Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts. 
 

We all love libraries, but what books do you just NEED to own? Frank coins a new genre, Gwen falls for a book about mistakes, and they both share some deep thoughts about the Oxford comma.

This week's books:

The Grammarians by Cathleen Shine
 

The Other’s Gold by Elizabeth Ames
 

Dreyer's English: An Utterly Correct Guide to Clarity and Style by Benjamin Dreyer

---

Tell us what everybody's talking about in your world of books and libraries! Suggest Hot Topix(TM)! Send an email or voice memo to podcasts[at]nypl.org.

 

---

How to listen to The Librarian Is In

Subscribing to The Librarian Is In on your mobile device is the easiest way to make sure you never miss an episode. Episodes will automatically download to your device, and be ready for listening every other Thursday morning

On your iPhone or iPad:
Open the purple “Podcasts” app that’s preloaded on your phone. If you’re reading this on your device, tap this link to go straight to the show and click “Subscribe.” You can also tap the magnifying glass in the app and search for “The New York Public Library Podcast.”

On your Android phone or tablet:
Open the orange “Play Music” app that’s preloaded on your device. If you’re reading this on your device, click this link to go straight to the show and click “Subscribe.” You can also tap the magnifying glass icon and search for “The New York Public Library Podcast.” 

Or if you have another preferred podcast player, you can find “The New York Public Library Podcast” there. (Here’s the RSS feed.)

From a desktop or laptop:
Click the “play” button above to start the show. Make sure to keep that window open on your browser if you’re doing other things, or else the audio will stop. You can always find the latest episode at nypl.org/podcast.

 

Transcript:

 

[ Music ]

>> Hi everyone. Welcome to the Librarian Is In, New York Public Library's podcast about books, culture, and what to read next. I'm Gwen.

>> And I'm Ann Miller.

>> Hi Ann Miller.

>> Hi!

>> How are you doing today?

>> I'm going to do a tap dance for you today.

>> Oh, please do.

>> Machine gun taps, baby, do you know that?

>> Bup-pa-dup-bup-pa-dup!

>> [Laughs] Ann Miller. Ah, hi, Gwen.

>> Hi Frank.

>> How are you?

>> I'm pretty good, how are you?

>> I'm okay. It's a beautiful day today actually.

>> It is a beautiful day today. It made me really happy to read a bunch of the mail that we have received recently. Should we talk about some of that?

>> For sure.

>> Yeah.

>> Please. What is on your--which one is on your mind?

>> The one--okay, there's two that are on my mind. One is going to be our hot topic. Maybe we'll do that one second, but the one that is topmost on my mind is a really sweet iTunes comment we just got about the episode descriptions in iTunes, and about making sure that we put the books and other resources we talk about in the description. We are going to try to do that. We have been doing that in the past, but I'm not sure we have been like...100% consistent? So we definitely will try to do it going forward. And if we ever mess up, which could happen, you know, we're not entirely perfect all the time, just most of the time. You can always go to our blog post at NYPL.org/podcast, and we definitely always put those up, and we always put the links there.

>> I have no idea what you're talking about [laughing].

>> [Laughs] Neither do probably 90% of our listeners.

>> I fell asleep for about [laughter] 30 seconds in there. No [laughs].

>> Yeah, that usually happens when people listen to the podcast.

>> I see all the things we talk about are on the NYPL blog post, but they're not--the books are not listed in iTunes.

>> We try to put them in iTunes.

>> I see.

>> I don't actually know how that works.

>> So many platforms, oy vey!

>> Platforms!

>> I mean, so many platforms.

>> Oy vey! But no--is that, that is something that I often feel very frustrated with, with other podcasts, when they're talking and talking about something and they said the name of it at the very beginning, and I tuned it out and didn't hear it, and then I have no idea what they're talking about and they never repeat it at the end.

>> Yeah.

>> So we've been trying to get better with that on our Facebook TV show also, which has just come back for the fall. But...

>> Not our Facebook TV show.

>> Not ours.

>> You do that on your own with someone else.

>> No, you've been a guest star.

>> Not as a guest, but it was an accident. It just happened to be the office.

>> That was great.

>> It was fun, I have to say.

>> It can be really fun. It was fun today.

>> So your Facebook TV show with...

>> Right. Mm-hmm.

>> Your NYPL Recommends department.

>> Yes, our Reader Services Department.

>> Reader Services, sorry.

>> But anyway, we will always try to repeat the name of the book and the author. I feel like you're really good at that actually.

>> Thank you.

>> To repeat the name of the book and the author here, and also to put it in as many places as possible.

>> For the second hot topic, we got a really great question from a listener named Libby. Frank, do you want to read it?

>> Libby is an Archivist, too.

>> In New York, right?

>> For, I don't know if we can say, but for Harry Winston, the jeweler, which is sort of fascinating.

>> Oh, that is fascinating.

>> I mean, it said in her email, which I think is sort of super cool--

>> What a cool--

>> Well, we'll find out if we can keep it or not.

>> Yeah.

>> But I think it's cool. She basically asked us do you have any particular books or genre of books that you, meaning Gwen and I, prefer to own as opposed to borrow from the library? Or do you ever borrow a book from the library and then end up purchasing a copy to keep? Cookbooks come to mind as a possible example of this. And then she goes on to say, "One of my favorite cookbooks came from a used bookstore. It has the previous owner's notes in the margins describing the dates and occasions that she cooked particular recipes, which I really love," she says. "Thank you so much for your podcast." Thank you, Libby.

>> Yeah, thank you for those excellent questions, Libby.

