Azevedo Update

Kerry Jones has reported here that Zoo Press sent the following email to its contestants:

Unfortunately, the entry fees for the relatively few number of submissions we received went toward promoting the prizes;(specifically we received approximately 350 submissions for two prizes totaling less than $10,000, which we put into a full page ad in the Atlantic Monthly and two other smaller email campaigns, to our financial loss).

He also notes that Zoo Press did not place a full-page ad, but took out a digest-size ad in the September 2003 issue. (Question: Even accounting for hosting, email is relatively free, no?)

Azevedo has yet to return any of my calls. I will try and confirm the nature of the Atlantic ad in the next few days.

[UPDATE: I’ve heard back from the Atlantic. As reported here by Kerry Jones, the half-page ad rate is $5,390. The Atlantic has confirmed with me that they did run a half-page ad (not the full-page one implied by Azevedo) in September 2003. However, quite understandably, they cannot divulge details about what Zoo Press paid and what the terms of the contract were. So whether Zoo Press negotiated the price or not remains a mystery. Azevedo does not return my calls. As always, the forum here is open for us to hear his side. But he would seem to prefer silence.]

More Random Picks

Mason and Dixon by Thomas Pynchon: “And should I get in past your Blade for a few playful nips, and manage to, well, break the old Skin, — why, then you should soon have caught the same, eh?”

The End of the Road by John Barth: “So when I’d a real maniac on I nursed it like a baby, and boils plague the man who spoiled it!”

All the King’s Men by Robert Penn Warren: “The old man was on the front steps now.”

About a Boy by Nick Hornby: “He never managed to strike up much of a rapport with Maisy, Angie’s mysteriously sombre five-year-old, who seemed to regard him as frivolous to the core.”

Allan Quatermain by Rider Haggard: “Poor fellow, he had died of fever when on his return journey, and within a day’s march of Mombasa.”

I, the Jury by Mickey Spillane: “The case was turned over to them.”

Conjure Wife by Fritz Leiber: “And the mirror-decorations on my hats and bags and dresses — you’ve guessed it, they’re Tibetan magic to reflect away misfortune.”

You Are Not a Stranger Here by Adam Haslett: “I leave the note folded by his side.”

The Tenants by Bernard Malamud: “Back in his study, he wrote hurriedly, as though he had heard the end of the world falling in the pit of time and hoped to get his last word written before then.”

Familiar Studies by Robert Louis Stevenson: “If I am vile, is it not your system that has made me so?”

A Primate’s Memoir by Robert Sapolsky: “It was during my first season in the troop that time no longer stood still for Solomon, that the inevitable shadow of mortality finally took form as Uriah.”

[Apologies to the ladies.]

The Confusion — DOA

Neal Stephenson can’t even win over the Scots: “The author biography says that having discovered his ‘pretty humour for the writing of Romances… he took up the Pen and hath not since laid it down’. To which one can only add: Please do. ” Ouch. (via the Saloon)

Paul Di Filippo also remains unconvinced: “But if we wanted this kind of pure historical romance, we’d be reading Patrick O’Brian. Where are the observations and insights that relate all this ocean of storytelling to our current era? Lost in a welter of (mostly) entertaining Pirates of the Caribbean material. A single sentence from Enoch Root that parodies Clarke’s Law—’Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a yo-yo’—is hardly enough to carry the day.”

I Heart Liz Penn

The dear Ms. Penn replies to a spammer: “How dare you, Mr. Pussy? (I take the liberty of addressing you as ‘Mr.’ since the default sex of the human being is apparently male, an assumption your colleagues have made freely as they express their ongoing concern for my need for penile enhancement.) How dare you pollute my beautiful pristine comment boxes, waiting in all innocence to be filled with thoughtful comments from readers throughout New Zealand, with your onslaught of meaningless filth? (I generally shy away from such ideologically loaded dichotomies as ‘purity’ and ‘filth,’ but as Groucho Marx said, in your case I’ll make an exception.) Your 82 comments are so many exhalations from the foulest depths of hell, and I deplore them, and you, with all my being.”

