Quodlibets

Copyright and Balance

I work a lot with copyright at my job.  I work in an academic library with videos, and I'm the person who has to answer questions about when it's legal to show something.  It was a fricking steep learning curve, because I didn't really know much about the ins and outs of copyright law.  (Fuck it, I still don't.  I just knew less before.  Now I know marginally more.)

I guess I took it for granted that copyright law was intended to protect artists and consumers, to protect rights' holders and those who want to use what the rights holder has created (or inherited, as it were).  But I think that balance between the two has shifted incredibly fast and incredibly cruelly since the advent of online media availability.  And I honestly can't see a reason for this shift except for exceptional and incredible greed.

I'm having a hard time making up my mind on this issue.  I firmly believe that DRM is a problem, and I have issues with the iTunes music store and my iPod because of it.  (Oh, to listen to an audiobook rented from my public library on my iPod.  But no.)  And I do think that artists have rights, and that stealing is wrong.  I don't feel comfortable downloading music illegally.  However.  Once I pay for it, shouldn't it be mine, to do with it what I want?  It's not, and people who control copyright are moving very quickly in the direction of restricting heavily what you can and can't do with your music--and I think they're willing to prosecute. 

There is another issue, and it is called "fair use".  It's not a term I really heard before I started working in a library, but basically, under the law, certain things are permitted.  That's why a teacher can show a film to a room full of students, and more murkily, it's why documentary filmmakers can show seconds of other works in their works.  But it's murky because fair use is very case-by-case.  I don't really want to go into the whole "what is fair use?" discussion, but suffice it to say that I think the law is leaning hard on the side of rights holders, making it hard for people to legally use anything in their films.  There's one famous example of a filmmaker being forced to remove 15 seconds of Simpsons footage from his doc--two people in the film were watching TV and that show happened to be on.  I know that the clip meant something in the film, and the filmmaker resented Fox coming at him demanding money for that 15 seconds.  He clipped the Simpsons part out.

It just seems to me that when the law if prohibiting creativity in the name of trying to protect it, we have a problem.  This little rant was mostly brought on by a piece at Boing Boing, about Amazon's new Unbox thing.  It's interesting read, and disheartening too, if you care at all about copyright and DRM and so on.

When your kitchen is teeny-weeny

I don't know if you've noticed the lack of new recipes here.  I've alluded to it once before.  Anyway, the kitchen's too small, and cooking sucks.  And we have no porch to do the grilling on.  Hence, where once we cooked at least once a week, now our cooking consists of opening the microwave, or in my case, slicing some tomatoes and slapping them on some hearty bread.

I'm seriously not kidding.  Even S has gotten into the frozen meal game, preferring full-fat flavors to my wimpy Lean Cuisine ones, but still, he's tentatively dipping a toe in.  I've also branched out a little bit, trying some frozen soup made by Tabatchnick, which was actually very good.  But other than that, I'm really very hesitant to branch out into new frozen meals.  I mean, you just never know what's going to taste good.  You could be wasting three precious dollars on something you won't eat, and that's just stupid.

Which is why I'm pleased to announce that I've found the best ever website for frozen food eaters.  Heat, Eat, Review is the greatest.  They eat all those crappy frozen meals so you don't have to!  I've noticed that they tend to closely follow my own tastes and ratings for meals that I've actually tried, so I'm going to trust them, and try some new things.  Tomorrow, during our bi-weekly (is that the correct term?  I can never remember how to express the idea of going to the grocery store every two weeks) grocery store trip, I'm going to take HER's reviews, and try some new things.  And I'm going to try to convince S that it's a good idea for him to try other things too.  I've been reading HER all morning, and it's very handy. 

On a side note, I'm also going to try a new dinner thing that I actually sort of cook.  I just bought the Fall issue of Real Simple Food (mom, I hope you didn't get it!) and there's a recipe for simple and fast black bean soup.  I figure that 15 min in the kitchen and 30 minutes cook-time isn't too much time in that teeny little kitchen.  I'll let you know how that one turns out.  (There's no chopping!  Just throwing shit into a pot!  And it's sort of fresh!)

The Greatest Tragedy

I didn't write about the anniversary of 9/11 yesterday because I didn't know what to say.  I've watched for five years as our politicians (on both goddamn sides of the aisle) turn this event into a political battlefield; both sides have held up widows and widowers as pawns in their games, and it's sickening and disheartening. 