>> But also bring--reminds us about when we talked about writing in the margins.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> So she is sort of saying that was a cool thing finding that particular cookbook in a used book store.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> So do you have books you prefer to check out from the library or books you prefer to own?

>> Yes, I do, and actually I do have a cookbook, one particular cookbook that I had checked out of the library and then went and bought because I liked it so much and I kept renewing it and then I ran out of renewals, and then I had to just go buy it [laughs]. So yes, cookbooks, I think, are a really good example. There's been a couple of fiction books that I loved so much that I wanted to own them, but like, it had been a library checkout for me, and then I went and bought it because I wanted to be able to refer back to it for myself, but also to lend it to other people, actually.

>> Hmm.

>> That's like, kind of my number-one reason for buying books is that I want to like, be able to give it to other people.

>> Rather than refer them to the library.

>> Yeah [laughs], that's probably what I'm good for--

>> You want to be our personal lender, that's sweet.

>> Right, have my own library.

>> You want to be able to be the magnanimous giver of literature to people.

>> Yeah, yeah. Do you do this?

>> By, as opposed to checkout? I was thinking about it, obviously. And I realized the most--I actually went through my books lately to see what I should keep or not keep, and it's definitely the books from like, my college era, when I was very young, that I have a hard time getting rid of. Because just looking at them, like I might never re-read them, but looking at them makes me feel something. Not necessarily good. But something deep, for me.

>> Yeah.

>> Because they made impact, like the first time I ever read Virginia Wolf, things like that. So I already own them.

>> Plus your Marginalia.

>> Plus my marginalia, right, like in college, like making notes in the margins for sure, yeah.

>> Mmm-hmm.

>> And then I did re-buy some childhood books.

>> Oh really?

>> That I didn't have anymore, but I wanted to get.

>> Oh, which ones?

>> We have talked about those before. Go Dog, Go, is one.

>> Oh, that's right, you did, yeah, that's right.

>> One is a telling of Hansel and Gretel. We definitely talked about this.

>> But now I would buy like possibly big ticket coffee table books.

>> Mmm!

>> That I would buy occasionally as a treat for myself. I buy sometimes if there's too many holes at the library.

>> Oh!

>> Which sounds also horrible, but then I also justify it by supporting local bookstores, like I go to little small bookstore called Three Lives, around the corner from Jefferson Market, and I'll buy there, and I feel very virtuous doing it.

>> Mm-hmm, I've also known you to buy books and then donate them to the library after you've read them. Yeah.

>> Right. Which I find particular joy in doing. But I've gotten so used to, obviously working in the library that I truly partake of the system.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> But I do enjoy buying books. But it's not a particular type or genre.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> I do have a--

>> Yeah--

>> Like you, if I'm particularly enamored of a fiction book, I will. Cookbooks I like that example because I do actually, when we get cookbooks returned to the library, you know, we always look at books to see how they're holding up in terms of their physical presentation and cookbooks, you know, sometimes have a little splatter, or like a spill on the corner, and sometimes, often times, I'll keep it. It's not damaged, really. It's just--has some use. And I like that it's like marginalia, almost, for cook books!

>> Yeah, yeah.

>> Shows that someone had it open on a counter, and was cooking. Until a certain degree where it might get too damaged, but like, that's sort of the nature of a cookbook.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> So I sort of like that, that you can then, someone else can check it out and see, oh! This recipe was followed.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> And I could see there's tomato sauce because there's actual tomato sauce on it.

>> Right.

>> So that's sort of like a marginalia of its own.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> Cookbook style.

>> Yeah, yeah. I think it--edible marginalia.

>> I like it.

>> I also always, always buy board books, and do not check board books out of the library, which is not to say anything about the cleanliness of board books and libraries [laughs], but I do feel like my own child was very hard on board books, and like the reason they're in that format is because kids are hard on them, and chew them sometimes--

>> Yeah.

>> And so yeah, I always buy board books, and when I'm giving gifts to new parents, I will often give them board books, because they're not the like--big, beautiful picture book format that I think are really fun to give as gifts, but they're like, super practical.

>> You know, this might be obvious, but it just occurred to me that, like a toothmark on a board book is like baby marginalia [laughter].

>> That's true.

>> They're basically making a comment, like, if you see that, like a tooth mark on a page in a board book, look at the page, and see what it says, and say, oh, that baby was like, moved to bite [laughter] because that color as not appealing or, was appealing, or--

>> Or maybe--right? Maybe it's that it was so appealing that the baby was like [noshing], I'm doing this--

>> I want to start over my career as a child actor and call myself Baby Marginalia [laughter]--"Hi! I'm Baby Marginalia! And I'm here to entertain you!"

>> That could be your drag name!

>> Baby Marginalia [laughter]! That's funny. I'll give you teeth marks darling!

>> [Laughing] You can make your whole outfit out of books, just construction--

>> Oh my god!

>> This is brilliant, this is your new drag queen persona!

>> Oh my god, drag queen, Baby Marginalia!

>> You could do story hours!

>> Just call me baby, don't push baby into the margins!

>> Exactly.

>> I'm Baby Marginalia!

>> Nobody puts baby in the margins!

>> Nobody puts baby in the margins!

>> Perfect, done.

>> Oh my god. All right, we--

>> New career.

>> Need to have a character come on as Baby Marginalia as a guest.

>> That would be so good.

>> We'll just have to hire someone to create this character for us.

>> Yeah, that would be so good.

>> Oh [laughter], all right, what did you read? I think it's time.

