Cutting Remarks

In 1911, a New York barber named Adolph Buchholtz opened a wholesale barber and beauty supply shop — A. Buchholtz & Company — at 517 Third Avenue, in the shadow of the Third Avenue El. (He eventually moved down the street to larger quarters at 513 Third Avenue, occupied today by the Joshua Tree restaurant.) When Adolph died in 1948, ownership of the store passed to his sons Fred and Moe. Moe, who died in 1964, was my maternal grandfather.

Moe’s share of the business was inherited by his wife, Jeanne, who co-managed with Fred for a few  years. I don’t remember when they closed the store — my guess is that it was the early 1970s — but I do remember visiting the place for the first and only time as they were liquidating their remaining inventory, and taking home a bag full of pocket hair brushes. I continued to use those brushes until well into adulthood, when I no longer had enough hair to brush.

All of this goes to explain why all of the scissors my household had when I was growing up were barber shears. They were long, thin, and graceful, and made an appealing (and ASMR-inducing) snipping sound. As soon as I was old enough to move from blunt-tipped children’s scissors to adult-size scissors, my mother gave me my very own pair. I didn’t even know that they were barber shears; I just thought that that’s what all grownup scissors were supposed to look like. As someone who was always crafting things, I used those scissors to cut construction paper, cardboard, fabric — pretty much everything except hair.

They were good scissors, and I held onto them for years afterward. So far as I know, it was entirely coincidental that my college girlfriend Marcia, when she was about to have her senior picture taken, asked me whether I could trim her hair for the portrait. I wasn’t sure what to say. On the one hand, I had no experience with haircutting or hairstyling. On the other hand, I did have professional barber shears.

I should note that when I was in my 20s, I was fearless about agreeing to do things that I was completely unqualified to do. When a vice president of the college food service department — for whom I’d previously made some paper signs using markers and watercolors — asked me whether I could make some permanent, weatherproof, metal signs to be mounted on buildings, I said, “Sure!” When a neighbor asked me to wire her house to install some extension telephones, I said, “No problem!” When a musician asked me to set up a studio to record an instrumental ensemble, I said, “Of course!” I’d then confidently figure out how to do it.

So of course, after a brief hesitation, I agreed to trim Marcia’s hair. How difficult could it be? All I had to do was carefully examine how her hair was now, and then make it look the same, only shorter. You’re probably expecting that my hubris ended in disaster, but it surprisingly didn’t. Marcia’s hair turned out looking pretty nice — so much so that friends of hers asked me to trim their hair as well. My handiwork can be seen in three portraits in the Princeton class of 1979 yearbook.

I liked cutting hair. It represented an opportunity to have a more direct, more visceral connection with people than I could get through mere conversation. I never took money for haircutting, but asked in return only to be treated to dinner — another opportunity for human connection. To this day, I feel like getting a haircut is too intimate an activity to be done by a stranger at Supercuts. That’s one reason why, a couple of years ago, I elected to swear off haircuts entirely and begin shaving my head.

My most memorable haircutting experience was when an Asian American friend who had spent her life with long, beautiful, waist-length hair decided that she wanted to cut it all off in favor of a short hairstyle. She asked me to do the honors, and despite a lot of nervousness — the first time I ever had qualms about giving a haircut — I accepted. I can still recall the sensation of my trusty barber shears crunching into that first sheaf of hair and watching it fall irrevocably to the floor. (I imagine that a medical student has the same experience when they perform their first operation.) I must confess that my friend later went to an actual hairstylist to touch up my work, but I’m grateful to be the person whom she trusted to do the initial deed.

My haircutting career came to an end on a warm summer night when I had an appointment with a friend named Mike. We’d arranged to an efficient swap — a haircut first, followed immediately by the requisite dinner — but somehow a pre-dinner bottle of wine got opened and consumed during the haircutting portion of the evening. That turned out to be a bad idea. Mike’s hair was curly and therefore somewhat forgiving, but it still degenerated into an uneven mess that got worse the more I tried to fix it. (I seem to remember that one spot ended up entirely bald.)

