Shelf-Conscious

by Francesca Mari
theparisreview

I knew a kid in college who wanted so desperately to produce a book that he couldn’t stand the sight of their spines. He stacked them—ten or so brown and black books, library hardcovers—in his dorm room, titles to the wall, lips facing forward. He didn’t really buy books, either—at least I don’t recall that he did—but he never passed a bookstore without entering to read. These same stores have since displayed his books in their windows.

“‘You can tell how serious people are by looking at their books,’” Susan Sontag told Sigrid Nunez, long ago when Nunez was dating Sontag’s son. “She meant not only what books they had on their shelves, but how the books were arranged,” Nunez explains. “Because of her, I arranged my own books by subject and in chronological rather than alphabetical order. I wanted to be serious.”

There are many varieties of nerd, but only two real species—the serious and the nonserious—and shelves are a pretty good indication of who is which. “To expose a bookshelf,” Harvard professor Leah Price writes in Unpacking My Library, a recent collection of interviews with writers about the books they own, “is to compose a self.” In Sontag’s case, a very rigorous self. And, of course, that’s just the sort of self someone anxious about his aspirations might shy away from. “A self without a shelf remains cryptic,” Price notes. It’s like the straight-A student who says he hasn’t studied for finals: if you haven’t confessed to caring, no one can consider you to have failed.

There’s not a lot of anxiety about keeping libraries in this collection, however, because the adults featured—Junot Diaz, Steven Pinker, Gary Shteyngart, James Wood, Claire Messud, to name a few—are all solidly successful. Price’s interviews are less about each writer’s affairs and encounters with individual books than his or her shepherding of the whole herd—what’s treasured, tossed, bought twice, allowed to be lent. The interesting questions focus on each writer’s feelings about intellectual signaling and methods of overall arrangement. In other words, the stars of the pictures aren’t the books but the shelves.

As it turns out, for a great deal of their history, shelves were much more haphazard than they are today. Before they even displayed books, they supported piles of scrolls. In the first century BC, Atticus loaned Cicero two assistants to build shelves and to tack titles onto his collection. “Your men have made my library gay with their carpentry work,” Cicero reported. “Nothing could look neater than those shelves.”

But around the time the codex emerged in the first century AD, open shelves—which now housed two clashing forms, the long cylindrical scroll and the flat rectangular codex—began to be considered hideous. Texts were sent into hiding, stored in armoires and trunks, which were convenient for transporting books, but not for accessing them.

For the next fourteen hundred or so years, books, as Henry Petroski, a professor of civic engineering and history at Duke, writes in The Book on the Bookshelf, were shelved every which way but straight up, spine out. Engravings of private studies show books piled horizontally, standing on the edge opposite their spine (their fore edge), as well as turned fore edge out.

In the Middle Ages, when monasteries were the closest equivalent to a public library, monks kept works in their carrels. To increase circulation, these works were eventually chained to inclined desks, or lecterns, thus giving ownership of a work to a particular lectern rather than a particular monk. But as collections grew, surface space diminished, and books came to be stacked on shelves above the lectern, at first one and then many. The problem, of course, was that two books chained next to each another couldn’t be comfortably studied at the same time: elbows knocked; shackles clinked and tangled.

Hence the innovation of vertical storage. One book could be removed without disturbing the rest. Yet the transition was gradual. Books in monasteries retained their chains for some time, and many leather covers, particularly in private libraries, protruded irregularly, tricked-out as they were with embossing and jewels. Those books that did stand were oriented with their spines to the back of the shelf.

Sometimes an identifying design was drawn across the thick of the pages. A doctor of law just north of Venice named Odorico Pillone had Titian’s nephew, Cesare Vecellio, draw the fore edges of his books with scenes befitting their content. Other times a title label flagged off the inner edge of the cover or was affixed to the chain.

The first spine with printing dates from 1535, and it was then that books began to spin into the position we’re familiar with.

