Showing posts with label haterade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label haterade. Show all posts

4.21.2010

That's what she said: Literary haterade

Writers are notoriously cranky, reader types, not only in regard to their own work, but also in regard to the work of others. And sometimes, they just want to throw down. Like Faulkner on Mark Twain:
A hack writer who would not have been considered fourth rate in Europe, who tricked out a few of the old proven sure fire literary skeletons with sufficient local color to intrigue the superficial and the lazy.

That is what the kids would call "a burn," I believe. And there are 49 more! Click click, sirs and madams.

Also, thank you michael for sending this along!

4.01.2010

E-books ruin America, make babies and puppies cry

The people are angry, reader types--angry at the e-book overlords. First they won't display all book covers on iTunes, which makes for the crankness. Very enraging, and it's only the tip of the iceberg!

Then the e-books make it harder to flirt on the subway, because you can't see the cover and strike up a conversation (even when the reader is perhaps actively giving you dissuading vibes and non-committal answers and is on her way to work and doesn't want to talk to anyone and is already lobbying to be one of someone's many fiancees and oh em gee please stop talking to me).

Also, e-books are putting monks out of business. Have ye no decency, sirs?

3.11.2010

Haterade, 40 ways

A bunch of academics came up with a list of the worst 40 books, which is really 40 academics discussing one, several, or no books at all that they think are terrible. Of course they were roundly chastised by the internet via Jacket Copy, and the best, best thing was said by one of the commenters:
A friend of mine was at an academic conference session about "Ulysses." Someone on the panel referred to an episode where a character in the novel had coffee at a restaurant. The rest of the panel turned on him, and one of them hissed, "It was cocoa!" Now do you see why this ridiculous list came about?

2.05.2010

Cat fight: Faulkner and Twain edition

Writers are filled with haterade, reader types. Example?
[Mark] Twain himself took it on the chin from fellow Southerner William Faulkner, who called him a “hack writer who would not have been considered fourth rate in Europe, who tricked out a few of the old proven ‘sure fire' literary skeletons with sufficient local color to intrigue the superficial and the lazy.”
Ha!

1.21.2010

Twilight plus manga equals Twanga

EW got an exclusive look at a page of the forthcoming Twilight graphic novel, as well as part of an interview with Stephenie Meyer. And, yea, that's not particularly interesting, but I love love love the comments at EW. People are crazy. Go read the trainwreck!

1.19.2010

A DIY book tour article I actually didn't hate

Don't underestimate how ready I was to hate this article about a DIY book tour, reader types. First, it's in the New York Times, which almost only publishes smarmy New York "trends" and "lifestyles," like vegetarians who have beef with vegans, or Hasids and hipster who learn to live together. Second, it's about publishers trying to push their corporate agendas and someone standing up and saying, "No, I will do something indie and twee instead." Third, this is about something indie and twee.

So hats off to you, Stephen Elliot, for writing an essay on this topic for this paper and actually endearing yourself. The tour worked thusly:
Before my book came out, I had set up a lending library allowing anyone to receive a free review copy on the condition they forward it within a week to the next reader, at their own expense....I asked if people wanted to hold an event in their homes. They had to promise 20 attendees. I would sleep on their couch. My publisher would pay for some of the airfare, and I would fund the rest by selling the books myself.
He talks about the successes and failures of this method, and, while it sounds kind of exhausting, it's at least interesting. And works in sex workers, which always brightens up my reading experience.

1.12.2010

Sherlock Holmes: Potentially not gay

The estate of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is not pleased with the rumors that Watson and Holmes are homosexual lovers. Now, I haven't seen the new movie (yet!), but I do have to say: does anyone really care about this as an issue? As Nikki Gloudeman writes:
Why does everyone think they're homosexual? From what I saw, they're two guys who are very close, protective, and fond of one another. So were the female leads in Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, and no one called them lesbians.
Hear hear, Nikki. Plus, Jude Law has impregnated so many women, I would also switch to men if I were him. They are much harder to knock up.

1.11.2010

"Dead babies are my thing," say two French novelists

Let me summarize a hairy, angry plagiarism situation for you, friends. In 1995, Camille Laurens published a book that dealt with the death of her baby. In 2007, Marie Darrieussecq published a novel on the same topic, which Laurens termed "psychological plagiarism." This was awkward, because both shared an editor, who ended up siding with Darrieussecq. Last week they both put out books about the feud, of which "[o]ne was a studious analysis of literary theft; the other was a thinly veiled fictional account of a novelist who is dropped by her publisher after accusing a young rival of plagiarism."

Listen, France. I know you're in a rumormill drought, since Sarkozy's multiple divorces and marriage to a model are old news. But literary feuds as tabloid fodder? Really? England is a smaller country and they have, off the top of my head, Amy Winehouse, Jordan Price, and Lily Allen (and that's after losing the Beckhams to LA!).

I think all of us thoughtful Americans should ship some of our more salacious celebrities, who grace our tabloid covers weekly, to France, to educate the French about what belongs in the tabloids. The transplants can do homestays and pretend to go to classes. You're welcome, France.

11.17.2009

Oxford has been unfriended

I'm sorry, Oxford. You chose "unfriend" as your word of 2009 over "tramp stamp," and I will never forgive you.

I guess technically "tramp stamp" is a phrase, not a word, but it's on the list of contenders (below "sexting" and "teabagger"). And your definition is so, so choice:
tramp stamp: a tattoo on the lower back, usually on a woman
Usually on a woman? The gauntlet is thrown, readers. Find me a man with a tramp stamp, and you will get the $20 I'm getting from Moonrat for "helping" with her troll problem.*

*This is totally void if I never get paid, which is, sadly enough, more than likely.

Martin for martinets

George R.R. Martin is wonderful. End of story.

Ok, some people won't just take my word on that, and have to be convinced. At the Guardian book blog, Sam Jordison writes about falling in love with GRRM. Most of the article is about not wanting to read Martin's books, but then he comes around and recognizes that the Song of Ice and Fire series is faboosh. I have distilled the good things he has to say below:
Martin has a great talent when it comes to placing his reader inside the heads of his characters....I couldn't stop reading....I read A Game Of Thrones with genuine pleasure....Martin's writing is excellent. His dialogue is snappy and frequently funny. His descriptive prose is immediate and atmospheric, especially when it comes to building a sense of deliciously dark foreboding relating to a long winter that is about to engulf his fictional land....Indeed, darkness is something Martin excels in....I know why they call it dragon-crack. I have no choice but to read the next novel.
Feel free to read the whole post (it's pretty interesting), but for those of you who don't like to hear bad things about GRRM: don't say I never did anything for you. Take the compliments and run.