• Neal Stephenson’s “It’s All Geek to Me” (via Books, Inq.)
• Widely linked (and, as observed by Scott, apparently outside the NYTBR‘s purview) is this previously unpublished Susan Sontag essay.
• I missed this profile last week, but the Guardian also has a profile of agent Ed Victor.
• Literary pilfering has a long and rich history.
• Charlie Anders offers a brief report of Friday’s R. Crumb opening at the Yerba Buena and later opines that Crumb’s work is “more dated than the music videos from 1930-ish.” While I agree that Crumb’s tendency to reflect the 1960s’ counterculture has cast an undeniable imprint upon his work, I’m wondering if Charlie’s objections are more reflective of a general arts-related problem. A work may reflect a particular period decades later and thus appear “dated,” particularly when the past looms in recent memory. But is it not possible that, a decade or two down the line, it may end up reflecting something bold and innovative? Were Lovecraft’s tales, for examples, “dated” in the 1950s? Were Philip K. Dick’s novels “dated” in the 1980s? Given the ever-shifting nature of time, I’m wondering if “dated” is a valid criticism when discussing art. And I’m hoping to find some time to examine this interesting trajectory of critical reception at length in a future post.
• Two months after Smashing Telly and I rued over opening credits, the Onion has seen fit to rip off the idea.
• Extras is dead. Gervais and Merchant plan a one-off conclusion and that’s it. No third season.
• The Orange Prize longlist has been announced. I’m not sure if Lionel Shriver’s The Post-Birthday World was released early enough to make the cut, but if it was, it is utterly criminal that Shriver’s spot was taken up by the ignoble Anne Tyler, who seems to have confused braying melodrama with “observation.” Oh well, at least we can be grateful that Chimamanda Adichie is on the list.
• Jerome Weeks is looking for a job.
• Pete Anderson thinks the Tribune is living up to its literary coverage this week.
• Steve Clackson was kind enough to award me a Thinking Blogger Award, but John Baker uncovers the truth.
• Smart Bitches Who Love Trashy Books reveals the anti-Harriet Klausner movement.
• Why are three paragraphs devoted to Britney Spears in this San Diego Union-Tribune book review? Surely, there are better representative examples of virginity to draw from.
• How Colette became a writer.
• Mysterious Object at Noon: strangest film in some time?
• On the Purpose of Public Libraries (via Maxine)

• [insert author name]’s [latest book from author] has hit bookstores. It’s criminally underated, and [reviewer who writes somewhat intelligently or has interesting take] has an interesting take on why it’s worth your time.
• Last night, I had a [vaguely personal moment in which I don’t reveal too much of myself to readers, because, based on some of the comments here, I think a few of you are keeping extremely close track of my personal life — for what reason I have no idea]. And it reminded me of [article which probably has nothing to do with moment in question].
• [Person with no real ideas trying to attract attention] is attacking litblogs again! And [first blogger to get upset, because offering you all this content for free can sometimes be a thankless task] has taken him to task. Meanwhile, [more level-headed litblogger who recognizes that this person just wants attention] offers a contrarian take.
• [Wacky news story]. Hey, how about that! [Insert hastily formed witticism in which I apply an overly literal reading to form an incongruous association.]
• [A paragraph of polemical bluster, with at least one ad hominem remark or, failing that, a metaphor that grabs your attention.]
• Sam Tanenhaus has [well, he could have done anything really, if only he actually contacted me directly instead of asking other people about who I am].
• [Sex joke.]
• [Something terrible committed by McSweeney’s or an obscure literary quarterly.]
• And I would be remiss if I didn’t mention [A friend or acquaintance who has done something interesting, must keep this near the end to avoid favoritism]’s thoughtful project, which should blow the lid on [incongruous reference here because I’m overworked and I need more coffee so that I can stay awake, until such moment as I will be able to properly collapse].

And just to be clear on how formulaic this blog is and how much of a tool I am, Random House sends me a $600 weekly paycheck, Penguin arranges for my Fairmont penthouse suite on the weekends, keeping it well-stocked with champagne, caviar and two prostitutes (because I like things exotic, I prefer to fuck midgets and black women), and Soft Skull keeps the Colombian marching power flowing 24/7.

It’s great being a corporate pawn. It’s great willingly catering to the mainstream. Literature? You think I really give a crap? In fact, I’m getting a blow job right now as I write this post. Life doesn’t get any better.

I don’t think you can find anyone more venal in our society than litbloggers.

