- Ron Silliman takes on the metrosexual creature Jon Carroll for his dubious column on poetry.
- So if you like to see David Duchovny getting laid, Californication‘s your show, I suppose. Showtime: No Limits. Why don’t they just call the show Duchovny’s Dick and get it over with?
- Ruben Bolling envisions Cormac McCarthy’s Toy Story 3. (via Rarely Likable)
- I haven’t meticulously examined Adam Gopnik’s lengthy take on PKD yet, but when I do, I hope to offer a lengthy response. There are many things that need to be addressed here.
- Japan purchased 331% more books on phones in 2006. Do e-books have a new future?
- ” all, this book paints a punishingly bleak picture.” Leave it to Janet Maslin to demonstrate all the subtlety of a 16 ton weight’s impact upon a reader’s skull. Please, Maslin, go back to film reviewing. You were good at that.
- Murakami starts writing.
- Pollock doesn’t use pink.
- Levi Asher interviews Katharine Weber.
- Rick Kleffel talks with William Gibson. And here are some reactions to Spook Country. (via Locus)
- Tod Goldberg reads Harry Potter fan fiction.
- Josh Glenn tries to make sense of Hitch’s standards of juvenile literature.
- This year’s British Fantasy Award nominees have left the building.
- In this preposterous article, Arthur C. Brooks argues that adjusting our society for income disparity is unnecessary, because studies show that the level of happiness hasn’t changed since 1972. Obviously, Brooks is unaware that people often prevaricate when asked “How are you doing?” or “Are you happy?” The more interesting question is whether the General Social Survey accounted for this discrepancy. Are people more conformist in 2004 than they were in 1973? And, as such, are they more inclined to say that they are “very happy” when an auspicious surveyor presses them on the subject? Furthermore, by what stretch of the imagination is improving social and financial conditions for all a bad thing? Why does Brooks naively separate opportunity from income inequality? It’s not a matter of being envious, but of ensuring that more people have a chance to live legitimately happy lives. Moving cash around from the haves to the have nots so that more income can be redistributed for the benefit of a society is a start, seeing as how government is currently disinclined to do this.
- UK broadband customers are going to be paying the price for the popularity of online video. Will American providers attempt something similar?
- Why are we so obsessed with Jane Austen’s love life? (via Big Bad Book Blog)
- I’m with Scott. It seems patently absurd to invent bullshit genres around current events. This blog, incidentally, by way of operating presently in August 14, 2007, is a post-9/11, post-Katrina, post-Rove resignation blog. I will do my best to write with angst and importance, but I can’t promise anything.
- Jeff VanderMeer uncovers a few rare Choose Your Own Adventure covers.
- What will be the title of Indiana Jones IV? Why not Indiana Jones and the Threat of Geritol?
- Henry Kisor is pessimistic about the future of literature.
- Between this and the Hitchens review, I really want to know what fumes NYT staffers are inhaling at the new building. Seriously. (via The Gurgling Cod)
Month / August 2007
Late Afternoon Roundup
- If there’s an author named Kate, chances are that she’s been interviewed for The Bat Segundo Show in the past month. This week will see an onslaught of Kate-themed podcasts, carefully timed with this week’s Katharine Weber love at the LBC.
- The World Fantasy Awards nominations are now up. Regrettably, the greatly overrated Lisey’s Story has taken one of the Best Novel slots. But a certain Mr. Rowe made the list. And Jeffrey Ford has two nominations!
- Oh no, Maud, it’s The Book of Revelation hands down. And I can also make a strong case for The Insult. I’ll be sure to offer more vociferous words on the subject if you track me down in person this Friday at McNally Robinson, where the big Rupert T himself will be there.
- Jennifer Weiner, who I hope is okay, demonstrates the needless chicklit-like covers being applied to literary heavyweights.
- Here’s one longass Tony Wilson interview.
- Holy shit! There’s a new Old Curiosity Shop film adaptation. Who the fuck’s playing Quilp? And is it now okay to laugh when Little Nell dies? No heart of stone here, I assure you.
