Mad research skillz: Workshop on developing undergraduate research

Published May 23, 2012 teaching Leave a Comment
Tags: ,

Summer is the prime season for conferences and workshops and last week was the kick-off!

Office of Undergraduate Research Faculty Development Workshop

The Office of Undergraduate Research designed this three day workshop to assist faculty who want to incorporate research into their undergraduate classes. The attendees were teaching faculty from all over the university (sciences to humanities to business). I come from political science where research papers are standard, but some disciplines don’t seem to have the same expectations, especially at the undergraduate level. This workshop helped us create research-based assignments in a thoughtful manner. The most useful part for me was brainstorming how I could get beyond the traditional research paper tacked onto the end of the course.

I attended to develop the assignments in my class, but I think it helped having a library insider in the room. Jenny Dale and Kathy Crowe from the library gave an excellent presentation on library services that sparked later conversations about library support. After the formal presentation, I was able to answer questions about the possibilities for collaboration with the library. Also I was able to see the assignment design process from the beginning stages, which is where the library really needs to be!

My goal for the workshop was pretty straightforward. I want to increase the quality of my student research without increasing the quantity of assignments. The class I teach is 200-level and an introductory course so the assignments need to be appropriate. The most useful tool in the workshop was the LOGIC model. I can’t remember where she got this, but the model includes three questions: What is my objective? What do I do to meet my objective? And what evidence do I use to demonstrate that my students have done that? Translated to assignment creation, we focus on the outcome, the activity to practice the outcome, and then the assessment of their ability. In libraryland we are great at doing the first and third parts. We have our learning objectives and then we are sure to assess them, but I feel like the middle component sometimes isn’t as strategically developed. In this model, we are assured that practice a student has in or out of the classroom relates back to the objective and then they are assessed on that specific objective.

For the workshop the research process was divided into discrete parts so that we could focus on specific objectives. My main objective has been developing my students’ ability to paraphrase and then synthesize their research. So many of my papers are long string of quotes interspersed with the writer’s insights (hopefully). To reach this objective I have several activities in mind:

  • News journals: They choose a news story related to the class, write a summary (which requires paraphrasing) and then respond to the article. I did these for two semesters and several students have said that they liked doing them (it forced them to keep up with the news). I always saw them as separate from the research project, but they are their first paraphrasing activity. Maybe I need to encourage them to tie them into the research paper if appropriate.
  • Image captioning: I use images a lot in my class, but I would like to do an activity each week where I show an image related to the week’s readings and then ask them to create a caption for it on an index card. This is a different skill from the usual and requires the ability to synthesize information. Plus I can use it as a mini-reading quiz.
  • Source comparison and annotation exercise: After a library session in which we talk about sources, they have to compare three sources of information (scholarly, newspaper, and government information) on a particular topic. I like doing this activity, but may need to think through the logistics.
  • Annotated bibliography for paper: Post our second  library session they turn in an annotated bib on their chosen topic with a variety of sources.

I also have some assessments:

  • Paraphrasing on exams: I got this idea from a presentation at the workshop. On their exams you give students quotes from the readings. They then must paraphrase the quote and respond– basically telling you what it means.
  • The paper: Hopefully at this point they will be able to paraphrase. I also do an optional revision process where they get feedback and can improve their grades.
  • An executive summary of the paper: Last semester I did a memo to the President where students needed to concisely and precisely sum up their findings to the President and tell him what he should do. The results were fine, but not great. This year I might do a more creative component for this where students have to do a short persuasive elevator speech with a visual. The visual could be a PowerPoint or an image or even a short video. It would function the same as the memo, but they get to choose the audience they would like to persuade. I’d really like to see some of them do short newscasts, but that’s a lot to ask (and watch with 40 students). The whole point is to sum up (or paraphrase) their own research in a understandable and thoughtful manner.

Well, those are my main ideas. Anything I’m missing? Suggestions welcome!

Checkers and the Rose Mary Stretch #cbr4

Published May 18, 2012 reading Leave a Comment
Tags: ,

I’ve gotten quite behind in my Cannonball Run readings. Hell, I’ve gotten behind in reading period, but I haven’t really enjoyed any of my latest picks. If you have a recommendation, please recommend away.

Watergate: A Novel by Thomas Mallon was definitely a highlight though. I picked it up after reading a review and am glad I did. It is a retelling of the Watergate saga starting from the day after the break-in and following the characters through Nixon’s resignation. Although some accounts and one or two characters are fictional, it is a close retelling of the events. The action progresses through the thoughts and interactions of most of the main characters including Pat Nixon, Richard Nixon, Rose Mary Woods, and more.