 

Despite the proliferation of affordable books with printed spines in the intervening centuries, the gold standard of shelving, the built-in bookshelf, didn’t become prevalent until the Depression. Edward Bernays, the man who sold women on smoking and invented “public relations” in 1923 with a course at NYU and a book called Crystallizing Public Opinion, was hired by publishers to hasten book sales.As Petroski notes, he deployed famous public figures to proclaim “the importance of books to civilization and then convinced architects, home contractors and interior designers to build homes with bookshelves, believing, ‘where there are bookshelves, there will be books.’” Two decades later,The New York Times was putting out a dollar magazine, The New York Times Shows You 65 Ways to Decorate with Books in Your Home, celebrating the cheering effect of a wall of the publishing industry’s lithe and colorful new covers.

Now we long for these slatted walls. They are, in James Wood’s words, the adult “show shelves,” in Jonathan Lethem’s, the object of childhood longing (and they were always to me a symbol of intellectual and economic well-being).

The cognitive psychologist and pop-science writer Steven Pinker and his wife, novelist Rebecca Goldstein, create theirs out of white smart cubes, which Pinker also employs in his closet to color code his shirts. Time critic Lev Grossman’s are the object of loathing—“my damn divorce bookcases”—while the comic novelist Gary Shytengart prizes his for adding a “sense of drama to the living room.” That is, a purely aesthetic drama.

Junot Díaz keeps every book he has ever bought (even if it means having to do so in storage). Pinker prunes every few years, while the novelist and critic Edmund White frequently buys books to write an essay and then dumps them all after it runs.

“To be weighted down by things—books, furniture—seems somehow terrible to me,” Claire Messud says. And it was this very concern—the mental burden of being anchored by books, the cost and bother of moving boxes yet again, and the flattering idea that a donation could do some good—that led my boyfriend and me recently to shed more than two hundred titles.

My boyfriend was ruthless. He chucked a book if he thought it’d be easy enough to get again for a dollar. From him, Housing Works got Nabokov (The Gift), Hemingway (a second copy of In Our Time), Ishiguro (A Pale View of the Hills), and Ozick (The Pagan Rabbi, which, I’m sad to say, snuck past me).

I’ve always felt an obligation to keep any book with which I’ve had some sort of relationship, even if it was an insignificant one—an assignment for a short review, for instance. Over time, these bad and mediocre books began to stand on my shelves as reproaches—Was I fair? Did I do the book justice? Whom did I hurt?—and I was glad to send them off. But I kept most else, especially if I’d scribbled in it. My annotations—“!!” or “Hahah” or “Bleh”—are asinine, but I’m fond of them. Analyses can be recooked, but these grunts fossilize an initial reaction—how I responded to Notes from Underground at eighteen (“Meh”) and then three formative years later (“WAH”).

I put the survivors on a few new Billy Bookcases. (IKEA has sold more than twenty-eight million, and I, for better or worse, own four.) They went up like all my other books, in no particular order.

Someday I’d like to change that—but I couldn’t go through all the effort just to be seen as being serious.

Quotations that pop (up when you publish a post on WordPress)

The only reason for being a professional writer is that you can’t help it.

— Leo Rosten

A metaphor is like a simile.

— Author Unknown

Writing is the only profession where no one considers you ridiculous if you earn no money.

— Jules Renard

The best style is the style you don’t notice.

— Somerset Maugham

Be obscure clearly.

— E.B. White

Words, once they are printed, have a life of their own.

— Carol Burnett

I do not like to write – I like to have written.

— Gloria Steinem

The desire to write grows with writing.

— Desiderius Erasmus

The best way to become acquainted with a subject is to write a book about it.

— Benjamin Disraeli

I try to leave out the parts that people skip.

— Elmore Leonard

Writing is a struggle against silence.

 — Carlos Fuentes

There are three rules for writing a novel. Unfortunately, no one knows what they are.

— W. Somerset Maugham

That isn’t writing at all, it’s typing.