- The San Diego Union-Tribune‘s Jim Hopper gives Joe Haldeman some love.
- The Globe & Mail investigates David Markson.
- Is Jonathan Ames a pugilist or a novelist?
Karen Holt: Who Needs Journalistic Ethics at PW?
In a sleazy and remarkably embarrassing post, Publishers Weekly‘s Karen Holt reveals that she not only composes author profiles with preconceived boilerplate language, but that she has no problems with influence peddling:
There was the time at BEA when I wanted to ask Margaret Atwood a few questions so she took my arm and steered me toward some chairs in the corner (“Margaret Atwood is touching me!”). There was my trip to Maine last summer to interview Richard Ford when he and his wife put me up for the night in their guest cottage (“I’m staying in Richard Ford’s guest house!”). There was the night I capped off an interview with Gay Talese by joining him for dinner at Elaine’s (A double shot of literary New York icons). (Emphasis added.)
To respond to such a stunning statement without raising my blood pressure too much, let me consider Holt’s perspective first. I understand Holt’s need to gush. Enthusiasm is often a commodity among jaded hack journalists. There have been many times when I’ve interviewed an author and I’ve silently pinched myself in disbelief that I’m having a conversation with someone whose work I admire. And I’ve also become acquaintances and friends with a few of the authors I’ve talked with.
Nevertheless, when a journalist conducts an author interview or writes a profile, a journalist has the duty to maintain some sense of independent authority, which will permit her to ask hard-hitting, challenging and thought-provoking questions. One must ask questions that nobody else asks. One must practice journalism. One must not be afraid to ask contrarian questions. To cling to predictable, pre-packaged terms like “bard of the working class,” as Holt does, is not journalism. Such a practice is not altogether different from recycling items from the press release. A journalist must enter a situation without any sense that one has been purchased and report back what was uncovered during that experience. And that means having your outlet pay for your car rental and your motel room during an overnight visit (or doing this on your own dime, if necessary; it’s tax deductible).
Each journalist, of course, has a different form of practice. For example, I never conduct any author interviews at a publisher’s office. I feel that any journalist who does this is ethically suspect, because this involves some kind of quid pro quo that goes well beyond the reasonable request of a review copy. There is also the sense with this set-up that the ground is not third party enough for journalist or publisher alike. (And besides, who needs soulless conference rooms when you talk in New York’s many cafes, bars, and restaurants?)
But there is an ethical ceiling that all good journalists are aware of. And I think it goes without saying that staying at the guest cottage of your subject’s house is highly suspect and deeply unethical.
Karen Holt has, with one simple sentence, revealed that Publishers Weekly has little concern for journalistic ethics. Her stay at Ford’s home is not unlike some of the egregious influence peddling that studios use to buy the Hollywood Foreign Press Association’s votes for the Golden Globes. (In fact, the situation was so bad that the HFPA had to institute a tchotchke cap.)
This is certainly not something you’d do if you were expected to write an honest and ethically foolproof profile of your subject. Maybe it’s something you’d do if you wanted to write an uncritical puff piece describing Richard Russo’s jeans and warm smile. But it’s not something you do if you are a journalist.
Then again, consider Holt’s bio:
Karen Holt was a newspaper reporter for years before discovering the lunches were better in book publishing. In between lunches and cocktail parties, she works as a Deputy Editor for Publishers Weekly and Editorial Director of Publishersweekly.com
If Karen Holt is really more concerned with the “lunches and cocktail parties” function of her job, then perhaps she’d be the first to tell us that she’s neither a reporter nor a journalist, but rather an easily malleable mouthpiece concerned with lapping up any and all gifts or overnight stays that come with the job. That might give her a great fangirl rush, but it’s a great disgrace to the rest of us out here who do our damnedest to stay as honest as possible
(via Sarah)
Just Imagine If This “Outstanding News Reporter” Discovered the Internet
The Future of Traffic Typography
New York Times: “Drivers say that they would like to see less clutter and more readability, but there is something that seems untouchable about this layer of information in the landscape.”