On Protests

She couldn’t be more than four. She had bouncy black braids and lithe limbs, and her hand was clutching a red Virgin Megastore bag. The bag contained CDs, all packed taut, forming a modular brick.

When the police motorcycles roared down Market Street, the little girl’s ears pricked up. When the protestors followed the cops, a few stray “pigs” loosened into the angry din, her tiny brown eyes widened. She began jumping up and down as they came, stirred by the excitement. No war! Get out! When do we want it? Now! Her limbs flailed. And that’s when the girl’s bag bashed against my thigh. A day later, there’s still a purplish welt that stings.

The girl’s mother hadn’t noticed. She watched the parade from the sidewalk, mesmerized, smoking a cigarette under a MUNI bus shelter.

mob1a.jpgThe girl herself didn’t see that she had hit me with her bag. The protest’s hypnotic power inured her from awareness. And it’s doubtful that she had an idea about the politics or what this was all about. She ran down the street. I wondered whether mom was setting herself up for a milk carton nightmare. When the girl returned to the bus shelter, I moved on.

I had come downtown to run errands. I hadn’t known there’d be a protest. There are protests in San Francisco every other week now, it seems. Par for the course. But none of them have done a damn thing. The protesters did shut down the City on March 20, 2003. Windows were bashed. Drivers were heckled. A thousand or so were arrested. And the whole contretemps cast a gloomy fog over antiwar momentum, which had started off with peaceful gatherings that involved students and families.

The protests continue. But there are still troops in Iraq. There is still questionable accountability in Washington. There are still privacy-invasive initiatives legislated on Capitol Hill. The protests, it seems, have done little good.

It’s not because the protesters are without common sense. During that March evening, as police congregated en masse around the Civic Center, I followed and photographed a splinter group that was wandering around SOMA. The spontaneous leaders of this group, to their immense credit, made efforts to calm people down, getting them to focus. They encouraged the protesters to promote awareness, rather than busting shit up. But when you have a few bad apples acting of their accord, terrible things happen.

mob2.jpg

I took this picture near the end of that night. The man cowering behind his crutches was homeless. He was asked by the group to join them in their impromptu walk. He declined. And because he declined, the young man in the green jersey, high on mob mentality, kicked him in the gut repeatedly. He stopped just before the homeless man clutched his threadbare blanket and curled his gaunt frame into a protective fetal position.

This incident horrified me. As I look at that photo, I still hear the man’s painful squeals and the sudden silence that followed. I was so stunned that I don’t even remember taking the picture. It set me off politics and protests almost completely.

* * *

Protests aren’t without benefit. But it could be argued that they have lost their purpose. Where previous generations sat down at lunch counters or used public gatherings to stir up revolution in India or end the war in Vietnam, the current set is only too happy to organize without thought. Testosterone and impulse has replaced education or even a basic grasp of social know-how. The young cull their arguments from Michael Moore’s latest book, but maintain facile opinions and Manichean conceptions of existence. Their actions, much like their thoughts, are ill-formed. Little heed is paid to finding out where the opposition stands, or what motivates their thinking. It has become a tableau of metaphors and lunatic analogies, rather than facts and cause. The status quo is demonized in the same way the Russians were demonized during the Cold War. Republicans are evil brutes. Bush is Hitler. And if you don’t understand, dammit, you’re a goddam sellout.

* * *

“What does your play have to do with the current situation?” she said.

I told her it was a business satire. It was farcical with slapstick and bad puns. But ultimately, it was about human behavior.

“Oh,” she said with a contemptuous huff. And she turned away. She was the one to ask the question, but to her mind, it was apolitical. Whatever floats your boat.

* * *

There is a man in front of City Hall right now on a hunger strike. Are the protesters aware of him? Could any of them make that kind of sacrifice?

* * *

I walked against the syncopated beat. Deliberately. It wasn’t because I was inconvenienced or that I didn’t, in part, share the protesters’ politics. But I was bothered by the crude logic. An undergrad agitator handed me a flyer, trying to convince me that I was responsible for Iraq because I paid my taxes. I responded to this young ruffian by asking him what then I should do.

“Don’t pay your taxes,” he said.