— Truman Capote

If the writing is honest it cannot be separated from the man who wrote it.

— Tennessee Williams

Sometimes when I think how good my book can be, I can hardly breathe.

— Truman Capote

There is creative reading as well as creative writing.

— Ralph Waldo Emerson

The art of writing is the art of discovering what you believe.

— Gustave Flaubert

Dreams are illustrations from the book your soul is writing about you.

— Marsha Norman

I loved words. I love to sing them and speak them and even now, I must admit, I have fallen into the joy of writing them.

— Anne Rice

Writing, to me, is simply thinking through my fingers.

— Isaac Asimov

I am a drinker with writing problems.

— Brendan Behan

I’m writing a book. I’ve got the page numbers done.

— Steven Wright

The scariest moment is always just before you start.

— Stephen King

Dreams are illustrations from the book your soul is writing about you.

— Marsha Norman

The first step in blogging is not writing them but reading them.

— Jeff Jarvis

Easy reading is damn hard writing.

— Nathaniel Hawthorne

To send a letter is a good way to go somewhere without moving anything but your heart.

— Phyllis Theroux

The best time for planning a book is while you’re doing the dishes.

— Agatha Christie

I love being a writer. What I can’t stand is the paperwork.

— Peter De Vries

I have made this letter longer, because I have not had the time to make it shorter.

— Blaise Pascal

Every writer I know has trouble writing.

— Joseph Heller

Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.

— Author Unknown

My ideas usually come not at my desk writing but in the midst of living.

— Anais Nin

Cult of Ignorance in the United States

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge”.

—  Isaac Asimov

Smile

Humor is laughing at what you haven’t got when you ought to have it.

— Langston Hughes

A smile is the shortest distance between two people.

— Victor Borge

The price of hating other human beings is loving oneself less.

— Eldridge Cleaver

Higher Education in America

A West Virginia college student is suing his fraternity, alleging that he fell off a deck when a drunken frat brother fired a bottle rocket out of his own anus. Louis Helmburg III alleges that Travis Hughes’s bottle-rocket stunt so startled him that he jumped back and fell. “Firing bottle rockets out of one’s anus,” the lawsuit states, “constitutes an ‘ultrahazardous’ activity.”

The Week
February 17, 2012

Henry Miller’s 11 Commandments

  1. Work on one thing at a time until finished.
  2. Start no more new books, add no more new material to “Black Spring.”
  3. Don’t be nervous. Work calmly, joyously, recklessly on whatever is in hand.
  4. Work according to Program and not according to mood. Stop at the appointed time!
  5. When you can’t create you can work.
  6. Cement a little every day, rather than add new fertilizers.
  7. Keep human! See people, go places, drink if you feel like it.
  8. Don’t be a draught-horse! Work with pleasure only.
  9. Discard the Program when you feel like it—but go back to it next day. ConcentrateNarrow downExclude.
  10. Forget the books you want to write. Think only of the book youare writing.
  11. Write first and always. Painting, music, friends, cinema, all these come afterwards.

— via listsofnote,
via sleepzandthinkz

Proximity to children is the main trigger

by Michael Castleman
psychologytoday

From media reports, one might infer that Catholic priests commit most pedophilia. In fact, only a tiny fraction of child sex abusers are priests.

We know who the pedophiles are from the National Sexual Health Survey (NSHS), a large, comprehensive study of American sexuality based on in-depth interviews in 1996 with a representative sample of 8,400 Americans, age 18 to 88. Although the data are 14 years old, sexual behavior rarely changes quickly, so this survey can be considered reasonably current. The NSHS asked about sexual abuse: Have you ever felt forced or frightened into having sex?

Seven percent of respondents reported such feelings, 15 percent of the women, and 3 percent of the men. These figures agree with previous surveys.