9/11 was a tragedy, yes.  But part of that tragedy has been our inability to process that tragedy and make the outcome of that positive.  9/11 should have forced us to confront our place in the world.  It should have helped us understand that we are a part of the world, the world that lives with machine guns outside of synagogues (Rome).  The world that fears bombs in the Tube (London) or suicide bombers on busses (Israel).  It should have brought us to greater understanding of the other parts of the world that live like this all. the. time.  But instead of becoming more global in our thinking, we've paved the maverick's way, the way that says we can kick all their asses. 

We can't.  There's really nothing ever that can stop a man getting on a bus with a bomb strapped to him.  9/11 shouldn't be about making the world safer, though it's a noble goal, and I do think that special attention needs to be paid to those fundamentalists (of any stripe) that would use violence to impose their will on the rest of the world.  (But wait.  Haven't we become that fundamentalist?  That's another story; we can't be safer if we are just like them, if we decide to use bombs and guns and torture to stop them from doing the same thing.)  But whatever lessons could have come out of that horrible day in September of 2001 just haven't seemed to. 

I don't know how to say this any differently.  I don't know how to express my frustration that our government has kept this public in a permanent state of panic about terrorism.  Things are simply out of our control, and no amount of guns or bombs will bring those things under our control.  Instead of having a terror alert color chart, we should simply live aware that these things happen.  That it's a situation that has been omnipresent in many societies the world over for years and years.  That we've been lucky, and stupid to think that it wouldn't touch us.  But someone has scared us into thinking that we need to beat up the whole world, like a big bully.  Bullies never win; they always lose by provoking mentally the victims.  That's us.  We're going to lose, ideologically, if we don't radically reassess.

But this is about 9/11.  We should remember 9/11; we should think to where we were and what we were doing that day five years ago.  We should remember that as the day we truly entered the environment the rest of the world has been living in.  We should remember that day as the day we could have become a better country, a better place to live. 

But we've gone another way.  And it's almost too sad to bear.

Earth Shoes

I bought some Earth shoes last week, and today is my first day of wearing them.  They're...interesting.  For the first few minutes you've got them on, the ground feels weird beneath your feet.  See, Earth shoes have heels that are lower than the toes, which is honestly just about the strangest feeling in the world the very first time you put them on.  Supposedly, this helps your posture, and apparently it is also good exercise, as it is as if you are walking on a treadmill set at an incline of 3.7. 

I'm rather skeptical of this exercise claim, though I suppose I'll know by the end of the day if my calves are killing me or something like that.  No, the real problem with Earth shoes is that they are way too cute for their own good, and now I'm trolling the website looking for more cute Earth shoes to buy.  I don't necessarily love chunky sandals (Earth shoes tend to look a little chunky, and in the past I've shied away from that, but now for some reason I'm drawn to it), but boy oh boy, do they make some cute casual styles.  I think I'm going to ask for them for Xmas, because I simply don't have the money to spend on five or six new pairs of shoes, even if I spread that purchase out over the next few months.

In fact, I only bought these shoes because I had a gift certificate for a place that sells Earth shoes (don't worry, dad, I didn't buy them with your gift--I bought ALL books with that money), and they were just impossible to resist.  Even though they were $30 more than the next candidate, they were far and away cuter than the next candidate.  (I did try on a pair of shoes that I looked at on my feet and said to my mom, "Why the hell did I try these on?  Aren't these the ugliest shoes ever?"  And dude, they were.  What was I thinking?  I think I get in this shoe haze where EVERY pair of shoes EVER looks good, and I'm out of control.  (Like the time I went into Sweet Mandy B's to order a cake and walked out with $20 worth of cookies, cupcakes, and other assorted goodies.  I swear, it was a haze.  I can't remember how I got from the cake to the car.)  At least shoes are easy to narrow down, because sometimes shoes don't fit, and usually you can come to your senses through the trying-on process.

Phew.  But anyway.  I highly recommend trying some Earth shoes if you've got some extra money to spend and need some new shoes.

September Concert Series: Pete Yorn

Wow.  Wow.  That's mostly all I can say.

S and I lucked into two tickets for Pete Yorn's show at Schuba's, and when I say lucked, I mean, shit, we are so lucky.  I'm not going to reveal the source of our tickets, but suffice it to say that the show sold out almost immediately, and when I went to get tickets the next day, they were gone.  S worked some magic, and earlier this week, we were gifted two tickets.  I don't think he was as excited as I was, but that's okay.

