Dead white people make excellent novelists

One of my missions in life is to convince people that I can dislike Charles Dickens and STILL be an intelligent, respectable member of society.

In 2003, the BBC conducted a survey to find "the nation's best-loved novel". Six Dickens novels were included on this list. This leads me to two possible conclusions:

1. I am an impatient, 21-century gal with no time for half-page descriptions of pocket-watches and parasols. (Okay...so I've heard that there is more to Dickens than half-page descriptions of pocket-watches and parasols. Like, half-page descriptions of horrific factory conditions. That could be. But I've never actually made it far enough into a Dickens novel to find this out for myself.)

The British, in comparison, are civilized, patient folk who regularly leaf through 19th-century tomes by authors who were paid by the world. (I'm looking at you here, Charles).

OR...

2. British people listed Dickens novels as their favorites because they knew it would make them sound civilized and literate. Like most people, the majority of their reading time is spent poring over Calvin and Hobbes cartoons in the bathroom. But survey participants don't like to admit to reading Calvin and Hobbes cartoons in the bathroom. And so, all of a sudden, participants get misty eyed about "classic" authors like Charles Dickens. (And Jane Austen. Don't even get me started on Jane Austen.)

For interest's sake, I will post the list in its entirety. It looks pretty much how you'd expect the list to look...lots of dead white people. There are a few nice surprises. For instance, The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood made the list at 48.

I'm also glad that Helen Fielding's Bridget Jones's Diary made the list at 68. Quite frankly, this is probably the most honest entry on the list. At least, it's honest compared to book #24: War and Peace by Tolstoy.

Now....c'mon. Who are we kidding? If you want to expound on how War and Peace is a "great work", fine. But WELL-LOVED? By whom? A masochist who spends most of his time stapling his fingers and dipping them in tabasco sauce? Bridget Jones's Diary may not be a "great work", but it is fun to read.

Of course...I am a 21-century gal with the attention span of a small muskrat. So my opinion may not count for much. Without further ado, here is the list. I've bolded the books I've read, "redded" the books I've started but couldn't get through, and "greened" the books I want to read.
Just in case you're taking notes.