Victims were asked at what age(s) they were molested. Abuse spanned all ages from 3 to 17, but victims were most likely to be 6 to 10, or 14 to 17. Teens accounted for 49 percent of victims, 6 to 10 year olds, 34 percent.

Ninety-five percent of the abusers were men.

Abusers’ ages ranged from 10 to 70. But half–48 percent–were in their twenties. Eighteen percent were in their thirties, 15 percent were in their forties, and all other age groups accounted for 19 percent.

Who were the molesters? NSHS categories included: strangers, dates, friends or acquaintances, parents, step-parents, other relatives, and others. Dates, friends, and acquaintances comprised the largest group of assailants (38 percent), followed by non-parent relatives (23 percent), others (15 percent), strangers (10 percent), parents (6 percent), and step-parents (4 percent).

Victims under 12 were typically abused by caregivers: parents, step-parents, other relatives, babysitters, or camp or recreational-program staff. Teens were generally abused by friends or acquaintances.

Under “other,” the NSHS asked: Who? Surprisingly, not one victim mentioned a priest. Most of the abusers in this category were teachers, neighbors, doctors, grandparents, a parent’s friend or coworker, or an adult around the house: a gardener, or repairman.

Not a single priest. I emphasize this not to exculpate pedophile priests, but rather to elucidate the reality of this crime. While celibacy and sexual repression may contribute to Catholic priests’ risk for pedophilia, child sexual exploitation is most often triggered by proximity to children and the opportunity to exercise authority over them. It’s more likely to happen in the child’s home than outside it. The perpetrator is most likely to be someone the child and parents know, for younger children, a caregiver, for teens, a social contact.

I hope the Catholic Church can end priestly child sexual abuse. But the NSHS shows that priest account for only a tiny fraction of this problem. In my humble opinion, parents are too trusting of the adults–particularly young adults–who care for their children.

Now I’m not saying parents should quarantine kids. My children attended preschool, after-school programs, and camps staffed by young adults, and thrived.

But parent should monitor the adults, especially the young adults, who supervise their children. Don’t assume your kids are safe simply because they’re home. Teach your children the difference between welcome touch and frightening touch. Teach them to report the latter promptly. Don’t assume your teens are safe simply because they’re out with friends. Encourage them to tell you if they ever feel sexually threatened.

The problem of child sexual abuse is much larger than bad apples in the priesthood. As the NSHS clearly shows, we’re dealing with bad apples potentially anywhere.

Myth: Gay men have more sexual interest in children than straight men do

by Alice Dreger
psychologytoday

I thought about holding off on this post until the next time somebody in the news declares that gay men are to blame for the sexual abuse of children. I’d probably only have to wait a couple of weeks at most. But I’ve decided to go ahead and put this research notice out there, so that hopefully the next time this issue comes up, the rational folks talking about it have the data they need to back up their hunches.

So, at the outset, let me give away the answer to my headline question: Do gay men have more sexual interest in children than straight men do? No. And we have lab studies to prove it.

In fact, the British Journal of Psychiatry published a major study backing up the “no” answer almost 40 years ago. The distinguished sex researcher Kurt Freund and his colleagues used a laboratory method (described below) that demonstrated that the sexual responses of gay men to boys were similar to the responses of straight men to girls. (Both responses are relatively low.) This past June in Canada, at the major international research conference on sexual orientation science, sex researcher Ray Blanchard (who was trained under Freund) presented substantial new data confirming and expanding on Freund’s findings.

Blanchard has published this work online, making the work freely available to all comers. Click here to see the full paper. But, because this work is so important (the scientists assembled in Canada were stunned into near silence when they saw the impressive datasets and theoretical work Blanchard put before us), I asked Blanchard to explain the work somewhat more plainly for those who are not scientists. He’s been kind enough to do so for us here.

