Reasons Why I Won’t Read an Author

Justine Larbalestier lists some reasons why she won’t read certain writers. Well, fair is fair. Being of clean hands and sound disposition, I thought it might be helpful to offer a few hard rules of my own:

  • If the author turns out a 2,000 page book and follows it up with a small chapbook, then I am convinced that the 2,000 page book was all the author had in him. Come on, Author! If you can write a 2,000 page book, certainly you can write at least a 300 page followup.
  • If I can imagine the writer having sex with Dudley Moore, no way, Jose. I won’t touch the author with a ten foot pole. I thought the short, belated comedian to be a talented man, but I get a very queasy feeling whenever I imagine him having carnal relations with a novelist. Granted, this association has only happened six times in my life.
  • If the author’s name forms an anagram reading “Cthulhu Sucks,” she doesn’t stand a chance.
  • The author’s name is Steve Almond.
  • If the author has tracked down my home address, stormed into my apartment when I’m away and hidden in my closet, only to duct tape me to my bed and tighten my testicles into a painful Dutch knot as I’m asleep, it’s safe to say that I’m likely to pass on the author’s future volumes.
  • I have a restraining order against the author.
  • If a publicist has sent me thirty-six copies of the author’s latest book, then I will put the author’s name on my Nixon-style Enemies List. At present time, the Enemies List consists of two names. And these two authors are no longer living.
  • The author insists on collecting a lock of my hair. (What hair?)
  • I won’t read authors who leave the toilet seat up.
  • I won’t read authors who fart at the dinner table. (And to determine if the author has, in fact, done this, I require three separate incidents, all reported by unimpeachable sources. I take into account the fart’s decibel level and its wind trajectory.)
  • I won’t read authors who send me manuscripts written in their own blood, urine or feces (particularly all three).
  • I might read an author who wants me to suck his cock, for I’m easily humbled. But if he forces me to go down on him or points a video camera at me as he asks me to go down on him, then I cannot read his work, for I will be reminded of his throbbing penis on every page.
  • I will not read an author if he feels that Lima beans are tasty.
  • I will not read him in a house, I will not read him here or there, I will not read him anywhere.

I hope you catch my drift.

So there you have it, readers. Clear transparency. That’ll show the mainstream media! I don’t think I’m being too unreasonable, do you?

Introducing Wayne Chestnut, Father and Guest Blogger

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Here at Return of the Reluctant, we do our damnedest to keep on top of the latest literary trends. (Well, not really. We’re fundamentally lazy, but ideas are spawned nonetheless.) With Neal Pollack and Steve Almond now turning their hands to the heartwarming genre of “alternative” thirtysomethings who have spilled their seed and now feel compelled to splatter their paternal woes onto the page, we’ve recruited Wayne Chestnut, an MFA dropout who still harbors some dim hope of literary credibility, to drop in from time to time. Here is his first entry.]

Last night we put Jilly in front of the TV, something Elaine and I hope to do more often so that we can avoid real parenting and snort a few lines off the bedroom dresser mirror. Don’t get me wrong. I’m a very happy father, and I realize every day that within my child I can see things about the world that I haven’t seen before. Particularly if I’m stuck in a k-hole or if I’m in a bourbon-induced haze. Drugs are good this way. All parents should try them. Sometimes being a coked out asshole has its benefits. It gives you the strength to see beauty, and it gives you the beauty to have sleazy fantasies that go well beyond your parental responsibilities, which are just so fucking incredible. And if you’re not a parent, you simply cannot understand. It’s a bit like being gay.

I think of things like, “Holy shit! I have spawned and she’s so beautiful. And if I weren’t her dad, and she were a few years older, maybe she’d be a great fuck! How am I going to deal with her when she starts to develop into a woman? Will I then still be capable of an erection without Viagra?” You see, fatherhood isn’t nearly as banal as you think. Take that, Gawker!

chestnutyuppie.jpgSometimes I look into Jilly’s eyes and I find patterns. Sometimes she burps into my face, and it’s the timing of these burps that reveal good stocks to invest in. I then communicate these patterns to my broker. It’s a bit like that story I once read in a class, “The Rocking-Pony Winner.” Except the kid doesn’t die at the end. If Jilly keeps this up, then I should be able to retire before I’m 50.