• If the n+1 and McSweeney’s controversies weren’t enough for you, Sarah has raised some important points about the current state of genre-related reviews, asking, “So where are the new passionate voices who think about this genre in ways I haven’t even begun to explore but hope to engage with? Who’s going to come along to counteract antiquated notions of what genre criticism is and what books benefit from more than just a thumbs-up/thumbs-down approach?”
• Times Online: “What is surprising is that such a high percentage of those without a marked talent for any particular profession should think of writing as the solution. One would expect that a certain percentage would imagine they had a talent for medicine, a certain percentage for engineering, and so on. But this is not the case. In our age, if a boy or a girl is untalented, the odds are in favour of their thinking they want to write.”
• I agree with Scott, although I should point out that, if I’m a “hypocrite” for refusing to post private emails on this website (a position that I still adhere to), while simultaneously being entertained by Mark’s series, then so is anyone who laughed at the Aleksey Vayner video. A weak personality attribute, I agree. But nobody’s perfect.
• The thoughtful Dan Wickett has an anthology in the works.
• Paul Collins on the worst pulp novelist ever.
• Sasha Frere-Jones on Nine Inch Nails.
• Glenn Greenwald on Bush’s “literary luncheon.”
• Why are Canadians making so many zombie movies? Answer: It is the rule of zombie movies that a conservative government inspires more of them. Now that Harper is Prime Minister, it is reasonably certain that there will be many more zombie movies, just as the number of zombie movies increased big time under the Reagan and Bush II administrations.
• Erin O’Brien celebrates Naked Couch Day, which was apparently yesterday.
• Online newspaper revenue is growing; print advertising is decreasing.
• The gender disparity on op-ed pages is so bad that there are classes being taught to teach women how to write op-ed columns. (via Bookninja)
• Jenny Crusie asked her readers if they knew how to dispose of a body to ensure that it wouldn’t be found. So far, she’s received 102 responses. The Internet is a frightening place. (via Bill Peschel)

• In the most recent New Yorker: Jonathan Lethem’s “Lucky Alan.” Also, Lethem’s current obsession with copyright, which, as far as I can tell, seems to have originated from this interesting Harper’s essay, continues anew with a cunning plan related to his newest novel.
• Apparently, Fidel Castro met up with Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Marquez’s account is here. The two men concluded that the prostate gland is the starting point for all Marxist revolutions.
• Matthew Gray is working on a Google Maps feature of the Earth viewed by literary locations.
• A new pilot called Literary Superstar is being planned. The pilot stars Jenna Elfman. The “superstar” in question is a publicist. No doubt watered down hijinks will ensue, with Elfman inexplicably living in a lavish Central Park West apartment. Because we can certainly count on Hollywood for financial verisimilitude, can’t we?
• Sam Savage is interviewed at Bluestalking Reader.
• J. Peder Zane tries to understand DFW’s baffling Top Ten Books list. Meanwhile, a man foolish enough to gloss over Philip K. Dick’s prose declares literary lists “an obscenity.” (via Sarvas)
• Is Oregon a more ideal place to set up a publisher than New York? (via Brockman)
• John Sutherland sings the praises of Jake Arnott’s Johnny Come Home.
• Litpark talks with Elizabeth Crane.
• Quiet Bubble has some choice words for Woody Allen.
• Like a zombie that keeps getting up after you shoot it several times in the chest with a pump-action shotgun, the damn OJ book is still alive.
• Who’d be a critic? Yeah, good question. Particularly when you’re as dishonest as Meg Rosoff. Apparently, Rosoff “only reviews books I really like. It’s cowardly, I know, but I figure it’s not my job to make people unhappy.” As a critic who tries to remain as honest, discerning, enthusiastic and constructive as I can, as someone who pours blood, sweat and tears into any freelancing assignment, I can’t begin to express my infuriation here. If Rosoff is terrified of making people unhappy, then perhaps she should pursue a career as a publicist, since she clearly prefers the straightforward hand job-as-book review rather than an honest day’s labor. The Literary Saloon has more.

• Jason Pinter has landed a new gig. This augurs well for St. Martin’s.
• Susan Henderson has kicked off an interesting discussion about writing style. Me? I’d define mine as “thuggish intellectual,” and I’m quite happy with that niche. (via The Publishing Spot)
• I’m not sure what The Nervous Breakdown is exactly, but anything involving Elizabeth Crane can’t be bad.
• Ian Hocking has a step-by-step guide on how to interview David Mitchell. It reminds me very much of the inauspicious debut of The Bat Segundo Show. Thankfully, the interviewing deficiencies were improved upon fifty shows later. (It also helps that Mitchell’s a very nice guy.) (via Splinters)
• Dan Green has an interesting post on how critics misperceived John Updike’s Terrorist. I would agree that Terrorist isn’t one of Updike’s best, but I was equally surprised by the manner in which Updike’s imagery was dismissed by many critics. Is this the grimy underbelly of a critical community more content with psychological realism than an author’s ability to use language to connote mood and feeling?
• Bella Stander has a first-hand account of the NBCC reading.
• A new audio interview with George Saunders.
• Elizabeth Dewberry offers a contrarian take on AWP.
• Sweet Jesus. Tony Pierce is covering SXSW like a madman. (via Pinky’s Paperhaus)
• Should people read speculative fiction because of its predictive powers? Matt Cheney on the subject.
• Gideon Lewis-Kraus talks with Banville. I’m surprised again that Mr. Sarvas is asleep at the wheel on this one, even if he did only just come back from across the Atlantic. It turns out that I’m the one asleep at the wheel. (via Jenny D)
• V.S. Naipaul on collecting other people’s stories. What does that make him? A venture nonfictionalist? (via James Tata)
• Man, when it rains, it pours. The Union Square Cody’s store may be closing. (via Frances)
• Bill Peschel summarizes Scalzi’s book on writing.
• Another year, another Blooker.