Q&A with Mr. Fob

Boy, those mailbags are piling up here at the Fobcave! Let's see if I can answer a few of my faithful readers' questions:

Dear Mr. Fob,

Here's a random question not related to the current post. I notice that as the subject heading for "Fob," you've got this:

610 27 Fob (Friends of Ben writing group) |2 fob (11)

I have a question about the 2nd indicator. According to OCLC Bibliographic Formats and Standards, the 2nd indicator should be "0" if the subject heading comes from LCSH, but doesn't LCSH not include proper names, with the exception of fictional characters? Is a proper name considered to be part of LCSH if it's authorized by that venerable institution (even if it doesn't make it into ClassWeb or the red books)?

Also, I always thought that FOB was capitalized . . .

Sincerely,

Mentally Ill in Illinois

Dear Ms. Ill,

I was pretty sure I knew the answer to this one, but I checked with OCLC just to be sure. The rule says that a zero in the second indicator means that the heading conforms to LCSH, which means that it might be found in an LC authority file (which includes not only LCSH but also name authorities), or that it is "construed following AACR2." Technically speaking, Fob (Friends of Ben writing group) is construed following AACR2--it's formed exactly how an official LC name would be formed, and if there were literary warrant it could be submitted to the name authority file. But I'm pretending there's a Fob thesaurus and if there were then all the variations of Fob would certainly be in it.

As for capitalization, FOB and FoB are both acceptable forms when referring to the name of the writing group (but not when referring to the family name or the term designating members of the group or the verb describing what members of the group do), but I like to think that the name has transcended the letters from which it was formed and so I treat it as a proper noun rather than an acronym. In this sense, Fob follows the lofty tradition of such normalized acronyms as radar and snafu.

Dear Mr. Fob,

That was an excellent post in a series of...how do we count? four? five?

Love,

Conthused

Dear Conthused,

Well, that depends on what you're counting, and honestly I'm not sure what you're counting. Usually I start with one. All the same, thanks for the compliment.

Dear Mr. Fob,

I say you're "neosexual." ;-)

And if anyone has a problem with you staying married, screw 'em.

Yours truly,

Profile Not Available

Dear PNA,

That's an... interesting solution, but I'm not sure how my wife would feel about it. And frankly, I'm not sure I'm up to it. (But I do have a friend who's rumored to have accomplished a similar feat.)

I'll consider the neosexual thing, though.

Best wishes,

Mr. Fob

And that's all we have time for today, folks. Keep fobbing!

Ask Master Fob

Melyngoch: By the way, can I get a ride tonight?

Master Fob: Yes. Where are we going?

AmyJane: Did we go to elementary school together?

MF: You and I? No. You and Th.? Possibly.

Th.: What if love is like poop? You know how when you step into a smelly restroom--not overwhelmingly smelly, mind you, but something is lingering...? And after a while, your olifactories adjust and the smell disappears? And then you take your crap and are struck anew by the unpleasantness of that old poop smell?

MF: Your powers of metaphor astound me.

Gilmore Guy: How can you live in Seattle and not be a bus junkie?

MF: I'll get back to you on this one.

NatGo: What would Al Gore do?

MF: The same thing he does every night--Try To Take Over The World.

Brooke: You are gay. But, you are married. So, do you act on your homosexuality or do you refrain?

MF: If by "act on your homosexuality" you mean "have sex with a man," then no. If by "act on your homosexuality" you mean "love Barbra Streisand and have an uncanny fashion sense," then the answer is still no, but less emphatically so. If by "act on your homosexuality" you mean "throw an amazing Oscars party" then yes, but only with Edgy Killer Bunny's help.

AmyJane: Can you say emergency room visit?

MF: Why, yes, as a matter of fact, I can.

AmyJane: "If these shadows remain unchanged..." Is that from "A Christmas Carol"?

MF: I suppose so. I got it from Tolkien Boy.

The McCulloch Family: But I can't live without air conditiong so you are tougher (more tough?) than me.

MF: Tougher. I am tougher than you. Your whole family. I'll take you all on. And your little dog too.

Samantha: Did you count the words?

MF: You must think I have a lot of time.