>> Yeah, you start, I want to hear you make some creative segue way.

>> Funny you should say that, because I was just thinking I've got a segue way for you because my books do relate, and if I do relate very well, and if I tell about them coherently, which is--would be a rarity [laughter] then I have triumphed. But I read a book called the Grammarians, by Kathleen Shine. And I've talked about Kathleen Shine before on--and I never get this title right, even though it's a super creative title from up home. It's called: They May Not Mean To, But They Do. It was the book I talked about a couple years ago, which was about New York City and having an aging parent, and the child, aging parent relationship. The book I read, her newest book, which is just out now, called The Grammarians, like grammar. The Grammarians by Kathleen Shine is her newest book. And it's interesting to me why I pick up her books. All right, first I should say it's about two twins [laughing], redundant, it's about seven twins [laughter]. Well it could be--if I said seven twins, that's seven sets of twins, it's about two girls who are twins.

>> There we go.

>> And it's interesting, and it's all about their relationship growing up from childhood to older age, and their mutual love of language and words, hence, the title The Grammarians. And it's interesting because it starts off with an epigram on the word twin, and what it means, because as a noun, twin means together, joined, a union.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> As a verb, it means to sever or separate, to twin something is to separate them.

>> Why was that amended, to copy?

>> As a verb.

>> Does it mean copy?

>> No, according to the Webster's Second Edition Dictionary, which figures largely in this book.

>> Hm!

>> So that's sort of that definition, that twin definition, sort of sets the tone for the whole book, because the twins grow up very close. There is a rift, which is revealed early in the book, not why, but that there is one. So it's not a spoiler. Practically on the first page. But it follows the twins and their relationship through their lives, and so there is some drama. There is some--certainly some wit, and certainly some humor. But it made me interested to read her--why I pick her up, Kathleen Shine, her books and read them, and why I had--a complex relationship with them which is just a subtle way of saying like, I wasn't sure if I was enjoying it or not. I don't know if I should say that.

>> The book, or their relationship?

>> The books. But then I realized what it was. And I think I might even have created a genre here.

>> Hm!

>> So it will go down in history that this podcast created a genre.

>> I tend to really gravitate towards books--maybe you know this, what do you think I really like in terms of fiction?

>> [Laughing] You like dark books about spinsters in New York City [laughing].

>> Well, spinsters don't hurt, but dark books for sure.

>> Yeah.

>> I actually was thinking, I was thinking actually very casually until I realized what I was actually thinking which was, I like books that sort of rip my guts out, cook them up in front of me, and then make me eat them [laughter] and I was like, wait! What, Frank? What did you just say?

>> Charming.

>> What did you just think to yourself?

>> Charming allegory.

>> In other words, I like gut-punching books that knock me for a loop, and I don't mean like mystery or thriller or something violent, I mean, emotional darkness and terrain. And I think I've talked about several. I could list them, but I won't take up time, but it's in our, you know, blog history. And Kathleen Shine wears her intellectual capacity lightly. She is clearly smart and the words are smart, and the books are smart, but it's a soothing intellectualism rather than a sort of gut-punching intellectualism. And it's a good example of something I talk about a lot, about realizing your bias, realizing your book bias. Because it's like--because it's not Kathleen Shine, it's always the reader. And then I was like, oh! Because I am expecting like dark territory between the two sisters, and she certainly has darkness, but it's--it's almost like what you would have expected from a Woody Allen movie in the 80s.

>> Mm-hm.

>> That's a controversial statement enough, but in the 80s.

>> Yeah, so it's a very definable genre.

>> When you went to see New York, you--there was anxiety, there was humor, there was a little bit of philosophy. There were certainly dark issues, but all of it was like--

>> Neurosis.

>> A soothing wrap-up.

>> Yeah.

>> And I realize she does do that. So, in other words, it made me realize, oh! I can recommend this book with perfect happiness to someone and not have it be in my so-called genre.

>> Mm-hmm, mm-hmm.

>> And know/understand what my relationship with it is, so I can say, like, yes! This is like--I have a friend at work...Not a colleague, a patron who, we talk about books a lot. And she is super intellectual, reads everything, far more than I ever do, but whenever we get to the books that I like, she's always like, I can't--I couldn't read it [laughs], it's too much, it's too intense.

>> Uh huh.

>> She's reading this Kathleen Shine book, and she said it's brilliant, because--

>> Yeah.

>> She can't, doesn't want it to get too...too hard, too intense.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> And so the genre I came up with was a cozy intellectual.

>> Oh nice, that's a good genre.

>> So like, you know, like A Little Life, by Hanya Yanagihara, it's like an intense, gut-punching intellectual book.

>> Yeah.

>> Kathleen Shine is like a cozy intellectual.

>> Oh my gosh.

>> Because it's--it ultimately wraps up, it gives you a little drama, it doesn't get too intense. Like cozy mysteries are a very rational--the violence is not very prominent. Not a lot of blood.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> And you feel very friendly and intimate with the detective or the solver of the crime, and then like, Kathleen Shine is like, you get to know these two twins who are very fiery and passionate, and likeable, unlikable at times, but yet you feel like you're sort of like, you could have coffee with them and experience like, what they're experiencing.

>> Uh huh. Oh that's so good, I love it.

>> Cozy intellectual.

>> Cozy intellectual, that's really good.

>> She's really a good example of that, Kathleen Shine, because it takes place in New York, the twins are born in the early 50s, so you get 70s New York, 80s New York, which I love, before all the, you know, real-estate jack-up and you know, all the prices flew high, even though New York has always been that way. So you get like East Village tenement. And like, for example--

>> That's a very fun book.