But I’m sort of digressing, which is what you’re supposed to do in a blog. I’m a writer. I authored a book containing short stories, all of them about slacker protagonists who eat corn chips while listening to goth industrial. Every single story had that theme. So I know a few things.

Like I said, Jilly was in front of the television. It was a large television. A good flat-panel screen. The kind of television that only a family of three should invest in. I know this because this is what the man at Best Buy told me. I foresee a great future ahead, as Jilly becomes less cuter (the terrible threes, they call it, with lotsa temper tantrums) and I start to fool around on Elaine during my midlife crisis. But I’m a dad, first and foremost. And I’ll clean up any mess that Jilly pukes up before heading off to a clandestine appointment at the Days Inn. I’ll tell Elaine I’m working late and, if I’m feeling in a good mood, I’ll even do the dishes.

Anyway, where was I going with this?

I look at this television and realize every day that it’s probably a better parent than I am. And to think that it didn’t come out of a uterus! It was built by a bunch of guys at a factory. I have one channel and I have to sleep. The television has about 500 channels and it never sleeps.

Jilly will grow up seeing this television as better than me. And for what? Because I use it as a surrogate babysitter? Because I enjoy recreational drug use?

Well, maybe. But I’m the one who sired Jilly. Make no mistake.

Malcolm Gladwell is the New Alvin Toffler

Maud tears Malcolm Gladwell a new one: “Does anyone else find it odd that a cultural critic would compare, with no apparent sense of irony, the activities of the Nazis with the financial maneuverings of corporations, in a free-market defense of the latter?”

Well, it’s my view that Malcolm Gladwell has always been about generalized arguments and deficient dichotomies. And if he keeps this up, in about ten years, his work will be as dated as Alvin Toffler’s is today. (I’m still waiting for Toffler’s paperless office and for “future shock” to kick in. Humans have proved remarkably adaptable as cell phones, the Internet, and manifold innovations have entered our collective existence.)

Book Standard Gutted

Publishers Weekly reports that Jerome Kramer, managing director of The Book Standard, has “left the company” (corporate parlance for shitcanned), along with two other Book Standard staffers, which Galleycat identifies as Patrick Eves and Kimberly Maul. The layoffs came “as part of an evaluation of VNU’s business portfolio.” Taking Kramer’s place will be Tracey Davies.

I’ve made my wisecracks about the Book Standard over the years (particularly towards Maul), but I do hope that Kramer, Eves and Maul land on their feet.

bwt cld day in aprL, clks 13

Wired: “Chaco is becoming one of the most popular mobile phone novelists in Japan. We don’t know much about her — except that she’s a twenty-something Pisces from Osaka — but we do know that she can spit out books faster than Danielle Steel. In the last 14 months, she wrote five novels, including her best seller, What the Angel Gave Me, which has sold more than 1 million copies to date.” (via Michael “Two Shades” Orthofer)

The End of 2006

2006 ended many days ago and I sorta miss it. Like other years, it contained twelve months. And like other years, I feel compelled to serve up more Best Of lists, even if I don’t quite know where to start. The problem with any year is that you read too many books, listen to too many albums, attend too many shows, and watch too many movies. It doesn’t leave one exhausted, at least not while it’s happening. But at the end of the year, when all of this media consumption is tallied like a Central Park West socialite’s dry cleaning manifest, it becomes a bit too much to grapple with. And then some silly nostalgic force, operating like a peer pressure you can’t quite track, demands that all culture vultures offer Best Of pronouncements, generally in some predetermined and agreed upon format (Top Ten!). But by the time you get around to it, it’s too late. We’re in January. You should have been here back in December when we were really happening. When it was still 2006. When your opinion still mattered.