1 Pride and Prejudice - Jane Austen
2 The Lord of the Rings - JRR Tolkien
3 Jane Eyre - Charlotte Bronte
4 Harry Potter series - JK Rowling
5 To Kill a Mockingbird - Harper Lee
6 The Bible (parts of, at least.)
7 Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte
8 Nineteen Eighty Four - George Orwell
9 His Dark Materials - Philip Pullman
10 Great Expectations - Charles Dickens
11 Little Women - Louisa M Alcott
12 Tess of the D’Urbervilles - Thomas Hardy
13 Catch 22 - Joseph Heller
14 Complete Works of Shakespeare (some of them, at least.)
15 Rebecca - Daphne Du Maurier
16 The Hobbit - JRR Tolkien
17 Birdsong - Sebastian Faulks
18 Catcher in the Rye - JD Salinger
19 The Time Traveller’s Wife - Audrey Niffenegger
20 Middlemarch - George Eliot
21 Gone With The Wind - Margaret Mitchell
22 The Great Gatsby - F Scott Fitzgerald
23 Bleak House - Charles Dickens
24 War and Peace - Leo Tolstoy (yes, despite all my bravado above...I *do* want to read war and peace.)
25 The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
26 Brideshead Revisited - Evelyn Waugh
27 Crime and Punishment - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
28 Grapes of Wrath - John Steinbeck
29 Alice in Wonderland - Lewis Carroll
30 The Wind in the Willows - Kenneth Grahame
31 Anna Karenina - Leo Tolstoy
32 David Copperfield - Charles Dickens
33 Chronicles of Narnia - CS Lewis (not all of them, but enough to get the point.)
34 Emma - Jane Austen
35 Persuasion - Jane Austen
36 The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe - CS Lewis
37 The Kite Runner - Khaled Hosseini
38 Captain Corelli’s Mandolin - Louis De Bernieres
39 Memoirs of a Geisha - Arthur Golden (and I LOVED it. See? I am capable of making positive statements!)
40 Winnie the Pooh - AA Milne
41 Animal Farm - George Orwell
42 The Da Vinci Code - Dan Brown
43 One Hundred Years of Solitude - Gabriel Garcia Marquez
44 A Prayer for Owen Meaney - John Irving (I was probably too young the first time I tried this one; I should start it again.)
45 The Woman in White - Wilkie Collins
46 Anne of Green Gables - LM Montgomery
47 Far From The Madding Crowd - Thomas Hardy
48 The Handmaid’s Tale - Margaret Atwood
49 Lord of the Flies - William Golding
50 Atonement - Ian McEwan (the movie depressed me enough, thanks.)
51 Life of Pi - Yann Martel
52 Dune - Frank Herbert
53 Cold Comfort Farm - Stella Gibbons
54 Sense and Sensibility - Jane Austen
55 A Suitable Boy - Vikram Seth
56 The Shadow of the Wind - Carlos Ruiz Zafon
57 A Tale Of Two Cities - Charles Dickens (the only reason I finished it because it was in French...in comic book form.)
58 Brave New World - Aldous Huxley
59 The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time - Mark Haddon
60 Love In The Time Of Cholera - Gabriel Garcia Marquez
61 Of Mice and Men - John Steinbeck
62 Lolita - Vladimir Nabokov
63 The Secret History - Donna Tartt
64 The Lovely Bones - Alice Sebold
65 Count of Monte Cristo - Alexandre Dumas
66 On The Road - Jack Kerouac
67 Jude the Obscure - Thomas Hardy
68 Bridget Jones’s Diary - Helen Fielding
69 Midnight’s Children - Salman Rushdie
70 Moby Dick - Herman Melville
71 Oliver Twist - Charles Dickens
72 Dracula - Bram Stoker
73 The Secret Garden - Frances Hodgson Burnett
74 Notes From A Small Island - Bill Bryson
75 Ulysses - James Joyce
76 The Bell Jar - Sylvia Plath
77 Swallows and Amazons - Arthur Ransome
78 Germinal - Emile Zola
79 Vanity Fair - William Makepeace Thackeray
80 Possession - AS Byatt
81 A Christmas Carol - Charles Dickens
82 Cloud Atlas - David Mitchell
83 The Color Purple - Alice Walker
84 The Remains of the Day - Kazuo Ishiguro
85 Madame Bovary - Gustave Flaubert
86 A Fine Balance - Rohinton Mistry (Fantastic! Depressing, but fantastic.)
87 Charlotte’s Web - EB White
88 The Five People You Meet In Heaven - Mitch Alborn
89 Adventures of Sherlock Holmes - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
90 The Faraway Tree Collection - Enid Blyton
91 Heart of Darkness - Joseph Conrad
92 The Little Prince - Antoine De Saint-Exupery
93 The Wasp Factory - Iain Banks
94 Watership Down - Richard Adams
95 A Confederacy of Dunces - John Kennedy Toole
96 A Town Like Alice - Nevil Shute
97 The Three Musketeers - Alexandre Dumas
98 Hamlet - William Shakespeare
99 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - Roald Dahl
100 Les Miserables - Victor Hugo

FAQ

1. You have started to blog anonymously! Whatever for?

I am tired of being nonymous. I spent two years blogging anonymously, and it's time to go back to that.

2. You have changed the name of your blog! Whatever for?

I am tired of people pronouncing it incorrectly.

3. Are you still a sociology grad student? How do we know that this blog hasn't been high-jacked by a 47 year old dental hygienist named Frank?

I would hope that 47 year old dental hygienists would have better things to do than high-jack my blog. As much as I hate to admit it....I'm just not that important in the grand scheme of things.