>> Right, like, one of them was in East Village apartment, and it was just like a very, was very gritty--and still has a legendary grittiness to it--neighborhood with art. And you know, like a west-east village thing.

>> Yeah.

>> So she describes the apartment, and it's like a walk-up with a dirty skylight, like an artist's carrot, and she even refers to like, roaches in the kitchen. But it never becomes like oh, this is a disgusting apartment, this is the worst apartment I'd ever want to live in. You feel like it's sort of cozy. Like, it's like...it's like art cozy.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> Sort of like, oh, there's a little roach in the corner, but yet, there is a comfy chair, and like, they're sort of wrapped in blankets, and they're drinking tea, and you know what I mean?

>> Yeah.

>> And I by no means mean this as a diminutive.

>> Right.

>> Like I'm not diminishing this. What I'm realizing is my own preference, and my own--but then I was able to really enjoy this book, because I understood why I was having this relationship with it.

>> Yeah.

>> So you get the twins, and one other thing I'll say is--which also could fall into a cozy thing, is like, the twins marry. They're very passionate and fiery about language. They actually have a falling out over language. Which is also not a spoiler, because one is prescriptivist, and one is descriptivist. And prescriptivist means that there is a right way to speak, and a right way to write.

>> Mm.

>> And descriptivist means there's lots of different ways you can communicate, meaning colloquialisms, regional dialects, things like that. So there is one like, so you must follow the rules, and one is like--it's creative.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> But, they both marry men who are both sort of very tolerant of them, and you know, subtly humorous, and I was like--that's sort of I think where it made me realize what I was reading, it was like oh, what a dream. These two like--fiery difficult women,

>> Right.

>> Marry these like, very tolerant good guys, who are best friends and I was like if we all could do that. I mean like--

>> Yeah [laughs].

>> Get the guy who is like tolerant.

>> Yeah [laughing].

>> And not only tolerates us, but with humor, and understanding.

>> Yeah.

>> And lets us be this crazy, passionate person.

>> Uh huh.

>> I was like that's a sort of--in a way, a trope.

>> And yeah, right, that's like a real happy ending kind of thing.

>> Yeah.

>> Oh, that's so interesting.

>> Yeah, so I thought that was a good one. So I don't think--did I describe the plot enough? I guess?

>> You describe the characters in the language, yeah. Yeah. It seems like a character and language gateway kind of thing.

>> Yeah, the rest should be a surprise for people.

>> Yeah.

>> Or just to enjoy living with these two characters.

>> I have a question. Did you secretly wish it was darker? Like, did you secretly wish for one of them to like, marry a serial killer or something?

>> No, that's funny, is that, I've read her books before, so I knew it--what I was going to get if I, if Kathleen Shine continued to write in her vein. But that's why I started this off as like, wondering why I'm attracted to her books, but yet, don't get that sort of ba-boom that I normally want.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> And I think I just explained that.

>> Yeah, yeah.

>> I mean, you know, like, I think I'm attracted to that. Actually, to be honest, I think I am attracted to that soothing sort of cozy intellectual process, sometimes, rather than getting a sort of shock to the system.

>> Mm-hm.

>> Sort of like the book Lenny I told you about, by Max Porter, which is a lot more like gut-punchy, and A Little Life, like I mentioned.

>> Right.

>> So it has its place in the reading pantheon of Frank's brain, so--

>> It's so--

>> And others.

>> Lyn, my Reader Services colleague, and I were just talking about something so similar to this today where she was saying that her partner doesn't want to take her book recommendations anymore, because they're always too bleak. She had recommended this book of poetry to him that was extremely bleak, and he was like why is everything you like so depressing all the time, and you never have any likeable characters, and she's like, because I don't want to read about likeable people. Like, that likability is not a positive for her and I think it's true for you too, yeah. Lyn recommended a book to me, and she liked Lanny, but you're right, like, the pal I have was a patron in the library, who I just mentioned, we've gotten to know each other, so now we both know if she really likes it, I won't find it as intense as I want, and if I really like it, she knows it's too intense for her.

>> Yeah

>> Which is sort of cool, like you learn each other's--

>> That's cool.

>> But I totally take recommendations from her, because I'm always curious to see how someone describes a book, vis a vis what the actual experience of reading it is sometimes. You can't take every recommendation, but I like her, just talking to her. So I respect her opinion.

>> Yeah.

>> Even though I--we gather, we have different thresholds or different desires for different things in books.

>> That's so cool.

>> You know, so--

>> Love it.

>> Sorry, I guess I'm going on and on, but it did say, it does segue way to a book I was reading, a new book called Dreyer's English, which is actually by Benjamin Dreyer. He's the Copy Editor Chief of Random House, the publishing house. And it's like a style guide to grammar and style.

>> Yeah. Before you go here,

>> Sorry, sorry--

>> My book fits in with yours perfectly.

>> Oh! Then I'm retreating.

>> Do you want to retreat? Because I feel like this cozy intellectual thing, I think is like totally--

>> Please, segue way beautifully from The Grammarians by Kathleen Shine to...

>> To The Other's Gold, by Elizabeth Ames, which is a debut novel, and I think this cozy intellectual genre that you just made up, I really think this fits into it too, except, I don't know, we need to define our terms more, but the librarian in me is like, let us define the terms, but like--I, the last 100 pages of this book are very different in tone, and much more disturbing than the first like 200. So it's--it's interesting. The first part of this book is 100% in this cozy intellectual vein that you're talking about. So The Other's Gold is a story about these four friends who meet in college, these four women, and they're college roommates, and the way that the structure is, the story, you know, in the flap copy, it tells you that the book is going to talk about the biggest mistake in each of their lives. And so you see each, it sort of divides it up into four parts, and you see each character make their biggest mistake and kind of fall out from their biggest mistake.

