Making a story interesting - my take

Over the years, these are what I find to be important things to consider. You'll find they don't differ much from the usual laundry list.

Emotions (especially humour)
This is far and away of the most important thing to infuse in a session. Taking time to find humourous bits to inject in a story helps make it memorable and keep the audience's attention. People who have drifted off will also be brought back by the audience's laughter. Humans remember experiences laced with the more extreme emotions. So our choices are either to make the session a happy and humourous one or a sad and touching one. And on rare occasions, both

Delivery
Voice - the voice needs to be expressive with suitable variations in pace, pitch, volume. Variation is needed to convey the intended emotions and atmosphere and to avoid monotony. Humans pay attention to differences. Babies consistently take their attention away from the norm to seek out new things. Additional qualities to consider are variations in tone (breathy, strident, nasal, etc...) and connectedness (staccato vs legato).
Facial expression - use a congruent expression.
Body movement - this should be consistent and hand gestures should not be distracting (eg, sudden and out of the typical visual field). Ideally, you should face your audience unless you feel your rear looks better and is more expressive than your face. One exception to this is when different performers take to the same stage. Then at times, it may be possible to place attention on a single person by having him/her as the only one facing the audience and down stage (closer).

Awareness
Audience - Always be aware of what is happening in your audience and make suitable adjustments. But there's no need to be unduly bothered by the odd person who seems bored. Few performances can please everyone. Sometimes there are things beyond our control. For example, some may have been absolutely tired but still want to catch your session - that's a compliment. Others may just look that way and be inwardly thrilled. But I usually make an effort to pay attention to people at the back and by the sides. Otherwise, only people directly infront will be getting attention.
Self - Sometimes, you may be losing your voice or form without realising it. (at times, you can also guess from audience reactions). It is best to film or record yourself. Do it till you don't cringe on playback. By then, you've either reached a good level of competency or an inordinate level of self-deception. eg. Using recordings, I learned to develop vocally, found bad habits such as having my voce trail off, and also discovered how often I slouch.

The above are the main qualities that should be present in all programmes, for all audiences and varying venues. I am of course, assuming that the voice is audible/pleasant, the story makes sense, and audience contact is maintained. The following are some additional things to throw in:

Interaction
Interacting with the audience can come in the form of questions or activities. This is basically audience involvement. It can also help to make the programme immediately relevant to them. Some may thing this is essential but I would place the previous qualities above this.

Making voices
Using character voices is an art. It is an outgrowth of vocal expression. Without it, this becomes a senseless gimmick that will grab you attention but you won't be able to keep it.
It is also harmful to your voice to consistently use it out of your usual pitch, volume, tone. Developing your vocal range gradually helps make it more resilient as does using proper voice support. Ideally, character voices should be accompanied by appropriate body language and placement. Used that way, I find that often an understated difference in vocal quality is enough to convey a different character. Simply highlight the differences between each character. You're not going for an Emmy (or Oscar).

Energy
I actually consider this an important thing. Bobby Norfolk has changed my mind about many stories to the effect that I now think, given enough thought on delivery and putting in the right amount of energy, we can make any story entertaining. But I won't be trying the phonebook just yet.

Miscellaneous:
Costumes,
Props,
using different tools
eg drawing, balloon modelling, paper cutting/folding/tearing, magic, slides, dramatisations (solo, group, audience involvement, music, songs, etc...

As fundamental as the above are, I feel that this quality below is the one that pulls it all together:
Your brain - my best sessions have either happened by luck (when I simply tried a few different things and stumbled upon a good approach) or by deliberation, taking time to consider:
- which are the points of interest in a story
- which are the humourous bits
- what questions can I ask the audience and when
- what areas may need explaining or simplification (eg elements of a different culture)
- which parts would be better with dramatisation, character voices or sound effects
- is the story appropriate (age, culture). Is the delivery method appropriate? eg Visual aids are certainly needed for the very young and some intellectually challenged folks.
- are there any pictures that are essential or add to the story (eg shark in the park, stephanie's ponytail)

I have never used slides but have tried a document camera (no preparation needed). This is useful is the size audience is very large huge. I have succesfully told stories to assembly hall sized audiences with just voice and body movement. And sometimes, even if you wish to try something off beat, you may want to start out matching their expectations so they are not turned off immediately. (incidentally, this is a common persuasion technique.)

