"Can Fiction Ever Be Real?"

I was off the clock! I don't even need this head-trip after I am off the freaking clock!

Let me back it up a minute:
So, for all you blogspotters out there who aren't down with the times, I work at a chain bookstore. It isn't the most glamorous gig on the planet, but I get to be around books all day long, which I like, and I get a discount, which I also like. But I am clearly pretty overqualified for this job. Case in point:

I was already clocked out and on my way to the bathroom before going out to get my party on, when a customer recognized me as an employee even sans nametag. I think it is because he's a regular and he's seen me there before. He's browsing the end of fiction, and he says he just has a quick question, and since I like answering fiction-related questions because I've read a lot of fiction I can actually sometimes offer a relevant opinion. So I say, okay... what is it?

And he says, "Can fiction ever be real?"
Pause.
"What?" I ask.
"I mean, is it ever true? If it's fiction, does that always mean it isn't real... I mean, true?"

I blinked at him for a few seconds because it was simply BLOWING MY MIND. Because all of the sudden my brain is like a vortex spinning with all these flashbacks of discussion groups and papers and me sitting in the library staring at the wall thinking and my whole academic study of litearature in a humanities-driven education that continuously danced and played with and engaged and challenged and questioned the nature of truth and reality in literature and art ALL THE TIME. It was like a faucet of incoherent analytical academic gobbledegook of jargon was all of the sudden turned on in my head, and I was trying to string it together into meaningful thought. Ah, there again the problem of language as a medium, constantly being the means of expression yet also a barrier to get to the actual MEANING of the thing. But that's a different problem all together.

And I heard different replies formulating in my head. What does it mean for something to be true or real? Do you mean "true" in the way that books are often somewhat based in life? Even if they aren't based in life, if our response to it is true, does that make it true? How much does context matter? Insofar as the book exists as an idea in someone's head, does that make it "real"?... and on and on and on. They came so fast they were like a giant thought pile-up in my head.

But I knew that wasn't what he was actually asking. What he wanted to know was whether or not the crime thriller/ lawyer mass-market mystery in his hand was based in this dimension, human, "real-life" Fact with a capital F. So I said:

"No. It's fiction... None of it is true. It's all fake."

But that isn't what I wanted to say. And I feel like because the words are out there, in an invisible word bubble floating through the air, somewhere the gods of art literature are throwing up their hands and lamenting the loss of a seeker of truth and meaning in fiction... so I just wanted to alleviate their dissappointment. I am still a seeker.

I just wanted to get to the party.

Uh, Didn't You See This on Facebook?

I donated my hair! No one who doesn't know this already really reads this, but I wanted to post about it because I really want to tell the world about my haircut. And maybe my blog will show up on Google somehow. Bonus! Here are some search terms that might be relevant:
hair donation
pantene beautiful lengths
free haircut
New York City salon
cute short cut for hair donation

So here's the story, of a gal named Casey, who really wanted to donate her hair and get a sweet haircut but didn't want to pay a fortune. Cause it is a recession, ya heard?

Before:



After:


I decided awhile ago I wanted to donate my hair, and decided on Pantene Beautiful Lengths as the place I wanted to donate, mainly because their length requirement is a minimum of 8 inches. I got a lotta hair cause it is thick, but it isn't super long. So this is something I could swing. I actually did some searching then, to see if I could find a place that would do free or reduced priced haircuts when you are donating. I didn't have to look too far... I found out about the Mark Garrison Salon on the Pantene blog. Hahaha! I made an appointment for a wednesday (because that is the only day it is free, every other day you pay half. Weird. Why Wednesday? Is it because it is in the middle of the week?) and went in and got a seriously awesome $200 haircut for nothing. But I tipped the stylist and the shampoo lady, so really it was less than 1/4 of the price it could have been. And now I have a sweet new 'do for the month of August. Hooray!

This is When I Get a Little Meta...

I've been going to a few different library-related networking/ job-hunting type things in the past couple of weeks, and they all really like to talk about Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Flickr, Twitter, and blogging as things that are important to be proficient at, as well as how to utilize those websites when you're looking for a job. (An example of the infamous Web 2.0 people are always talking about. Turns out they really just mean the participatory internet.) However, there hasn't been a whole lot of suggestion about the kind of content to include in these online versions of yourself, other than it's just important to have one. Or several, as the case may be.

I get that with social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace, you can limit your profile's privacy settings so potential employers can't see pictures of you taking tequila shots on your birthday, but your friends can. And I like the idea of LinkedIn, because that is supposed to be specifically for professional networking and recruiting, so theoretically one doesn't run into those sorts of issues. But what about Flickr, or Blogger? What kind of blog does a potential employer want to see that you have? It seems like perhaps it wouldn't necessarily be about the written content, but more about the layout, or the hyperlinking, or that it simply exists. But am I missing something? Do I need to be blogging about libraries to get a library job?

I started writing this blog because I moved to a new place (Brooklyn) and it felt like a good idea. Also to have a place to write where I feel like maybe someone is reading it... so I get some practice writing for someone other than me. But in terms of content, I thought it could just be about stuff that I'm interested in in a really immediate in-the-moment kind of way, because that's what blogging is.