Like the characters in the Warner Brothers cartoons who run off a cliff but can’t plunge to earth until they recognize that there’s nothing holding them up, I suddenly had the stomach-churning realization that I have no idea what I’m doing. Whatever delusion I’d had that I could successfully cut hair — the confident “How difficult could it be?” that had buoyed me on so many occasions — vanished. My elegant barber shears returned to being everyday scissors, cutting paper and cardboard but never again touching a human head.

I miss the physical interaction and the convivial free meals, but most of all I miss the naive blindness to my own limitations.

Read Me 1 comment

Display Case

The Library Displays Handbook, published 30 years ago this month, was the first book to sport my name on the cover. I wrote the text, collaborated on the design, created the illustrations, and built a variety of large and small library displays that were reproduced in a color insert. (You can see a couple of samples at the bottom of this post.)

I did all this as a work-for-hire under contract to the H.W. Wilson Company — a publishing house that catered exclusively to libraries and librarians, best known in those days for the Readers’ Guide to Periodical Literature — so I never received any royalties, and have no idea how well the book sold. It’s apparently still available on Amazon, although it’s listed as “Temporarily out of stock,” and it’s accompanied by a single one-star review that says “Too old to be useful.”

For the most part, I can’t argue with that review. The section called “Computer-Generated Lettering” talks about the relative pros and cons of daisy-wheel, dot-matrix, and laser printers, and spends two dense pages expounding on the technical knowledge required to use a laser printer. (“Commands to a LaserJet must be expressed in the Hewlett-Packard Printer Control Language [HP PCL], while commands to a LaserWriter must be expressed in the PostScript Page Description Language [PostScript PDL].”) Later, the book notes that computer-generated text and graphics are generally limited to black and white, since any sort of color printer would be beyond the budget of most school or public libraries.

Other sections describe now-antiquated tools such as rub-on lettering, Kroy lettering machines, photomechanical transfers, and hot-wax machines for paste-up. Photocopying is described as a technology that only recently has become widespread and affordable. (“Self-service copy shops have become increasingly common in recent years; most communities have at least one, and some communities have dozens.”)

Surprisingly, however, much of the book is not dated at all. The whole first chapter introduces the elements and principles of design, which certainly haven’t changed since 1991. Many of the techniques and sample projects involve the use of timeless tools and materials such as paper, scissors, paint, and glue. The Construction chapter demonstrates how to make a book stand out of a wire hanger, how to make a sturdy shelf out of cardboard, or how to make a concealed picture-hanger out of thumbtacks and cloth tape.

The only reason that I — a non-librarian — felt qualified to write such a book is that I’d spent my whole life practicing these sorts of techniques. By the time I was eight years old, I was able to cut letters and numbers freehand out of construction paper, or quickly make a hinged-lid box out of shirt cardboard. I routinely won poster contests in elementary and high school, and earned a nice supplemental income in college by making signs for the university’s food-service department. As a project director at a small educational publishing company, I often hired myself as a freelancer to create graphics and props for books and filmstrips. The library side of the project felt familiar as well; I’d spent much time in libraries (and had briefly dated a librarian), so I had a pretty good sense of what the handbook needed to cover.

But if so many of the techniques for hand-crafting library displays are timeless, why does the book feel — in the wise words of that Amazon reviewer — “too old to be useful”?

Part of it, I suppose, is how the nature of a public library has changed in 30 years. The handbook dates from a time when people still went to libraries to acquire printed books, which they found by thumbing through individually typed cards in the card catalog. They’d read newspaper articles on microfilm or microfiche, and magazine articles in actual issues of the magazines themselves, using hardbound indexes such as H.W. Wilson’s Readers’ Guide to find the topics they were looking for. In such a physical and tactile environment, posters and displays made out of cardboard, paint, glitter, and yarn didn’t feel out of place.

The nature of librarianship seems to have changed as well. The profession has become more specialized and technical — many library schools have rebranded themselves as schools of “information science” — to the point where creating hand-crafted displays would not meld easily with the responsibilities of the 21st-century librarian.

