Return of the Slate Audio Book Club

After announcing that they had “returned from a late-summer hiatus” in September, those swank sophists at the Slate Audio Book Club have, after a six week absence, returned for more shallow hijinks. Buddha help us all.

Regular Reluctant readers will recall that, the last time this intrepid trio graced the microphones, they let loose all manner of racist generalizations about Toni Morrison’s Beloved and, so far as anybody knows, only one brave listener (Powell’s Books blogger Lewis) was able to make it to the thirteen minute mark.

This time out, the book is Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma. After an august introduction from a dour man named Andy Bowers and a “jazz” tune reminiscent of something I heard in an elevator last week, Meghan O’Rourke again returns to hosting duties, suggesting that the group should get ready to discuss “plot points.” (Go Team!) Never mind that Pollan has not authored a novel, but a nonfiction book, what O’Rourke refers to as “a complicated book,” perhaps because she forgot to set the fiction/non-fiction toggle switch in her head shortly before recording this podcast.

She then asks for reactions from Stephen Metcalf and Katie Roiphe. Metcalf refers to corn as the “the sort of binding, kind of guiding, you know, object in the book.” (Perhaps he intended “subject.” But then, given O’Rourke’s inability to separate fact and fiction, I suppose Metcalf was facing similar difficulties adjusting.) The corn, in Metcalf’s words, “gives the narrative some thrust and strength early on.” (One would hope so, if we view Pollan’s corn as a phallic metaphor, assuming that Pollan’s book can be read as fiction.)

Strangely, Metcalf points out that The Omnivore’s Dilemma can be categorized in a new nonfiction genre that concern food issues, including Fast Food Nation and Super Size Me, a book I must confess unfamiliarity with. Presumably, much as O’Rourke cannot distinguish between fiction and nonfiction, Metcalf cannot distinguish between books and films. (Although, Morgan Suprlock did, in fact, author a book called Don’t Eat This Book.) Even stranger, Metcalf near plaigiarizes the LBC term of art “in a flooded marketplace” by noting how Pollan’s book finds an audience “in a crowded marketplace,” leaving one to wonder if the Slate Audio Book Club is Slate’s airheaded rejoinder to the Litblog Co-Op’s efforts.

And then Katie Rolphe, the Elizabeth Hasselbeck of podcasting, emerges from the honeycomb, proudly announcing that the book “had a strong effect on my thinking.” Roiphe, never one to offer an example to support her generalizations, surprising given her Ph.D., then switches gears in seconds, finding the book “flawed, deeply flawed” — complaining not of the positions that Pollan takes, but of the book’s apparent sentimentality. Roiphe, perhaps unnerved by anything challenging her possible belief that New York is the center of the universe, then states that she found Pollan’s concentration on the farm “off-putting,” as if delving into how food is cultivated and manufactured was somehow bucolic instead of scientific. Given this bizarre logic, I am curious what Roiphe’s take would be on a quantum physics book. Would she find it “off-putting” because she doesn’t care for cats or multiconsonant names like Schroedinger? Would she rail similarly against subjects that are absolutely vital to the subject at hand?

But Roiphe’s objections become even stranger. Witness this grand morsel of stupidity:

“And I also found what I take as sort of fu…kind of almost like a yuppie fussiness over food that I just am…can’t get that interested in. And this is a 400 page book….and part of me, part of his argument and some of the places he takes his argument, I just couldn’t go along with it.”

And with affirmative susurrations by fellow dunces O’Rourke and Metcalfe, without either of these Two Great Thinkers asking Roiphe for specifics about what made Pollan’s argument so “flawed” or unpalatable, with assenting head nodding and thoughtful grunts, the podcast continues. O’Rourke then complains about Pollan setting a portion of his book in the San Francisco Bay, scraping salt from the bottom of the bay for his own homemade salt because of “yuppie fussiness.” Never mind that Pollan has written a book attempting to explain why Americans eat the way that we do and that examining why so much of our current food is laden with corn is far from “fussy” or “yuppie,” but more within the territory of scrutiny.

