So that’s the good news. The bad news is that he won't be updating B2.0 today because he has a kinda serious eye infection. It’s not your usual case of pink eye.
If any of you remember a while back when john went to the eye doctor and had to sit there for like five hours, well the reason he was there is because he’d had some strange results to some tests. Turns out, his eyeball was infected…and now, it’s gotten a bit worse.
John still probably has nothing to worry about, at least now we know what was wrong with him. But he will have to be on an anti-biotic IV and he’ll probably be in the hospital for the next few days. He doesn’t have a fever, which is a good sign, and he says he feels fine aside from being angry and stuck in the hallway of the ER with a video camera that’s just run out of batteries.
So, we might be waiting a while for John’s video. Instead of punishing him, I think I’ll just ask all of you to put funny things on your head, take pictures, and we can make him a get well soon compilation video. Put links to pictures and videos in the comments, or email them to sparksflyup at gmail dot com.
1. I have pink eye, which has slightly increased Suck Levels.
2. My flight to New York on Friday was cancelled, and now I'm stuck in Detroit until Monday morning. This might sound like bad news, but it is in fact pretty good news, because:
3. For very complicated reasons that frankly you will not believe even if I tell you the honest-to-God truth, I spent today breaking into abandoned buildings in downtown Detroit with a 17-year-old freelance photographer and National Book Award-winner (and Printz Honoree) M. T. Anderson. Video evidence (because I wouldn't believe me either) to come.
marrije writes: "I miss your text posts, John Green."
She may be the only one, but that won't stop me from text posts! I'm in sunny Denver, Colorado today (last night I spoke to a large assemblage of Borders managers here, which was fun).
But now I am in Denver, and I am reeling from the fact that several fans of my books seem not to hate Jared Leto (with whom, it turns out, I did not share a plane yesterday). But I'm not letting this devastating news affect my productivity: Hank and I are turning Brotherhood 2.0 into a podcast so people can watch it on itunes, and I'm working on revisions for my boo--oh my God, DEADLIEST CATCH marathon on the Discovery Channel. Clear my schedule! Cancel everything!
THE FIVE REASONS I THINK I JUST SAT NEXT TO JARED LETO
On my flight this morning from New York to Denver, I think I may have sat next to Jared Leto. Now, I realize this is statistically improbable: Why would Jared Leto be flying to Denver on United Economy Plus? I know he is barely famous, but surely he flies first class. Also, could it really be that on Lindsay's 30th birthday (HAPPY BIRTHDAY!), I sat next to her most hated celebrity? It seems to good to be true. Nonetheless, here are my five reasons for believing I may have spent the morning sitting next to Jared Leto:
1. Just like the Real Jared Leto, Possible Jared Leto (PJL) was a total douche. He spread his legs as far apart as possible, well into my seat range. Maybe he has gonnorhea and it hurts to put his legs together? I don't know. (Is this even a symptom of gonnorhea? I don't know. I should have asked Leto when I had the chance.) Also, he did not cover his mouth when coughing.
2. PJL looked a lot like Jared Leto. Sweatier than seems necessary? Check. Black eyeliner left over from last night? Check. The pale, thin lips of a poorly fed vampire? Check.
3. The moment he sat down, PJL pulled a Haruki Murakami novel out and then proceeded not to read it for the next four and a half hours. Murakami seems like precisely the kind of author that Jared Leto would pretend to read.
4. His jeans were extremely, extremely expensive-looking.
5. To me, this is the absolutely unassailable evidence: Midway through the flight, I glanced down at PJL's ipod, and he was listening to "30 Seconds to Mars," Jared Leto's band! Now, I ask you: Who besides Jared Leto has "30 Seconds to Mars" on their ipod?
Re. my extended rant on book-banning, Brianmpei writes:
"...I can't believe you actually believe, "I realize that they are your kids. I understand that. But they are our citizens." When a book gets banned it's not a parent who does it, it's a community and a culture and sometimes a country 'looking out' for their citizens. But to suggest that a country or a community has a greater right over what my children read or don't read makes me think of some pretty, hm, heavey-handed countries of the past who would've done more than complain about a page of your book."
This is a good point, and I may have overstated my case a little. But only a little.
Brian has nicely crystallized the issue that I'm interested in: I'm not interested in whether books that may offend some people should be available to teenagers. (Of course they should). I'm interested in whether such a book can be required reading. So: Does a community have a greater right over what your children read than you do?
I basically think the answer to this question is yes. There are many facets of a child's life that are controlled by the community regardless of what parents think.
The distinction here is that you, as a parent, can force your kid (or nearly force them) to read whatever they want--that's one of your constitutional rights in America. It's just that you as a parent do not neccesarily have the right to keep your kid from reading a book.
I'm thinking of it as analagous to other classes: Many parents think their kids should not be taught evolution in public schools, but evolution is taught anyway, because it's in the public interest that evolution be taught. Some parents don't think the holocaust happened, but the holocaust should still be part of a public school curriculum.
I would argue that it should be the same in an English class. If a well-trained teacher (who has been hired by the community, after all, for precisely this purpose) thinks a certain book will help students learn to read and think critically, then that book should be taught.
