We don’t know who you have to fuck to get a free copy, but we’re working on it

Posted by Lizzie on 11/30/04

We know. We jest. We scoff. We make funny noises when we swallow. But it’s not just Alias Old Hag All The Time, people. We’re pleased to announce that our chapbook of poetry is forthcoming from Caketrain journal (hit “Press”) whenever they see fit to put Quark to paper.

Filed under: Lit-ish | Comments (31)

bloghosts [closed for business]

Posted by Lizzie on

Our dumb hosting service is shutting down Jan 1. What this means for you, three readers, is that come the New Year, we will probably have to take a small hiatus if we can’t load up somewhere else in the meantime. Also, because apparently the owner (unconfirmed; salacious gossip) has skipped the country and is sipping cervezas with kufrs in some dirt-floor bar in South America, we will never get this domain name back and will have to switch again. We know this will reduce our readership to 1 and the occasional 2, because, seriously, how many times does a person want to switch? (What is this, Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice?) What can we say; we’re sorry. We wish there was some way to feed all the content automatically into a new site, but apparently this is akin to wishing all the ingredients for dinner would fly off the counters and arrange themselves into boeuf bourguignon and rosemary roasted potatoes.* **

* Are there dinners that can do this? Let us know.
** We’d like to point out that that title above IS NOT OURS. That’s the automatic slug of the page’s URL. Fuck fuck fuck.

Filed under: WTF | Comments (10)

Kenneth, why have they fired me?

Posted by Lizzie on

In 2001, Paul Limbert Allen solved the mystery of the Dan Rather “What is the Frequency, Kenneth?” beating, but was strangely unable to find true believers in his Barthelme theory. In an elegiac nod to Rather’s imminent departure, they’ve published it online:

I will never know what wrong Donald Barthelme perceived was done to him by Dan Rather during their mutual incubations in Houston. No one will ever know. It will have to be the one unknown that haunts our generation as we ponder the Rather/Barthelme connection with the incident on Park Avenue. But there are at least two well-dressed white men out there (now in their fifties) who know the complete truth. Did Barthelme know what they were doing? Or were the avengers acting on their own, loose cannons armed with quotes from Barthelme’s canon?

Filed under: Lit-ish | Comments (0)

Or should we hang out in those back-bend chairs, which actually look kind of cool?

Posted by Lizzie on 11/29/04

We’re sure you’re all practically falling off the edges of your seats in anticipation of our next installment regarding our ongoing saga with chiropractic and the mystery thereof. For those of you that missed the first post, here’s the long version. We dropped a card in a coffee-shop card-drop FOR THE FIRST TIME and won what we thought was a massage. Actually it was a full workup and lecture series with a leading chiropractor around the corner from the coffee shop. On our first visit, we watched an instructional video, allowed ourselves to be irradiated against a wall and were told our spine looked something like a series of hooked devil horns rising to a withered desert pine. Tomorrow we go for the hydro-massage, which we like to envision as full immersion in an azure grotto attended by strapping, well-oiled eunuchs, but have been told is more like an inflated, inside-out condom you shudder in fully clothed. Anyway, on our first visit, the chiropractor told us that, were we to pooh-pooh the advice that we submit to his ministrations twice weekly, we would evolve into a stoop-shouldered, slouching mass barely recognizable as a human. Ever since then, we have experienced twinges and pains unimaginable, including violent stiffness of the neck and a tingling of the outer limbs. So even though he didn’t actually touch us or anything, can we still sue?

Filed under: WTF | Comments (1)

Elizabeth Bishop: the new Uggs

Posted by Lizzie on

Slate, for some unknown reason, is churning out a bumper crop of pieces on poetry today. (So far: Anne Winters, Derek Walcott and Richard Wilbur.) If this hot new trend continues, we can expect Robert Pinsky to expire shortly after blowing 87 rails in the bathroom of Bungalow 8 any day now.