And okay, I did have a moment of fear and unhappiness when I realized the concert was at 11 pm, but dammit, I really wanted to see Pete Yorn.  So I napped, and then S and I prepared to pretend we were far hipper than we really were.  And let me tell you, there were lots of hip and trendy looking folks at the show.  I kind of stood out in my polo shirt and flip-flops.  I mean, I saw LEGGINGS.  Listen, I don't care what anyone says, leggings are NOT cool.  There is NOTHING cool about black pants with lace at the bottom that cling like leggings do.  I don't care if you put a skirt on with them, leggings are STILL NOT COOL. 

Okay, now that I've got that off my chest, can I just say that I was incredibly impressed with Yorn?  I like his music anyway, but he's really fucking good live.  It might have been the atmosphere--I was on a little raised platform (with a stove on it...?) in the back of the music room, and I could see Yorn's face for the whole show.  Pretty goddamn amazing for a short girl.  And he's a really good stage presence; he's chatty and amusing, and he seems to love what he's doing.  He ended up playing a good number of old songs, songs from Musicforthemorningafter, which is clearly his best album anyway.  And I don't normally like "For Nancy", and it was awesome in concert.  "Life on a Chain", and "Lose You" were really good too, and even "Pass Me By" (which is from his second album, I think) was awesome.

And then.  And then Pete Yorn did something that will make me love him forever.  He played TWO Smiths songs:  "There is a Light" and "Ask Me".  And he told a story about how he was 10 and in Bermuda (I think the Yorns might have had some money; Rick Yorn, Pete's brother, is a Hollywood producer of some import, I think) and he met a girl with flowing blond hair and she asked him if he loved the Smiths, and he said yes even though he'd never heard them, and then went home and bought a Smiths album, and after about three songs, the Smiths were his favorite band ever.  He also said something about how Morrissey sounds very British, and very gay, and well, Yorn's not wrong.

The point is, I dabble in Moz/Smiths love myself, and so it was incredibly cool to see these songs interpreted by Yorn.  S said that he felt that the crowd were really with Yorn for "Ask Me", singing out loud and stuff, but we both thought that people were less with him on "There is a Light", which is perplexing and bizarre, since "There is a Light" is one of the best songs EVER.  I feel like people even left the music room to go back into the bar and get more drinks, because they were bored with the cover song.  But I mean, come on!  It's the Smiths, people.

Anyhow, I now love Pete Yorn more than ever before, and I want to get his "Westerns" ep and his live album, and renew my listening to the album "Nightcrawler" that just came out last week.  And then I want to see Pete Yorn live again, in a small venue.  Not sure if that's gonna happen, but I'll at least see him again somewhere.

(Oh, and S and I actually made it to almost the end of the show, I think.  We left around 1:05, which is so late!  But we hopped in a cab and I was in bed by 1:20, which made the whole thing worth it.  Yay for Pete Yorn!)

Music Meme (from John Green's weblog)

John Green, for those of you who don't know, is an author.  He wrote a wonderful book called Looking for Alaska, which I highly recommend, if you're looking for a good, quick YA read.  (Quick because you won't want to put it down!)

1. Favorite Beatles song: Damn, this meme starts out tough.  Early Beatles, hands down, is "She Loves You".  But....asking me to pick a late Beatles song, or even a mid-one is awful.  I historically have liked George's later songs:  "Something" "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" etc.  I also have loved, at various points, most of the "B" side of Abbey Road.  Also, and I guess these might be mid (?), I love "Norweigian Wood" and "A Day in the Life".  But honestly, on any given day, a different Beatles song might be my favorite.

2. Favorite Rolling Stones song: I'm against the Stones.  I'm a Beatles fan, period.  However, I will confess to a begrudging admiration for "Paint It Black".

3. Favorite Doors song: I'm not a huge Doors fan, though I went through a period where I listened to their greatest hits CD alot.  So maybe "Love Her Madly" or "Touch Me".

4. Favorite Bob Dylan song: I am deficient, because I don't like any Bob Dylan song if it is performed by Dylan.  If the song isn't performed by Dylan, I like them all, pretty much.  I think there is a little something missing in my DNA or something, because I simply DO NOT understand Dylan.  Everyone keeps raving about the new album, and every single little bit of it I've heard sounds positively AWFUL to me.

5. Favorite Led Zeppelin song:  Another tough one.  I listen to Led Zeppelin A LOT, and have since high school, so there's probably a different song all the time.  Maybe the most consistent favorite would be "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You."

6. Favorite TV Theme Song: Well, for sheer stuck-in-my-head-ness, it's gotta be the song from The Office.  Oooh, or the song from Weeds, "Little Boxes", which has been performed differently each show this year.  S and I look forward to that almost as much as we look forward to the show.

