Joseph Barbera is dead, and the world is a little sadder for it.
Ellis was made for horror.
Regan fallout, Regan fallout, and more Regan fallout.
“Most days I’m with Stravinsky. An impulse to say something disappears into the steady progression of sentences.”
Poetry is dead. Whodunit?
“Finally, it can’t be helped, there’s the matter of an author’s looks, the literary version of ‘curb appeal.”‘We’ve seen it at work with Paul Auster, Sebastian Junger, and quite recently with Marisha Pessl and the extraordinary media coverage of her debut novel Special Topics in Calamity Physics.”
Happiness is sooo 2006. Being artfully angsty? Totally the new trend for 2007. You heard it here first.
Playboy: returning to its literary rep?
“Yet again the art book pendulum is swinging in the direction of the museum catalogues for the big, international blockbuster exhibitions rather than the classic monograph on a particular artist or movement.”
Scientists and Tom Waits might be big in Japan, but Murakami isn’t.
“Actually, the Jane Austen section is the part of the book that will really annoy the feminists. Because, contrary to what you may have heard, Jane Austen’s novels are not ‘subversive.’ They’re funny. Jane Austen made fun of men (and of women, too). But it was human folly and vice, not ‘patriarchal oppression,’ that made her mad. If Jane Austen were living today, we’d call her a conservative Christian. She was quite comfortable with traditional sex roles. The villains in her novels are not jealous, controlling patriarchs. They’re weaklings. The men who cause the real trouble in Austen novels are distant, uninvolved fathers; uxorious husbands who do selfish things to please their awful wives; and lovers who pay too much attention to girls they aren’t ready to marry. Jane Austen clearly thought a lot of men would be improved if they were more patriarchal than they actually are.”