As I was reading I kept looking up the events and people referenced, especially the Checkers Speech and the Rose Mary Stretch.  I admittedly know little about the Nixon era. If you only read novels to imagine another world based on the author’s description, this book might not be for you. But I think Mallon does a great job of incorporating small details and breathing life into the characters. For example, after Rose Mary demonstrates to the press how she ‘accidentally’ erased a portion of Nixon’s ubiquitous tapes (leading to the famous picture) she reflects on her unfortunate choice of dress.

Undoubtedly, the best part of the novel are the female characters, Pat Nixon especially. Rose Mary, Pat, and Alice Roosevelt Longworth are the heart of the work. All three are very different women and although you might not agree with their motivations, they are sympathetic characters. Richard Nixon never seems quite as flesh and blood, but that would be much harder for Mallon to pull off.

Watergate: A Novel is well-written and very well-researched. If you like historical novels focused on 20th century events, this is a treat, even if you hate Richard Nixon.

libraryland learning (summer edition)

Published May 13, 2012 conferences , the profession 1 Comment
Tags: , ,

I love talking with my students, faculty, and colleagues, but sometimes I need an infusion of fresh ideas and adventures. That’s why I love summertime. Two major conferences take place in May and June (IASSIST and ALA). Plus everyone reserves the summer months for workshops and off-campus meetings. These may seem like frivolous things to an outsider (or my non-libraryland partner), but I am better able to do and more excited about my job after a fresh infusion of networking and learning.

Take for instance our workshop last week. UNCG’s Liaison Task Force has been asked to look at our liaison duties and develop a possible model for the future. The problem right now is that our workloads have increased dramatically, but we haven’t had an increase in staffing. Same as everywhere, right? Well, we’ve been talking about this issue for a while and haven’t decided anything. Luckily the task force was asked to benchmark with other schools. Rather than just calling up Wake Forest and asking them “Hey, how do you do it?” Steve Cramer called together a joint meeting with the key players from Wake Forest and liaisons from UNCG.

UNCG and WFU Liaison Meeting

The session started off with us brainstorming all of the things we do as liaisons onto sticky notes, and then Roz Tedford and I then grouped them into categories like consultations, faculty outreach, teaching, etc. Next we talked about our workloads with most tasks increasing in work time spent on them.

The category “keeping with the subject area”, which means reading key journals and staying abreast of new research, is an area in decline. Very unfortunate considering we are subject specialists too, in my opinion. I wonder if this is the area to examine in the future: a divide between the liaison (someone who does more outreach tasks or maintains gobi aerts) and subject specialists (someone who can teach upper-level classes and do in-depth consultations). This model wouldn’t be a return to the bibliographer approach; neither the liaison nor the subject specialist would be devoted to just collections. Of course you could have one person be both, but that is more difficult for the bigger departments. I guess the real key is having a flexible system rather than just assuming a one-size-fits-all approach to liaison roles.

The meeting wrapped up with a brainstorming session on what we can do about this issue. In my small group were two tech services librarians who are also liaisons. They expressed discomfort with their expanding duties as liaisons because they felt their primary job duties were suffering. This brought up the tension between specialization and generalization. At UNCG we tend to assume our liaisons are generalists who can move easily between collection work and teaching/patron interactions. It assumes someone with no teaching experience can (and should) teach. Likewise someone with no collections experience can and should do collection duties. The problem I have with that assumption is that it seems to denigrate those tasks. I am not the best collections person, I’m a pretty good teacher. I’ve been doing it for a few years now. Plus (and this is key) I’ve trained and reflected and trained more to get better at it. It is something that I see as being integral to my job so I’ve put extra effort into it. I can’t say the same thing about collections. Does that mean I can’t get better at collections? No, I can train and reflect in that area too. But then we get back to the workload/time issue. When do I get better at a skill I use sparingly? And would putting my time into collections even be useful to the library in the long run, especially if it takes time away from public services (what I do best)?

So, that is where the meeting ended. The conversation will continue this summer, but the important outcome is that we are sharing ideas and thinking through our strengths, our weaknesses, and where we have room for improvement. And that is what summertime should be about!

As I mentioned I have a lot on my plate this summer. Below are the upcoming workshops if you are interested. I will try to blog reflections on each.