“Well then I’ll go to jail. And what’s the point of that? There are enough taxpayers in this country to keep the Department of Defense running well to the end of the century.”

“Fuck you. You just don’t get it.”

Not long ago, a LaRouche supporter told me that I needed a blow job when I disregarded his mad vitriol.

There was once a time when I participated in rallies. The Contract with America. The various Gulf Wars. In 2000, I had even canvassed for Nader. But I began to recognize cliches. There’d always be militant Wobblies. There’d always be people who couldn’t find the Persian Gulf on a map. Apparently, it was impossible to adopt a neutral stance on Israel. You were either for Palestine or against us. Likewise, with this kid, you were either for not paying your taxes or against us.

In all of these gatherings, I found myself drifting away from the throng and listening to regular people who watched the proceedings, all wondering what the fuss was about. It never occurred for any of these militant-minded folks to do this. And when they did, it involved talk and bluster, the same unilateralism they decried.

Little wonder that current political protest is so disregarded.

Weirdass Cinema Review #1

Behind Locked Doors (1948): I’m almost certain that Sam Fuller found some inspiration in this movie for his masterpiece, Shock Corridor. Behind Locked Doors doesn’t offer Fuller’s cultural scope, but it is a strangely entertaining B-movie, with typical yet solid noirish cinematography by Guy Roe. Richard Carlson’s a private eye hired by a San Francisco journalist (Lucille Bremer, who retired from acting shortly after making this movie) to hole up in a sanitarium, pretending he’s insane, so that he can determine if a crooked judge is hiding out there. He’s given the DSM manual, flips through it, and points to “manic depressive” because he “kind of likes it.” The book is thicker than almost anything published by the Library of America, but it’s something of a relief to know that finding insanity credentials is this easy.

In the sanitarium, Carlson befriends an employee with the unlikely name of Hopps (played by the uber-thin Ralf Harolde), who appears here as the Confidant with the Golden Heart. It’s clear early on that Hopps will find his redemption for being such a nice guy. That’s the way these B movies work.

tor1.jpgBut the true genius (or, in this case, mad serendipity) of this movie is Tor Johnson. Johnson, perhaps best known to cinephiles as a kitschy behemoth frequently employed by Ed Wood, somehow stumbled upon the role of his career. In this film, he’s a boxer locked in a private ward. The minute that someone starts hitting the bars of his cell with an ingot, Johnson stirs to life, tearing his chair into pieces and punching at invisible opponents, somehow identifying the sound as a bell. Never mind that bell in a boxing match only rings when a round has concluded. He’s referred to only as “the Champ.”

The reasons for Johnson’s madness are never explained. And I would contend that this is a good thing. Johnson has little in the way of range and this lack of detail provides an unexpected enigma. He’s a big guy capable of picking up people and tossing them over stairwells. An easy enough task for a cinematic brute. But Johnson has a methodical, soporific way of stumbling across the screen that I’ve always enjoyed. It more than makes up for his lack of thespic abilities, limited to raised eyebrows and a face crunched up in unconvincing community theatre horror.

Hopefully, it’s clear enough from my description that the plot is utterly ridiculous. But the film is a brief 62 minutes. Director Oscar Boetticher keeps things moving along at a brisk pace. The dialogue is hard-boiled. This movie has enough courage to bring a hurried austerity to lines like “It’s almost six and I have a dinner date.” Alas, such courage results in unexpected camp.

But if you’re drunk or you have a short attention span, Behind Locked Doors is that questionable morsel illustrating that even a heavy-handed fruitcake can come across as unexpectedly beatific.

Andrew Franklin Is My New Hero

Publisher’s News UK: “[Profile Books Publisher Andrew] Franklin made the point almost as an aside at last month’s SYP meeting. ‘I think it’s despicable to try and pay anybody less than the minimum wage,’ Franklin told PN later. ‘Salaries at the top of publishing are not too bad now, and, when people are paying themselves more than £100,000 a year, it’s awful that they would try to pay people less than £150 a week.’ He also attacked the system’s effect on publishing recruitment, saying, ‘it’s like the debate about tuition fees: it creates a barrier to entry, and people whose parents can’t afford to support them can’t go into publishing. That’s why you have so many people in publishing with names like Rowena and Belinda.’ Profile never pays less than the minimum wage.”