So instead of dragging out the posts I’ve been laboring on for the past few weeks, I’ll just let you fill it in. You can either print off this post and tape it to your refrigerator filling in the blanks. Or you can leave recommendations for everyone in the comments. That way, everyone’s happy and I won’t feel so guilty.

TOP TEN ALBUMS OF 2006

1. ________________________
2. ________________________
3. ________________________
4. ________________________
5. ________________________
6. ________________________
7. ________________________
8. ________________________
9. ________________________
10. ________________________

TOP TEN MOVIES OF 2006

1. ________________________
2. ________________________
3. ________________________
4. ________________________
5. ________________________
6. ________________________
7. ________________________
8. ________________________
9. ________________________
10. ________________________

Take Your Lumps Like the Rest of Us, Hal

There’s a minus sign in front of that one star rating. I’ve stayed out of writting [sic] negative reviews but this was just terrible. Stay away from this show! I haven’t a clue as to who wrote the positive reviews. There was not a single moment in the entire eternity of this enterminable [sic] 60 minute “show” that I enjoyed being there. 15 minutes in I couldn’t figure out what the point of doing this show was nor did I any longer care. The Buddah [sic] in me cries out for compassion for someone who would allegedly unknowingly and unwittenly [sic] be the cause of so much pain and suffering ……..but the Charles Bronson in me screams out, “Screw that crap , off the bastard before he ‘creates’ again.”…I probably should have cooled off before writting [sic] this but……..As a friend of my wife’s was told by her church choir master , “I believe the Lord has other plans for you.” Or at have someone evaluate what you are doing before attempting this again. Please , for our sake.

That’s one of the audience reviews I received for Wrestling an Alligator, a play that I wrote and directed for the 2004 San Francisco Fringe Festival. Of course, I was pretty quick to dismiss it and to assure my remarkable cast not to regard it. (The review came after an unfortunate afternoon show attended by churchgoers, an audience that did not get the play and regrettably the only performance videotaped. I had rented some rehearsal space in a church which thankfully matched the stage dimensions and my limited price range. But I didn’t expect the church to publicize the play and have a good deal of its squeaky clean congregation experience my dark and uncomfortable satire.)

Besides, can you really trust a reviewer who misspells “writing?”

I bring this up not to boast, but to respond to Hal Niedzviecki’s ridiculously whiny article, which reads as if a more narcissistic Ed Muskie were campaigning in the age of the blogosphere.

Now I liked Niedzviecki when I interviewed him last year. But his call here for a safe and sane blogosphere is the telltale mark of a passive-aggressive. I would counter-argue that the blogosphere’s sometimes vitriolic timbre has risen in response to the overly safe and bland musings of the mainstream media, with critics who tell us why we should like things in terms that are frequently insulting to our intelligence. But sometimes it’s necessary to articulate intense emotion to get to the more rational part of an argument. And if the blogosphere can get the blood pumping, particularly for relatively obscure cultural critics like Niedzviecki, then how is this a bad thing?

Besides, any good writer who is fiercely devoted to what she does is not going to be stopped by what some opinionated blogger has to say (least of all, me). Speaking for myself, it is often the negative reactions that I value the most. To take the above review, framed as a borderline death threat, it did have me considering that my play may have been too baroque for some to understand its intention. And if I had to do it again, I would have clarified some of the character intentions to help my audience. I should also point out that some of the writers who I’ve raked over the coals here have, in turn, emailed me, and we’ve respectfully disagreed (and sometimes the writer even changes my mind; I’m opinionated, but not inflexible) and we’ve found common points of interest on other subjects. It helps to have an open mind towards one’s detractors. And even when someone completely disagrees, is it not a good thing to know that at least one person gives a damn about your work?

Of course, Niedzviecki will have none of this. Turning to one of the apparent “vitriolic” critics of his radio show, one doesn’t find a mean-spirited Niedzviecki takedown, but a lengthy essay on why Subcultures reflects a current CBC trend of listless irony for the sake of listless irony. This is the stuff of mincing words? This is the stuff that has the enfant sensible calling for mommy?