But I might be wrong on this. If I am, let me know.
Brotherhood 2.0 has received its first print press. Fortunately, it is also web press, so you can read it for free. Check out this Publishers Weekly article. The written blog is indeed "very 2006."
Also, my awesome publisher is having a contest called "Plug into Penguin." You can win copies of Alaska and stuff.
Furthermore, you can check out the Looking for Alaska playlist I made. And this Q & A (I liked the questions. Most of them are meme-able, although a few are specific to me.)
Brotherhood 2.0 has received its first real press. It is discussed (and I am quoted) in this Publishers Weekly article. The written blog is indeed "very 2006."
Also, my awesome publisher is having a contest called "Plug into Penguin." You can win copies of Alaska and stuff.
Furthermore, you can check out the Looking for Alaska playlist I made. And this Q & A (I liked the questions. Most of them are meme-able, although a few are specific to me.)
Now that more students are having to write about Looking for Alaska, I'm getting more and more email requests for a biography that is not years-old and primarily kidding, like the one here.
(For some reason, it seems that when students are asked to write about a book, they are also asked to discuss its author. This is a little weird, since anything good in my books is more likely to be found inside them than inside me. But I suppose that we can no longer "read and run," as Salinger put it. We have to know that Twain had a crush on a girl like Becky, that Salinger was fixated on teens, that Ann M. Martin was denied the opportunity to be a babysitter, and so eventually turned to writing about them.)
So anyway, I am trying to write a bit about myself that will be useful to students.
In this process, I have come across the wikipedia page about Looking for Alaska, which has recently been edited to include something about "the controversy" surrounding the book. In a conversation about the book over at the excellent ASIF blog, I said this:
"You know, I believe that sexual morality is important. I really do. But Jesus Christ. There comes a point when you begin to confuse having a system of sexual morals with having an actual comprehensive system of morals, and it seems like we're coming to that place. The relentless focus on sex and nothing else--it's sort of weird, really. Why is it that some people find it so repugnant that a book contains a brief, funny scene about how physical intimacy can be uncomfortable and awkward and generally miserable -- and yet no one mentions the fact that it contains teenagers who binge drink and smoke?
"By focusing narrowly in on this one facet of morality, we really do a disservice to the larger moral questions: How should I treat others, and how can I expect myself to be treated by the world? What should I value? What if anything is the meaning of suffering? What are my responsibilities to the social order? How do those responsibilities differ from my responsibilities to my friends?
"Those are questions worth asking, and while sexuality has some bearing on those questions, it's certainly not central to them. Maybe I'm crazy, but I've just never thought that sex is THAT important in the scheme of things. And that, finally, is why I only devoted about 800 words of my 65,000 word novel to it."
I still believe most of what I said there. But I've been thinking recently that there's another argument to be made here. When people say that a certain book should not be taught in schools, or that it should not be on the shelves in school libraries, we should remember that schools do not exist for the benefit of parents, or for the benefit of students.
Public schools exist because they are good for the community. They help us build infrastructure; they help our economy grow; they keep us competitive in the world; they make us better citizens and people.
(That's why it's in the best interest of all Americans, at almost all times, to vote for school bond issues--whether you have kids in school or not.)
Schools are as much for me, an adult with no children, as they are for parents of school-aged kids or the kids themselves. And ergo, I should have as much say in what they study (whether it's evolution or world history or an English class) as parents should.
I realize that they are your kids. I understand that. But they are our citizens. So parents and school administrators must inevitably have some say in what children are taught. But ultimately, the authority lies with the community, not with the parents. And as a community, we put our trust in well-trained teachers and librarians who are professionals in their field and know how to educate children in the interest of the public good.
Which is a very, very longwinded way of saying that I think we should let teachers teach.
I'm going to old Birmingham, AL for a fundraiser for UAB's English Department.
I'll be having a free, open-to-the-public signing from 5:30 to 7 PM on Monday, March 5th, at the UAB Visual Arts Gallery. The address is 900 13th Street South. Come say hi!
It was announced last night that An Abundance of Katherines is a finalist for this year's Los Angeles Times Book Prize.
The winner will be announced at this weird Academy Awards-like thing in April. Last year, I got so nervous before the award was announced that I started mumbling please let me lose, please let me lose, please let me lose because I didn't want to have to make a speech in front of Joan Didion and assorted other literary celebrities. Anyway, I was very happy to lose to Per Nilsson, a great novelist who gave a lovely acceptance speech.
I'm very honored to be nominated alongside Coe Booth (Tyrell), M.T. Anderson (Octavian Nothing), Nancy Werlin (The Rules of Survival), and Meg Rosoff (Just in Case).
In other exciting news: Our Uncle Grambo has Looking for Alaska on his lisez list.
March 1, 2007: Presents, Sophistication, Balls, and Presidents
VITALLY IMPORTANT DISCUSSION QUESTION: Hank’s video yesterday included text. Our vlog is supposed to be all about our “textless communication.” As librarianbrian pointed out, this may be cause for punishment. On the other hand, we were challenged to make it a “real picture book.” So: Has Hank committed a punishable sin?