Rest assured, I’ll be buying some Profile titles as soon as possible. (via Publisher’s Lunch)

Sentences That Sum Up Dale Peck

Rake has tried to summarize Dale Peck’s assault on Sven Birkets. But it may be easier by simply singling out sentences:

“Here’s criticism’s trade secret: you can find meaning in anything if you look hard enough.” Meaning you couldn’t find anything constructive to say at all? I guess that’s when you break out the Sontag.

“I sure do laugh a lot” I never knew, Dale.

“Ladies and gentlemen, meet Sven Birkerts.” The ego has landed.

“Indulge me for a moment:” I never thought I’d see dialogue from a James Bond villain appear in a critical essay.

“We must linger a moment longer on the subject of ironies and disappointments . . .” Why linger when you can just segue?

“called by what I think is his middle name” You’re kidding, right? You’re going to hold Sven accountable for his name?

“No, Birkerts’ only subject here is himself, the inevitable progression from frog-killing child to book-killing critic.” Is this a meta confessional or a critical piece?

“Birkerts, in other words, isn’t re-viewing his life in My Sky Blue Trades, he’s reviewing it in much the same way he reviews fiction, telling his readers what they can learn from the text of his life.” And what’s wrong with that? It worked for Henry Miller, Nicholson Baker, too many others to list.

“Let me state the obvious and get it out of the way: Sven Birkerts really loves books. To move beyond that, Birkerts doesn’t love individual books so much as he loves the edifice of literature and his own conception of himself as a small but integral part of that edifice—the keyhole, say, maybe even the doorknob.” If loving books and trying to find a place within them is a sin, then nearly every writer is guilty.

“For example, Birkerts dismissed William Gaddis and Don DeLillo as part of the postmodern plague that had ‘infected’ all the arts in his 1986 essay ‘An Open Invitation to Extraterrestrials,’ but had completely reversed his position by the time of his 1998 review of Underworld.” This may be news to you, Dale, but people change.

“He can take the tiniest premise and stretch it out like a child smearing that last teaspoon of peanut butter over a piece of bread, unaware it’s spread so thin that it no longer has any taste.” That’s rich coming from a man who writes 5,000 word hit pieces.

“about as interesting to watch as a game of Pong” When you can’t cite specific examples, resort to batty metaphors.

“But Birkerts wants to do more than merely bring books to readers. He wants to tell readers how they should be reading them. He doesn’t want to represent the canon, he wants to explain it.” This is a bad thing? And how can we judge Birkets’ overall failure at explanations from a single paragraph?

“in horseshoes, a ringer is worth three points…” I didn’t realize Peck got out of the house.

“It is a large oeuvre. Six books, hundreds of essays. The temptation is to refute each one individually, but to engage with the arguments is, at the end of the day, to give them more credence than they deserve.” In other words, Peck’s approaching his maximum word count. So legitimately addressing the arguments is out of the question.

” I’ve been looking for a contemporary critic’s work to discuss for some time.” So there was a pretext here.

Mars Responds

Last month, I wrote a letter to the Mars company. Mars, apparently a division of MasterfoodsUSA, a conglomerate operating out of Hackettstown, New Jersey, had aired a commercial in which they digitally inserted various M&Ms into a scene from The Wizard of Oz. Dagmar Welling, Consumer Affairs Specialist, had this to say by mail:

Dear Mr. Champion:

Thank you for contacting us with your views regarding our television commercial. Specifically your reaction to the M&M’s® Brand Color Quest commercial “Wizard of Oz”. [sic]

We never intended to disappoint or offend anyone. But, as with anything we see, hear or read, reactions sometimes vary based upon individual preferences and interpretations.

We value the comments from our consumers and always refer them to our advertising associates for their review.

Sincerely,

Dagmar Welling

Consumer Affairs Specialist

On immediate glance, this is standard boiler plate. Dagmar no doubt answers several of these letters each day. So we can forgive him for not enclosing the period within “Wizard of Oz” or for typing an additional space between “preferences” and “and.”

