NL: Can you share a bio with us?
MT: Hi! My name is Mady. I serve as the Operations Assistant and work with the Programs Department at Nyack Library. Before starting here in 2022, I was a teacher and early childhood education specialist. I grew up in Nyack and now get to live here with my fiance, who is a writer. In my spare time I love playing folk music, crafting, and visiting used book stores.

NL: What are you currently reading? Do you like it?
MT: I’m flip-flopping between The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky and Even Cowgirls Get the Blues by Tom Robbins. I love them both!

NL: If you could have any author speak at Nyack Library, who would it be and why?
MT: Nicholson Baker. He’s such a tender, funny, weird writer, but I think it would be very cool to have him speak about his take on libraries and their responsibility to preserve physical media (in fact he wrote a whole book about it: Double Fold: Libraries and the Assault on Paper).

NL: Which character in a book do you most identify with?
MT: Chance from Being There by Jerzy Kosinski.

NL: What books are on your night stand?
MT: Man and His Symbols by Carl Jung, In the Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco, Finnegans Wake by Joyce, and a book of poems called Magdalene by Marie Howe.

NL: Are there any books that you feel are overrated?
MT: Tender is the Night by F. Scott Fitzgerald. I think all the potential was there, but it wasn’t successfully executed (I’ll be sure to let him know if I see him around).

NL: Do you have a literary “guilty pleasure”?
MT: No guilt! To be cringe is to be free!

NL: Would you ever organize your books by color? Yea or Nay?
MT: Never.

NL: What do you plan to read next?
MT: The Ghost Writer by Philip Roth.

NL: What’s the first book that you remember reading?
MT: The Market Lady and the Mango Tree by Mary and Pete Watson (I still want to eat one of those mangoes).

NL: What’s your least favorite book?
​​MT: Hopefully I don’t end up on a list somewhere, but Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard – it was required for a psych course when I was in college. It was basically used as an example of how to identify dishonest or faulty scientific methods. But I guess a positive would be….anyone really can be a writer?