>> Ah!

>> It goes down very easy. It's a very--it's written really beautifully but not in like a super like I'm going to challenge you with my language kind of way, like, it's very evocative. They're in this college setting, it's this like, leafy, beautiful, golden light fall, they have a window seat in their dorm room, and like they're very--it's this very sort of like lyrical thing, and they like fall in love with each other instantly, and the four of them become really like the most important people in each other's lives. And it really is kind of, especially the very beginning, it really is a campus novel where they deal with kind of the stuff that's happening to them when they are in college, together, right away. And it definitely made me think, I'm always constantly looking for read-alikes for A Little Life. This is like, it is definitely not in the same emotional fraughtness level as a little life, but in terms of a book that really puts friendship at its center, this definitely comes in that same vein. I love that. I really like reading books about friendship and not necessarily about romantic relationships, although there are a lot of romantic relationships.

>> Right.

>> And family relationships, there's a lot of stuff about parents, and there's a lot of stuff about siblings in this book, also. It's very much a like, character-driven novel about these four women. But it's really, really interesting to see what their mistakes are. And I don't want to do any spoilers. But the last mistake, the last character--well...The last two characters' mistakes are sort of intertwined with each other, and it's kind of an order of magnitude larger. Well...you know, as I'm saying that, no, that's not even true. It's treated in the book as a huge crisis, where all of them must come together. And I'm deliberately being super vague here, but like, the last mistake is this massive crisis that brings them together, even though at this point they're living in different parts of the country, with different people. They all have to come together in the end, to try to deal with the fallout from this final mistake. And it is treated in a way that the rest of the book does not treat the other mistakes. And I just think it's so interesting that the tone changes that much at the end. And to be totally honest, I don't know if it's intentional or not.

>> Just going to ask you if you think it's intentional.

>> Yeah, I really don't know. I think it kind of has to be. Because, the editing, you know, this book had--it's a debut novel, especially and usually I feel like debut novelists have real relationships with their editors, right? Unlike, you know, if you're Margaret Atwood, maybe your editor has kind of like given you a pass on some stuff that maybe they shouldn't have. But like, a debut novelist, I feel like you're in a close relationship with your editor. I feel like it must be intentional. The amount of time that is spent on the last mistake, I should actually look and see what it is. But it feels--the feel of it is that it's way more than everything else.

>> So, there is a serious tone shift which--

>> Yeah, I think it is--

>> Maybe your perception, I mean, someone else reading it might not see as big of a tonal shift, I don't know?

>> Maybe.

>> I didn't read it.

>> That may be true. And it also might be that it's just playing on my own psychology, because the last mistake has something to do with a baby. And so it could be that--

>> Right.

>> Like that in my mind, like, becomes a different thing.

>> That's very--see, that's good. That's sort of what I was talking about, about this whole general idea bout bias, whether it's good or bad, because you said if I read a book, if I read that about the baby, not having a baby, just being a super-nanny myself, it might not impact me as so hard as it might you, as having a child. Right?

>> Yeah, and you know what? I'm wrong. They don't spend more time on it, it just feels like it in my mind. Which is a really interesting thing.

>> Hm. Can I ask you a question?

>> Wow. Yeah, sure.

>> You used the word mistake a lot and I'm wondering if one Elizabeth Ames in this book you're talking about, uses that word as well, and if she does or doesn't, does she ruminate on the book on what a mistake is? I think tacitly, yes. I don't--I don't know that she uses the word mistake. It's a good question.

>> Because you used it a lot as a core of the book and I was just wondering how is mistake defined?

>> And that kind of goes back to one of our old conversations about like the expectations that you set up for yourself in the book, because I had read the flap copy, and I had really liked that construction of a book, in that format. Because I thought it was really cool to look at your life through, you know, usually you look through like, the lens of big events, or the lens of like life-changing things that happen to you. Not your own mistakes. So, I was thinking about mistakes the whole time, as I was reading it. But I don't know if she uses the word mistake?

>> Yeah, like--well because I guess what you're talking about is choices, like that--a choice that went wrong is it?

>> Not always, no.

>> Or something that--but mistake sounds like it's generated from the person rather than something happening outside them, like you're walking along and a building falls on you.

>> Yes, they were all--

>> I mean, that's not your mistake.

>> Right, they were all generated by the person.

>> Unless you could say walking, that choosing to walk down that street was a mistake?

>> Yeah, no--uh uh, it's not like that, it's choices. It's active choices that they all made.

>> Active, that's the word I'm looking for.

>> Sometimes it was like--actually all of them except one were very rash, not well thought-out choices, but they were mistakes--it's like the way that you would think of like, I just, I don't know what's a good example of a mistake? Like, about adultery, or about like, I made a mistake when I decided to--oh my gosh, I really can't think of a good example that isn't in the book, now, the only mistakes I can think of are the four mistakes that they make [laughing], uh, I can tell--I can say one without giving too much away but like yeah, I decided to, you know, have an affair. That's a choice that you're making.

>> Right.

>> Actively, and it's a mistake.

