Well, I think I might have found a solution to that little dilemma. Aldaily is a site that is filled with links to a whole host of potential reading material. Articles and reviews of all things from philosophy to culture to history to music to ideas to criticisms and more.

The site does come with a word of caution though. Like a trip to a grocery store, you might have gone in to get a packet of gum but you will probably leave with a shopping cart full of things.

Happy reading.

The floor is now open for your picks — what books go well together, complement each other even if they are not explicitly about the same subject?

As an American, saying you love British culture is different than, for example, saying you love Italian culture. Many see a preference for British culture to American culture as an attack on the United States as a whole. Some friends will tease me about it, while other people seem genuinely offended. What is it about Britain that makes the response so different from when someone admits to a love of other cultures? Is the Revolutionary War still affecting people’s view of Britain? Why is it difficult to get people to understand that my affinity for British culture isn’t an attack on my home? I simply found a culture that suits me better, but how and why does it suit me better?

Bits of British culture entered my life when I was a child. Scottish relatives and Atlantic crossings on British ships introduced me to aspects of the culture. My Glaswegian aunt would give me Smarties, which I have always preferred to M&Ms. I loved throwing “tea parties” when I was younger and fell in love with the concept of afternoon tea. My mother is a fan of Jane Austen and other English literature that I also grew to love. None of this seemed very foreign to me and seeped into my life naturally. I wasn’t looking for a different culture. I wasn’t trying to escape America’s. Before my late teen years, I barely noticed how much of British culture crept into my life. For a long time I couldn’t explain a lot of these preferences, but television changed that.

Until British television “happened” for me, I hated television. I’d watch it from time to time as a kid but it never really captured my attention. As I grew older I attempted to watch some of the shows my friends did such as “American Idol” and “The O.C.” but wound up hating most of it. My thoughts on television were similar to those of a jaded old man’s. I saw it as a waste of time and considered that it maybe really did rot brains. Any show I did find that I felt was well written was usually canceled prematurely. I nearly gave up on the medium entirely until I realized it was just American television I hated.

Not too long before college started, I decided to give some British television shows a try at the recommendation of my friend. We both had a mutual love for some of the few American shows I found acceptable so I felt I could take her advice. I fell in love with the revival of quintessential British program “Doctor Who.” It had drama, humor, and science fiction blended together in a way I had never seen before. From there I kept watching more shows. I indulged my love for Arthurian Legend with “Merlin.” I already knew my sense of humor was more in line with British humour so I delved into comedies like “Spaced,” “The Mighty Boosh,” the British version of “The Office,” and later “The Inbetweeners.” I looked back towards “Fawlty Towers,” “Monty Python’s Flying Circus,” and a “A Bit of Fry & Laurie.” I fell in love with dramas like “Life on Mars” and “Being Human.” After discovering writers and actors I thought were talented, the list grew and grew. I stumbled across mini-series, T.V. movies, and quiz shows I loved.

Suddenly with this discovery of how much I adored British television, all the other British things I loved became more prevalent. I began stating my preference for much of British culture. I was told I was un-American. Some people would look at me weird if I said I watched a lot of British television and asked “Why?” For a while all I could offer was “Well, I have Scottish relatives so I guess I just grew to like British culture.” But that wasn’t why I liked the culture, but rather partially why I was connected with it. I couldn’t really explain why I think British candy tastes better or why I like tea so much, but it turned out examining why I like the British entertainment industry was the key. I came to the conclusion that it’s because I love the arts.

While this isn’t true for every television program or film, the British seem to aim for quality, for art, more than Americans. The industry runs differently than ours. While mainstream American seasons (which the British refer to as “series”) may have twenty episodes often British seasons only have six to eight. Longer seasons only have about thirteen. British programs may also only have a couple seasons and sometimes how many there will be is planned from the very start so an ending is already in mind and episodes can be carefully written to lead to it. The American industry tries to squeeze as many seasons out of a program as they can and fight to get renewed. If a show is successful in America, they’ll try to make another program very similar to it. Britain seems to try to look towards new ideas more often. Britain doesn’t have a Hollywood and the type of superstars we do. Many of their actors have started in theatre. Roles seem to be casted more by talent whereas in the States, there is an American ideal of beauty to fulfill. America aims for entertainment. Britain aims for art. Yes, art can be and often is entertaining, but usually quality appears to be the British’s main goal.

Of course, this is all very generalized. There is plenty of terrible British television and fantastic American television. But for the most part, I find Britain trying to create works of art in the mainstream where that tends to happen in America’s independent or underground industry. America is more capitalistic. Entertainment is a product that needs to be sold so they go for quantity. Once I noticed this difference, I could explain my preference better and apply it to some other interests.

My love for soccer over popular American sports perhaps has similar reasoning. Soccer is more fluid, more of an art form. American football is rougher, more structured. Fans of soccer sing throughout matches. NFL fans mainly just yell. Whether one approach to “entertainment” is better than the other comes down to personal taste. I cannot stand shows like “Glee” but to fans of the program they are entertained and that’s all that matters. I do not simply want to be entertained. I want to experience more. I want something to think about.

Maybe this preference does make me “un-American.” But so what? Is it a requirement of my citizenship that I like American entertainment and American foods more? This kind of nationalism that makes my love for Britain offensive concerns me. Of course, nationalism exists elsewhere. In Britain itself, Scotland, England, and Wales all have their own personal identities they hold onto (and as history shows conflict has arisen because of this.) Even the fact that I love all of Britain becomes an issue. Some wonder how a mutual love for Scotland and England is even possible. There is also my heritage; I am half Irish. The fact that I like England at all is brought into question on that front.