Mostly, though, children’s upbringing has changed. I’d guess that — like me — most people who grew up in the ’50s or ’60s had some experience making things out of paper, paint, and glue (not to mention pasta, popsicle sticks, and pipe cleaners). It was a common pastime at summer camps, at scout meetings, and in school art classes. Later, these materials remained familiar to us as adults, and we were able to make use of them when the occasion arose. Today’s young adults grew up in a largely digital environment, where the chief purpose of hands is to push a mouse and type on a keyboard.

Interestingly, in response to the increasing digitization of childhood, some elementary schools have begun to offer “maker spaces,” where students can use physical materials to create artistic or practical objects. Perhaps in the future, the Library Displays Handbook will be seen not as obsolete, but as ahead of its time.

Read Me 3 comments

Boom!

Colorful chemicals in a lab, with one of the beakers emitting green smoke

When I was a precocious little preschooler, adults always used to ask me what I wanted to be when I grew up. At first, I would say the usual things: “a doctor” or “a fireman” or “the president.” At some point, however — much to my father’s delight — my standard answer became “a scientist!”

I’d never actually met a scientist, but I knew what they did from watching TV. Scientists spent the day in a laboratory, surrounded by oddly shaped glassware containing various liquids. From among these liquids, they would choose two or more to mix together. Sometimes the mixing required an elaborate patchwork of tubes, wires, and flames. More often, however, the scientist would simply pour the selected liquids into a test tube or beaker and stir them with a glass rod. And then — magic would happen! Something entirely new would be created, something the world had never seen before. I could imagine no more satisfying way to earn a living.

A few months after this idea took hold, I suddenly realized there was a problem with it. I went to my father and asked, “When a scientist mixes chemicals together, isn’t it dangerous? What happens if the stuff in the beaker explodes?”

He calmly assured me that there was little danger of an explosion. “The scientist already knows what the chemicals are,” he said. “He has a pretty good idea of what’s going to happen when he puts them together. So if there was a chance that a certain combination of chemicals might explode, the scientist would be very careful. He’d probably start out by mixing very small amounts, and he’d use special equipment to protect himself.”

My father meant this to be reassuring, but to me it was utterly deflating. As a scientist, I’d already know what the colored liquids are? I’d be able to predict what was going to happen when I mixed them? Then what’s the point of mixing them at all? Where’s the joy of discovery? Being a scientist suddenly lost all its appeal.

Interestingly, I have no memory of any career fantasies after that. As I grew up, I lacked any vision of what I wanted to be as an adult. This condition lasted all through college. As a graduating senior, I went to the Career Services office for help in figuring out what sort of job I should look for. I took the standard battery of aptitude, personality, and interest tests, with no clear conclusion or direction. The career counselor, defeated, finally said to me, “Have you considered seeing a psychotherapist?”

Amazingly, I’ve made it to retirement without ever having had a real career. I always had a knack for assessing whatever skills I had and then finding a way to get someone to pay me to use them. I treated any employment I had as an opportunity to learn new skills, and then used those skills as a step toward doing something else. Over the course of my adult life, I’ve been hired to work as a writer, editor, producer, actor, animator, designer, composer, web developer, photo retoucher, and community college professor. I had no formal training in any of those things, but somehow I managed never to starve. Looking back on it, though, my life much more resembles my father’s version of a scientist than that of my childhood imagination. I always carefully assessed what seemed possible, what the likely outcome would be of trying this or that, and how to protect myself if anything bad happened. The people who follow a conventional career path are the ones I find amazing. When someone says, “I want to become an X,” and then invest years and money into learning how to be an X, and then they come out at the end and they’re an X, I wonder how that was possible. How did they reach such certainty about what they really wanted to do? How did they know that they really had the capacity to be good at it? How did they know that their investment was going to pay off financially? In other words, how could they have embarked on that path without knowing how it was going to turn out? For me, that seems like the equivalent of mixing chemicals together and seeing what happens. I have nothing but respect for the people who do it.

Read Me 1 comment