7. Favorite Prince Song: I also don't understand Prince.  I probably never will.  I forfeit.

8. Favorite Madonna Song: Gosh, this is hard too.  Early Madonna, or late Madonna?  I've always liked "Vogue" and I also really like a few cuts from Music and Ray of Light:  "Ray of Light", "Nothing Really Matters" and "Runaway Lover", for instance.

9. Favorite Michael Jackson song: "Billie Jean".  No contest.

10. Favorite Queen Song: Hmmm, doesn't everyone harbor some love for "Bohemian Rhapsody"?  It's mostly the only song we all know by Queen.

11. Favorite 'N Sync Song: I don't know if I can really be said to have a favorite, since I've never been a boy band lover.  I guess I like dancing to "Bye Bye Bye".

12. Favorite Al Green Song: I don't know that I know any, to be honest.

13. Favorite Bruce Springsteen song: In addition to Dylan and Prince, I do not get Springsteen either.  Oh, I know the mythology and everything, and I understand why he is important blah blah blah, but I do not like his music, and would never ever choose to listen to it.

14. Favorite Cure song: I'm lame.  "Friday I'm in Love".  There are only three Cure songs on my iPod, and that is one of them.

15. Favorite song that most of your friends haven't heard:  That's a hard one.  Maybe "Wedding Day" by Rosie Thomas.  I suppose it mostly depends on which friend, as I seem to share components of taste with every one of my friends. 

16. Favorite Beastie Boys song: "Sabotage" but only because it's the only song I can stand to leave on for more than say, 30 seconds.

17. Favorite Clash song: Erm, can I pass on this one?

18. Favorite Beach Boys song: "Wouldn't It Be Nice?", far and away.  It's such a wonderful song.

19. Favorite Cyndi Lauper song: No one has a favorite Cyndi Lauper song.  I mean, do they?

20. Favorite song from a movie: Now come on, so many good songs have been in movies.  Have you ever listened to the soundtrack to "Stealing Beauty" or "Niagara, Niagara"?

21. Favorite Jeff Buckley song: I only like three Jeff Buckley songs, so they're all my favorites:  "Hallelujah", "Lover You Should Have Come Over" and "Last Goodbye".

22. Favorite Johnny Cash song: Hmmm, can't say.

23. Favorite song from an 80's one hit wonder:  Whoa.  This one is hard, because I can't exactly think of one off the top of my head.  There's probably five million, and I can't think of one.

24. Favorite Pink Floyd song: "Wish You Were Here" or maybe "Shine on You Crazy Diamond."

25. Last song you heard: In a strange twist of coincidence, "Wouldn't It Be Nice?" just came on to my iPod, which is on the Shuffle Songs setting.

Work and Wedding Etiquette

This is a sensitvie topic.  It deals with work, but not so much work.  It deals with a personal thing that is encroaching upon my work environment, and it's driving me mad.  I've been going back and forth about whether or not to write about it, because I don't want to be dooced, and I'm concerned that writing about work might lead to that.  It's no secret that I blog, but if anyone here reads this blog, I'm unaware of it, and I've never made the blog address public.  And I don't think I've ever exactly said where it is I work.  So, in thinking about this dilemma, I decided that the best thing to do is to blog things exactly as I would be willing to say them to the people involved in this little kerfluffle.  So that's what I'm going to do.

Librarian Y is getting married this year, in October.  As it happens, on the same day that one of S's best friends is getting married (in California; we will be attending).  I remarked upon this fact one day, since the "Save the Date" card for Librarian Y's wedding was tacked to the ref. desk.  So Librarian Y knows I am attending a wedding out of state.  Librarian Y is marrying a woman who works here.  Not in the library, but on campus. 

Someone (and I'm not quite sure who) decided to hold a wedding shower for this happy couple, which is very nice.  I think it's nice, I really do.  But here's the rub:  not all of us invited to the shower were invited to the wedding.  I cannot explain how horrifically offended I am by this.  I'm not the most formal person ever, and I'm certainly not the biggest stickler for etiquette, but I find this one an egregious breach of etiquette.  I understand why someone might not want to have all their co-workers at their wedding.  I do not fault Librarian Y for that.  I can't imagine attending Librarian Y's wedding, as I barely know him.  But I do not think that I should then be expected to go to a shower and bring a gift and make or buy a food item to serve at said shower.