Historical conflict and national pride are hard to escape if one dares to love a certain culture different than the one she was born into. For a little while I felt like I was supposed to apologize for it, that maybe I should leave the country at once. But I love Philadelphia and don’t plan on leaving anytime soon. Culture is a taste like anything else. I am not sorry I find most British television programs to be better written than American ones. I am not sorry I drink a lot of Twinings tea. I will always think that Cadbury is better than Hershey, that Glaswegian accents are the most beautiful, and that the EPL is far more enjoyable than the NFL. I may not be very “American,” but why do I have to be?

‘“Barnes & Noble has made a decision not to stock Amazon published titles in our store showrooms,” Jaime Carey, the company’s chief merchandising officer, said in a statement. “Our decision is based on Amazon’s continued push for exclusivity with publishers, agents and the authors they represent. These exclusives have prohibited us from offering certain e-books to our customers. Their actions have undermined the industry as a whole and have prevented millions of customers from having access to content. It’s clear to us that Amazon has proven they would not be a good publishing partner to Barnes & Noble as they continue to pull content off the market for their own self interest.”’

I, for one, am sad to see that Amazon is pulling content off the market, especially e-books. Since I have a Barnes & Noble nook, the only place I can buy e-books is from bn.com. If Amazon is keeping exclusive rights to e-books, then they are depriving readers of a chance to access that content. At least Barnes & Noble is still selling Amazon-published books on its website. What do you think about this controversy?

“I think it is not now standard to teach Dickens in secondary school, as it once was,” she said. “About six or seven years ago, I taught a long Dickens novel, Little Dorrit, in a course on the novel, and the students had a hard time with it. They had a hard time following the plot. They did not enjoy it. They did not find it funny.”

However, she found that today’s college students enjoy and appreciate Dickens more than previous students. She attributes it to the Harry Potter books being “a crash course in reading Dickens.” She also notes that there is a different attitude toward reading for pleasure among her students today.

“They like to read. They like long books. They talk about books. If you’re willing to meet them where they are and talk to them about what they’re actually reading, there are a lot more kids in this younger generations of college students who are pleasure readers. Any time you have a whole bunch of pleasure readers, then an English professor is happy.”

The Harry Potter series definitely helped make reading cool again. It’s the first book series of the Millenium generation where people anxiously awaited the next book in the series to be released.  And, although I wouldn’t attribute my love of reading to the Harry Potter series, I can see the parallels with Dickens that Professor Keen points out.  Harry Potter is certainly a stepping stone to other great literary works.

So far, the world has been denied access to Salinger’s legendary hoard of unpublished works and his estate (which legally consists of his widow and son) have refused to acknowledge even the existence of the mysterious manuscripts, much less offer any hope that they will be made available to an anxious reading public. In all likelihood, that decision relies upon Salinger’s last will and testament, the contents of which are rumored to contain a clause requesting that the author’s family wait a number of years before publishing anything new, if only to forestall Salinger’s own fans from dancing on his grave.

Fitzpatrick is attacked for writing, “I’ve got nearly 20 years of experience in the classroom[...]” Commenter Keith writes:

“I’ve got nearly 20 years of experience in the classroom…”

I’ve got – if it wasn’t so sad, it would be funny.

Commenter deaneasy writes:

You’re opinion died at “got”. Sorry.

He recognizes his error and then posts:

And mine died at “you’re”.

At least he has got a sense of humor. I also like that tomj writes:

This “writer” has proven the theory against which she argues. Her misuse of sentence structure, and it’s importance in comunication of written ideas, shows a fundamental lack of knowledge about her subject.

First, there’s the sarcastic “writer.” Is Fitzpatrick not writing? Then there’s the incorrect “it’s” as a possessive in a sentence accusing someone else of not knowing how to write. I wish I could make this stuff up.

Commenter Uthor disagrees with those critical of “I’ve got.”

You shouldn’t be so hard on people who say or write “I’ve got.” Many speakers of English say this very often. That makes the construction a solid part of the English language. Usage is law.

It’s petty and disingenuous to sigh and toss your flighty little head over such things. There are rules of Latin that some school-marmish stuffed shirts stand up for (don’t end a sentence with a preposition, don’t start a sentence with “and or “but”).

They are wrong–and more clownish than those who they self-righteously scold. English is a Germanic language. There are plenty of Latinate words because of court languages (French, after the Normans conquered England), but the heart of the language is Germanic. The core language is good and short and to the point.

God save us from English Nazis.

(Using “Nazi” to mean “strict” is one of my pet peeves. Nazis killed millions of people. I object to diluting the word’s meaning by applying it to people who are strict about grammar or the way customers order soup.)

Commenter JS writes:

The use of “I’ve got” is a colloquialism appropriate to the chatty tone of an internet opinion post. Writers often intentionally use grammatically incorrect constructions for the sake of humour or to convey a conversational or informal tone. I doubt this writer would use “I’ve got” in a scholarly article or even a business letter.

Score one for those of us teaching writing students to consider their audience, purpose, and genre. But not everyone thinks that all writing is writing. Ken from FL, an alleged college instructor, refers to Fitzpatrick when he writes:

Please keep this person away from our children. Blogging, etc, is not writing.

Blogging isn’t writing, folks. Ken from FL has so decreed. I’d keep typing (not “writing”), but I don’t have time — I’ve got to go tell all the writers I know to stop blogging, lest they lose their writing licenses.

From modern art to converted churches and theaters, there’s something for everyone on their list of “The 20 Most Beautiful Bookstores in the World.”