I can’t believe that I’m in the position of defending both Sam Tanenhaus and Franklin Foer for this review, but since Mr. Hogan has taken them both to task, I should note that, in all fairness to Foer, he probably turned in his review of the Woodward book well before Rummy resigned. Of course, with Tanenhaus timing this review to appear after last week’s elections, presumably with the assumption that the Republicans would win, demonstrates how untimely delay can sometimes be a book review editor’s folly.
The Washington Post‘s Bob Thompson talks with Philip Roth as the third Library of America volume of Roth’s complete works hits bookstores.
Instead of reading the rambling nonsense (apparently, a “review” of Lisey’s Story) that appeared in this week’s NYTBR, King fans might want to check out this King interview, in which he discusses what frightens him.
The Simpsons Movie trailer. Yawn. Watching The Simpsons intermittently over the past several years has been a bit like watching a once robust American Cream Draft limp around the racetrack, when it really needs to be shot and put out of its misery.
The New Atlantic Independent Booksellers Association is trying to sex things up. They’ve opted for a new title for their trade show. But it isn’t Indie Booksellers Unite for Good Merlot. It isn’t Booksellers for a Better Tomorrow. It isn’t the Indie Booksellers Plot for World Domination Conference. Instead, it’s the pedestrian “The Booksellers Sales Conference,” which sounds about as inviting as eight hours of watching Powerpoint presentations. Come on, NAIBA! You can do better!
Richard Pachter: “It’s not enough to write a great book. Authors are now expected to play an active role in book marketing and promotion. In this brave new world of always-on media, scribes are expected to pursue or make themselves available to every potential reader.” Come on, Pachter. Do you really want to raise Updike’s blood pressure?
I’m actually excited about the Simpsons movie for the perverse reason that the makers of the show have hinted in the DVD commentaries that it would probably kill the show. No specific details, but there’s a definite vibe that the movie will be a sort of grand finale.
Of course, I also totally bought into the idea that REM would break up at midnight on New Year’s Day, 2000, so…
Yes, to put a plainer spin on it, the fact that Foer couldn’t incorporate the Rumsfeld developments into his story is a problem with the way the story was ASSIGNED, not the way it was written. Considered in and of itself, it’s a perfectly competent review of State of Denial, just as good as any of the ones filed a month before it.
Ed, what’s your beef with the Stephen King review? I thought it was refreshingly energetic and broad in scope.
Updike can take Toprol XL like everyone else!
Thanks for the good wishes on NaNoWriMo. I’ll need all the luck I can get!