Niedzviecki asks bloggers to “please pause to consider both your reputation and the fragile ego of the artist.” I couldn’t care less about my reputation because I don’t have much of an ego and I accept who I am, warts and all. I’m genuinely stunned and delighted that anybody would be reading or listening. I’m honored and surprised any time I get a paid writing gig and I work my ass off in kind. Maybe it’s because I’ve had a lifetime of rejections. Maybe it’s because I’ve had a lifetime of being misunderstood. Or maybe it’s because I know that the only people concerned with writing 1,500 word articles about “fragile egos” are those who possess them. The rest of us toil on because we must, because it’s who we are, and because we can’t stop doing it. And there’s nothing that will stop us.

In Washington, Every Generalization Under the Sun

Let us stipulate that rinky-dink columnists can be divided into three categories. At the top are Jimmy Breslin (not yet dead, but not currently writing a column) and Hunter S. Thompson (dead, but did he really write a column?) — who write well-crafted, uncompromising essays that the many hacks who now occupy cramped cubicles couldn’t come close to even if .41 Derringers were pointed at their cantaloupes — straight, no chaser. At the other extreme we have hacks — no names here, because I’m a spineless and dishonest turd and quite likely one of these unnamed hacks myself for being so goddam prolific and having an email address named mondaylosers@aol.com — who write what can be charitably called bullshit, deliberately dumb articles laced with generalizations and gimmicks (such as jejune taxonomies and dash-laden sentences) because if they turn in a column, they’ll lose their precious berth even if what they write has little to do with the real world. In between, we have writers of many types which I won’t identify, because it would be a little bit like showing a pornographic film to a small child.

And then there’s Patrick Anderson, a man who I suspect is quite humorless, who won’t comprehend the timbre of this clearly satirical post, and lost his ratiocination skills sometime in the late 1970s. It’s safe to say that this book reviewing savant can be classified in one of the three categories mentioned above. But since I’m a litblogger who doesn’t talk down to his readers, I’ll let you decide which tier Mr. Anderson belongs to.

Roundup

Power Litblogger of the Year?

Kevin Sampsell writes: “Ron Hogan at Beatrice.com may have helped sink Judith Regan, but Ed Champion at Edrants.com gets this year’s award. His acidic-yet-informative style is cushioned by an effacing honesty that makes him a joy to scan every day.”

Well, thanks very much, Kevin, but I really don’t know what the hell a “power litblogger” is. Then again, I haven’t yet had a power lunch (at least I think I haven’t), I resort to PowerBars only when Red Bull and coffee aren’t available, and I never really understood Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers back in the day (and I worked as a movie theater usher the summer that the movie tie-in came out; even after repeat viewings, I still didn’t understand it, even if I lusted after the pink Ranger during weak and lonely moments). I’m thinking that Kevin knows something I don’t, but I’m thankful and more than a bit puzzled all the same.

Besides, Mr. Hogan got pulled (pulled!) from the Judith Regan show. If that ain’t outright “power litblogger,” then I don’t know what is!

(Thanks for the tip, Mr. Brockman.)

The Top Ten Books of 2006

It was a good year. It was very good year. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. It was the age of Britney’s crotch, it was the age of needlessly angry atheists. It was the epoch of Democratic victory in the two houses, it was the epoch of weak-kneed Democrats and other assorted chucklehead politicians.

I’m not sure if any of the above dualisms have to do with the books that rocked my world this year. But I figure that any end of the year list deserves a needlessly portentous introduction. So without further ado, here are the books that I deem The Best of 2006 in alphabetical order.