Blanchard explains first the laboratory method used:

“This dataset included measures taken with the same laboratory method used by Freund et al., namely, phallometric testing. Phallometric testing (sometimes called penile plethysmography) is an objective technique for assessing erotic interests in men. In phallometric tests for gender and age orientation, the individual’s penile blood volume is monitored while he is presented with a standardized sequence of laboratory stimuli depicting male and female children and adults. Increases in the patient’s penile blood volume (i.e., degrees of penile erection) are used as the measure of his attraction to different classes of persons.”

In other words, sex researchers studying these men strap a device over the subjects’ penises to measure how swollen or flaccid their penises become in response to various kinds of pictures and audiotapes. The idea is that, the more erect the penis, the more the man has been stimulated by the particular sexual material being presented to him. Blanchard further describes the subject population of his recent study:

“The subjects were 2,278 male patients referred to a specialty clinic for phallometric assessment of their erotic preferences. All underwent the same test, which measured their penile responses to six classes of stimuli: prepubescent girls, pubescent girls, adult women, prepubescent boys, pubescent boys, and adult men. The stimuli were not, of course, live persons, but rather audiotaped narratives describing sexual interactions with prepubescent girls, pubescent girls, and so on. These narratives were accompanied by slides showing nude models who corresponded in age and gender to the topic of the narrative. The slides did not show the models doing anything sexual or even suggestive but rather resembled photographic illustrations of physical maturation in a medical textbook.”

Some laboratories doing phallometric tests use a “strain gauge,” which is just what it sounds like: a sensitive wire strapped around a penis to measure how swollen a subject’s penis gets in circumference in response to various stimuli presented to the subject. But Freund’s and Blanchard’s groups used a more precise type of measurement, a kind of bell jar that goes over the whole penis and allows the researchers to detect even small changes in penile volume. Blanchard explains:

“Penile responses were recorded as cubic centimeters (cc) of increase in penile blood volume from the time a stimulus trial started to the time it ended. (A stimulus trial was one audiotaped narrative plus slides.) A full erection, as measured by the equipment used to collect these data, would typically correspond to an increase in penile blood volume of 20-30 cc. However, most subjects responded much less than that.”

So what the researchers were looking at was relative stimulation to different kinds of sexual materials, some suggesting sexual encounters with prepubescent girls or boys (usually about aged 10 and younger, and of sexual interest to pedophiles), some suggesting sexual encounters with pubescent girls or boys (generally aged 11-14, and of sexual interest to the group termed “hebephiles”), and some suggesting sexual encounters with sexually mature men and women (of interest to the people researchers call “teleiophiles,” and what the rest of us tend to call “normal,” i.e., “straight men and women,” “gay men,” or “lesbian women”).

In Blanchard’s work, the subjects were assigned to one of six groups according to their highest response on the phallometric test: (1) men who responded more to adult women than to any of the other five stimulus categories were classified as heterosexual teleiophiles; (2) men who responded more to adult men than to any other stimulus category were classified as homosexual teleiophiles; (3) men who responded more to pubescent girls than to any of the other categories were classified as heterosexual hebephiles; (4) men who responded most to pubescent boys, were classified as homosexual hebephiles; (5) men who responded most to prepubescent girls were classified as heterosexual pedophiles; (6) and men who responded most to prepubescent boys were classified as homosexual pedophiles.

So what did the numbers in each category look like? First, keep in mind that this is not a random sample of the population walking around cities; this is a sample of men who were specifically referred for testing, typically because they were suspected of a crime or sought therapeutic help. Among that group, “the procedure of classifying subjects according to their highest penile response produced 1,066 heterosexual teleiophiles, 761 heterosexual hebephiles, 159 heterosexual pedophiles, 110 homosexual pedophiles, 86 homosexual hebephiles, and 96 homosexual teleiophiles.”

In order to repeat Freund’s comparisons for this post, Blanchard graphed the relevant information from the dataset as shown in the accompanying figure. He notes, “This figure shows the mean (average) response of each group to each stimulus category. So that statistically inclined readers can make some comparisons besides those I will explicitly discuss, I have included the 95% confidence interval for each mean. These are represented by the vertical lines bracketing the top of each bar. Two means are significantly different if their confidence intervals do not overlap. The converse, however, is not true, and the significance of the difference between means with overlapping confidence intervals must be tested with methods other than visual inspection.”

