By Zara D. Garcia-Alvarez
Okay, so if you’ve been following my blog, you’ll know that my book of choice, Angus, Thongs, and Full-Throttle Snogging did NOT make the next round.
It’s okay! As long as people are reading, voting, and LOVING books, I’m good. But, this March Madness isn’t about me! It’s about reviewing what we all love in the book community and pushing great titles out into the world to bask in all their well-deserved “readable” glory!
So, what’s up for today’s battle, you ask?
Non-fiction! Which means “non-terrible!”
The Mother Tongue by Bill Bryson
The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery
This is a tough one for me…because I’m a word-lover AND a tree hugger!
What will it be?
As much as I love the environment, it already gets a lot of press! And I’m an “underdog” kind of girl.
And I LOVE WORDS. I’m a reader. I’m a writer.
Words give me the freedom to know, speak, write, and understand.
And the weather…is so unpredictable.
I ask for sun, it gives me rain! I ask for a snow storm so I can stay home and read (and the forecast claimed to give us at least 15 cm) and all I get is slush!
So, today, I’m voting for
The Mother Tongue!
I’d really like to know how we got from:
O.E. lufu “love, affection, friendliness,” from P.Gmc. *lubo (cf. O.Fris. liaf, Ger. lieb, Goth. liufs “dear, beloved;” not found elsewhere as a noun, except O.H.G. luba, Ger. Liebe), from PIE *leubh- “to care, desire, love” (cf. L. lubet, later libet “pleases;” Skt. lubhyati “desires;” O.C.S. l’ubu “dear, beloved;” Lith. liaupse “song of praise”). Meaning “a beloved person” is from early 13c. The sense “no score” (in tennis, etc.) is 1742, from the notion of “playing for love,” i.e. “for nothing” (1670s). Love-letter is attested from mid-13c.; love-song from early 14c. To be in love with (someone) is from c.1500. Love life “one’s collective amorous activities” is from 1919, originally a term in psychological jargon. Love affair is from 1590s. Phrase for love or money “for anything” is attested from 1580s. To fall in love is attested from early 15c. The phrase no love lost (between two people) is ambiguous and was used 17c. in ref. to two who love each other well (c.1640) as well as two who have no love for each other (1620s).
Or from this:
This book might even help me come to terms with the movement from:
“Oh my God!” to OMG!
(Because I’m of the generation that prefers the former, rather than the latter.)
You can disagree with me.
But it won’t matter if you don’t vote!
You have until 8:00 p.m. tonight.
Have fun and don’t forget to include the hashtag #HCCMarchMadness!