: Only, it has to be space with someone else in it. Not you.
OUCH!
Monday, October 01, 2007
This weekend the Dunces said goodbye to a couple of old friends, two large Ikea bookshelves (one "Leksvik" and one who-knows-what) which have been with us for ages and together offered us a dozen (much-needed) shelves of book storage. Unfortunately as we've moved the shelves from place to place, their structural integrity has gradually decreased (despite our efforts to take them apart very carefully, and just as carefully store all the hardware necessary to rebuild them successfully). And now they can probably be best described as "wonky"; they are fine if carefully propped in a corner, but tend to slouch if left to their own devices. But they've been happily slouching in the back bedroom for some months now, loaded with books and showing no signs of imminent collapse. Perhaps I've exaggerated their lack of structural integrity (although I'm irritated by their tendency towards "disposable", like many Ikea products [Sometimes you do get what you pay for]); the real problem is that they don't really fit anywhere in our flat. They've remained in our back room just because we've abandoned the room, leaving it as a disorganized storage area where we hang our clothes to dry, park an extra bike, and so on.
But now things are changing. Mrs. Dunce is spearheading the effort to make the room usable, which includes building a set of shelves* from floor to ceiling in a fairly wide alcove next to the chimney breast. These shelves should have just about as much capacity as the two bookshelves, and will allow us much more space in the room. So we dragged the two old shelves outside, leaving them next to the bins in the hope that someone else might consider them useful and take them away. I didn't think there was much chance; they looked even more wonky sitting on our crooked pavement in the front garden. But surprise, surprise, this morning they were gone. So now there's no going back. We have to build the shelves, or get rid of a dozen cartons of books!**
* We should be up to the job of shelf-building, having already completed a small test run in another room using the same style of shelf mounting.
** While I was clearing off the old bookshelves, I was also going through the books with an eye on getting rid of those we didn't need any longer. But I only found a dozen or so that I could really do without (to give you an idea of my hoarding tendencies, Battlefield Earth made the cut). So it was hardly worth making an effort to get rid of any books this time around.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Earlier this summer I made a pilgrimage to the family home, where (as is my custom) I went through quite a few cartons of absolutely essential items I stored for the brief time I would be spending overseas. As the "brief time" is now approaching seven years, I have started re-evaluating the notion of "absolutely essential", discarding or donating many items once considered "absolutely essential" but which have now slipped to just "essential". Such as badly dubbed cassette copies of albums my brother owns (or once owned, perhaps copies themselves), VHS recordings of matches from World Cup 1994 (and way more pro wrestling shows than you might think), kitchen implements that were originally obtained from garage sales (or more likely, salvaged from streetside on "moving day" [the most important day of the year for the discerning scavenger who happens to live in the vicinity of a large university]), assorted food products slightly past their best-by date (and which have somehow escaped the attention of any vermin in the vicinity of Dunce Parents' Manor), ten-year-old batteries that still might have a bit of zap left in them, ... well, you get the idea. In any event, I plowed through quite a few cartons of such treasures, but also managed to find real treasures in their midst. This time there was one truly precious find which I brought back with me and triumphantly presented to Mrs. Dunce....
It's a music video (VHS format) dating back to my high school days. During which, I must admit, I loved me that heavy metal music (And here comes quite a digression indeed). I sneered at anyone who played a "real" guitar (i.e., acoustic guitar), believing that the only true music came from electric guitars (ideally two or more at a time), played by proper metal musicians (in contrast to the pretty boys who were all about fashion and stuff, and didn't play, you know, REAL metal [erm, you could be all about fashion and stuff as long as your metal was real enough, such as Twisted Sister, Stryper {ummmmmm, yeah, I know}, and the like {Really I'm just trying to claim I never liked Giuffria, Motley Crue or Poison}]). Now I had to be careful about my selection of proper heavy metal music, as metal too heavy ran the risk of parental involvement (see for example the unfortunate birthday present from a much-beloved aunt, who made the mistake of giving a gift certificate. Which I quickly spent on Defenders of the Faith by Judas Priest. Which in turn was inspected and parentally confiscated for some unknown reason [and, in turn, un-confiscated at a later date, through a highly risky stealth mission]). But the occasional copy of magazines like Creem and Hit Parader did appear in our house, and it was from these that I learned about which bands were REAL metal and which bands were total posers or worse*. In any event, I brought back a relic of these days and proudly presented it to Mrs. Dunce....
