2
POPSHarm in reading romance novels? -AJC, Jun 2007 See the AJC for rebuttal & great comments by romance authors. Clearly neither columnist knows anything about romance novels. Also, that book Feldhahn cites? The full title is Finding the Hero in Your Husband: Surrendering the Way God Intended http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1558749306?ie=UTF8&tag=readforplea-20&link_code=as3&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=1558749306 I bet Feldhahn's a "surrendered wife". Creepy. http://www.equityfeminism.com/articles/2001/the-surrendered-wife-phenomena/
0
POPSDeath of the Short Story, Buzz Balls & Hype, Jun 2007 Henkin makes a great point: short stories are perfect for the short attention span. So why aren't they selling? I often try a new author by reading her short stories. I know that an author's short stories may be very different from a novel, as the different lengths require such different approaches. But often reading the short stories is an easy intro to someone's style.
0
POPSGender in NY Times book reviews, Women's Review, Nov 2004 Not quite as cool as the Guerrilla Girls feminist activist movement in visual art, but still a pretty interesting set of statistics. The article doubts the NYTBR's editor's defense. I wonder if the numbers bear him out. "McGrath offered three explanations for the unbalanced ratio for book authors: that "more books are written by men than women"; that he chooses books for review based on whether they are "worthy of review"; and that he chooses for review books that are "of interest to our readers." We told McGrath we had tried in vain to determine whether more books by men than by women are published, and we asked him to tell us where he had found that documentation. He did not reply."
1
POPSThe Ethics of Book Reviews, NY Sun, June 2007 Another quote I feel really demonstrates the issue: "Some of the most influential editors and writers in the country — including Sam Tanenhaus, the editor of the New York Times Book Review, and Francine Prose, a frequent reviewer for Harper's and other publications — pretty much shrugged off all of the ethical concerns that the NBCC survey raised. As Ms. Prose said, such questions stem from "a bogus idea about book reviewing" — the idea that a book review is like "a peer review panel of the FDA."" Unfortunately, in the last few paragraphs of the article, Mr Kirsch goes off on an ill-informed rant against blogging. It's really unfortunate that the "establishment" reviewers haven't, apparently, discovered the fascinating world of the quality litblog.
0
POPSWhen is a Review Not a Review? NY Observer 6/2007 Two interesting points here, on the purpose of reviews: 1. The National Book Critics Circle appears to think book reviews are a quid pro quo transaction between author and reviewer. This idea is nicely debunked by Adam Kirsch in the NY Sun (12 June 2007; see my clipmark). 2. Apparently reviews aren't intended to "review"; they're essays on the book, rather than thumbs up/down. I'll have to think about that; it's a broad statement, perhaps broader than originally intended?
0
POPSJoyce Carol Oates: Reviews miss the writer A nice, pithy commentary that's very relevant to book blogging. For a number of reasons (amateur reviewers, broad access, etc), internet reviewing seems to intensify all the anxiety of hurting authors' feelings, as well as the visibility of the hurt feelings themselves.
0
POPSJennifer Weiner vs Curtis Sittenfeld, 7 June 2005 To summarize: Melissa Bank wrote a chick lit novel. Curtis Sittenfeld wrote a negative review in the NY Times. Curtis Sittenfeld wrote a novel she says is literary fiction. Jennifer Weiner didn't review it per se, but says it's chick lit. She describes it in the same derogatory terms Sittenfeld used about Bank's book. Implications: (1) Sittenfeld is a hypocrite (2) Sittenfeld's book is empty trash Jennifer Weiner writes chick lit herself. Weiner's line-by-line commentary on Sittenfeld's review is startlingly mean, putting words in Sittenfeld's mouth and portraying her as an insufferable, conceited ass. Finally, Weiner concludes by saying meanness is not helping women get published or taken seriously as authors. Cook utensil, meet cooking utensil. What a sad and ridiculous display of bitchery from all sides.
0
POPSRoze Hentschell on Literature Course Syllabi There's a lot more good text in the article. Hentschell continues: "When thinking about the early modern canon and who gets included, the class and gender of the author can be only part of the story. As John Guillory has rightly pointed out, ‘the historical process of canon formation, even or especially at the moment of institutional judgement, is too complex to be reduced to determination by the single factor of the social identity of the author’ (1993:17). To be sure, many socially privileged male authors (Fulke Greville, Thomas Nashe), are regularly excluded from the curriculum, just as ‘commoners’ (Ben Jonson, William Shakespeare) are ever present. The ‘social identity of an author’ cannot fully explain why texts are not taught to undergraduates. It can never explain why one text by Spenser will always be privileged over another. Why The Shepheard’s Calendar, for example, but not A View of the Present State of Ireland?"
Newest Clips
see Newest Clips
1
Latest Pops
Latest Comments
Most Pops
Tags
Print
Save
Turn on live update