I don't know if this seems somehow stingy, but I will say that I would have no issue doing this sort of thing for a co-worker who was having a baby.  Or if it was a retirement party, or a birthday party, or so on.  But to do a wedding shower in these circumstances seems insensitive and simply rude.  Downright rude.  I went, of course, and I even spent money on a gift and some ingredients to make punch.  It'd be equally rude for me to protest by not going, or not buying a gift.  And I have to applaud the incredible generosity of my fellow employees who were not invited to the wedding but also spent time and money buying food and gifts, and were generous enough to come to the shower and be polite.  I'm sure some of those people felt as I did, and I'm equally sure that everyone was happy to get out of work for a few hours and attend the shower.

But no matter how I move these facts around in my head, the fact remains that some people are being treated horribly in this situation, and I find it uneccessary.  I've vascillated between guilt and outrage about this, and I'm mostly just settling into unease.  It is, of course, over, so that's that, in the end.  There was a shower, and we were expected to go.  There was no way to refuse, as it was during common work times.  We were expected to provide food and gifts, and we did, as if it was part of our job.  There was no way to say no to that either.  But I find the whole thing perplexing and vexing. 

It felt kind of good to rant about it though.  Maybe that'll erase the bad feelings for me.

To KTla, who raised some good questions:  Yes, other people did come.  Various people from other places on campus came--I assume these are people that either Librarian Y or his fiance are friends with.  One of the woman was the mother of the flower girls--hence the five minute dissertation on the dresses the girls were wearing.  (Because yes, the bride and groom felt free to talk all about the wedding in front of all the people who weren't going.)  I think I would have been okay with the whole thing if either all of us present were invited to the wedding, or none of us were.  And to be honest, I'd probably have less of a problem if we paid "social dues" and then we just bought things for anyone who was celebrating something, out of that social dues fund..  But as it is, that isn't the case.  If I wanted treats on my birthday, for instance, I would have to bring them.  It seems like "social dues" make sense, because then you could buy a little cake for every person, etc etc.  It's not as if we have this HUGE staff and it would be impossible.  We do send around cards for everyone on their birthday, and that's nice. 

It's certainly problematic, because I know I come off a little bitchy here.  And I have no problems with actual bridal showers/baby showers when I know the person involved very well, and I expect to be invited to the wedding/see the baby at some point.  I actually like registries and feel good about buying nice gifts for people.  We've got three weddings coming up, and I loved looking through the registries and trying to decide what to buy.  But I know these people, and I love these people, and I am going to their weddings.  I get to be there when they do the whole "I do" thing, and that tells me that these people value my company (or S's, as it were).  And traditionally, the way to show you value your presence in a couple's life is to give them a gift.  That's not happening at work, and nor should it, for that matter! 

I do want to add one thing:  we don't give birthday presents here.  We instead can choose to donate a few dollars to a charity that the staff has collectively decided to give money to all year long, and that's in lieu of a gift/cake.  I like that.  I frequently donate to that.  If that was the case with the shower, I might be less touchy about the whole thing.  But as I said before, that's not the case.  And now, frankly, there's no chance to see if the situation repeats, because there are no unmarried people here besides me, and I would NEVER have a shower here, and anyway, all of this will be a moot point for me, because I will not have a wedding cermony in the States, and thus will not have to worry about which co-workers to invite and which not to.  And if I were to have a party/reception later on, I think I would just do the right thing, and invite none of my co-workers, because I certainly don't want to have them all.

But that's just me.  And I understand that for some people, these kinds of black and white decisions aren't possible.  Things get muddied up when you become close friends with someone you work with, and that just hasn't happened to me.

September Concert Series: CSNY

S and I will be going to five concerts this September (it was supposed to be six, but Big BabyHead had to go into rehab), and tonight was the first of them, Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young.

I've never seen CSN, or CSNY before, though I did see part of a Neil Young show when I was a senior in high school.  It's kind of a show that you don't want to miss, that you want to see at least once before it's all over for them.  And it was definitely worth it.  It's pretty fucking cool to see "Ohio" and "Find the Cost..." live, though I have to admit that I'm sad that they didn't play "Woodstock".  Also, I'm not sure if you were aware (apparently some in the crowd were not), but all four of these guys are aged hippies.  Liberal aged hippies.  That really hate the war in Iraq and really hate the president.  I mean, they perform a song called "Let's Impeach the President", which is a Neil Young song that all four of them play with gusto.  A couple of people behind me were booing, but their boos were really just a teeeeny little noise compared with the roar of approval all around us.  S didn't even hear the booers.  I mean, I'm not sure how you could mistake CSNY for a conservative outfit; they've always been the quintessential protest/liberal trio/quartet.  And I mean, come on.  Neil Young is clearly a radical--his last album was called "Living with War".  He hates it, and he's never been afraid to say it.  So I just don't get how you can't realize that what you get when you go see CSNY is some good ol' American protest rock.  (You clearly have to have had your head under a rock, because the reviews have been very clear on the whole shebang.  What kind of moron pays $200 for a seat and doesn't know what's going on?  Clearly, there were two of them behind us.)