UPDATE: What is it called when you piggyback on the NYTBR’s scoop about an art form that has existed since the beginning of time? We don’t know, but Salon also has an interview with Sylvia Plath’s–obviously tortured –psychiatrist. [via the kind offices of LizPennakaDanaStevens]

Filed under: Lit-ish | Comments (2)

We hope you feel better about your next trip to the DMV

Posted by Lizzie on

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, author of Purple Hibiscus, has written an editorial about getting your passport renewed in Nigeria:

When I finally get to the entrance, the Nigerian guard looks through my passport. He is upset that I travel to England often. “Why?” he asks. I want to tell him that he is working for the United States Embassy, not the British, and that his job is simply to make sure I have the right documents. But I say nothing. He puffs his shoulders and grunts with self-importance. “Passport photos?” he asks.

I hand them to him.

“Use your right hand!” he says.

I transfer my files to my left hand and then hand him the photos with my right. He notices they are the same photos I have used in my British visa. “Get back!” he says. “Go and take another picture and come back! You cannot wear the same dress in two passports!”

I come back the next day, with new photos in which I look ridiculous because the photographer – his signboard said, “Expert in American Visa Passport Photos”- stuck little balls of paper behind my ears. The Americans want to make sure your ears show, he told me. He didn’t listen when I said that my ears don’t need to stick out like lettuce leaves, that the Americans simply don’t want your hair to cover your ears.

Filed under: Lit-ish | Comments (0)

Get your pretentious American actors straight

Posted by Lizzie on

Okay, so we only scored five out of ten on this Guardian books-into-films quiz. But it’s Ethan HAWKE, not Ethan HAWKES, you limey bastards.

Filed under: Lit-ish | Comments (1)

We’re all for indulging the dead, especially if it involves graveside bukkake

Posted by Lizzie on 11/22/04

Sometimes people are dead, but they still have things to say. Witness this dispatch from He-Who-Prefers-Not-To-Be-Named,-Actually,-Thanks:

Doughy-faced scribbler Jonathan Franzen takes approximately 7,500 words of this week’s New Yorker to continue the ongoing memoir-cum-therapy-session which editors of that fine periodical have been complicit in enabling over the last few of years. He also mentions a couple of things about Charlie Brown (given the latter’s moon-shaped visage, a little self-identification by the former makes sense). Now it’s all well and good for certain middlebrow publications to serve as safe havens in which their contributors can work out their deep-seated neuroses in full view, but, c’mon, this is The New Yorker: do they really need to go out of house? We’re sure Denby could crank out a masturbation monologue in a minute, if necessary. Well, at least there’s nothing about The Mekons in this one.

Filed under: Lit-ish | Comments (5)

Just worse drinking partners

Posted by Lizzie on

Winning admission to an elite school is imagined to be a golden passport to success; for bright students, failing to do so is seen as a major life setback… Shirley Levin, of Rockville, Maryland, who has worked as a college-admissions consultant for twenty-three years, concurs: “Never have stress levels for high school students been so high about where they get in, or about the idea that if you don’t get into a glamour college, your life is somehow ruined.”

But what if the basis for all this stress and disappointment—the idea that getting into an elite college makes a big difference in life—is wrong? What if it turns out that going to the “highest ranked” school hardly matters at all?

We’ve always known two things: 1) If we’d gone to a high-pressure school like Exeter instead of one in which we could hang around reading Sinclair Lewis all day because the calculus homework was kind of easy, we never would have been able to handle the pressure, and 2) being too delicate to handle the pressure would have made us a rather mediocre student, and thus 3) we never would have gotten into the type of fancy-pants school we eventually attended. (See, that was actually three things. Case in point.)

Because, the older and more decrepit we grow, the more it seems STRIKINGLY clear that the vast majority of those who attended what the more imperious inhabitants of New Haven and Cambridge would have generally regarded as a dumbass school seem pretty much the same at getting good jobs, acquiring houses, spouses and children, eating and drinking regularly, and garnering fame and money for themselves — even lawyers and guns if required. (It goes without saying that, as drinking partners, they are actually far better at not being irritating and always dropping hints about “New Haven” and “Cambridge” and stuff.) Which is to say, if you are a young, nervous parent, or if you are an old, insecure drinker who hates drinking with certain people, you should read October’s Atlantic roundup of college-admission idiocy. It says Ivy League grads are as dumb as you are. [Bugmenot required.]