May 14-16: Office of Undergraduate Research Workshop on integrating research into undergraduate classes

May 17: Business Librarianship in NC workshop

May 18: NCBIG workshop on assessing library instruction sessions

May 21: NC-LITe meeting (Library Instructional Technology group)

June 1: NCLA Government Resources Section meeting on ASERL and the Census

June 6-8: IASSIST in DC!

June 14: Metrolina Library Instruction Conference

June 22-25: American Library Association annual conference in Anaheim

And then in July I will take vacation. I will not check email. I will sit back and unwind. I promise.

Are we ready for Library 2525?: Lunch with Lauren

Published May 3, 2012 the profession 1 Comment
Tags: ,

This is the final post from my lunchtime conversation with Lauren. She writes about the library of the future much more effectively than I can. Might have something to do with our core competencies and personas! But I want to add a small dilemma. It is something I’ve been thinking about a lot.

I agree firmly with Lauren about the evolving role of librarians from servants to service-providers to collaborators. I see it in the disconnect when I talk with librarians who haven’t moved into a collaborative role. When I talk about my activities, the ones I see as collaborative, I often get a quizzical look and questions about whether that is what librarians are supposed to be doing. For example a few of us have been teaching the introduction to the university courses over the past year. We see this activity as firmly embedded into library practice, especially as these courses are inherently about information literacy. Because of our teaching the library has had been able to give more input into the development of these courses. We are at the decision-making table helping to shape the future instead of reacting to whatever the “real” decision-makers decide.

But here’s my dilemma. We are doing more and more true collaborative work (embedded librarianship, assignment development, curriculum development, developing online journals with faculty) and spending more and more hours on these activities. Collaborative work is taking us away from our traditional service duties especially reference desk work. In the past the value of the reference department has been based on the number of questions we get each hour, each day, and declines in those numbers has led to proclamations that “Reference is Dead“!

What numbers will we use to prove collaboration to skeptics in the future?

This has become a bigger issue at my library because more of our classes are going online and asynchronous only. Two of my core classes that I used to teach each semester are now asynchronous online. Why does this matter? Because I am no longer teaching library instruction sessions for them, and my instruction numbers went down. Does this mean I was any less busy? Heck no. In one class I spent a few hours creating a video tutorial on the OECD.stat geared to their assignment and several more in consultations with the individual students. In the other I had to make my very first “Hi, I’m Lynda” video. (That video may seem old hat to you, but dude it took me forever). These videos were then embedded into the instructional materials in Blackboard and not just sitting on a library website hoping for hits. I felt like I was collaborating with the professor on how we could best integrate the library into the virtual world of these students.

Now, I track numbers of consultations, but in reporting this I only report interactions. I don’t report time spent. We track contact time with students in library instruction sessions, but not how much contact time we spend with the category of “reference desk interactions.” Because I am obsessive I track  the time I spend on each question (both prep and interaction time) and counted all of that up for my tenure presentation this year. I spent over 80 hours in consultations alone. That number is twice what I spent in the library instruction classroom. This does not include any of the work I did on tutorials or otherwise. Tutorials and otherwise don’t exist in the library reporting mechanism.

So, back to my question. As we become collaborators, as we enter more complex relationships, how are we tracking it? What numbers matter most and can best explain how much time we spend collaborating with faculty? If a librarian embeds into a course like Steve Cramer, how does he account for the many hours he spends with those students? What about my political science class? Even if it may seem tangential to my work, it has had a tangible impact on my interactions with political science students (my consultations numbers doubled since I started teaching the class).

Our assessment efforts are a good starting point, but they tend to be based on small samples and are about (as they should be) student learning. They can’t and aren’t meant to demonstrate the breadth of work we are doing throughout the campus. They make the case that students are learning things, but they don’t make the case that a new reference and instruction librarian should replace the one who retired.

Because numbers have been used to prove our lack of worth in the past, what numbers will prove our worth in the future? More importantly if we aren’t tracking those numbers now, what is going to be our library future? Are we even ready for 2525?

Confessions and competencies: Lunch with Lauren

Published May 2, 2012 the profession 2 Comments
Tags: , ,

Confession 1: I like trivial pursuit, but I didn’t become a librarian to be a fount of trivia. That’s what Google is for. Or Duck Duck Go.

Confession 2: Beyond my own personal reading, I don’t really care about the future of the book. I mean, I care, but it is not what gets me out of bed and into the office in the morning.

Confession 3: I am REALLY REALLY bad with details. I may be obsessively neat and good at collecting statistics (at work), but I was horrendous at cataloging. Horrendous. Me talking with a cataloger is like a Croatian trying to understand a Macedonian. They can pick up a few words here and there but most of it just sounds like Greek.

