Collected Miscellany

The Friday Review, an institution around here for weeks now, takes a different turn this time. Yes, a few titles will be mentioned in the last paragraph, so if you’re in a hurry, skip the middle parts. James Marcus wrote an article in last Sunday’s WaPO about the unplanned release of Amazon’s anonymous reviewers. They named names; it turns out that quite a few authors were reviewing their own work. He didn’t say whether the reviews were all positive; some were dragooned loved ones, and you could imagine the tension at the breakfast table if a significant other had written a snarky brutally honest review. Buck up. Harriet still loves you.

The new trend in reviewing is blurbing. Blurbs are fun and easy to create. Take a word like incandescent, add an exclamation point. Incandescent! Try adding an adverb. Really Incandescent! Keep practicing. If nothing else General Electric might sign you up as a copywriter.

It appears that the blogosphere is the last great hope for writers. Book jackets now feature lists of authors and their blurbs without revealing the minutest detail about the subject. Is it a mystery, a romance, a biography? If you’re in a book store try orienting yourself to the section of the store you find yourself in. Look for a sign…Protozoan Wellness or something. Match the book in your hand with the overhead sign. If you’re doing this in a mall, watch out for Mall Security. They have pepper spray.

Oprah cast a long shadow over the Book Kingdom this week. As reported by MJ Rose, many living authors want her to turn away from the dead ones and revive her bookclub. No more Jon Franzen incidents. Rumor is Oprah will start her own imprint. It’s not clear if she’ll move to Los Angeles. She may already live there. LA is being prepped for an infusion of culture and the timing couldn’t be better. Bud Parr is doing a great job covering classical material; Oprah, leave it to Bud.

I’m reading Wesley Stace’s Misfortune. Joshilyn Jackson’s gods in Alabama is in the TBR pile. One book I found enjoyable was Biz Stone’s Who Let the Blogs Out. It was released last November by St. Martins. The book’s a very readable brief history of how blogging got started, plus some technical pointers for beginners.

Finally, on a personal note, I’ve entered the Nevermore contest. As ably reported by Sarah, the folks at Partners N Crime bookstore in Manhattan are having the annual Better Dead than Read event featuring terrible opening paragraphs in Hardboiled, Cozy, and Historical categories. I don’t know if there’s a prize. I don’t know if it’s such a good idea to enter this contest, let alone win, but Sarah has the link if you’re game.

For your entertainment this morning, I present a column by Jonah Goldberg that combines the Meditations by Marcus Aurelius, Hannibal Lecter (from Silence of the Lambs), and the Cookie Monster: C is for political correctness, and that’s silly. Here is the relevant snippet:

Lecter: “First principles, Clarice. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing, ask: What is it in itself? What is its nature? What does he do, this creature you seek?

Starling: He entertains children . . .

Lecter: “No! That is incidental. What is the first and principal thing he does? What need does he serve by entertaining children?

Starling: Social acceptance? Personal frustration?

Lecter: No: He craves. That’s his nature. And what does he crave? Make an effort to answer.

Starling: Food?

Lecter: No! He is not a “food monster!” He is a cookie monster!

But not according to the well-meaning social engineers of PBS. After three decades, they’ve announced he’s not a Cookie Monster at all. In the interests of teaching kids not to be gluttons, CTW has transformed Cookie Monster into just another monster who happens to like cookies. His trademark song, “C is for Cookie” has been changed to “A Cookie Is a Sometimes Food.” And this is a complete and total reversal of Cookie Monster’s ontology, his telos, his raison d’etre, his essential Cookie-Monster-ness.
[emphasis mine – ed.]

Classic Goldberg.

Nathalie of GalleyCat asks about the number of readers of “serious fiction” given by the Center for Book Culture. “Fans of serious — i.e., challenging-fiction . . . include no more than 35,000 people nationwide, and they’re concentrated largely around universities.”

“Is this true?” she asks, “or is it the result of an overly strict definition of ‘serious’?” I have to ask the same thing; but if it’s true, I suggest that the Center itself reflects the reason.