You will find that I have not included anything on choosing the right story. This is because the usually inaptly named commonsense fares fairly well here. And with more experience, I find that the range of stories I can tell effectively expands.

Statistics - the absolute basics and when to ignore numbers

Average - this is a number we choose to best represent others. There are 3 kinds of average. I learnt this in primary school.

- mean: this is the most used. It is simply the sum of all the numbers divided by the no. of values (I mean the numbers, not the ones your mom should have given you). The mean is useful in achieving equity. It is most representative when there are no extreme numbers that deviate from the rest.

- median: this simply refers to the middle value when all the numbers are arranged in sequence. If there are an even no. of values, we use the mean of the middle two. Given a median, you know that there are an equal number of values greater and smaller than it. A median is useful when there are some outlying values (values that are uncharacteristically large) that might distort your average value if you use the mean. Eg if you calculate the prices of public housing around the world, the median and the mean may be quite different because of Singapore HDB prices. The median would likely be more representative.

- mode: this refers to the value that happens most often. There can be more than one mode or none at all (ie. all values occur the same no. of times). Ideally, given a number from that set, it is most likely to be the mode.

Using all three can tell us different things about the data set.


Deviation - this tells us how much the various values differ from the mean. Usually, standard deviation is used.
eg {5, 10, 15} and {0, 10, 20} both have a mean of 15 but drastically different deviation.


Statistical Significance - this tells us how sure we are that a particular result is true and not due to randomness. For example,
if we throw a dice 6 times and we get "three" 4 out of the 6 times, how confident are we that the dice is biased rather than it being a matter of 'luck'.
Conversely, how many more people should we find have borrowed from the romance section than the cookery section for us to be 95% sure that cookery books are really more popular.

This calculation is needed because typically we cannot obtain all the data (eg survey every single person) but use a sampling, so randomness comes into the picture.

Caution: Statistical significance depends on a true random sample. Otherwise the sigificance level can be misleading. If we are obtaining feedback from all participants, there is no need for this, unless we are using their feedback to infer the preferences of the population at large. Then more will need to be done statistically.

Examples of Applications:
1) The use of deviation in loans or in-library collection size can help us figure out how much shelf space we really need. After all, the amount of shelf space depends more directly on how many books are left the library at any time rather than the overall collection size.

2) We may receive feedback that a particular timing is preferred for a programme. Given that the feedback is from a random sample, how sure are we that the indicated timing is really better for the community?

3) Librarians are told to pick 5 children from every session of a programme for feedback (because it is logistically impossible to poll everyone). If the resulting positive feedback has a 0.05 significance level (ie 95% confidence) can we be sure the programme is good? This actually depends on how randomly the librarian selected the children. Usually bias to pick favourable and more forthcoming children will come into play.

4) There seems to have been a recent rise in loans. Can we be 99% sure that this is a trend rather than a 'random' variation?


Ignoring Statistics
Limits of Statistics - There will be times when we wish to ignore statistics given. This may be times when broad strokes alone are not helpful. For example, the parent of a child whose child was murdered won't care if their neighbourhood is actually very safe and that their child's death does not add significantly to the mortality rate. To do otherwise is to allow a tyranny of the majority over the needs of the minority. Some needs are so important that zero tolerance may be the way to go.
Statistics are descriptive. Just because something is statistically significant or not does not affect reality, it only describes how sure we are that it reflects reality. Statistically, it is impossible to be hundred percent sure unless we use the entire population as a sample. Thus there can be occasions when the best statistics are wrong and the worse may prove to be right. Thus assessing purely by statistics alone is to play a game purely on probability. But a strategy that is very likely to succeed can still fail (see below). All things being equal, the larger the sample size thre more sure we can be but the flip side is that cost rises exponentially.

Moreover, the brain is more complex than mere statistics and is capable of heuristics that can be chillingly more efficient and accurate depending on the relevant experience he/she has. Humans as a group can exhibit irrationality that defy simplistic mathematical models and the seemingly improbable is not impossible. Quantum mechanics and the normal curve includes an implicit awareness of this. Statistically air travel is safer than land but planes still crash ever so often. It is near impossible for an individual to strike the lottery yet we know there must be a winner at every draw. Marketing is deeply aware of this so you will never see an ad that appeals by logic. Every marketing technique I've read about appeals to intuition and emotions (That is how many make decisions). The statistics they use are direct results from testing the effectiveness of various methods. So while statistics can be helpful, making purely logical inferences from it can be misleading. I have no examples here: this is an area I am only beginning to explore. This is the limit of my understanding so far.

