• In an effort to demonstrate just how lazy bloggers can be, I’m now typing these words from bed. This is because I had a frightening amount of coffee yesterday and I am trying to mostly abstain from caffeine today. Frankly, my imbibing on this front took me aback. But it was required yesterday, because I interviewed a super-smart author. Today, I will try to learn a few Esperanto words and shout these at the top of my lungs while conducting an impromptu one-person version of leapfrog — that is, if the neighbors end up screwing like dormice. There will be few jokes, unless something truly riles me up. For now, there’s linkage.
• Revolting returns in new form, although it’s considerably slicker — and, dare I say it, not as promisingly revolting — than its previous incarnation.
• A 1986 Mac Plus goes up against a 2007 AMD Dual Core. See who wins. It ain’t exactly John Henry, although one wonders why a test along those lines hasn’t been revisited. (There was, incidentally, a comparable showdown executed a few days ago between me, flipping through an unwieldy unabridged, and one Jackson West, consulting his laptop — both of us looking for a word definition. I lost. Within ten seconds. And it was Jackson who remarked upon the John Henry connection and made me laugh.) (via 2 Blowhards)
• I am beginning to wonder if reading challenges are the litblogosphere’s answer to the reality TV show.
• Here’s why you don’t want to devote your creative energies to something without crossing your tees. Some filmmakers spent four years planning a Warhammer 40,000 fan film. They sunk 10,000 euros, employed actors and extras, and put together a 110 minute extravaganza. Alas, they failed to get the appropriate sanction of Games Workshop — indeed GW refused it after lengthy negotiations — and the film can now never be shown in front of an audience. All that time. All that effort. Wasted. I find this story very sad. All this could have easily be avoided if the amateur production was permitted more exhibitionist leeway (after all, it seems quite clear that they didn’t intend to see a profit for this thing) or the filmmakers had bothered to perform the most basic of preparatory tasks: obtaining permission.
• We’re only just in November, but PW appears to have the first Best Books of 2007 list I can find.
• Steven Hall on the American book tour, which sounds like drug trafficking (at least the way he describes it): “It really is solitary. It depends how you do it. The one I did across America was really solitary. I met someone from my publishers in L.A., and they gave me an envelope full of money and a schedule and said, ‘We’ll see you in New York in three weeks.'”
• Now this is fucking appalling. (And I’m surprised this didn’t happen in America first.) It’s bad enough that some books bother to have advertising inserts at all, but using advertising agencies to slip bullshit cards into books and pollute libraries with this junk (Will the advertising agencies be responsible for removing the inserts? I don’t think so!) is an absolute betrayal of the public trust. The cretins who authorized this ought to be ashamed of themselves for whoring out one of the few public spaces where one can escape from the cacophony of advertising.
• “Take No Chances” Ciabattari is proudly featured over at “Take No Chances” Kottke. Two duller people couldn’t deserve each other any more.

Connie Willis is in the house over at Finding Wonderland, one of many blogs now walking in a wintry wonderland and thankfully avoiding that dreaded carol.

Matthew Rose has seen fit to write an article containing certain similarities to my own experiences with Facebook and, in fact, using the same Jonathan Franzen angle that I used here on September 26, 2007.

My lede: “Jonathan Franzen does not want to be my friend.”

Rose’s lede: “Is Jonathan Franzen my friend?”

Could such a similarity have been avoided? Well, enter the search terms “Jonathan Franzen Facebook” into Google and you shall see what comes up first.

Of course, Matthew Rose will deny it. But my post was the subject of some discussion — both in the blogosphere and on Facebook. I was the first to publicly out Franzen’s existence on Facebook. A friend of mine insisted that I write a feature article about the experience, but I told her that I honestly didn’t see any reason why any serious newspaper would be interested in my technological navel-gazing.

Oh, how wrong I was.

Open note to the Wall Street Journal: I happen to be a writer myself. And unlike Mr. Rose, I can actually generate original ideas.

All the lower was full of cans and mays, corpulent, the deep damp latter rising from warm and pleasant memory and scratched out, extirpated, replaced by former, because it was former, the word itself representing dregs of dame abandoned. Requited love, alleged and recalled, contained in one word caused fury and savage strokes with present partner participating leading the frayed abandoned strands. Replacement seemed inevitable given the bulging veins on her neck, domestic bliss man rayed, can I go lacking a certain verve in this post-may american expattycake bakers man ray again this time of sunshine, we cant repeat the past. Santa reminds us every december of this doomed repeat repeat doomed repeat. Doomed repeat.

So who was she this may and why cant we move on? Just a word, change two letters and an all together different autobio forms the cycle spinning near the open door, billowing gusts of precognition decades before others took it up. May I can I may I can I swapping adulterous pairs in a plangent recall of detestable love given up for plain jane to class declasse must not name, for it would be like may, now all fit for janet’s consumption speculation. Interesting yes but what tells us that isn’t here near? What does it tell us by way of outside of us as may was one month after elliott’s pronouncement assuming you see connection?

Living longer decades longer she remembered did not know why not use may as much as she did, because lacked, hinging upon either-or instead of can’s active will. May I can I stop settle this like grown adults. Nib ripping paper, fortunately no inkwell. Papers deposited in snug archives, leaving only rapt academics to baste spells and ramp up ample speculations.

Gertrude what did you think of all this? We’ll never know and do we have the right to pry?

Edgar Wright: “I can confirm too, that Simon was never contacted either. I don’t really want to get involved at all, but it infuriates me that they would a) never bother to get in touch but still b) splash me and Simon’s names all over the trade announcements and infer that we’re involved in the same way Ricky & Steve were with The Office.”

Even worse, McG is involved in this remake. Which is entirely unnecessary.