4. Really?! Say it isn't so!

I know. I was disappointed to discover this as well.

5. Well....chin up. Pip, pip.

Thanks. Same to you.

"Sociolology of sociology: How the discipline is being taught today", by Stan Weeber.

Being nerdy is a relatively cheap lifestyle choice. Take last week, for instance. Instead of shopping for gourmet olives or buying a new throw-cushion, I spent an afternoon getting musty and dusty in the Dana Porter Library. Just before the smell of old book got too strong to bear, I
discovered a book entitled “The sociology of sociology: How the discipline is being taught today”. This is just the kind of title that fills the nerdy cockles of my heart with joy, and so I decided to take it home.

“Sociology of sociology” is written by Dr. Stan Weeber, a prof at a lower-tier university in the southern United States. Weeber convincingly argues that there are really two sociologies: the elite sociology associated with universities such as Harvard and UC Berkeley, and the “mass sociology” found in the less distinguished universities.

Rather than indulge in a polemic against elite sociology, Weeber reflects on his academic career in the lower tier. His tone is matter of fact, and he highlights both the obvious negatives (less time for research, more difficulty getting published) and the benefits. For instance, lower tier universities offer a lower-pressure working environment, and allow enthusiastic teachers to focus on their craft.

Of course, there are some obvious caveats. Tenured professors at lower-tier universities will have a much better situation than adjunct contract workers (a gap that exists in top tier universities as well.) Weeber concludes his book with a compendium of suggestions for academics who wish to maximize their experience at a lower tier institution. Although none of his suggestions are particularly profound (travel to conferences, make academic contacts outside your institution), he convinced me that life at a lower-tier school isn't the end of the world.

Unfortunately, this book does not apply well to Canadian academia. There's far less of a distinction in Canada between the top and low tier universities. Besides a few powerhouses like U of T and McGill, sociology in one Canadian university is *relatively* as prestigious as sociology in another. The prestige difference seems to be based more on one's field of study, rather than one's alma mater. (i.e: it doesn't matter which Canadian university you attend; sociologists will be situated near the bottom of the totom pole.)

That being said, it would be interesting to learn more about the differences between sociology in universities across Canada. While our universities don’t vary as much in prestige, there are certainly still differences in how each sociology program grew and progressed. Additionally, teaching sociology in a college would presumably be quite different to teaching in a university. Rick Helmes-Hayes keeps threatening to write a book about the history of Canadian sociology. I'm hoping he does this sooner than later; I'd love to learn more about this topic.

Anyhow...you should read this book if:
a) you have an extra couple of hours (it's not a heavy read)
b) you're contemplating a career in academia, particularly American academia
c) you are a huge dork named Krista who would rather read a library book than buy gourmet olives or a new throw-cushion.

Hero Biscuit

I recently started working out with a personal trainer, which means I've become one of those annoying people who goes to the gym, eats cottage cheese, and cares about things like body fat/muscle ratio.

My goal is to become a better runner - faster, more efficient, and in general to look like less of a spaz when I work out. I'm going for elegant and gazelle-like, whereas when I run I tend to look like an inebriated ostrich.

But that being said - I AM getting faster. Interval training is arduous but effective. And yesterday I ran 5 miles in 45 minutes - a 9 minute mile! I think I deserve a pony.

Anyhow, this is what you should listen to if you want to run 5 miles in 45 minutes. It worked for me.

Beastie Boys - "Sure Shot"
Madonna - "I'm not Sorry"
Portishead - "Biscuit"
Beastie Boys - "Pass the Mic"
Amy Winehouse - "You know that I"m no good"
Rasputina - "Thimble Island"
Basement Jaxx - "Plug it in"
Bad Religion - "Hooray for me"
Tori Amos - "Professional Widow"
Kanye West - "Stronger"
Beastie Boys - "Intergalactic"

Hm...it appears that I work out best to angry songs with lots of profanity. I'm not sure what this says about me. Something not very nice, I imagine.