(In the interests of total transparency, I should note that I have had email volleys with Richard Powers, Jeff VanderMeer and Sam Savage. But I read their respective volumes before I had any detailed communiques with them. So I don’t feel that my opinions here have been compromised. I should also note that Chris Staros was kind enough to send me a copy of Lost Girls, a quite expensive book, but that this had no bearing whatsoever on why Lost Girls made my list. Indeed, I was skeptical with every book I read this year, particularly the titles with hype attached. But the ones here all managed to win me over, irrespective of the circumstances in which I obtained these tomes.)

funhome.jpgAlison Bechdel, Fun Home: Some cartoonists (including Bechdel, as it turns out) have remarked to me that they often turn to craft of cartooning as a way to make up for deficiencies on the writing and illustration front, often failing to consider that a natural synthesis of these two forms is also a legitimate craft. Fun Home demonstrates an almost total and perhaps subconscious command of the form. Like many good memoirs, it is also a quest of sorts for identity, with many of the lingering questions remaining unanswered. I particularly love how Bechdel’s overly accurate art accentuates the narrative, with the ephemera of notes and books meticulously reproduced in an effort to find a new meaning. The concern for maps, the constant search for structural clues where there may be none, and the way in which even physical gestures sometimes reveal clues about who Bechdel’s father might have been and how these traits carry on into Bechdel’s adult life make this an essential read.

Mark Z. Danielewski, Only Revolutions: I wasn’t surprised to see Danielewski’s latest book dismissed by many as a pretentious artistic experiment. But I don’t believe that these dismissals do Danielewski’s book justice. And there is no way that I can contain my reaction to this book within a paragraph, but I’ll try.

onlyrev.gifThis is not so much a beautiful bauble disguising a thinly plotted road trip across two centuries, as it is a meticulous history of how language affects culture, and vice versa. The arcane words that Danielewski employs (with strange and often hilarious juxtaposition) suggest that those who chronicle culture and history might be missing some vital terminology as we merrily skip along and make our own existential choices. The book’s offbeat vernacular, when examined through a historical prism, reveals an argot that any casual linguist will be compelled to investigate. The accompanying historical tickertape suggests that humanity might be settling for the greatest hits instead of raw specifics. And what better way to highlight human ignorance than for individuals to “go” instead of die or pass on? What’s interesting is how Danielewski has history (such as the 1918 flu epidemic) affect his individuals on a very personal level. Is it possible that the historians are overlooking the visceral consequences of pain and loss as they settle their gaze upon historical scope? Perhaps this is the spirit of revolution contained within this amazing book, which requires great patience and a great curiosity about human interconnectedness. I’d like to think that the real revolutionaries are those who hope to open their eyes to the stragglers it’s acceptable to ignore. I was haunted by this book for days after I finished it, contemplating the ways in which language might be the very code which unlocks human perception.

Joe Meno, The Boy Detective Fails: Like Sam Savage (whose Firmin also made this year’s list), I believe Joe Meno is very much interested in narrative as a metaphor depicting how playfulness is often at odds with adulthood. To what degree can one escape into a past occupied by a playful and perhaps overly sunny mythology? On the flip side, if one conforms entirely to adult responsibilities, how much of one’s identity and ambition does one lose? Meno raises these questions while giving us a very touching and highly entertaining book (which even comes with a decoder ring and a secret message contained within the footer!). His “Boy Detective,” once a promising Encyclopedia Brown-like character, is now stalled at the age of 30. His detective skills have atrophied and he is faced with crushing responsibilities and demons of the past. Meno surrounds his protagonist with other former child superstars, now working soul-crushing jobs at ratty telemarketing firms and movie theaters, while also offering children with which the playful torch may or may not carry onward. This is no small achievement.

