Comments on: But Seriously, Folks

By: Kate

Kate — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 03:56:54 +0000

On the smallest possible note, I love how mean people are about his use of Random Caps.

On a larger one, Col, I actually agree with you… to a point. But to clarify, I wasn’t blaming the public’s taste for mem-wah on all of the above, but the lack of editing going on these days. It’s a business decision not to allow the bucks or the time to edit things well–or at all–and I think it’s pretty inextricably related to those things. (You could argue that the public doesn’t give a rat’s ass if things are well-edited, so why should they spend the money? But that’s a different question.)

By: spillah

spillah — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 03:38:25 +0000

in the meantime, i’d like to proffer janet maslin’s review as proof that while many american women are nuts, others are quite sane and funny.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/21/books/21MASL.html?ex=1137560400&en=90caa9c879353882&ei=5070

By: spillah

spillah — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:54:25 +0000

i just read the "beautiful, shattering" excerpt on random house's website. remember how we were talking about writers who capitalize on the suffering of others to self-aggrandize, and how that should pretty much eliminate any piece of writing in terms of art?

uh, yeah. so gotta get on that blonde essay about dave eggers. NOW.

By: colleen

colleen — Sat, 14 Jan 2006 03:17:50 +0000

at the risk of sounding like bill o’reilly, the people want what they want. chain bookstores, moguls, and bennett cerf aren’t to be ‘blamed’ for the fact that the people, now in possession of myriad choices for approaching the sublime, are looking to forms other than the novel. – col (a huge fan of your musings, good novels, and a capitalist pig to boot).

By: Digital Art Photography for Dummies

Digital Art Photography for Dummies — Sat, 14 Jan 2006 03:17:40 +0000

here, here, i got published, but it wasn’t my novel.