Indeed, I fail to understand what class has to do with ecological concerns. An equally disinterested and ignorant reader might very well apply “yuppie fussiness” to an environmental scientist investigating the melting polar icecaps. By what stretch of the imagination is investigation “fussy” or “yuppie?”

Disgusted by this myopic and anti-intellectual tone (and Roiphe’s eager Chihuahua-like voice), I Alt-F4ed my player at the 4:14 mark, unable to handle any more of this nonsense. And I now firmly believe that the Slate Audio Book Club is beyond repair. Keep in mind that this jejune conversation occurred with at least six weeks of preparation. Not since the film adaptation of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy have I seen a more stunning waste of time and resources.

Nevertheless, I put forth the challenge to you: can you make it longer than four minutes?

[UPDATE: It looks like Jessa Crispin listened to the whole podcast, thus making her the only person we know of on the Internet courageous enough to listen to the whole thing.]

Answering Spam

I thought I’d decided to save the spam robots some time and answer their questions directly:

Are you experiencing hair loss?

Well, yes. I’ve been gleefully balding over the past four years and I’m loving every minute of it! Can’t wait to see what a kickass chromedome I’ll end up as. Do I need help? Well, not really. The balding is happening of its own accord. But thank you very much for asking!

Four Lenders Want to Speak With You

Surely, they want to speak with me because they enjoy me as an individual, yes? Surely, they want to go have sushi and talk about anything but collateral to me. It might help if you were to tell me what they want to speak with me about.

HOODIA is taking America by storm, because it is the safest, fastest acting weight-loss supplement in the world…now you can get a bottle on us!

Unless HOODIA is bottle of a twenty year old scotch, somehow devoid of the supplements and scary chemical elements that we both know you haven’t put in there, then I don’t think I’m interested. How has HOODIA taken America by storm exactly? Is it a concoction mined from cumulus clouds?

-Tired with weak penis?
-Want to have sex all night long?
-Girls don’t love you anymore?

I am not “tired with weak penis,” and don’t plan to be until a doctor diagnoses me as such sometime in my seventies. Sex all night long? With who? Do you want to turn me into Seth Brundle? Well, some girls don’t love me anymore and there are very good reasons for this. Do you mean girls as a whole? Or just some?

Never scrub your toilet bowl again

Unless I hire a housekeeper, I’m pretty certain that the accumulated mildew and bacteria will be of great incentive for me to scrub my toilet bowl. Are you trying to suggest that I am a slob?

Any med for your girl to be happy!

I presume she’ll be happy once I subscribe her some cyanide.

SEXUALLY-EXPLICIT: Busty Teen Facially Gangbanged

I’ll play devil’s advocate. You have assumed, rather wrongly, that I am interested in child pornography. But let us suppose, just suppose, that the teen in question is actually an adult 18 years or older who is acting as such. And let us suppose that I absolutely need to view porn of this nature right now. I am unclear as to how a woman can be “facially gangbanged.” Surely, it is either a facial (meaning a closeup of a blowjob) or a gangbang (meaning group sex). Given the metric parameters of an orifice, it is rather doubtful that anything more than three cocks can be in her mouth. Does a foursome really constitute a gangbang? Further, if this “teen” is busty, what interest would I have in seeing her face? I’d be more inclined to view her anatomy. Okay, so you have a particular angle that can capture her upper chest and her facial. Where, pray tell, is the camera? I must assume that one of the men is holding it. If she is being “facially gangbanged,” will not the other cocks and legs occlude the “busty” view?

Sorry, I don’t believe you.

Yeah, Last Time I Checked, That New Pynchon Novel is 120 Pages With a Three Act Structure

Seattle Times: “‘We’re looking into publishing books, too,’ reveals [Starbucks Chairman Howard] Schultz. ‘There’s so much talent out there, and they can’t find a publisher. It’d be a great service for emerging authors. Even as we speak, we have someone at William Morris [Literary Agency] who is reading scripts and treatments. It’s more than an idea. It’s something we’re serious about.'”