>> Well you opened up--you're opening up a huge conversation thing, but I don't know if we have time for it, because like it's interesting when you push like to see what you mean by mistake, and it becomes the word choice, then it's a bad choice, there's a comedian that I saw a clip of, I can't remember his name, but about adultery. And he says, he actually said "It's sort of ridiculous you call adultery a mistake, because it takes a lot of work to get from non-adulterer to actually having relations with someone who is not your partner. You actually have to meet them, then you have to have a drink, then you have to drink too much, then you actually have to go to their place, then you actually have to take their clothes off, then you have to take your own off [laughter], and then you're mm-mm-mm, and then it's like, that's sort of a lot of choices.

>> Yeah, series of mistakes.

>> That leads you to that one choice that that's a mistake. You know, it's really interesting when you break it down, to see like, how rash it really is.

>> And that's really interesting, because not all of these mistakes, god now we've said the word mistake so many times, I don't even know what it means [laughs], but there's only one mistake in here that's like that. Some of them were like instantaneous, that, okay here's a good one, and this is an example of many of them--

>> In the book, this is not in the book?

>> This is not in the book and has nothing to do with anything in the book. You hit someone, you're like in a bar, and you're super mad, and somebody is there, and they do something that makes you angry and you punch them in the face. That kind of a mistake.

>> Like an explosion of emotion, really.

>> Yes.

>> That you don't really feel like you have control over.

>> Yes. Yeah.

>> Oh okay. That's true--that's actually a good example, because that's the kind of moment when you really, when you think back on it, like what exactly happened there? Like that "emotion" in quotes seemed to come out of nowhere.

>> Yeah. And so, so maybe, I mean, I think if you're giving this book a lot of credit you really could meditate on the meaning of what a mistake is, because she's giving you several different kinds of examples, and they're all quite different in what they actually are. I did want to read a little part, because another thing about this book, that I really value, is that it is very woman-focused. It is very much about "women's issues," and there's a lot about miscarriage, and pregnancy, and infertility, and things that don't get written about as much as I think they should, and I definitely seek out books about stuff like this. But it felt really relevant to me, and I really liked the way that they handled it. So two of the characters are named Lanie and Alice. They're two of the roommates. The original four women, and then Adam is Lanie's husband. So, other than that, I think you can understand what's going on here, okay, and so Alice, at this point in the book is struggling with fertility stuff. And so is Lanie, so I won't give you too much information about it. Lanie should have told Alice this, don't worry about what it is, instead of lashing out at her, but the miscarriage had made her mean and desperate. It had taught her how deep her own well of longing for a child went, even though the pregnancy had been a surprise. Adam had burst into happy tears when Lanie told him she was pregnant, and she hadn't known his face could be so beautiful. The creases around his smile deepened. His dimples seemed to double, and he beamed from every pore. He was radiant. She had not even known she could make someone so happy, and what crushed her then was the knowledge that she would never be able to do so again. The next time she told Adam she was pregnant, she would be eager and happy, but he would also be afraid. And even if this paled against Alice's losses it was Lanie's sadness and she keened at what they'd lost. Lanie knew it was not always easy for Adam to be her partner, and that she could make someone so good and so steady so happy had been a greater gift than she could have anticipated. She mourned the baby that wouldn't be, but also the wives Adam might have had, the easier women who would have been able to bring this unabashed joy into his life more often, who insides less twisted wouldn't have gotten pregnant the first time, had it stick, decorated a nursery while they worked full-time and baked homey, healthy meals, not sunken into another month-long depression, where she watched full seasons of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, in days forgot even if she watched both everything that happened on the program, and everything that was meant to happen in her life. And so there's like a little humor in it. It's not--this book isn't like sunk in the deepest, darkest depression, but it also is really dealing with stuff that I think is very relevant and timely, and I really liked it.

>> That phrase, the paragraph you just read does get complex, in that it was almost a little painful to hear, because it sort of illuminates that ambiguity in all the relationships. Like, I love them, they're this way, I want to make them happy, and the other person, you know, you're putting a lot on them. And like Adam might say "I'm fine, I'm fine."

>> Yeah.

>> It's okay, but yet that instability of happiness, and like in the Kathleen Shine, The Grammarians, the twins themselves are so passionate and, you know, fierce, that they--there's not a lot of ambiguity about them, with relationship to their men.

>> Mm, their men?

>> But just to each other. It's really about the sisters. Their men--it's really about the sisters, so--

>> And that's true with this book too.

>> Different than a love relationship.

>> That's very true, that's very true of this book too, even though there's plenty of stuff about the other people, like, what the book is really about is the four women's relationship to each other.

>> Interesting.

>> Yeah.

>> Here's our--not our segue ways, but our magical connection--

>> It's still there, Frank.

>> They're still there, they're still there.

>> Should I knock this one out? Do you have more or?

>> No, I'm done. Are we done with cozy intellectuals now?

>> I think we did cozy intellectuals now?

>> I think we did cozy intellectuals, sisters/women's relationships.

>> I want the world to know that cozy intellectuals is now trademarked by Frank. You made it up. I've not heard that before. It totally makes sense. You're caressing me--

>> I'm caressing Gwen's cheek [laughter], because she's so sweet.

>> It's true though.

>> If that becomes a thing--

>> TM Frank.

>> I'm going to be so proud. So proud.

>> You should call the episode cozy intellectuals.

>> All right, there we go.

>> Either that or Baby Marginalia [laughter].

>> I forgot that. So, okay and like my--the book I talked about maybe because I read that book, The Grammarians, I did pick up this book. Well, because in The Grammarians, Kathleen Shine does mention real books that are style books, like Fowler's and a dictionary that is supposed to be the most famous iteration of a dictionary, which is Webster's Second Edition--

>> Hmm, I didn't know that.