The language here deserves speculation. What is a consumer affairs specialist? Since Dagmar’s job duty is to correspond with consumers, why isn’t Dagmar a consumer specialist? Why haven’t they given poor Dagmar a more compelling job title? It would seem that the inconsiderate nature of MasterfoodsUSA extends beyond the company’s inability to add a space between “foods” and “USA.”

But more importantly, why is my letter being gauged in terms of reaction? I took great pains to delineate how deeply ingrained The Wizard of Oz is into my cultural consciousness and general well-being. And yet Dagmar, whom I will now refer to as Mr. Welling just because I can, views this as an “individual preference” and an “interpretation.” I am a problem (i.e., “individual”), because in the corporate world, I don’t quite fit into the hard “consumer” definition. There is the further implication that my concerns are childish with the comparison between the M&M’s commercial and “anything we see, hear or read,” as if one is supposed to look the other way while works of art are butchered to sell products.

Furthermore, Mr. Welling cannot simply refer to the commercial as a commercial. It is a “M&M’s® Brand Color Quest commercial.” (Note the registered trademark.) And this “Brand Color Quest commercial” actually has a title that has been shamefully appropriated from the source.

If MasterfoodsUSA never intended to disappoint or offend, why then do they respond without respect for the film or my opinion? Why take the trouble to write such a letter? If Mr. Welling had simply said to me, “Hey, Ed. You may have had a point. In the future, we’re going to encourage the Madison Avenue wizards to use their creative noggins rather than pilfering from film classics,” or, more realistically, if they had even deigned to apologize, I would have possibly reconsidered my boycott. But the fact is that my opinion doesn’t matter to MasterfoodsUSA or to the overworked Dagmar.

Dagmar may be a consumer affairs specialist, but he sure as hell doesn’t understand how to appeal to cranks

Interactive Technology

A number of sexy people tried to telephone me tonight. Their voices careened into daring Kappa curves, crossing into other dimensions. When I heard their susurrations, I thought at first that I was somehow drunk and calling a 1-900 number and paying for someone to purr. But no — these were real people with real salutations. They wanted to say hi.

There were problems — the foremost of them being dead batteries. Yes, it was possible to live in the 21st century with two phones that sputtered out dying calls and responses. Both at the same time. It was a bit like the hot dog and bun contretemps, where both supplies extinguished simultaneously. Or one was useless without the other because the hot dogs were gone and there were still a few buns left. Technology allowed these buns to flourish, but no one had done the basic math.

Because of this basic design fallacy, which spread into every known R&D conduit and the accompanying documentation, you could believe late in the week that the phones would somehow last forever. Fly off into the night! Be cordless and free! You don’t need wires or plugs or cables that curl around your legs and strap you into a spaghetti nightmare. Be liberated!

But no one had thought to program these stunning tools with accountability.

The modern age was supposed to empower us. In fact, I have some hazy memory of a Duracell commercial promising sizable staying power — more stamina than a virgin ready to burst on prom night. But it was all a grand lie. And since the technology was so convenient, we bought in.

So to the fab folks who crooned, many thanks, delights, and my apologies. Some of us are ill-equipped. Or perhaps it’s a matter of demanding basic workarounds from our benefactors.

Book Babes Watch

The duo takes on Christian publishing — a veritable subject, though, in light of the various discussions on the Left Behind books and the upcoming Easter one, a slightly dated one. Unfortunately, the Book Babes come across as quite ignorant on the subject they’re writing about. Ellen declares that “The market for books with Christian themes has been a continuing motif in publishing for the past 10 years.” Well, that’s the understatement of the century. I could make a crack here about The Pilgrim’s Progress or the Gutenberg Bible, but instead I’ll just openly wonder about Ellen’s long-term memory. Has she not heard of Lloyd Douglas?

I also have grave doubts about The Da Vinci Code selling solely on its religious content (which Ellen herself even confesses). This was, after all, a book that Laura Bush deigned to read, published outside the Christian book industry. Likely, it was the dumbed down Umberto Eco style that captured reader interest. But did The Da Vinci Code generate the kind of born again fervor that The Passion did? Did pastors and preachers demand that their congregation buy and read The Da Vinci Code the same way that they played into Mel’s hands? Absolutely not. So why bother to include it? And beyond this, what do movies have to do with the “religious book market?”

