Literature Today

Adam’s praised by someone who doesn’t already like him.  Some day, I will too.  Some day, so will we all.  (Except you.  You suck.  Sorry, but someone had to say it.)

In the meantime, check us out.  We’re special too, you know.  (Who’s that I spy, mistaking hits for individual visits again?)

Speaking of me: I’ve posted another anti-psychoanalytic broadside, this one with facts to complement the usual vitriol.

Graphic novels are better than you think they are.  Good, even.

The time has come to Remix literature:

The remixing of literature started from Nigel Tomm’s work “Shakespeare’s Sonnets Remixed”, where the author took the original text of Shakespeare’s Sonnets and deconstructed them into modern language with changing form and meaning beyond physical recognition.

Awesomeness.

Literature above all signifies empowerment.  That’s it.  Just empowerment.  Alright, alright, wax too. 

Jack is better than Hemingway and Ginsberg, but his dreams and values are slowly being consigned to textbooks.

Finally, someone who isn’t preoccupied with literary theory.  At least, not there.

Donald Maass, one alveolar sibilant removed from powerful irony, prepares to reveal the secret of the novel.  To Nashville.

Penguin Books appoints Mother to a very important post.  Father quite upset, hops into white van.

Watch out for White Van Man!  He drives too close!  Cyclists beware! 

Speaking of excessive exclamation, could someone tell me how to pronounce this band’s name?  Because if people pronounce it like it looks, well:

Kid #1: I like!  That band.

Kid #2: So!  Do I.

Kid #1: We!  Should form a band.

Kid #2: But!  What should we!  Name it!

Comments

[ArmchairAnarchist]

I'm the bloke who wrote the Roberts review you linked up top, there, and I need you to answer me a question that's been bugging me ever since I noticed the link back while reading through my daily RSS stuff;

"Some day, I will too. Some day, so will we all. (Except you. You suck. Sorry, but someone had to say it.)"

Call me paranoid, but is that:
1) a (justifiable) dig at me and my amateurish reviewing skills? Or
2) a nudge at the good Mr. Roberts? Or
3) an in-joke that my insecurities have mistranslated?

I understand that whatever it is, it doesn't matter (no anger, for certain; I usually don't get this amount of traffic in a fortnight), but the more I've wondered the more slippery the meaning has become, and now I just want to *know* so I have a chance of sleeping through the night...

AA/VelcroCity

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

Sorry for the confusion, AA. I'm winding up Adam, who sent me a copy of the book gratis with the expectation that I'd review it. Of course, that may just be my insecurities at play there, since I assume the arrival of any free books creates a complicit agreement to review.

Anyhow, as you'll note if you hit the other place I posted it, the Valve, Adam's one of our stable of scribblers. (Has a new post up today, in fact.)

[Adam Roberts]

"Adam, who sent me a copy of the book gratis with the expectation that I'd review it" ...

But what can I say, except 'No! No! Truly No!' It was a thank you for reading through one of my other interminable MSS and giving such invaluable feedback. Don't review it, for the sake of Pete. (I see 'gift' has a different semiotic in the USA than over here ...)

[Adam Roberts]

Incidentally, since I'm here, thank you Armchair Anarchist for your detailed and thoughtful review.

Meanwhile I've just unearthed the following document from the acephalitic files.

Dear Santa. I received in my stocking yesterday morning a copy of The Very Hungry Caterpillar. This appears to be a wholly unsolicited book, given gratis to me from you. I must say this act of 'generosity' puzzles me, and frankly makes me rather suspicious. Is it your objective that I should review this title? Sincerely, Scott Kaufmann, aged 3 and a half