Deconstructing Profiles #1

deconstuctingprofiles.jpgEDITOR’S NOTE: The author profile piece is a tricky and intricate journalistic genre. How do you make an author, who is often mumbling an answer he has uttered a dozen times into a glass of water, interesting? Where lazier journalists might produce a simple Q&A transcript, this is simply not enough for the true journalistic blueblood, who, aspiring for more literary heights (or selfsame delusion of such), simply must describe how David Foster Wallace’s shock of hair curls over his shoulder when he is cowering from a hard question or the aggressive manner that Zadie Smith stabs her fork into quiche when discussing E.M. Forster.

The mix between meaningful conversation and seemingly picayune observational details is a delicate one, often confused for highbrow and lowbrow writing alike — the former practiced by the New York Times, the latter by People and US Weekly. Because of this, Return of the Reluctant has commissioned a new series entitled Deconstruction Profiles, enlisting the help of two grad students (referred to helpfully as Grad Student #1 and Grad Student #2) to remark upon some of the more perplexing details to be found in today’s author profiles.

We should note that this series is not intended to impugn the writer of the profile, who is often just as baffled as the reader. It cannot be overstressed that the blame must be leveled almost exclusively at the author (and adjunct publicists) for perpetuating a public image that, upon close examination, rings false and redolent.

Article Deconstructed: “I See Him in Me” by Lev Grossman

Author Profiled: Dave E—–

Excerpt #1: “E—– is, of course, a famous writer…”

Response of Grad Student #1: By what measure is the author famous outside of New York and San Francisco? And why should these two cities be the qualifier? Is he, for example, uttered in the same breath as Stephen King? Is he known in the Midwest? Or is he, much like Mailer before him, in the process of inventing his fame, of constructing an image of benevolence that renders criticism of his rather feeble efforts at fiction null and void?

Response of Grad Student #2: Spinoza wrote, “I could see the benefits which are acquired through fame and riches, and that I should be obliged to abandon the quest of such objects, if I seriously devoted myself to the search for something different and new. I perceived that if true happiness chanced to be placed in the former I should necessarily miss it; while if, on the other hand, it were not so placed, and I gave them my whole attention, I should equally fail.” This suggests, rather clearly, that the point of whether the author is famous is a moot one. It is, I would argue, largely unimportant in the grand scheme of the author’s worth. But since fame is of apparent concern to the author, then one must conclude, like Spinoza, that he is quite possibly a deeply unhappy individual. Perhaps because the author in question of terrified of even amicable criticism and thus inures himself of the world’s sullies by opting for hugs instead of punches. This munificence is often an affliction for politically correct liberals, but should have no bearing on who the author is or where he might be placed in the literary canon.

Excerpt #2: “Intrigued, E—- agreed to a meeting, and the two became friends. Now they’ve collaborated on a moving, frightening, improbably beautiful book, a lightly fictionalized version of Deng’s life titled What Is the What: The Autobiography of Valentino Achak Deng.”

Response of Grad Student #1: Properly speaking, this autobiography is something of a misnomer. Amazon and McSweeney’s list the book as being authored not by Valentino Achak Deng, but by one Dave E—–. In fact, Mr. Deng is not listed here as author. E—- seems not to have learned anything from The Autobiography of Malcolm X (As Told to Alex Haley), which was written by both Alex Haley and Malcolm X. One might argue that this solipsistic authorship is not, in fact, the actions of a “friend” at all, but an opportunist.

Response of Grad Student #2: The notion of E—- “agreeing” to a meeting sounds more like a capitalist than a philanthropist. It is a wry verb chosen by Mr. Grossman, who I suspect, burdened by the oppressive sunniness of writing author profiles, is having a good deal of fun on us here. (See also his use of “synergistic collaboration” in a later paragraph.) Further, the over-the-top string of modifiers suggests a mildly satirical form of high praise.

Excerpt #3: “What could have been an awkward literary three-legged race became instead a synergistic collaboration. In person there’s an obvious and rather touchingly empathic bond between the two: E—- is the confident, gregarious one, while Deng speaks in quiet, melodious, not-quite-grammatical English.”

Response of Grad Student #1: While I quibble with the redundant phrase “touchingly empathic,” there is much to be said of the “three-legged race” imagery and the notion that these two authors (well, one author, if you look at the spine) are possibly inseparable, suggesting that the two authors work in a kind of Maoist communal sense more at home in an autocracy than authorship. Note also the connotation of “legged” and “E—–.”