Bob Millward: Maybe we can help you move in? Maybe we can bring you some food from our garden?

MF: Sounds wonderful.

Weed: Have you been?

MF: No, but I have Ben. Right here. Tied up. And I'm beating him with a stick.

JB: Doncha feel special?

MF: Special bloggers need the most love.

Tolkien Boy: How serious could I have been, though, really?

MF: Your mom is serious. (And in case TB's mom is reading, I don't mean you, but the universal "your mom." Nor did I mean you any of the twelve hundred other times I've referred to TB's mom. Please don't hate me.)

Th.: I didn't know Nemesis knew you--or did she just mean your blog?

MF: I think she just meant my blog. And an email or two about librarianship. Unless, of course, she's stalking me. Which is scary.

Th.: Anyway, can't I have any friends that are mine exclusively and not desperate to be FOBs as well?

MF: No. It's on line three of your contract.

Th.: The new public nature of your blog is also curious because it affects what there is to say in the comments section as well---it is no long private conversation at a private table, is it?

MF: Yeah, remember when we could have private conversations on my blog about that pus-filled infection in your anus? It's too bad we can't be so cavalier anymore.

Oldenburg: Tell me, how did those crack reporters contact you, or discover you?

MF: The story involves potentially private information belonging to people who are not me, but there has been a hint in the comments section of this blog. The short version is that she found my blog and emailed me from the link in my profile.

Anonymous: Can't we all just get along??

MF: We could, but it won't make a very good story.

Tolkien Boy: Have you decided for or against Seattle?

MF: For. Gosh! Aren't you paying attention?

Th.: If it's time for Ask Master Fob, then I want to think of a question too....

Wait a second....

Okay, this:

Is S-Boogie having a happy birthday? Because if not, tell her I wish her one. (That should make all the difference.)

MF: And it did. Thank you.

Anonymous: I stumbled across your story and, to say the least, it’s very interesting. I personally don't agree with supposedly gay men marrying women, but it's your life. Anyway, I have a question. As a gay man, I do not really understand your identifying yourself as gay, or any other man who identifies himself as gay and then gets married and have kids. I guess it’s mainly the sex part. If you’re gay, I really don’t see how it’s physically possible to have sex with a woman, unless you’re bisexual. Please enlighten this confused gay guy.

MF: Um. This is a kind of personal question, but I do understand where you're coming from. When I say that I'm gay--as opposed to straight or bi--I mean that, besides being generally drawn toward men, I'm turned on by men's bodies and, generally speaking, not women's bodies. As it turns out, there's more to sex than visual stimulation, and there's more to my wife than a body. Suffice it to say that, for me at least, it is physically possible.

If you count sexual activity as a factor in determining sexual orientation, as Kinsey does, then I'm probably technically bisexual. For that matter, if the only thing that counted was activity, I'd be 100% hetero. I self-identify as gay rather than bi because I feel that's where my natural inclinations point, and because, besides making me sound all noble and heroic, saying that I'm a gay man who is making a straight marriage work (as opposed to a bisexual man doing the same*) emphasizes the fact that if God wants you to do something then you can do it, regardless of who you are or what obstacles lie in your way. Which I think is my point. I

*I have no doubt that the decision to be married is no less difficult for a self-identified bisexual man than for a self-identified gay man, but people who have no experience with either tend to think that for the former, it's easier because it's just a matter of choosing one thing you want over another thing, while for the latter it's this great big sacrifice because you're giving up the one thing you want. I think part of my point is that it's not as big a deal as all this makes it sound, that it's just a matter of deciding what's right for you and sticking to it, but I'm not sure I make that point very well. Perhaps I would be better at making points if I knew exactly what they were.

Mandi: How did you guys get involved in this article?

MF: I think they chose us mainly because I'm gay and we're married. And Mormon, to some degree or another. And because we're so gosh darn photogenic.

Rachel: And, was there going to be another blog party before the end of the summer?

MF: As a matter of fact, yes. Watch this space for details, and keep your Labor Day open. (Labor Day's the one in September, right? I alwasy get it confused with Memorial Day and Veterans Day. And Christmas.)