The music video is Hear 'n Aid: The Sessions:
Which I believe I purchased for the full retail price (perhaps $19.99) despite its feeble length of only 30 minutes. Recorded in 1985, it's the Heavy Metal world's answer to "We Are the World" and "Do They Know It's Christmas?", a single entitled "Stars" featuring many of the day's hottest metal musicians (and some less hot... the guys from Rough Cutt and Vanilla Fudge) (and some less metal... Y&T? Journey? Night Ranger? although I guess they ROCKED!! on the song) (and some less real... Derek Smalls & David St. Hubbins of Spinal Tap), to raise money for those poor starving African children (a complete list of the participants appears on the Wikipedia page [where else?!]). The song begins like a ballad, with teensy-weensy Ronnie James Dio crooning the lyrics "Who cries for the children? I do......" before launching into the full metal power of who-knows-how-many metal guitars crunching away at your heartstrings (and for the record, I do not believe Mr. Dio actually cries for the children). How can I continue to wax lyrical about it, when the music video itself is a mere click away at Youtube. If you haven't seen it, you have no excuse. Don't worry, I'll wait....
HEAR 'N AID: STARS
If you want to analyze the lyrics in more depth (or perhaps have them tattooed on your person) they can be found here (along with a clear indication of exactly who sings what, something that is quite important since they almost all sound the same). It's also rather impressive to see how some of the best guitar solos (by this I mean the ones I thought were the best back in the day) actually appear to be unrelated to the song, but could actually be included in just about any heavy metal song without sounding any worse. The video tape includes not only the song itself, but builds up to it with a "making of" video. Yes, it does look very much like a parody (particularly given the presence of two gentlemen from Spinal Tap) but it's deadly serious. And now it's part of our household!
I am actually kicking myself now for discarding its original sleeve; used copies (ex-rental!) sell for $50 (link if you'd like to buy one).
* My favorite letter-to-the-editor of all time appeared on the pages of one of these magazines. It was quite customary for young fans to write in and explain which bands they liked (and why), and more importantly, which bands they didn't like (and why). Usually in the most anoraky style possible (yes, they could have been me). But the best of all was a dramatic put-down of Kevin DuBrow (frontman of much-regarded Slade rip-off band Quiet Riot) who (it was alleged) "couldn't kick ass if he wore butt-seeking boots" (a passage which sadly receives zero hits on Google [until now]).
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Last weekend was London Open House, a once-a-year event where members of the public can get inside buildings that are not ordinarily open (or see parts of buildings that are not ordinarily accessible, etc.). For free, I should mention. This year we decided to trek to the extreme northwestern part of London, to the town of Pinner (birthplace of Sir Elton John, onetime home of Simon LeBon and setting of the BBC sitcom One Foot in the Grave. But we were not there for any of that. Instead we were there to see some old houses.
Our first stop was Sweetmans Hall, a 16th century timber-framed house. The present owners have only lived there for a couple of years, and have been spending most of that time restoring it (using more traditional materials than previous "restoration" which they have had to undo before their own restoration, in order to prevent disaster). We thought it would be a very lovely place to live, if only we had a couple million to spare. The view from the rear gives a good indication of its structure (see the nice exposed beams, including the brand-new beam on the rectangular extension on the right side of the picture)
And some very nice angles are quite visible in the closer view (it's amazing this building has stood for around 500 years)
Our next stop was Headstone Manor, "former home of the Archbishops of Canterbury and Middlesex's oldest surviving timber-framed building", parts of which date from 1310. It's surrounded by a moat (for purposes of ostentation rather than defense), and like many old, old buildings has been built onto in various ways over the years. Some parts were destroyed by fire hundreds of years ago, and in fact the building is currently still undergoing major restoration work (including massive metal supports from which the structure of the building now hangs). There's still quite a bit to go (some of the interiors have still been untouched from the building's recent previous life as council housing). Here's a view from the rear (the front is less interesting... it's all covered in brick, which apparently disguised the building's age for many years)
And then it was back into Pinner, this time to see the East End Farm Cottage (which has its own website, here, with much more information). It was built in the 14th/15th century, and the present owners have a list of every owner since 1429 (PDF link). As you might expect it's a lovely little cottage, with crooked angles everywhere you look.
(I don't mean to call Mrs. Dunce a crooked angle!)
But perhaps the highlight of the day was the interior which contained a large wall painting (~turn of the 16th century), featuring a hunting scene with a dog in action and the lower part of a stag, complete with dripping blood. Needless to say Mrs. Dunce was incredibly excited about this very unusual medieval remnant.
We were extremely pleased to have a chance to see these buildings, especially Sweetmans Hall and East End Cottage which are privately owned, not museums. Thanks to the owners of these houses who were willing to open them up to the public (and act as tour guides too).
Monday, July 16, 2007
Well, after a long blog-free interval I finally have a few minutes to spare here and there, so it's time to see about getting back on the blog-entry train. Because there are way too many blogs that just petered out but still remain visible evidence of the short attention spans of their writers. Not this one. Hang on a second, I see something sparkly.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Quite a while ago I posted some photos of my London cycle commute (link). You might get a different perspective on cycling in London from the video linked below. Please note, the movie file is 70mb, and it's accompanied by a heavy metal soundtrack. So turn down the volume if you don't want to ROCK!!!
London Calling (From digave.com, Lucas Brunelle Productions).
My own commute is somewhat less aggressive, and may have a different soundtrack. It also doesn't involve any parking garages.