Incomplete picture - One typical manner in which statistics can be misleading is when only certain sides are presented. We may say that a particular organisation only has a 5% penetration rate in a particular section of the market. But what's missing is how large and profitable the market is and what the ROI is for various products. And how saturated the market is. Typically, time and manpower (including training hours) are sometimes neglected when computing costs. The scalability and replicability of a model is important and are currently not included in most calculations used.

Beware of probability - we have all heard of how a dice gives an equal chance for any number to appear. Yet we have all had times when we threw a succession of 6's or 1's. The skinny on probability is that it is ultimately a statistics assuming that the event occurs infinite times. Thus any programme based solely on probability can be dangerous unless there are enough resources and time to run it many, many times. Even then, there may often be better ways. And many types of events are independant ie, past performance does not and never will predict future events. You could have thrown 100 6's on a dice and the probability of getting a 6 (or any numer from 1 to 5) on the next throw is still 1 in 6.

The low down on statistics and surveys

As the strip shows, results from such surveys can be interpreted in different ways. The reason is because such surveys (or "studies") only show association rather than cause and effect.
Sometimes, the interpretation fails to consider tertiary conditions or a larger perspective. To give an example bordering on the ridiculous, all murderers pee but it doesn't mean that peeing results in murderous tendencies although if you stand in the way of someone looking urgently for a restroom, you may get different ideas. Likewise, it is also conceivable that a survey may show more smokers eat more ice-cream. This may not mean that smoking causes a craving for dessert or vice-versa (unless it's nicotine flavoured ice-cream. Thank goodness the industry is still above this.) Rather it may just show that both are choice stress relievers for many people.

A recent "study" by SMU Psychology Professor Norman Li shows that Singapore women are more materialistic than their American counterparts while men on both continents went for looks first. (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/pore-girls-materialistic-smu-study-092109660.html; and http://www.smu.edu.sg/news_room/smu_in_the_news/2011/sources/ST_20110615_2.pdf) Now before women join hands to go up in arms (while others secretly visit surgeons) and some Singapore men toast each other in agreement, a closer look at the study will reveal much. Actually, even a casual look will do. The study surveyed "400 psychology students aged between 19 and 21, studying at the SMU and the Northern Illinois University near Chicago in the United States, on their attitudes towards marriage, children and preferences when it comes to choosing a partner."

So perhaps a more accurate conclusion would be: young SMU female psychology students are more materialistic than than their NIU counterparts while young male psychology students in both varsities are equally superficial. After all, the last time I checked, SMU psychology students aren't representative of our population. And in view of the much recognised fact that self-reporting is one of the most inaccurate methodologies, we may wish to add "self-alleged" somewhere in there. But otherwise, I'd say this study is worrying -- it seems our future psychology workers are either materialistic or superficial. Perhaps the study went through because it largely corroborates conventional results from other surveys. Men tend to filter subjects by looks first and women by power & status (ie security factors) when looking for partners. But again, as far as I know, most of these studies also take the form of self-reporting surveys. And of course, we know that we are always honest when talking about ourselves and we always know ourselves best. That's why some live in mental insitutes and see psychiatrists.

What does this have to do with the library?

Well, how are customer satisfaction surveys done? They are usually done by interviews, a methodology which is just a step above self-reporting surveys -- or not, depending on how trained the interviewers are. Otherwise, we have the bias of the interviewee filtered through the interviewer's lens.
And how representative are the people interviewed? Well, I often received results based on a survey of 3-4 people. In this case, it should really be treated more as feedback than a generalisable finding. And in the past, I had feedback about children programmes given by adults... right.

The other thing we can learn from the "study" is on measuring things. For example, what did the study conclude as materialism? It defined it as looking for social status. The last time I checked, status and material wealth can be closely related but not equivalent. One only needs to look at Mother Therea, Gandhi (later in his life), and many non-Singapore politicians. And conversely, look at the many secret millionaires we don't know about? Who are they you say? Didn't I just say we don't know?