>> I actually have Webster's Third in my house.

>> I had the Second Edition.

>> Apparently it's famous?

>> And talk about this drunken white--who needs anything but drunken white--

>> She did not mention, see, well that perfectly leads me into this book, because I saw, and like I don't know, I must have, who knows where I picked up or I think I just saw it on the shelf in the library, but it's called Dreyer's English, D-R-E-Y-E-R, Dreyer is his name. Benjamin Dreyer is the Copy Chief of Random House, the publishing house, so he's like the big dude who copy edits all the big authors that are signed with Random House. And the subtitles, An Utterly Correct Guide to Clarity and Styles, so it's a style book, a grammar book, like basically how to write better. And you just said [inaudible] white, like what else do you need? And I also mentioned before that prescriptivist versus descriptivist, personality about language. Meaning prescriptivist music, there's one way to speak, there's one way to write, this is how to do it, and the descriptivist is more like, creative, and like, you know, there's multiple ways to speak, language is organic, it grows, funny that those ideas should come into play because Dreyer's English is a perfect balance between the two. He's very, very funny as you want a style book to be, because you want like someone talking about commas, and the use of a hyphen to be somewhat self-conscious about how funny it could be--

>> Uh huh.

>> And how nitpicky it could be, but how joyous it could be to really get into the mechanics of a sentence. Like, I find that pleasurable to read about, even though it doesn't stick with me. So he's like half school marm, and half like, very honest about, like, listen, this is not the definitive style guide because there's always going to be another one, there's others before me, and you might prefer another choice, which is sort of refreshing, because most style guides make you feel completely intimidated, like this is the only way to do it. And a good example that I found of that in the book was his, which--if you're not interested in language or words, just like, and I don't blame you, just like--

>> Skip it.

>> Well I do blame you, but this, just turn the podcast off, because I'm literally going to talk about like, a comma [laughter], right now, which I sort of would be like eager to hear.

>> I love it, I know, I love this stuff.

>> Because it also reminded me of what I thought about this particular comma, and I actually have opinions about it, like it's called the series comma.

>> Is that like the Oxford comma?

>> Exactly, so you you may get stuff, lady!

>> I was in a newsroom.

>> Okay go ahead.

>> Then we can share our peeves, of what--all right, actually this is a good thing, and we can share our opinions on what the right use of this particular comma is, and then I can tell you what Dreyer says you should do, and he says it most emphatically.

>> Okay. So, the series comma, for those of you who don't know, is when you're listing a bunch of things like a grocery list, like say you say apples, pears, oranges, tangerines, tangelos, bananas, and cherries. That's a list. So, apples, pears, oranges, tangerines, tangelos, bananas, and cherries.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> The comma after bananas, and before and, is the series comma, or the Oxford comma. So, he says, he says "the banana is, comma, and, comma, that's the series comma. Quite possibly you know this comma as the Oxford comma. Because we're told it's traditionally favored by the editors at Oxford University Press. But as a patriotic American, and also because the attribution verges on urbane legendarianism, I'm loathe to perpetuate that story.

>> Mm!

>> Or you may be familiar with the term serial comma. Though, for me, serial evokes killer, so no, again. Whatever you want to call it, use it. Ooh, I just told him--just told you what he likes. I don't want to belabor the point, neither am I willing to negotiate it, only godless savages eschew the series comma [laughter]. No sentence has ever been harmed by a series comma, and many a sentence has been improved by one. So, he goes on to say about that, and then he says, which I think is very honest, many journalist types I've observed abhor the series comma, because they've been trained to hate it, and find its use as maddening as its champions finds its non-use infuriating. I distinctly remember, and being very proud of myself in school, I think, learning that you don't use that last comma, because that and is the stand-in for the last comma.

>> Yeah.

>> So when it's like tangerines, tangelos, bananas, and cherries, using a bananas, comma, and cherries is redundant--

>> Mm-hmm.

>> So you don't need that last comma. So I don't remember, I got that concept I think, and now I feel like very loyal to it. So you don't have it. But then he persuasively says why are you being like, what's the word, sort of favoring bananas as not having the comma, just because it happens to be last. It should have its own comma, because all the other things in the list do too. I mean, what is--

>> Oh, it's so interesting.

>> So what is your feeling on the comma?

>> Oh my god, I've been waiting my whole life for someone to ask me this question.

>> All right, he says why should, like they all be separated and the bananas and cherries are suddenly a couple? He says, it looks grammatically like apples, comma, pears, comma, blah-blah-blah, comma, and then you have bananas, without a comma, and cherries. To him, visually makes bananas and cherries a couple, whereas apples and pears and all the others were singles.

>> Okay, here is what I have to say about this, and it's a lot, so settle in.

>> Oh boy [laughs].

>> When I first--

>> Can I order lunch?

>> Me too, yeah, we need some takeout. When I first started working in journalism, we American newspapers followed the AP Style Guide like it was a religion, and the AP Style Guide does not use the serial comma, series comma, Oxford comma, whatever you want to call it. They do not use it. The reason that I remember hearing, and the reason that a lot of things were the way they were in AP Style supposedly, and again this might just be a fable, but was because printing in early America was expensive and difficult and often time consuming, and so they would do anything they could to shorten things. And so leaving out that end comma, I was told, was because you didn't need it, because the and was a stand-in, and it was an extra thing and it took up space, and it took up time and money and ink and all that stuff. And so you didn't need it when it was a clear list like that. That was my thinking for a very long time, and I was a devotee of the AP Style Guide. I 100% believed in it. I do not find it jarring to read a sentence without it, and I often thought that people were being really pedantic when they were like, what do you mean blah, blah, blah and cherries. Like I thought that I was like, come on, you know what they're trying to say. However--now I'll give you the however. And I've gotten older and wiser, and moved away from journalism. And I read that Eats Shoots and Leaves book, by what's her name? Lyn Trusk? Is that her name?