Hot theorists of the day

This weekend I made carrot soup, cut my toenails, and fell in love with Doug McAdam and W. Richard Scott.

So, it goes like this. There are a number of sociologists who use organization theory to understand (you guessed it) organizations. Traditionally, org theorists have been interested in relatively stable, long established institutions. They've also been interested in organizational structure - as in, how are organizations internally

Meanwhile, social movement theorists have been studying (don't think about this too hard) social movements! They have tended to focus less on structure and more on processes, less on well-established institutions and more on emerging groups and movements.

Scott and McAdam are Stanford profs who have been long proponants of org theory and social movement theory respectively. Over the years, as they have worked in the same department, run into each other in bathroom and had coffee breaks together, Scott and McAdam have gotten to talking about how much their respective theories have in common.

For instance, the org theory notion of "institutional logic" (belief systems that permeate an organizational field) is mighty similar to the social movement idea of "framing" (the way that movement participants interpret and make meaning of particular goal or social action). Nifty, yes? I could elaborate and provide other examples...but you probably don't care that much. So I'll move on.

For the last couple of years, Scott and McAdam (and many other sociologists) have been using the theories together - the strengths of each theory fortifying the strengths of the other. Why is this analytically useful? Let's take McAdam's (1982 - 1999) work on the civil rights movement as an example. Instead of only exploring the civil rights movement as a social movement, this new perspective sheds light on the institutional context which facilitated the movement.

Why does this warm the cockles of my heart? This perspective is the most useful one I've found for when you want to back away from a particular social event and put it into a larger context. It also gives creedence to the fact that social movements aren't just big flurries of unorganized activity. In order for a social movement to be effective, it has to be somewhat organized - resources must be mobilized, formal or informal networks of communication have to develop...process and structure always develop simultaneously.

My thesis is a case study of nonprofit/government sector relationships in Alberta, focusing on a particular successful* nonprofit lobbying effort that took place last year. Merging org and social movement theories will allow me to not only understand the social movement aspects of the lobbying campaign (framing processes, mobilizing structures, political oppotunities) but also the larger institutional factors that contributed to the situation. For instance, the lobbying campaign was related to the general institutional cry for greater nonprofit accountability. Nonprofit organizations must strive to gain legitimacy by adhering to a business-like model, accounting for how and why they spend money, and being transparant about their lobbying efforts. The nonprofit lobbying campaign that took place in Alberta in 2007 is better understood in this larger, org theory-related context.

Wow, I'm entirely to excited about all this, aren't I? It's time for me to go cut my fingernails and try to calm down.

Ralph Nader at UW

Ralph Nader visited UW this evening in honour of the 35th anniversary of our public interest research group. An impressively large crowd came out to hear him speak about civic engagement, democracy, and corporate-government relations.

Ralph and I have a complicated relationship. On the one hand, I love him dearly, admire him to no end, and would give anything to sit with him over a pot of tea on a snowy evening.

On the other hand, I sometimes want to thwack him over the head with a rolled-up newspaper.

But let's start with the positive, shall we?

Simply put: Ralph Nader doesn't take any guff. He listed the reasons students generally give for not being politically engaged (too busy, don't know how, afraid, and too cynical) and ripped them all too shreds. As well he should. I find the "too busy" excuse especially irksome. Most people DO have a lot of time, but priorize badly.

He spoke vehemently about how people are stuck meeting their sensual wants (food, entertainment, sex) and rarely get to the more abstract, intellectual levels that humans are capable of reaching. If we spent 25 hours a year, he argues, harassing our Members of Parliament instead of watching sports on television, think of how much more we could accomplish!