Confession 4: I became a librarian because I like talking with people. I found the research life demoralizing and isolating. I tried talking to my cubicle, but you can imagine how that ended up. When I found out that some librarians spent much of their time yacking I knew it was the life for me. And they teach?! And maybe even teach kids like this?! Oh glory be I’ve come home!

PSC 240 Spring 2012

So, why the confessions? Because a few of us (me, Lauren, and Jenny Dale) have recently become obsessed (a bit) with this idea of core competencies. Jenny and I read about it in the book 168 Hours: You Have More Time Than You Think by Laura Vanderkam, and she borrowed it from the business literature. Coming from the idea of comparative advantage, you have opportunity costs for every task to which you decide to devote your time. Opportunity costs are the things you give up to do something else. The tasks with the lowest opportunity costs are your core competencies. Vanderkam argues that we should spend our time on our core competencies and avoid or delegate whatever is not core to someone with those core competencies. To give an example: in my house I am much better at cleaning things while DM is much better at fixing things (detail oriented to a fault). If we are following our core competencies, we would split our tasks appropriately. It would take me much more time to fix a cabinet than to wait for DM to do it.  From a time management perspective it is more efficient and increases motivation because you enjoy doing things you do well.

The question we’ve had is how to apply this to the library setting. Jenny and I will flesh this out on a micro-level in an upcoming project, but what if we applied this to the macro-level? What if this is how the library organized itself? How would a library that is divided into the core competencies look? What core competencies would it need for it to function?

This then led into a discussion of the major personas in a library: the grand strategy thinker, the patron-centered talker, the instruction-based performer, and the detailed-oriented producer. If we approach library functions from the angle of core competencies and fit, can we manufacture a library where people are more motivated because they are doing the functions they find most fulfilling? Lauren for example is the grand strategy thinker extraordinaire. She is not only able to see the big picture for the library future, she cares about it more. It is what motivators her to  get up and go, to present, to talk with others, to put in those 8 hours every day. How much more effective would the library (or any organization) be if it approached motivation based on core competencies?

Granted we are mirroring the current roles, but if we try to think bigger than what exists, what roles do we see?  What core competencies would be represented in your library of the future?

Lunch with Lauren: Reference and the Research Process

Published April 27, 2012 the profession 4 Comments
Tags: , , ,

Whenever Lauren and I have lunch we end up with wonderful and grand schemes for rethinking the library. I always leave with 100 ideas and many things to do. Our first task was to blog about the discussion and see where we overlap in thinking. And the first grand idea up is reference and the research process.

We’ve been talking about this idea since ALA NOLA and it stems from both concerns Lauren has about reference and from my experience with embedded librarianship. I’ve been obsessed with the idea of embedded librarianship for a year or so now because I see it as the future of reference.

Now to clarify, embedded librarianship does not mean just becoming a member of online courses. I see embedded librarianship as deep integration into a class or a discipline or any institution separate from the library. It could be online, but being in a class online doesn’t equal embedded librarianship. It is the activity that you do and the role that you develop that constitutes embeddedness.

Embeddedness implies a deeper level of understanding of the content of the institution in which we are embedded. Yes, we will be the librarian, but the librarian also needs to have a deeper knowledge of what actually goes on within that institution and potentially some subject expertise.

Now there is a huge debate about whether you need training in an area to support a department, and if we are supporting groups in the traditional liaison model, then I don’t think you need subject expertise. As Lauren says you can learn to be good at answering any question. My friend and colleague Jenny Dale is the perfect example. She support English (her background) and Kinesiology (decidedly not her background) and she is fab at both. Steve Cramer is also an amazing business librarian with a Medievalist’s background. But, he has become masterful in his area by teaching himself the content to some degree.

Subject expertise (or willingness to study the area) helps quite a bit, especially if we are trying to integrate our work more into the actual research process of our students and faculty. Here’s why I think this. I support Political Science, which is my background. Many of the questions I get are simple database searches, but a growing number of those database questions have been interspersed with questions like this:

  • “What does decentralization mean?”
  • “What is the Responsibility to Protect?”
  • “Do my variables sound remotely on target?”
  • “What are operational definitions?” (which spawned a post on the death of reference)

Now, anyone at the reference desk could eventually answer those questions using subject dictionaries, but honestly most of the time those reference resources give incredibly vague definitions or definitions that refer to components of an idea and not the idea as it is used in their specific class. You could refer them back to their professors, but typically students ask these questions in the moment of actual need (or avoid their professors for various reasons).

