Librari[d]an

At about 4:10 in this video (the 1954 Disney short entitled “Tick or Treat”) you can find the song that I was whistling on the way to work today. Oblivious, I was traipsing along Bigelow and thinking about whether I would ever actually stop in Zarra’s to get a drink. To my surprise and delight, a middle aged guy walking behind me began singing along:

“Every post is a gho-o-ost, if you’ve got a witch’s brew! And if you want your gate to circulate - hoho! - We can do that too! Trick or treat. Trick or treat. Trick or treat. Trick or treat. Trick or treat for Halloween.” He then laughed uproariously. We talked about classic, holiday-themed cartoons until I had to turn right on Parkman. Heh. =)

:: Bibliography ::

Trick or Treat. Dir: Jack Hannah. Animators: Volus Jones, Bill Justice, George Kriesl, Don Lusk, Dan MacManus. Music: Paul Smith. Performers: uncredited. Walt Disney Productions. 1952.

I am a pretty unabashed fan of the Indian Jones films. Yes–even that terrible one where they’re not looking for a Biblical relic. (That would be Temple of Doom for all you non-believers. Tut tut for not remembering it.) Something about banding together to defeat the Nazis has always resonated with me, especially if there are zeppelins and fancy period costumes involved. (I’m probably going to have to rent The Rocketeer one of these days, if only for the set and costume designs.) In my interview for my financial aid/internship, I actually talked at length about how this scene - in which Indy confronts Elsa at a book-burning - made quite the impression on me. (In all honesty, not the book burning itself, but the subtlety with which they were developing Elsa’s character.) For some reason, after this they still decided to give me a job and gobs of money. Bizarre.

So there’s a new one coming out: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Watch the teaser trailer for it here. This promotional peek is so jam-packed with action that I’m not sure what to think. (I know they’re just using it to sell the film, but it all seems too flashy and sensationally shot.) For me, Indiana Jones was never about the action. Dodging deadly, ancient booby traps in the grail temple in The Last Crusade was pretty awesome, but it was a lot more fun watching Indy puzzle out the solutions to these archaeological trials. Plus, Indy isn’t the spring chicken any more. I don’t want to see Harrison Ford gallivanting around, bull whip in hand, as if he was still 35 (or even 45). I felt myself wince every time I saw any stunt work in the trailer. Was this because I was afraid he’d get a hernia, or because it so unabashedly shatters our willful suspension of disbelief? (Funny, that I can handle ghosts making Nazis’ faces melt and a false grail dessicating a man, but can’t stomach Ford’s geriatric acrobatics.)

So, strike the plot stuff that I love: Nazis, Europe (apparently this one is set somewhere in Central/South America), Biblical artifacts. Insert stuff that I am ambivalent toward: that kid with the weak chin from Transformers (Shia LaBeouf), tons of action, tons of kinetic cinematography, tons of cgi, the Russkies. (Communism? Come on! It’s not evil. It can’t hold a candle to Nazis.) Now can you see why I’m a bit worried?

There are, however, two women who can save the film: Karen Allen and Cate Blanchett. Karen has a bunch of stuff going for her; her character from Raiders of the Lost Ark, Marion Ravenwood, is certainly the most plucky and popular of Indiana Jones’ love interests. However, she’s mainly coasting on nostalgia. (And did she get some plastic surgery? Or just get old? Her face looks different…) Cate Blanchett is just really, really good at acting. I know she’ll give a solid performance even if her character - Irina Spalko - isn’t particularly sexy or interesting. (However, despite her frump uniform costume and bob coiffure I think she may end up being both.) Happily she seems to be the main villain and is getting considerable screen time in the trailer. (Hooray for Communism! Equality of the sexes! Finally a villainess that isn’t subservient to a man!) However, the same can’t be said for Allen, who is only in a few shots.

So I guess I’ll just have to wait and see how it goes (on 22 May 2008). Mark your calendars, my little Short Rounds.

L’amour de l’étymologie is a feature exploring the etymology of English words. Today’s definition is mesmerism. You may occasionally find this noun capitalized, for reasons that will be made evident presently.

Mesmerism, unlike most words, is derived from a rather modern proper noun. Mesmer was the surname of an 18th Century Austrian physician, Friedrich Anton Mesmer. The -ism at the end was probably borrowed from the French word mesmérisme, which first appeared in print in 1973.

So what, exactly does this word mean? People often use it as a synonym for hypnosis, but they’d be wrong. (For derivative terms, like mesmerize, the conflation is often considered acceptable.) The Oxford English Dictionary defines Mesmerism as a chiefly historical word, which refers to “A therapeutic doctrine or system, first popularized by Mesmer, according to which a trained practitioner can induce a hypnotic state in a patient by the exercise of a force (called by Mesmer animal magnetism)”. It could also mean “[1] the process or practice of inducing such a state; [2] the state so induced, or [3] the force supposed to operate in inducing it.” (Brackets are mine.)