Beyond this, there’s no mention of Jesus Christ Superstar or The Life of Brian or Nikos Kazantzakis’ The Last Temptation of Christ or Jim Crace’s Quarantine. And that deserves a Special Badge of Honor for Cultural Blindness alone. If Jesus is appearing everywhere in art, it might also be helpful to mention the more subversive examples.

Ellen comes across as equally obtuse: “The millennium, 9/11, and the war in Iraq have all fueled people’s interest in books about prophecy and the afterlife.” Hey, Ellen, have you been paying attention to the raving fundamentalism going down this year? The gay marriage debate and the partial birth abortion bans? The National Park Service thing? Wake up, sister! They may have a teensy bit to do with this as well. And what’s with the “divide between liberal Christians and conservative Christians” horseshit? Next time you’re in San Francisco, I’ll be happy to sing “Ebony and Ivory” with you at The Mint. Are you coming out as a Christian or something? If so, these personal revelations have nothing to do with the state of the religious book market.

But it’s Margo who offers sui generis in the reading miscomprehension department: “Often, people who are bothered with the idea of faith — like Christopher Hitchens, they think themselves too smart to be hooked on the opiate of the masses — are fascinated by its citified cousins, philosophy and ethics.” Perhaps because they’re trying to understand it? Even so, if the Hitchens reference is meant as a disapproving flourish towards his takedown of The Passion, then Margo has missed the point of Hitchens’ essay completely. Not once in his essay did Hitchens call religion the “opiate of the masses.” He was referring to the film’s anti-Semitism.

Having failed to establish The Da Vinci Code as a centerpiece in the publishing industry, Margo then returns to it, offering an oblique reference to it as a thematic token of our culture, without offering a single example for her argument.

So what we get, as usual, is false rhetoric, empty unfocused arguments, and an inability to tie the article into previous takes on the subject.

Poynter, why are you encouraging this tautological thinking? The Book Babes have to go.

New Yorker Fiction: An Explanation

Mr. Birnbaum has noted here and on his blog that, in the great New Yorker fiction debate, Jim Harrison’s “Father Daughter” has been overlooked. Now that I’ve finally read the story, with its existential themes and its subtle use of details and language, I’m inclined to agree.

Why was it forgotten? Well, speaking for myself, my stack of New Yorkers is half-read, with the articles perused in an very idiosynchratic manner. I read everything after the fiction section and the whole of Talk of the Town. And then, time permitting, I launch into all the articles or, alternately, the ones I have time to read. This system allows me to leaf through the offerings several times and gives me several opportunities to read it all. Plus, it’s a great way to cure a hangover.

But more often than not, I don’t give the New Yorker‘s fiction a chance, unless a “familiar author” has written a story or it’s a special fiction issue (in which case, I read everything). As previously noted, it has a lot to do with the New Yorker‘s emphasis on bourgeois concerns, utterly foreign or overly niggling problems to drive narrative, about as relevant to the average person’s life as Cheez Whiz is to the gouda connoisseur. In fact, it was something of a shock to read Jim Harrison’s story, with its scope extending across race, class and generation. Because that’s the kind of thing I’d expect somewhere else.

So, yes, I plead guilty. But, as I noted before, I rely on other magazines for my short fiction. Even though this is entirely unfair to Jim Harrison. But then it’s also possible to make a case for enthusiasm: What reader wouldn’t swoon at a new offering from Z.Z. Packer or T.C. Boyle?

I suspect that the real perpetrator here is the New Yorker itself. If the New Yorker were to offer two or three stories per issue (as they did back in the day), then the emphasis would be on fiction, as opposed to the singular literary superstar who, through talent, pluck and East Coast connections, managed to score a week under the eiderdown. When I look at the fiction section, I get the uncomfortable sense that peacocks somewhere are extending their feathers. To me, that’s not what fiction should be about, even though that’s the way the publishing industry works.

[NEWSFLASH: This just in. Jim Harrison has tragic results for bookish romantics.]