For deep embedded librarianship subject expertise, and some kind of passion for the field, is critical. How does this relate to rethinking reference? Well, while I think embedded librarianship is the future, it would be unrealistic to expect everyone to have this level of expertise in our cash-strapped libraries. And of course working the desk is entirely different. But what if our training for the desk revolved more around thinking in terms of disciplinary areas and less in terms of tools?

At UNCG we have classes in Social Science or Humanities information sources, but those tend to be focused on the tools and databases of those disciplines. They are less focused on the commonalities of research within those larger areas. What I want to know is how research is actually done within the field? What are the key things that matter? What is the research lifecycle? And most importantly, when does the library figure in?

For our reference intern training starting last fall the intern coordinators (myself, Amy Harris, and Jenny Dale) instituted this approach in our first training sessions. We taught three sessions that were non-department or tools specific: science research, humanities research, and social science research. I only have the slides for social science, but you can get a picture of what we were trying to do. I should mention this is a work in progress, so suggestions are welcome!

Some of the session considers tools, but the tools are contextualized within the research process. Our goal is to give these students the basic vocabulary of these larger areas so that they can better see how a field works. For example, what is secondary data analysis and why does that matter to the social sciences? This would then encourage a student to think beyond the typical article databases when some numeric information might be more appropriate for a question. I think approaching training this way would help with Lauren’s issue of supporting interdisciplinary departments where you have researchers working in both the social sciences and the humanities.

To wrap this up, I see two big areas for future investment in reference. One is using those people who are subject experts and who feel comfortable in a field more strategically in embedded relationships. Two is revamping our training at the reference desk to encompass more thinking about the discipline’s approach and less about the tools. Both ideas are more about the process of research than the specific question being asked, but in our environment of declining reference questions shouldn’t we be more concerned about getting into that process?

Up next, what is the library of the future?

Inspiration needed: What is your/my/a librarian teaching philosophy? #libteachthis

Published April 26, 2012 teaching , the profession , writing Leave a Comment
Tags: , , ,

I’ve hit a wall in writing my teaching philosophy for tenure. Granted this is the first draft, and granted I’m a notorious procrastinator who hasn’t gotten in desperation mode yet (I love it when that kicks in. Better than coffee). But I can feel myself losing steam.

So, let’s crowd source this bad boy. What is your librarian teaching philosophy? Let’s use Twitter: teaching philosophy in 140 characters! Use the tag #libteachthis

If you want to give more in-depth feedback, feel free to comment on this post. I promise my UNCG colleagues that I won’t crib my teaching philosophy. I just need my librarian peeps to do what they do best, inspire!

If you want to see the draft of my teaching philosophy, I will be editing it throughout the next few days. Please feel free to comment, criticize (politely), or give whoops of joy. Please. Seriously. I need help.

mieko helping me work

World according to lynda

Published April 25, 2012 the profession Leave a Comment
Tags: ,

I will submit my preliminary portfolio for tenure next week and as part of this process we are asked to give a short presentation to our library faculty. I gave mine today. It was more nerve-wracking to present in front of peers than to teach 40 students. Funny how that is.

The process is going smoothly overall. I have finished gathering most of my documentation. My external reviewers didn’t run away screaming, apparently. I think I see the beginnings of a decent teaching philosophy. (I’m thinking of posting it here to see if I can get some crowd-sourced editing. Sound like a good time? Stay tuned.)

Below are my slides. Hopefully they and I got the point across … Keep me!

Help! webinar series is one year old and still kicking!

Published April 18, 2012 outreach Leave a Comment
Tags: , , ,

The “Help! I’m an Accidental Government Information Librarian” series marks its one year anniversary and is still in full swing. Yesterday Jim Church gave an awesome presentation on International Organizations and their documents. You can see the slides on the NCLA GRS page. The recording will be up soon.

We have hosted 15 sessions in one year with 20-50 attendees in each session. I’d say it has been pretty successful. In the coming year we will feature sessions on fugitive documents, the ASERL centers of excellence project, and much more. If you have an idea for a session, get in touch with me. And join us for webinar #16 on the American Community Survey. Woohoo govinfo!

Help! I’m an Accidental Government Information Librarian presents…The American Community Survey on May 4

The Government Resources Section of the North Carolina Library Association welcomes you to a series of webinars designed to help us all do better reference work by increasing our familiarity with government information resources, and by discovering the best strategies for navigating them.

