Your Brain on Fiction (article)

This morning I came across a link for an op-ed that appeared in Sunday's New York Times entitled "The Neuroscience of Your Brain on Fiction."  In the article, Annie Murphy Paul gathers the results of several recent neuroscience studies in which "brain scans are revealing what happens in our heads when we read a detailed description, an evocative metaphor or an emotional exchange between characters" (Murphy Paul, para. 2).  She cites several studies that have found that certain types of words activate more than just the language-processing areas of our brains.  For example, words with strong odor associations ("cinnamon") activate the primary olfactory cortex, metaphors involving texture ("the singer had a velvet voice") activate the sensory cortex, and words describing motion ("Pablo kicked the ball") activate the motor cortex.  Even more amazingly, with motion words "this activity was concentrated in one part of the motor cortex when the movement described was arm-related and in another part when the movement concerned the leg" (Murphy Paul, para. 5).

All of these findings from the neuroscience research are fascinating in and of themselves, but the real appeal of the article for me was the way Ms. Murphy Paul used the research to support reading fiction in general and novels in particular.  In fact, the article's pro-fiction stance was the reason I read the article in the first place and then sent the link to my college roommate (who is currently studying to become a reading specialist).

The article almost made me feel guilty for the fact that I'm currently reading a biography and not a novel :)  In my defense, though, it's a biography of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert and I have been fascinated by the two of them for years.  Plus, I (finally) just read The Hunger Games in a matter of hours, so it's not like I've been neglecting fiction.  On the contrary, I'm far more likely to read fiction than nonfiction.

The last pair of studies cited in the article found that "individuals who frequently read fiction seem to be better able to understand other people, empathize with them and see the world from their perspective" (Murphy Paul, para. 9).  Ms. Murphy Paul closed the article by noting that "these findings will affirm the experience of readers...who have found themselves comparing a plucky young woman to Elizabeth Bennet" (Murphy Paul, para. 11) and in doing so managed to combine my love of novels in general and Pride and Prejudice (and Lizzie Bennet) in particular with my fascination with the human brain.


Murphy Paul, A. (2012, March 17). The neuroscience of your brain on fiction. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/opinion/sunday/the-neuroscience-of-your-brain-on-fiction.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

Ten Ways to Make Yourself Indispensable (article)

The title of the last article in the current issue of Information Outlook, "Ten Ways to Make Yourself Indispensable," caught my attention.  In fact, it almost brought me up short.  For the simple fact that I've read countless business articles that give the same advice: avoid becoming indispensable.

In the business world, the logic is that your boss won't promote you or support your quest for a new position if he or she considers you indispensable.  After all, who else could possibly perform your (current) job as well as you do?  I don't know how often that really happens.  I've been lucky to have bosses who supported my efforts to climb the corporate ladder (and believe you me, I was pretty much indispensable).  Now that I think about it, though, maybe that's the reason my former director (boss's boss) refused to promote me: she thought I was indispensable in Suspense.  (Yes, I know it sounds weird, but I promise you that suspense is an accounting thing.)  I even had a boss who kept trying to push me up the corporate ladder by encouraging me to apply for a job I really didn't want.  Instead, I quit and moved to Florida (go figure).

Whether the assertion that indispensable employees don't get promoted is true is beside the point.  I've read it quite a few times (all in the four years since I moved to Florida) and it stuck with me.  So you can see why I found an article that not only promoted becoming indispensable but also gave tips on how to do so surprising.  But then I thought about it in the context of libraries and the current economic downturn and I could see the logic behind making one's special library indispensable.

Except that wasn't Abram's point.  "Remember, this isn't about protecting the library, but about communicating your value as a librarian" (Abram, 2012, p. 30).  Several of his tips boil down to keep your skills current and, if possible, become a SME (subject matter expert) in something that will distinguish you from your coworkers.  He also suggests taking on new tasks as a way of networking within your company and "excel[ing] in an area in which your boss is weak" (Abram, 2012, p. 31).  I suppose I can see his reasoning for advocating that librarians become indispensable to their organizations.  But I'm having trouble seeing the difference between making oneself valuable as a librarian and making one's library valuable.  Especially since this article's audience was special librarians and many (if not most) special librarians work in one-person libraries.  I don't see how the powers that be at a company can separate a librarian from his or her one-person library.

Whether or not one is able to promote one's value independently of one's library's value, I think Abram's main point of becoming indispensable is a good one.  In an Information Age, it seems almost silly that a librarian has to prove his or her value, but that is the world we live in.  If we want libraries (especially small, corporate libraries) to continue, librarians have to become indispensable.


Abram, S. (2012, January/February). Ten ways to make yourself indispensable. Information Outlook, 16(1), 30-31.