Mostly, I liked the music, though there was a sorta boring part towards the middle-to-end where they all played their own sub-par solo efforts.  Snoozy.  But again, I was impressed overall with the quality and quantity of music played.  (I'd better be, for $200.  Or rather, my dad should be.)  Stills' voice isn't very good, though Crosby and Nash sounded good, and Young sounded like, well, Young.  Stills also doesn't look very good, Crosby looks like someone's grandpa, Young looks like an angry neighbor who kept the next-door kid's baseballs and so on, and Nash looks a lot like a put together Englishman.  Stills and Crosby need haircuts.  But it worked, it really did.  Honestly, though, I couldn't stop thinking about how those four men came to be on stage.  I read Hotel California, which is sort of about the music scene they were apart of, and I mean, come on!  Those guys PUBLICLY hated each other.  They basically all slept with Joni Mitchell to spite one another.  They derided each other's music, in public.  Neil Young WALKED OFF a tour that he was doing with them.  I mean, boom!  Neil's gone.

And now, now they're onstage and they look comfortable.  They seem to like one another, and they make some nice music together.  You think they've forgiven each other about Joni?  Or maybe it was good that she ended up being more married to her music than to any man, because it gave them room to be friends again.  Probably it's good that none of them are fucked up anymore on the massive amounts of drugs they used to do.  That probably helps a good bit. 

I also kept wondering if Neil Young likes playing more with these guys than Pearl Jam.  I even asked S that at one point, and he looked at me like I was crazy.  But I can't help it, I'm fascinated by the fact that this tour is happening, despite all the very public hatred.  Plus, these guys are well, closer to Neil's age.  Maybe Pearl Jam is too young for him.  Or maybe he likes PJ better because they keep him young. 

Okay, I'm weird.

Still, two thumbs up.  Bravo.  On deck:  Eric Clapton on Sept 20.  I think.  I could be wrong.  It might be The Who.  Still.  Sept 20 is the next show.  (Which, if you're doing your math, means three other shows between then and Sept. 30.  Crazy month, this.)

Klosterman IV

Yeah, I read it.  I love Chuck Klosterman.  (Although, I admit that sometimes at the ends of my marathon reading sessions of his books I get a little Klosterman fatigue.  There's only so much sparkling wit and well-written sentences you can take.)

This books is a collection of columns.  A good portion of them fall into the profile/interview category, which is okay, because I've always liked Klosterman's SPIN work.  SPIN is a poorer magazine for not having Klosterman on staff (and in fact, I am done with SPIN, and I recently purchased a subscription to Esquire, a magazine I have only a passing interest in but which happens to include a monthly Klosterman column.  This is similar to the time I thought about acquiring a subscription to the Believer for Nick Hornby's monthly column, but didn't.  I didn't because it was incredibly expensive.  Too expensive to justify for just one little column.  Now, Esquire, well, that was cheap.  Less than $1 an issue, which is the perfect price to pay for Klosterman's short little pop culture essays.), and to be honest, it shows when you read the magazine.  I am a little bit sad that none of Klosterman's ESPN columns are in this book, simply because those are the only Klosterman essays I frustratingly cannot get to.  Oh, I can read a few sentences, a paragraph, but then ESPN wants me to pay, and I just can't see doing that.  In fact, I don't even want to register for free at ESPN, because that seems a pesky nuisance for just a couple of pages of reading every few months.

Regardless, I've often recommended Sex, Drugs.. and Fargo Rock City to people, and I'm happy to recommend Klosterman IV, because it's actually very good.  Even if the fiction at the very back of the book kind of sucks and that kind of makes me sad, since Klosterman is rumored to be writing a novel right at this very moment. Because, well, three of his books are sort of memoirs, and I think he's said he's running out of things to say about himself.

Anyway, I'm kinda sad it's over, but also relieved, because now I can get back to what I was reading before I had to finish the Klosterman book.  Which is From Dawn to Decadence, with brief stopover at Mrs. Dalloway.  For the Time 100.

Cross posted at Vox blog.