The release of more 2010 decennial census data has more users inquiring about “decennial long form” data.  In 2010, there was no long form.  Instead the American Community Survey is collecting those kinds of variables.  But the ACS has a very different methodology than the decennial census and data are not comparable between the two.  This presentation will focus on the differences between the two surveys and will provide tips for users.  Expected audience is anyone new to using the American Community Survey or anyone who wants to know more about how the ACS differs from decennial long form data.

Michele Hayslett is the Data Services Librarian at the University Library of UNC at Chapel Hill.  Previously, she was the Librarian for Data Services and Government Information at the NCSU Libraries from 2005 to 2008, and the Demographics Specialist at the State Library of North Carolina from 2000 to 2005.  Census data has been a significant focus of her work throughout this time.  At UNC, she is also one of the co-chairs of the Data Management Committee, which is working with campus partners to benchmark data management practices on campus and to assist researchers in formulating their data management plans for grant proposals.  M.S.L.S., 1999, UNC at Chapel Hill; B.A. with honors, 1990, Earlham College.

We will meet together for Session 16, online on May 4 from 12:00 – 1:00 p.m. (EDT). Please RSVP for the Session by May 3 at 5:00 pm using this link:  http://tinyurl.com/grs-session16

Technical requirements: We will be using collaborative software called Elluminate. It requires that you be able to download Java onto your computer, but you do not need any special software. After you RSVP, we will send you a link that you can use to test the software. If you have any questions, please contact Lynda Kellam (lmkellam@uncg.edu). You do not need a microphone as a chat system is available in the software, but you do need speakers or headphones.

The session will be recorded and made available after the live session, linked from the NCLA GRS web page (http://www.nclaonline.org/government-resources).

In the Shadows of the Greats II #cbr4

Published April 11, 2012 reading Leave a Comment
Tags: , , ,

“Codes and symmetries are for those who think too much of thinking.”

In college I had to take one literature course to fulfill a pesky general education requirement and I meandered through a bunch before I finally landed in a Tolstoy class where we had to read War and Peace and Anna Karenina in one semester. Yeah, I keep it real. One of the classes I dropped was Introduction to Narrative course that I hated from day one because I had already read most of the works in high school. I wanted a class in which I would be exposed to new works! Yeah, I keep it real. The only thing I remember about the class was a small group discussion of Edgar Allen Poe’s The Fall of the House of Usher. I remember saying to the teacher that the whole story was a drug-induced metaphor and exclaiming “Why does this need to be discussed?!” Yeah, I was a bit of a brat.

So, I approached The Poe Shadow by Matthew Pearl’s second book with about that much knowledge (and concern) for Poe. I read his works in school, but never felt the need to care much. After reading this book, I would like to return to Poe’s Dupin stories. I almost wish I had just read the Dupin stories instead.

Our protagonist Quentin Clark comes from a respectable Baltimore family. After seeing Poe’s sparsely attended funeral, he throws away his legal practice and his fiancee to search for answers as to what killed Edgar Allen Poe. For some inexplicable reason he believes that he needs to find the inspiration for the character Dupin, a detective in Poe’s “The Murders in the Rue Morgue”. He goes to Paris and brings back to Charm City a couple of Dupin-abees and a few random baddies. He then runs amok through Baltimore, freeing slaves, shocking polite society, and vacillating from one hero to the next.

I’m sorry if the above description doesn’t give you much clue to its contents. To be honest I finished this book wondering what the heck I had just read. My 18-year old self would have probably exclaimed “It’s about opium addition!” but the hubris of youth has left me. And maybe that is the point. The above quote is from a character who shares some likeness with the real Dupin (although he is most definitely not the real Dupin…maybe). His point is that we tend to look for the most fabulous explanations when the evidence is right in front of us (consider the orangutang in “The Murders in the Rue Morgue”). Throughout the book Clark is obsessed with solving the mystery of Poe’s death and in the process becomes fixated upon two potential hero figures who can, he thinks, make all clear. In the end the explanation is given and it is a simple and obvious explanation, but the whole escapade surrounding it is unbelievable.

And that for me is the fault of the book. The history is clear, the research is evident, but I can’t say that the story seems believable. Clark never resonates as a real person (although I have met people this indecisive before) and the back story seems implausible. I tried hard to like this, but I just couldn’t.

Next Page »

ALA 2012

ala2012

Goodreads

No data found
Book recommendations, book reviews, quotes, book clubs, book trivia, book lists

Twitter-rific!

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.