Response of Grad Student #2: If one is to value silence over gregariousness, then it is clear that Mr. Grossman is implying that Deng is the more noble of the two men. In what sense, for example, is a “synergistic collaboration” any way preferable to an “awkward literary three-legged race?”

Blogging In Sick

Folks, I’m wiped. Freelancing assignments, three interviews in a week, a return to an ambitious project that’s been kicking my ass (but in a very good way), and podcast production have caused me to resort to episodes of the dreadful Torchwood (Charlie Anders nails probs with the Who spinoff here) when I’m not enjoying the hell out of the grand adventures of the Chums of Chance.

But I assure you that content will return tomorrow and that there are some very interesting podcasts coming up very soon which you won’t want to miss.

In the meantime, I recuse myself from a roundup today.

Podcast to Investigate Later

Point of Inquiry “is the premiere podcast of the Center for Inquiry, drawing on CFI’s relationship with the leading minds of the day including Nobel Prize-winning scientists, public intellectuals, social critics and thinkers, and renowned entertainers. Each episode combines incisive interviews, features and commentary focusing on CFI’s issues: religion, human values and the borderlands of science.” There are conversations with Salman Rushdie, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and the like.

Pass the Crayolas Please

Discover Your Literary Personality (via Books Inq.)

My results:

You scored as A classic novel. Almost everyone showers praise upon you for your depth and enduring relevance. According to your acolytes, everything you say is timeless, erudite and meaingful. Of course, none of them actually listen to you. Nobody listens to you at all, but it’s fashionable to claim you as a friend. Fond of obscure words, antiquated notions and libraries, you never have a problem finding someone to hang out with. The fact that they end up using you to balance their kitchen tables is an unfortunate side effect, but you’re used to being used for others’ benefit. Oh the burden of being Great.

A classic novel

86%

A coloring book

79%

Poetry

64%

A paperback romance novel

57%

A college textbook

50%

The back of a froot loops box

39%

An electronics user's manual

39%

Your Literary Personality
created with QuizFarm.com

File Under Things You Really Didn’t Want to Know About Cacuasian Literary Authors

New York Post: “Denham also recalls that Mailer, one of her literary heroes, turned out to be a bit weird. At one party, Mailer and his second wife, Adele, stripped and began jumping up and down on a bed, with Adele trying to coax Denham to get naked, too. ‘Norman was just square, no particular waist or pectoral definition, sturdy legs, large at the knees,’ and an ‘ordinary’ sex organ.”

So Who is Millenia Black?

Millenia Black recently challenged her critics with this assertion:

For those who are of a practical mindset, and to demystify my previous post, yes, a complaint was indeed filed against the publisher the first week of this month (October), in the Southern District Court of New York. Such documents are public record and are readily accessible via a simple trip to the clerk’s office.

Calling Black’s bluff, I checked the Southern District of New York Court docket. There is no “Millenia Black” lawsuit, per se. There is, however, a lawsuit filed against Penguin Group (USA) Inc. and Signet (Black’s publisher) by one Nadine Aldred, residing in Orlando, Florida. The suit was filed on October 2, 2006, within the time frame suggested by Ms. Black. It is a civil rights case: Case No. 1:06-CV-07887 to be exact, assigned to Judge Paul A. Crotty. (And if anyone wants to drop by the Southern District of New York Court (Foley Square) and pick up copies of the complaint, you can tell the clerk that the case file is available in Volume CS1.)

Is Millenia Black the nom de plume of Nadine Aldred? Well, you make the call. I should note that this is the only case filed against Penguin Group (USA) in the month of October. Further, Ms. Black’s profile indicates that she is from Florida, which matches the location of Ms. Aldred.

Interestingly enough, Ms. Aldred has not retained an attorney for this. She’s filed the lawsuit pro se, which is a fancy Latin adjective that essentially indicates that Ms. Aldred is representing herself. (And why?)

When the complaint becomes available per the Southern District of New York Court’s ECF requirements, I will investigate further.