>> Yeah.

>> Eats Shoots and Leaves is a great book about--it was sort of one of the first of its kind of these like, pop grammar books, which I feel like there's a lot of them, including the one we're talking about right now, Dreyer's English. But I--Eats Shoots and Leaves, as like a punch line for a joke, because do you know that joke? It's like a Panda walks into the bar--

>> Oh yeah.

>> Yeah and I don't remember how the joke goes.

>> And Dreyer actually brings up a couple of linguistic grammatical jokes as well that are lower, but it's like that you should also say, I don't know when you told your story just now, I didn't know if it was a fable, because like I just said, he said about the Oxford comma--

>> Yeah.

>> It has urban legend attached to it.

>> Yes.

>> Like, how much of language is sort of like, how do we know it's true? And I like that he was honest about that. Like, he's very persnickety, it's like, this is the way you should do it.

>> Yeah.

>> But he's also like, I get it, that like language is this growing thing.

>> Right, right. And I like that language is a growing and evolving thing, and I think there's a lot of ways right now that language is growing in a really positive direction, like the use of their, as a singular, which is something that was always a huge no-no in AP Style, you always had to say he or she. You always had to whatever, and I think as we have evolving concepts of gender, the fact that you can use their as a singular is really not only really good, I think, for non-binary people, and for just, you know, just for speaking in general but also for writing and like the elegance of a sentence. It's much nicer to say their than his or her or he and she, or whatever. Anyway, that's not what we're talking about. So I do have my own personal feelings about the Oxford comma also have evolved, and I use it now, in my writing. And it's because I'm trying to be more conscious of more people reading, writing and trying to make reading as easy for people as possible, and I do think that your brain, when you see a list of things, especially if it's only three, and it's not a list like his example. His example is actually the kind of thing where I think you least need another comma in there, because it's a long list of similar things, and you kind of know where it's going before the sentence ends. But Eats Shoots and Leaves is perfect, because Eats, comma, Shoots, comma, and Leaves is totally different than Eats Shoots and Leaves.

>> Right.

>> No commas. And there's a reason that you need that comma there, because it adds meaning to the sentence.

>> Exactly. I should say that Dreyer in this book then goes on to give an example like you're saying, but it's unsayable over the air.

>> Oh really? Ooh.

>> It's a little funny.

>> Too racy [inaudible]--

>> And I was just thinking I can do it, and then I thought the producer would be like oh, don't please, don't. By the way our producer is leaving.

>> I can't talk about this. I'm going to cry.

>> Just parenthetically, our beloved darling creator of this podcast, actually--

>> Originator, yep.

>> Yeah, he was--it was his idea, he's moving on to lovelier--well he is moving on to other pastures. I don't know if they're going to be lovelier [overlapping speakers].

>> We're going to be lovelier, how can it be lovelier than this? The two of us?

>> So anyway, Dreyer's English is hilarious. It's a really fun read. It's too much fun, I mean, I don't think I even indicated how much fun he can be to write, and he also goes into his own, like, we'd just gotten into a conversation about his own personal persnickety problems with language that he wants corrected.

>> Yeah.

>> And has also most frequently encountered copy problems.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> And also, like, you mentioned before about The Others' Gold, by Elizabeth Ames, the book you just talked about, about how, what her editor was about, like, because the last part of it is such a tone shift.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> He has a great story, Dreyer, in his book about editing Richard Russo, who wrote Straight Man, and Nobody's Fool and Empire Falls. And how he corrected something. And he said what you said, his goal was to make it the most readable book possible. So, he corrected something. I think it was something like, a phrase like Richard Russo wrote, "Hello, he smiled." And he's like, hellos don't smile.

>> Yeah, yup!

>> You say a hello, you don't smile a hello.

>> And Richard Russo, as Dreyer tells the story, wrote--called him up and said hey very charmingly, he said "You think I'm a writer, right?" And Dreyer was like, "Of course you are." But he also knew uh-oh!

>> Yeah.

>> And basically Russo was like, "I like that. I like that phrase."

>> Yeah.

>> I like that I did that. And Dreyer, the Copy Chief, said "You're the writer.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> You're the boss. And said of course. I'm here to help you articulate your vision, like style, and usage manuals are there to help you articulate your vision as best as possible. And I like how Dreyer is honest and says his creative choice trumps anything else. Plus he said Richard Russo was extraordinarily charming and polite about it.

>> That's good to know.

>> How could he resist?

>> Yeah.

>> I love that story.

>> That's great, I love this kind of stuff. This kind of nit-picky grammar nerd stuff, and it's totally up my alley.

[ Overlapping Speakers ]

>> Cool, oh, I want to read that, though.

>> Like Glen and me, then pick this book up and you'll have a ball! You'll have a ball darling!

>> You'll have a ball [laughs].

>> All right.

>> Till the next time my darling.

>> Till the next time. Thanks everybody for listening. And make sure to go to NYPL.org/podcast, if you want to see a list of all the stuff we talked about. And we appreciate all of you. Thanks for being here.

[ Typewriter ]