The Roundup

There’s some good stuff hitting the ‘sphere.

First off, Jimmy Beck takes down New Yorker fiction editor Deborah Treisman — specifically, over the insufferable Ann Beattie story now hitting mailboxes. Now the New Yorker still publishes good fiction (that last T.C. Boyle story comes immediately to mind), but if you need a hard dose of the Genuine Article, the latest Ploughshares (featuring a hearty offering of young writers handpicked by others) and a subscription to the always reliable ZYZZYVA or The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction might be a start. It would be foolish to declare that the New Yorker has jumped the shark. But I would love — just love — for the New Yorker to publish something gritty, something that would reduce us all to tears, if only to subvert the de rigueur digression of McSweeney’s and the overall obsession with upscale Caucasians living in upstate New York complaining about things that a few rounds of therapy couldn’t cure. Why not commission Edward Jones (now the proud winner of the Pulitzer) or Colson Whitehead or Dorothy Allison or someone like Kathy Acker or anyone, goddam anyone, to write about the seamy side of life? At the very least, it might leave a few Caucasians clutching their claret with greater alacrity. But then that’s what fiction is about, isn’t it? Leave in the umlauts for words like “reentry” and spell “role” in that funky way. That’s why we love the New Yorker. And besides, that isn’t the issue. Treisman needs to understand that it’s the 21st century.

Then there’s Laila looking into the Zoo Press deal. I’ve received no callbacks from Azevedo either. But I’ll keep trying. On the Atlantic front, I’ve been playing telephone tag with a very nice lady in the advertising department. Don’t know if I’ll get any answers, but I’ll keep you folks posted.

The illustrious Mark Sarvas remains in New York, but he has, to my considerable astonishment, checked in here when he should be doing other things. Do visit The Elegant Variation and keep Scott Handy some company. He’s doing a fine yeoman’s job at guest blogging this week.

Sam promises to offer a series this week devoted to narrative elements.

There are two big questions at About Last Night: (1) Who’s feeding Terry the Rockstars? and (2) Where the sam hill is OGIC?

And Dan Green (recent winner of the FOG Index contest) has been on a roll too. He takes on literary contest scams, reviewer biases and (bravely) James Wood.

And visit the good folks on the left while you’re at it.

All good stuff. Joe Bob says check it out.

Once Smitten, Twice Shy

Psychology Today has an interesting story up on the relationship between shyness and society:

In this cultural climate, we lose patience quickly because we’ve grown accustomed to things happening faster and faster. We lose tolerance for those who need time to warm up. Those who are not quick and intense get passed by. The shy are bellwethers of this change: They are the first to feel its effects. And so it’s not surprising that hyperculture is actually exacerbating shyness, in both incidence and degree.

(via Nathalie)

Judy Blume Film Headed for Trouble

From The New York Times:

“‘I said, Shut up!’ ” Ms. Glass recalled in an exclamatory cadence more familiar among adolescent girls than women in their 40’s like Ms. Glass. ” `You do not! Oh my God! Oh my God! Oh my God!’ So I went to Nina, my boss, and said, `Oh my God! Oh my God! Oh my God!'”

This might explain why Glass works at Disney.

So You Write a Bitchy Slate Column. Who Cares?

While newspapers and literary blogs got excited over the Pulitzers, primed to post and publish within minutes of the announcement, one grumpy Slate editor decided enough was enough. For Jack Shafer was a man who never smiled. He walked though the Slate offices with a hard gait and an even harder heart. No cookie or ice cream cone in his hand, no sir. Those trivialities were for the heaving pukes. He could find no joy in turning Times reporters into irregular verbs.

Because Shafer was dead serious. There were more pressing matters for his Press Box. He’ll rake you across the coals, amigo. Because that’s the kind of man he is. Tough as nails. No stone unturned. Where ordinary men would overlook Jayson Blair, Shafer’s a guy who will clarify his review. Because that’s what real men do. Real men sue for libel. That’s right. Get with the program or Shafer will pound your ass into an early grave. And that means you too, you pesky anonymice! If you can’t get inside the other guy’s head, you have no business being in journalism.