I am interested in libraries, but I'm also thinking about work I could do in lots of other fields, like doing some environmental thing, or journalism, or something in the non-profit sector. Or being a scuba- dive instructor. Plus, in a more personal way, I think about fashion, media consumption, living in New York City, navigating post-grad life/ my "quarter life crisis," and a whole myriad of other crap. In the future, I can think of other things I might want to blog about, like dating, or child-rearing, or gardening, or whatever. I can wait until I work for a library, or at least am in graduate school to blog about librarianship. Also, I want to have a life and interests outside my work. But for some people nowadays, the blog can become their work (see Julie and Julia). It's the beauty of independent publication in an instant, easily consumable form. Anyone can be the next hot thing online.

But is it okay to have a blog that's kind of about everything? Or do I have to have a focus? It's the difference between the online me and the real-life me... and how much I want the professional me to be a part of the online me. Maybe it would be better to have a topic...

I don't like it when I get this meta.

Okay Fine, Elle, You Don't Suck As Much.

Elle Update from last post:

On the online comments about Elle's 'Women in Music,' playlist they deleted all the comments (including mine) being like, "Hello, where is the free music?' and had one comment that said essentially, if you are having issues with the downloads, email this dude. So I emailed the dude, and he got back to me really promptly (or his intern did) and said where you could find the info about the free music in the magazine (between pages 110 and 111 on a tear-out cardboard thingie).

Note that this tear-out was nowhere NEAR an article about music, but was smack dab in the middle of the beauty section, wedged between two pages with an article about inflammation, some crazy new derm technique. But okay, I found it! Elle wasn't lying! Yay, free music downloadS! Just pop in that ol' redeemer code and you are on your way to some slammin new tuneS.

Notice that is plural. As it was on the cover. And on the tear-out. Yet the redeem code they gave was good for one song. WTF, Elle? WTF?

Is this still false advertising? I don't know. But although I am not as supremely pissed as I was before, I still think it is kind of sneaky and lame. I hate it when people are sneaky and lame!

So to recap:
Elle: 1,000,000 extra magazines sold. CaseyA: 1 free song.

Elle, you suck!

Man! I am so pissed! Maybe part of this is that I stayed up too late watching my new My So-Called Life dvd box set special features disc (you know you are jealous, and it's okay... you should be), so I am grumpy. Perhaps this outrage will fade by the morning... but I don't think so. This is straight up false advertising! Or I am a moron... but again, I don't think so.

This July issue of Nylon and Elle have a few things in common. They are both "music" issues. I don't really get what this means, there's always stuff about music in both of these magazines, but I guess it just means music is the focus. AND they also both advertise, in big bold letters, "free" music/ songs right on the front cover.

"Sweet!" I think, "Free music to jam to over the summer! Yes!" (You know how much I love free music, just ask indiefeed!)

While Nylon's free music was totally easy to find and download, Elle's alleged free music is nowhere to be found! Nowhere in the magazine can I find any mention of the free music touted on the front cover. Nowhere on their website, using multiple search terms, can I find this free music. I find PLENTY of music that I have to pay for, but none that is free.

I don't know who's idea it was first, but Nylon definitely did it better, because it was actually true! Maybe an intern snuck in the word 'FREE' on the front cover as a practical joke at the last minute. They should get fired. And I should get their job (no shame, I tell you, NO SHAME). I could be a Stylista... maybe? Call me!

'Recent' Grad?

I'm going to Chicago in two weeks to see my cousin graduate from high school, which is reminding me of the last time I graduated from anything and its making me all nostalgic. This weekend, I graduated from college two years ago. Does this still make me a 'recent grad' in terms of applying for unpaid internships? I think it should, especially since one year of that two was spent out of the country so it's like it doesn't count as a year. It's like I graduated last year. And that is definitely 'recent,' as far as I'm concerned.

This ruminating has sprung from seeing an ad on Craigslist for interns at Nerve.com. There's a fair amount of material to submit in order to apply (like, more than a resume and a cover letter) and because I'd never been to the website, I went over to check it out, to see if it would be worth the extra work to apply considering I still think I'd really rather work in a library. And then I saw that one of the current interns is definitely someone I scoped out (but can't remember if I messaged) on OKCupid... awks!

Maybe this is just me, but I think I could just as easily apply for an unpaid internship somewhere that I don't know whether I've already been trolling for a dude that works there. As opposed to someplace where I know that I have.

Twitter Tweeting

I read this article in the NYTimes today, and it's about all the neat things you can do on Twitter after you get situated, which apparently takes about a day. Oprah is now on Twitter, and did it on her show, which means housewives across america are tweeting away, letting everyone know what kinds of muffins they are making or the awesome new cleaner they just discovered that clears away tough grease (because in my world, housewives are still just like they were in the 50s). My brother has been on Twitter for ages now, and his computer makes these chriping noises when he gets tweets or whatever they're called, and he has told me more than once how awesome it is.

After reading this article, then reading about Twitter on Wikipedia (which is now my knee-jerk response to learning about things I don't know about— not sure if that's the best tactic actually, but there you are) and then reading what Twitter has to say about itself... I gotta say I still don't get it.

I know that it says the reason it exists is to tell people what you're doing. Twitter itself also insists that it isn't an overload of information, because you can pay as much or as little attention to people's twitterings as you like. But I still am not convinced that I need ANOTHER way of keeping track of people. Maybe I am being a little bit of a techno-phobe. Or I just feel that instant communication via cellphones, texting, emailing, blogging, facebook-ing, flikring, etc. is pretty much enough for me.

I think I'll wait until they make a computer chip implanted into my brain where I can communicate telepathically with all my friends and family instantly. Sound like anyone you know?


RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!