This might come off as preachy from someone else...but this is Ralph Nader. Nader epitomizes
the idea of "living your beliefs" like no one else I know, and so he is allowed to preach. Can you imagine Ralph Nader wasting the afternoon by browsing Facebook and reading celebrity gossip? I certainly can't. Hearing him this evening gave me motivation to work harder, play more intentionally, and waste less time.

Nader also spoke about the value of a life dedicated to seeking justice. I thought that was beautiful. I've been reading/thinking a lot about participatory action research recently. Many social scientists disparage PAR by saying that it is "only" political activism, rather than real, post-positivist research. Ralph's lecture reminded me that political activism isn't an "only", but an incredibly worthwhile life's work. Maybe I *can* work for social justice and still be a good sociologist...yes?

So, now that we've established that I love Ralph Nader, let's get to the "newspaper thwacking part". Ralph, my dear...does the term "baby steps" mean anything to you? How about "intermediate goals"? I refer to the following exchange that occurred during the Q&A.

Mr. Audience Member:"Ralph, in 2007 less than 10% of UW students voted in our student government elections. What should we do to increase turnout?"

Ralph: "Make voting mandatory! And then make voting mandatory in Ontario! And then make it mandatory in Canada! Everyone should vote always! It's a waste of time trying to "get the vote out" when important issues could be being disussed! Mandatory voting! Mandatory voting! Yip yip yip yip!"

Don't get me wrong. I like the idea of mandatory voting. I don't know that much about the pros and cons. But I know that Australia has done it without collapsing in on itself like a dying star, and that's enough for me.

My problem is this: isn't there some smaller, more intermediate step that Mr. Audience member could take? How did a question about our university student government turn into a tirade against the voting system in the United States? The great thing about Ralph is that he is an idealist with big, sweeping goals for the future! The bad thing is...sometimes I'm unsure of where he would like us to grab a foothold along the way. His idealism can be motivating and infectious...but also a little daunting.

Oh well. We need more idealistic, staunchly principled people in the world. And a little bit of daunt never hurt anyone. So thanks for coming up to Canada, Mr. Nader. We salute you.

Weekend notes

1. Rickard's White beer has a noteworthy feature - it doesn't actually taste like beer. Consequentially, it is the best beer in the history of the entire world.

2. When my cat licks himself, he makes a noise not unlike the little slurpy thing that the dentist uses to get rid of your excess saliva. "suck...ssssllluuuurrrpp...sssllluuuurrrpp, suck, suck... suck...sllluuuurrrpp".

He is especialy fond of doing this while on my lap, or while his anus is pointed directly at my eyeballs..

3. All weekend I had the Pussycat Dolls' "When I Grow Up"s going through my head. I think that will get me kicked out of the Feminist Club AND the Music Snob Club in one fell swoop.

4. Full disclosure: I have absolutely *no* idea how to write a 30-page, graduate level theory paper. None. I may have to include diagrams of aquatic animals, just to round it out.

Or, I could play with fonts the way they do in children's books:
"Mr. Weber thought the iron cage of rationality was BAD! Ohhhhh noooooo! The iron cage! Run, run, Mr. Weber! Run!!"

5. Mennonites have a tendancy to sound a wee bit sanctimonious on Peace Sunday.

Actually, we Mennonites are pretty good at sounding sanctimonious most of the time - it's one of our superpowers, like x-ray vision or something. Generally we're able to hold this tendency in check. But Peace Sunday (the Menno equivalent of a Remembrance Day service) brings the smugness out in full force. After weeks of trying to keep the sanctimony in check we go full throttle, like an alcoholic partying with his old friends after spending the month in rehab.

6. Go see Burn After Reading - you will love it. If you don't usually like the Coen Brothers, you will enjoy the minimal violence in this film. If you DO like the Coen Brothers, you will love the Coen-esque dialogue and black humour. If you love George Clooney, you get to stare at his smarmy, self-congratulatory face for 90 minutes. If you *don't* love George Clooney, you will delight in the fact that his character leaves for Venezuela, never to be heard from again. I know I did.