Continue reading →

Our Napoleon in Rags by Kirby Gann is an ambitious novel. It attempts to capture the anger, frustration, and despondency of those trapped in lower middle class urban life and yet at the same time describe the community and friendships they have built. The work seeks to get at these larger social issues through its character’s lives. Our Napoleon in Rags is a dark tale about the search for meaning in modern life. While it doesn’t always live up to its promise, it is an interesting exploration of character and setting.

The setting is an urban neighborhood called Old Towne; part of the city of Montreux. Reflecting the reality of many cities, Old Towne was once an upscale part of a thriving downtown but time has not been kind. Despite efforts to revitalize it, this part of the city has become a “broken-streetlight district” where “dark house-stoops offer no welcome.”

Continue reading →

Yesterday’s post by Phil Wade inspired me to reveal my thoughts about The Village Voice article while balancing Jessa Crispin’s parasite remark against the value of the Lit-Blog Co-op’s ambition to shine some light on literary fiction. Asking me about this, which no one has, is a bit like asking the busboy how the state dinner was, did the ambassador enjoy himself, are we at war with former friends?
I don’t know. After the dishwasher broke we had to wash the dishes by hand. Suds all over the kitchen floor.

The ancient Greeks defined parasites as people who invited themselves to dinner. Eating at someone else’s table. The Romans had a similar idea, although in their society freeloaders were expected to be entertaining. Go ahead and eat but tell us some emperor jokes.
After a series of one liners about Caligula said guest was on the circuit.

Whose table are lit bloggers eating at? Could be the NYT with a brownie for dessert. The Voice has had a number of articles about blogging, turning for guidance to the same source so many other newspapers have, Jessa Crispin. Perhaps like the oracle at Delft her comments are confounding by design, intended to stir debate. The Guardian, long bemused by the blogosphere, chose her as their favorite literary blogger, thus creating celebrity which in modern journalism is always confused with authority.

Meanwhile we await the first nominee selected by the Lit-blog co-op, the ostensible subject of the article. Parasites such as myself are looking forward to May 15 when the announcement is made. I’ve made no plans for that day, hoping, of course, to feed my face and maybe swipe Mark Sarvas‘ Caesar Salad if no one is looking.

Joy Press reports on litblogs and the Litblog Co-op in the Village Voice. She quotes Mark Sarvas saying he hopes the Litblog Co-op will rival print media with its considered attention to little known literary works.

In a post on subject, the Co-op says it is “not a marketing tool or ploy. It’s an attempt to widen the conversation about serious fiction that has inevitable marketing ramifications.” And Contributor Sarah Weinman writes, “The aim of highlighting worthwhile books that might fly under the radar is something I’ve long been committed to on my own blog.”

Press also quotes Jessa Crispin of Bookslut, saying litblogs are parasites on mainstream media outlets: “They aren’t generally about content—they just link to it. So if something is dominating the print book reviews, that’s what the blogs have to work with.”

Press continues (either on her own or paraphrasing Crispin):

This creates the danger of a catch-22 scenario: Newspapers attribute decreasing book sections to shrinking ad sales. And if publishers begin to funnel more of their marketing budget toward the Internet, print media coverage could decline further, leaving the bloggers with even fewer book reviews to comment on.

If the reviews are not printed in newspapers, they will be printed, aired and blogged elsewhere. I don’t think declining newspaper coverage is a big problem, though it may be a small one. Collected Miscellany is fairly immune to it. Kevin and David’s reviews are good enough, no, better than some print reviews and could be news on their own. Other bloggers should link to them for content. I may be wounded a little though by less newspaper coverage since I don’t have original thoughts.

I am the dew which spins the light for a glimmering moment before I vanish.

Press concludes her article with a quote which says bloggers, to be read, should be little snarks with quirky tastes. What do you think about that? Are the harshly opinionated blogs the ones you prefer? For that matter, what is your favorite blog, the one which would disappoint you most if it shut down? What would you miss about it? I’ll think this over and answer in the comments later.