Request for the Peanut Gallery

Okay, I’m working on something and I’ve ripped what little hair I have out of my head trying to find a specific story (possibly a short section of a novel) I’m trying to reference. We’re talking volumes ripped out of the library all over the floor. We’re talking crazed Google searches. We’re talking a few desperate emails to hard-core literary pals. This was something I read about fifteen years ago, written in a very poetic manner, that involves a man who walks the streets, who serves as a self-declared guard for a neighborhood community in an urban center but who is very much unappreciated, and whose services are scoffed at by the other people who live in the neighborhood. Think Knut Hamsun’s Hunger, but with the protagonist having more noble aspirations, a great call to duty for services that nobody around him can understand. It’s something that may have come before Ray Bradbury’s famous story “The Pedestrian,” which is similar, but not the story in question! I want to say that this was written at some point during the 1950s, but I’m not so sure. And this may have been the binding, because I think I checked this book out of a library, which is probably why I don’t have the book in question here.

I’m now considering the possibility that I somehow hallucinated this story, but I’m convinced that I read it somewhere. But it was long ago, in the days when I wasn’t so serious a reader, and I can’t recall the precise story. And this kills me, because normally I have a pretty good memory for things like this.

If anyone has any leads on this, I would be beyond appreciative! And perhaps I might send you some books or something. Any ideas what this story might be?

I’ll Start Crying When “Bergdorf Blondes” Makes the Syllabus

Guardian: “Contemporary writers never used to feature on A-level syllabuses. For years, the nearest most candidates got to a living author were the poems that an elderly TS Eliot or WH Auden had published decades earlier. Even by the end of the 1970s, the most up-to-date fiction studied might be one of the novels published by William Golding in the 1950s. Nowadays things are different. This summer candidates were being examined on Zadie Smith, Julian Barnes and Louis de Bernières. Next summer it will be AS Byatt’s Possession and Michael Frayn’s Spies.”

Book Standard Now Reports “Unbelievable Claims” As News

The Book Standard: “The unbelievable claim that O.J. Simpson was writing a book about how the murders of his ex-wife and her pal might have happened, had he committed them, turns out to be … not worth believing.”

Well, if the claim was so “unbelievable,” why then did The Book Standard report it as its top story on Thursday with the pretty “believable” headline “Author O.J. Simpson Gets $3.5 Mil For Confessional?” “Gets,” last time I checked, was a pretty foolproof transitive verb.

The Last Word on Millenia Black

Monica Jackson declares me a racist because I refuse to pursue the Millenia Black issue further.

I had hoped that my polite stance would be enough, but, if the cuffs are off, then my findings must be laid down on the table. Who knew that myopic demagogues like Monica Jackson were out there? People so fixed in their worldview that they cannot consider the entirely reasonable assumption that something that one person says on the Internet without a shred of supportive evidence may not be true.

First off, I am not in the habit of reporting a bullshit rumor and I am always grateful for reader corrections. I try to confirm information when I can through emails and phone calls. Here, for example, is what I’ve done about the Millenia Black matter:

I’ve talked with Millenia Black herself. I’ve talked with various people inside Penguin. I’ve attempted to contact people in the law firm who is allegedly handling the case. I’ve had exchanges with the bookstore owner. And the upshot is that the story doesn’t check out. This scenario is, as far as I can tell, a great deal of noise from an author who has no recourse for attention other than finger-pointing and lawsuit threats. Ever wonder why print journalists haven’t pursued this story? I mean, think about it. A major publishing house commits an act of apparent racism in the 21st century. It’s a perfectly interesting story that I’m sure any decent editor would lap up. Could it be that the facts are in question? That this may be a question of journalistic integrity? Could it be the same reason that newspapers didn’t immediately report the rumor planted by the National Inquirer and the Book Standard last week about O.J. Simpson getting paid $3.5 million for a book deal? Perhaps because it was utter horseshit denied by O.J. himself?

I find it ironic that the color of my skin is now being laid down as a qualifier. Is this not the same racist assumption that Ms. Black herself has accused others of all along?

Call me a racist all you want, but as Frederick Douglass once said, “I prefer to be true to myself, even at the hazard of incurring the ridicule of others, rather than to be false, and to incur my own abhorrence.”