lostgirls.jpgAlan Moore and Melinda Gebbie, Lost Girls: I’m sorry that I was never able to offer a thorough review of this three-volume set, but I shall do my best to offer a precis. One does not approach an Alan Moore volume lightly, even when, in Lost Girls‘ case, it seems as if it’s merely an episodic series of sexual reminiscences. But it is a rare talent who can both titillate and cause one to become slightly uncomfortable at the same time. And this is Moore’s point. It is this dual emotional feeling, the idea that one person’s wicked sexual fantasy might make a person “bad,” that has not only led humans to stifle their possibilities, but perhaps, as juxtaposed against the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, led them to the brink of war or, with Stravinsky’s “The Rite of Spring,” paganist art which begets paganist behavior. Whether one agrees or is titillated by the fantasies contained with Lost Girls is not the point. The idea here, and it is carried out through many ironic associations of staid narratives (dry letters, often preposterous texts, erotic stories) with unbridled sexual activity, is that humans are in the dark about their true “deviant” nature, pushing these away into fairy tales (why else would Moore pull another Wold Newton on us and give us The Wizard of Oz‘s Dorothy, Peter Pan‘s Wendy, and Alice in Wonderland as his protagonists?) but sometimes not giving themselves the liberty to accept fantasy in their quotidian existences. What then is the true pornographic act? Banning tales that are honest about dark human impulses or denying that they exist? Like the narrator-as-guide that William T. Vollmann often employs in his work, Melinda Gebbie’s beautiful artwork serves as a safety net for the troubled reader, ensuring that the universe that the reader is entering here is a safe and valid place. Moore and Gebbie accomplish all this without coming across as shock artists. I was jesting earlier this year when I suggested that Lost Girls was “fun for the whole family,” but I believe anyone looking to uproot their notions of what is considered “abnormal” might want to give this handsome set a chance.

Richard Powers, The Echo Maker: I’ve repeatedly sung the hosannas of this book. So I’ll just direct you to what I scribbled over at Mr. Magee’s.

Sam Savage, Firmin: I picked it up at BEA. The only thing I knew about it was that this was a story told from the perspective of a rat. I figured that, at the very least, this would be great airplane reading, something that might serve in lieu of or, if mediocre, in addition to those tiny little bottles they charge you too much money for. After all, the book was slim and, given BEA’s commercial atmosphere, a tale told by a rodent seemed only fitting on the way back to San Francisco.

firmin.jpgI was entirely unprepared to read a wry and remarkably thoughtful book about the state of imagination in American society. The book had teeth, perhaps a continuously growing set of rodent-like incisors ground to manageable size so that the teeth in question wouldn’t puncture the brain. Sam Savage had kept the page count lean, but certainly hadn’t skimped out on the thoughtful ambiguities beyond it.

I don’t believe there’s any way to describe the book without it sounding preposterous, but the book concerns itself with Firmin, a rat who, through mere taste, has the capacity to read literature at an astonishing rate. He scurries through Boston’s infamous Scollay Square, just before the square was cemented over by the City of Boston, attending peep shows and exploring the interconnected buildings, in search of food and in search of meaning. Abandoned by his family and unable to interact with his humans, save through recurrent allusions to people he’s “talked to” at bars, he retreats instead into books, finding solace and a new existence. A pulp science fiction writer named Jerry Magoon takes Firmin under his care, offering compassion and unintentional enlightenment. But residing at the center of all of this is a more troubling dilemma: Firmin is alone and books serve as a way, perhaps the only way, for him to subsist.

The books, however, are Firmin’s downfall, as apocalyptic in nature as Scollay Square’s sad fate and Magoon’s visions. Even from the onset, Firmin cannot settle upon a proper first line to describe his story. That Firmin himself boasts of gorging upon the books instead of understanding what’s inside them suggests a character willing to grope at anything to fight a terrible isolation that he is often vague or disingenuous about. And could it be that the tale we are reading here is not one written by a rat, but one of an outcast so thoroughly ignored by society, that he is reduced to feeding on humanity’s leftovers?

That Savage suggests all this without sacrificing his panache for gallows humor (such as Firmin’s first experience with rat poison pellets) is a testament of his talent. Firmin challenges our narrative assumptions by presenting us with a tale told by a rat, signifying perhaps both nothing and everything, about the relationship between reality and fiction. It can be read as a literal entertainment or a multilayered parable about gentrification and the palliatives and pitfalls of imagination.