The adherent of Mesmerism, a mesmerizer, can use mesmerism (1) on a mesmerizee, using mesmerism (3) to induce a state of mesmerism (2). Nyuck!

In 1778 Mesmer relocated to Paris after other physicians in his homeland accused him of being a sham. Six years later, in 1784, Louis XVI of France commissioned a group of scientists to evaluate Mesmer’s claims. (One of which, if memory serves, included sitting in a bathtub full of metal filings.) Some of the top minds of the time participated in the evaluation, including Benjamin Franklin and Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier. Franklin is the first recorded English speaker to use the word in writing. In 1784 he wrote that “Some think it will put an End to Mesmerism.” I’d like to know what that  something was. But I guess it’s irrelevant: Despite there being no scientific grounds for Mesmer’s practices, they remained wildly popular into the late 18th and early 19th centuries. For example, Edward FitzGerald exclaimed in an 1889 letter than “Miss Martineau has been cured of an illness of five years by Mesmerism!”

However, it is true that one of the most hilariously insane and unspeakably dense humans was an anti-mesmerism crusader. Mary Baker Eddy, founder of the cult religion Christian Science, believed that mesmerism was real, but kinda evil. Go figure.

:: Bibliography ::

“Mesmerism.” Oxford English Dictionary. 2008. 11 Jan. 2008 <http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/findword?query_type=word&queryword=mesmerism&find.x=0&find.y=0&find=Find+word>

I read The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle last summer and enjoyed it immensely despite reports from Japanese speaking friends that the translation was shoddy. After a glut of library-related non-fiction, I decided I needed another story about a plucky, slightly damaged person overcoming that oh-so-Murakami black, nameless, ancient Evil.

I intended to read After Dark, but it was out of the library. I placed a recall on it - shameless I know - and took out Kafka on the Shore.

Kafka on the Shore surprised me. It started off amazingly well with pseudo-historic military documents chronicling a strange event (the “rice bowl” incident) in a remote Japanese village during World War II. However, it soon veered into melodrama. (Truth be told, I’m not sure it ever navigated back out.) A story about a bodybuilding, fifteen year-old runaway? No thank you. Although still turning the pages, the story didn’t really engage me again - save for a confessional-esque return to the “rice bowl” - until Miss Saeki showed up with her enigmatic song, elegant mien, and nebulous back story. In retrospect, I think Kafka on the Shore was a pretty good novel; occasionally heavy-handed, it was not as compelling or finely crafted as Wind-Up Bird, but not too far off.

After Dark, in comparison, blew my socks off. The power of this book comes from it’s very brevity. Murakami can be verbose; after the fifth or sixth time he has his characters talking about how this-or-that is like a metaphor you may imprecate carpal tunnel on the man. In After Dark the time constraint (approx midnight to seven p.m.) forces him to cut away the dead wood and forge only the most interesting, adamantine bonds between his motifs: The invariably male embodiment of the id/Evil, the hero(ine) striving to regain an interpersonal rapport thought severed forever, the fear that H/historical damage may be irreparable, etc.

The invariable question: Is After Dark better than Wind-Up Bird? I don’t know. I think it might be. However, it does lack the magnificent historic scope we found in the latter work. In short, the jury’s still out on that one.

Today a professor comes into my library and asks for a binder of documents we keep behind the desk. My coworker - henceforth we shall call her “The Vindicator”, because her rule enforcing prowess is unmatched - obliges; moments later the prof books it out the front door. The security alarm goes off - thank you, tattletape! - and my coworker calls him back, asking if he has removed anything from the library. At this point I am slightly nonplussed, having been occupied with other matters. I see right away, however, that The Vindicator suspects him of a most heinous crime… lifting a copy of The Value Line Investment Survey!

Whatever sense of entitlement that permitted this man to steal the goddamn Value Line also compelled him to deliver an anti-library tirade. Enraged, his return to the circulation desk was marked by a vociferous, preemptive denunciation of the library, it’s staff, and it’s service. I wouldn’t say I was afraid of the man at that moment, but being verbally abused is not exactly how I enjoy spending my Monday mornings. The professor’s harangue was augmented by a series of circuitous justifications and crazed accusations. In summary: The library is intentionally wasting this faculty member’s time to undermine the teaching of his class.

Apparently, not allowing people to take the five finger discount is “a step back”. Come now. The library provides the materials he needs, the department provides the money to photocopy Value Line for his class, and the University provides TAs to do it for him. What insolence! What self righteousness!

After xeroxing it, the tenured professor further expressed his dissatisfaction to me specifically. I put on my poker face, looked him right in the eye, and replied with something between “Ah” and a non-committal grunt.

To my utter surprise and adulation, The Vindicator walked up to him and delivered the most crisp, canned, backhanded apology I have ever seen! It walked the perfect line between affront and verisimilitude. Remind me never to cross that brazen lass; she’s got one sharp tongue and is not afraid to use it… for Evil!