So what does this pretty picture mean?

Blanchard explains: “The key comparisons produced results similar to those of Freund et al. They show that gay men (homosexual teleiophiles) and straight men (heterosexual teleiophiles) have similar penile responses to depictions of children in the laboratory,” that is to say, relatively low. But more important than their being relatively low, they’re not really any different for gay and straight men.

Furthermore, “The responses of heterosexual teleiophiles to prepubescent girls were similar to the responses of homosexual teleiophiles to prepubescent boys (gold bar in top left panel vs. green bar in top right panel). The difference between these means was not statistically significant. The responses of heterosexual teleiophiles to pubescent girls were actually slightly higher than the responses of homosexual teleiophiles to pubescent boys (orange bar in top left panel vs. blue bar in top right panel). This difference was statistically significant; however, it is most likely trivial, because the heterosexual teleiophiles were generally a little more responsive than the homosexual teleiophiles.” So it doesn’t look like gay men are any more likely than straight men to be attracted to pubescent children.

Finally, “The middle panels and bottoms panels of the figure show that the stimuli depicting pubescent and prepubescent boys and girls worked as they should. The subjects who responded most to those stimulus categories responded as much or more, in absolute terms, as the subjects who responded most to adult men and women.” In other words, we have reason to believe that this testing method is giving us real data when we use it to conclude that gay men are no more likely to be sexually interested in children than straight men are.

One more thing Blanchard asks us to keep in mind: “Although the purpose of this analysis was to counter the notion that gay men present more of a risk to children than do straight men, it was not intended simultaneously to demonize all pedophiles and hebephiles. There are pedophiles and hebephiles who never act on their sexual attraction towards children. They cannot be blamed for what they feel, and they should be supported for the constant self-restraint they must exercise in order to behave ethically.”

Indeed, Blanchard’s work suggests to me that pedophilia and hebephilia look like sexual orientations; in other words, at least for men, sexual orientation is comprised not just of interest in a particular sex, but in a particular age range as well. That doesn’t mean, of course, that adult sexual interactions with prepubescent or pubescent children are morally permissible or should be legally permissible; Blanchard and I both feel that pedophiles and hebephiles have a duty not to act on their sexual urges, because children cannot meaningfully consent to sex with an adult. It is just to say that it makes no sense to persecute someone for an urge on which he does not act.

Logical phallacy

What would Socrates say? All those Greeks were homosexuals. Boy, they must have had some wild parties. I bet they all took a house together in Crete for the summer. A: Socrates is a man. B: All men are mortal. C: All men are Socrates. That means all men are homosexuals.

— Woody Allen, Love and War

A man who lives apart

A man who lives apart, not to others but alone, is exposed to obvious psychological dangers. In itself, the practice of deception is not particularly exacting; it is a matter of experience, of professional expertise, it is a facility most of us can acquire. But while a confidence trickster, a play-actor or a gambler can return from his performance to the ranks of his admirers, the secret agent enjoys no such relief. For him, deception is first a matter of self-defense. He must protect himself not only from without but from within, and against the most natural of impulses; though he earn a fortune, his role may forbid him the purchase of a razor, though he be erudite, it can befall him to mumble nothing but banalities; though he be an affectionate husband and father, he must under all circumstances withhold himself from those in whom he should naturally confide.

Aware of the overwhelming temptations which assail a man permanently isolated in his deceit, Leamas resorted to the course which armed him best; even when he was alone, he compelled himself to live with the personality he had assumed. It is said that Balzac on his deathbed enquired anxiously after the health and prosperity of characters he had created. Similarly Leamas, without relinquishing the power of invention, identified himself with what he had invented.

— John Le Carré, The Spy Who Came In from the Cold