Now how do we measure readership in the library? The primary measure is loans. The two are very closely related but not the same. I would say it is analogous to Newton's and Einstein's laws of physics. It is now widely spread (alright, only among science geeks) that Newton was wrongly thought to be right till Einstein came along. It is obvous that Einstein was smarter because he was uglier and we all know looks + brains = constant. The closer truth is that Newton hit upon a very close approximation of the truth (or what we currently think is right) -- so close that on Earth, it is much simpler and better to use his computations. So unless you are migrating to the milky way or negotiating at light speeds, Newton would pretty much be a worthy guide.

So for us, the question is: when does loans approximate readership? Logically, loans would be consistently lesser than readership (some may browse but not borrow, other may read non-library materials. And assuming humans are creatures of habit this difference should be fairly constant - under normal circumstances). Thus loan trends can mimic readership trends. However, when we throw in loan promotions, this premise can fail -- mainly because we are promoting just loans. Most of us will have encountered people who keep buying McDonald's meals to get the full set of toys - perhaps not because they like the food but because their child likes the toy. If the library equivalent exists, this is when loans deviates from readership and no longer mimics its trends. Part of it now measures greed or obsession.

The upshot is that this also skews our collection statistics. Previously, we may use borrowing trends as a guide to reading preferences. But under such circumstances, it may become more of a guide on what some people can borrow when they don't really want to read. Thus my take is that a poorly conceived promotion is akin to using television to nanny your kids. Effective in the short run, destructive in the larger scheme of things.

The borrowing trends on a poorly developed or organised collection can also exhibit a bit of this anomaly. It may reflect instead what people borrow when they can't find what they want but don't want to leave empty handed.

How can we circumvent this then? I'm taking this to the grave with me.... no seriously, it is simplyto start with a good norm or failing that do constant development and analysis of the statistics to monitor changes based on the development.

But of course, this is also an oversimplification of the situation. Or overthinking. After all, most people end up doing the same thing anyway.

How (not) to write a book review

I am not a very good book reviewer but I get by. Mostly because I focus on what readers may want to know about the book. But I have edited enough book reviews and attended enough writing and editing courses to know the big no-nos.

Here are some ways to write a review badly

1. Thou shalt write generic reviews.
Over the years I have read some reviews that could easily be used for almost any book. Of course, this also meant that it didn't tell much about the book at hand. When I read such reviews, it typically tells me that the reviewer hasn't read the books. Here is an example of how a generic review may go.
"You will love the exciting text and colourful pictures. Every turn of the page brings new surprises. If you enjoy reading, this book is for you!"

Other ways cheaters review books:
A) Finding existing reviews and remixing or phrasing them into your own.
B) Using a mix of the table of contents and the book blurb.

2. Thou shalt not mention the book.
Amazingly, I have encountered reviews which hardly mention the book. Here's how one may read:
"Parenthood is a joyous time indeed. But every new mother faces incredible challenges of meeting the many needs of her baby. Friends and relatives may add to the problem with their many opinions, causing new mothers to doubt themselves..."
Of course, the reviewer does end with a few (usually generic) sentences about the book.

3. Thou shalt mention things without reference.
"This is an exciting story about three detectives whose parents go missing one day. The children take Timberman and trot the globe on an investigative adventure."
At this point, I'll typically be hunting around to find out what Timberman is. The minor quibble I have is that the fact that the detective were children should have been mentioned beforehand. And are the children siblings? Or Are we talking about different sets of parents? IMHO, this makes for less jarring reading. But I usually leave it as it is a minor point that could pass as the reviewer's style.

4. Thou shalt be ambiguous.
"And so John found his father after much effort. But then he caught pneumonia and died."
Needless to say, it would be better writing to clarify if it was John or his father who died. Unless the next sentences are "So was it John or his father? Read the book to find out." But this is likely leaving the cliffhanger too late. Incidentally, the cliffhanger is probably the most (over)used review technique.

5. Thou shalt not read the book.

Well, that's about all I can think of for now. I've been guilty of 1 from time to time but reading the book has at least been the least I've done. It riles me that reviewers can try to write a review without reading the book. Why do that? Why not just refer our readers to existing reviews? At least that's honest.