Well my November plan to update more often failed fantastically. I didn't even make it to two posts. Would you believe me if I said it was because I was working so hard?
I've got a new plan for December though, so look out!
- Recently there has been a bit of a hubbub over Dave Eggers's apparently changing his opinion completely on Infinite Jest (or sucking up to be hip, if you dislike him) over the span of a decade. I agree with Matthew Tiffany's thoughts on why it is all a bit silly.
People who know me know I love McSweeney's in its many incarnations. However, I've only read two Eggers short stories in my life and none of his novels, so I have no personal love (or hate) of him personally. In addition to Tiffany's points, the main thing that stands out to me is that Eggers wrote the alleged review (I haven't been able to corroborate it yet) four years before his first novel and long before he was any kind of important figure in the literary world. I shudder to think that anyone might hold me to opinions I publish on this blog a decade from now if I should happen to be famous. All the complaints about Eggers needing to acknowledge his old opinions and his old review make sense on the face of things, but don't make sense to me given the details I just named. The review is totally obscure, a decade old and written before he was famous. Why does he need to acknowledge it? If this was Joan Didion reversing opinions she expressed in Slouching Towards Bethlehem or something along those lines I would understand the outrage. But Eggers not mentioning an old unknown review from ten years ago?
- Tiffany also points towards a good quick rebuttal of that silly "at least they're reading!" argument people throw around to defend horrible writing. As if reading bad writing was somehow innately good for you!
- Pictures of beached Doritos
- Grier points how this fun little animation to me
- I thought this few week old McSweeney's piece was pretty fun
That's it for now.
0 comments:
Post a Comment