Jack Shafer means business. He’s an old hand from older times. Never mind when. The old days, he calls it. Back when reporters came to their desk with a pistol in one hand and a bottle of whiskey in the other. Where were the rewrite guys? Cowering behind their desks when Jack walked in, no doubt. But Jack was ready to bust chops with a single stare.

Washington Post, be a man! If you can’t fight dirty in the streets, you have no business being on the newsstands! Steal your moves from neocons if you have to, but if you can’t stand the heat, cry me a frickin’ river!

Jack Shafer. Fierce and friendless. But in the end, Jack’s a legend in his own mind.

Tell A Half-Truth Long Enough and People Will Call You On It

As previously reported, Lauren Slater is in hot water over unsubstantiated allegations in her book, Opening Skinner’s Box. Ms. Slater states that Deborah Skinner spent the first 2 1/2 years of her life locked in a box. But as reported by Alex Beam, Ms. Slater’s sources were shaky. Ron has also been on the case. After Ron pointed out the dubious nature of additional sources, Ms. Slater herself responded. The results stand alone.

Canadian Bacon

Amy punctures some holes in the Alanis free expression debate — particularly, as related to journalism. In Canada, judges are in the position of preventing verifiable information, to the point where citizens were flocking to American papers to unravel the facts about a rape and murder case. Amy’s done a marvelous job of summarizing the expressive benefits in America, which is why it’s very important to pay attention to those who might do away with these liberties.

Writing Contest in Omaha — Scam?

Laila reports that the Zoo Prize Short Fiction contest has been canceled. But here’s the rub: all the writers who submitted their work (some 350) won’t get their $25 entry fees refunded. Even with Michael Curtis’s involvement, this strikes me as a potential scam, particularly since the money ended up going towards a full-page ad in the Atlantic Monthly — hardly the literary celebration that the writers expected. To cover its ass, the Zoo Press page reports that “Zoo Press reserves the right to withhold the Award in any given year.”

But if we do the math, 350 X $25 = $8,750. It’s too late in my time zone to call the Atlantic’s advertising department to try and confirm placement of the ad. But I will call them tomorrow morning. A full-page ad, according to this resource, costs $40,480.

The man behind this operation is Neil Azevedo. Some casual Googling reveals that Mr. Azevedo has been published in The Paris Review and The New Criterion. However, it may be worthwhile for the 350 writers to make their presence known to these and other publications. If Mr. Azevedo has a history of taking the money of writers and using it to promote (or in this case, partially subsidize) his own interests, then he needs to be called on it.

The Ghost of Novelists Past

The cover painting for William Boyd’s Any Human Heart is based in part on a 1927 photo of Anthony Powell. Powell, whose A Dance to the Music of Time series, chronicled characters over several generations is one of the best known post-Proustian novelists — right there with Jules Romain and (on my list, anyway) Eric Kraft.

Alas — it’s not a vanity painting. Painter Duncan Hannah’s simply an Anglophile.

Beware of Alcopops

One more reason to avoid Smirnoff Ice (besides, of course, its faux alcoholic stature and similarities to Zima): one bottle has more calories than a Krispy Kreme donut. Not only are you better off drinking a 12 oz. can of regular beer, but you’re better off eating a Twinkie. By contrast, 1 jigger of vodka is 94 calories, 1 jigger of 86 proof whiskey is 105 calories, and 1 jigger of 90 proof gin is 110 calories.

(And if we do the math for those who can’t slam vodka straight, a screwdriver ends up having the same count as a beer. 75 calories in OJ plus 94 calories of a jigger. Plus, a greater likelihood of getting buzzed.)

I was at a social gathering a few months ago. An athletic thirtysomething lady insisted upon drinking nothing but Smirnoff Ice, but wouldn’t touch beer. I figured there wasn’t all that much of a difference. Turns out that my suspicions were correct.

Of course, true calorie counters will probably be better off drinking something like no-calorie water. But then who orders H20 from a bar other than the destitute and the suffering?

(One suspects that the thin Englishman opts for hard liquor and water to maintain his wiry physique, along with the afternoon tea. Not that I’m wallowing in stereotypes or anything.)