Dana Spiotta, Eat the Document: Again, I don’t wish to sound like a broken record, but I direct you to my post from February.

wizardcrow.jpgNgugi wa Thiong’o, The Wizard of the Crow: For whatever reason, and I suspect it had something to do with my mixed feelings about Pynchon’s Against the Day, I didn’t expect to be bowled over by this book. But I found myself greatly enjoying this satire of a postcolonial African dictatorship, which reads, at times, like an epic version of Duck Soup. If you are a fan of comedy that hinges upon cause and effect, then Thiong’o delivers the goods, showing how a squatter’s casual effort to find a place to crash transforms him into “The Wizard of the Crow,” a man loved and feared by the very forces who oppress him. I’ll have more to say about this book, when it’s discussed by the Litblog Co-Op.

Scarlett Thomas, The End of Mr. Y: Scarlett Thomas is, as I have suggested many times this year, the contemporary to second wave prodigious fiction authors along the lines of Colson Whitehead. Like Rupert Thomson’s great works, Thomas gives us a very unusual premise (a book which may or may not open up a portal into a strange dimensional universe called the Troposphere) and makes us believe in it. This is not mere faux intellectualism like The Matrix movies, but a thoughtful and entertaining meditation on human decision, human potential, interconnectedness and overthinking that left me crushed at the end. Thomas’s protagonist is a fascinating portrait of contradictions: a young doctoral candidate meekly pursuing intellectual interests yet throwing herself into sordid sexuality and allowing herself to be abused. Don’t listen to Booklist’s Allison Block, who dismissed this novel as “chick lit for nerds.” This is a hell of a lot more, provided that you’re willing to go along for the ride.

shriek.jpgJeff VanderMeer, Shriek: An Afterword: I must thank Matt Cheney for turning me on to the talented writer Jeff VanderMeer, a man who I had been intending to read for some time. Shortly after Mr. Cheney hooked us up, Mr. VanderMeer surprised me with a prodigious package of his books in the mail and I found myself gleefully lost in his world of Ambergris, a Gormenghast/New Crobuzon-like universe in which humans and mushroom dwellers co-exist with often pernicious results. But it is with Shriek that VanderMeer has truly found his voice, reapproaching his world with a fresh and pleasantly surprising maturity. This is not mere fantasy, but a fascinating hybrid of postmodernism and a reinvention reflecting the turbulent times we now live in. The book features two narrators: Janice Shriek, a parvenu in the art world who casts aspersions on her brother’s underground scholarship. But it is her brother Duncan who gets something of the last laugh, annotating his sister’s revelations with parenthetical comments of his own.

Honorable Mention:

Kate Atkinson, One Good Turn
Richard Ford, Lay of the Land
Edward Jones, All Aunt Hagar’s Children
Claire Messud, The Emperor’s Children
David Mitchell, Black Swan Green
Sarah Waters, The Night Watch

Ben, Don’t Oversell It

Ben Macintyre: “Take a look at Tintin’s eyebrows. They are two, single-line half circles, above eyes that are no more than blank holes in a round face. Yet these are some of the most expressive eyebrows ever drawn. Mostly they are raised in permanently enthusiastic expectation; when Tintin is on a mission, they rise and flatten very slightly; when he is amused, one lifts a little higher than the other. The same breadth of expression is true of Captain Haddock’s beard, Snowy’s tail and Professor Calculus’s hat. Even Tintin’s tuft is eloquent.”

Mommy, He Stole My Google Ranking!

Oh, quit your bitchy whining, you goddam blogging prima donnas. Boing Boing, Jason Kottke, Jeffrey Zeldman, Matt Haughey, and the so-called “A-list bloggers” have never once linked to me and you don’t hear me complaining. In fact, I could care less, because placating a solipsist like Jason Kottke is not why I blog.

If you’re in the blogging for the hits and influence and you can’t be troubled to read the goddam information that Google provides which explains in extensive detail how Google indexes its pages, then cry me a sixth ocean. It should be noted that the Google results were more or less restored after the holiday screwup. So the alarmism here is from Technorati crackwhores and Icerocket divas who can’t be troubled to figure out the way the system works and who insist on getting a second slice of birthday cake before everybody else has had their first slice.

Technorati and Google rankings are as fleeting as the sun poking through the clouds in San Francisco. Get used to it.