Filed under: Lit-ish | Comments (3)

It is, as God is our witness, the ONLY good thing to ever come from Language Poetry

Posted by Lizzie on

We can’t improve on Beatrice‘s assessment of David Orr’s review in this week’s NYTBR, so we’ll just post it completely:

It’s hard to be 100 percent objective about David Orr’s review of The Best American Poetry 2004, since Beatrice owes about half of its current audience to Orr’s positive appraisal of this blog for NYTBR in October. Having made that disclosure, it’s damn near about the most perfect review I’ve read in a long time, laying out the longstanding critical controversies surrounding the Best American Poetry series and the merits and flaws of the poems in this year’s edition in a clear, orderly fashion that continually relates the issues raised to the text under consideration. If you don’t know much about poetry, you’ll feel honestly educated after reading this piece.

Filed under: Lit-ish | Comments (0)

Doesn’t a hero named “Aiken Studdard” have a kind of ring to it?

Posted by Lizzie on

Forget what we said below about the novel-writing computer program Brutus.1 below. Lit Idol is gearing up again. [via Bookslut.]

Filed under: Lit-ish | Comments (2)

Talk about setting your bar low

Posted by Lizzie on

“Dave Striver loved the university – its ivy-covered clocktowers, its ancient and sturdy brick, and its sun-splashed verdant greens and eager youth. The university, contrary to popular opinion, is far from free of the stark unforgiving trials of the business world: academia has its own tests, and some are as merciless as any in the marketplace. A prime example is the dissertation defense: to earn the Ph.D., to become a doctor, one must pass an oral examination on one’s dissertation. This was a test Professor Edward Hart enjoyed giving.”

David Akst claims a program called Brutus can out-write even MFA grads. First of all, it obviously can’t. But still.*

* We have so many rejected headers for this one….”Perhaps Tom Wolfe should have considered it anyway”… “But computers can’t drink bourbon”… “It did know to say ‘oral’ “… feel free, you know, to suggest your own.

Filed under: Lit-ish | Comments (0)

Now, just step up the Heidi Julavits coverage

Posted by Lizzie on

If, instead of two columns of type, the “Lives” column of the NYT actually opened to a three-year-old spitting his eighth mouthful of pool water into your face, it could not be more harrowing. Which is to say, brava Mediabistro:

If one didn’t know better, one might think “Lives” was being edited by the macabre cartoonist Gahan Wilson, or perhaps by his neurotic colleague, Roz Chast, or maybe even by the Mistress of Human Misery herself, famed suspense writer Patricia Highsmith. Would it be better—or at least more accurate—if “Lives” were renamed “Lives That Suck”? I submitted to “Lives” a few years ago—twice—but failed in my effort. That’s almost material good enough for “Lives” right there—submitting to “Lives”, and failing to be published. It’s like shooting yourself in the face with a shotgun and surviving. Loser!

Filed under: Lit-ish | Comments (0)

He may have no teeth, tobacco breath and a gunshot wound through his jaw, but still

Posted by Lizzie on 11/21/04

If you are feeling ugly, move to Baltimore immediately and head to the nearest dive bar. Not only will a patron insist on giving you tips on how to hit the corner pocket off the rail, as you lean over to make the shot, he’ll say. “You’ll make it. Of course you’ll make it. You’re too pretty to miss.”

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: | Comments (3)

One question: WHY is it in Fashion & Style?

Posted by Lizzie on 11/20/04

We’re not sure the Times needed an addendum to its ‘Lives’ feature (we won’t link; we have a heart), but this “Modern Love” column on how to talk about your divorce bodes well:

Perhaps there could be a Web site: www.whatthehellhappened.com complete with a FAQ link.

Q. What about the children?

A. They live with me but will stay with him every Friday and every first, third and fifth Thursday night as well as the first Saturday of every month. Yes, it’s hard to remember which week it is.

Q. Will reconciliation be possible?

A. No. If you read the whole story you will understand why. (Use password to access the secure site.)

Q. Are you O.K.?

A. No, I’m not. Thanks for asking.

Q. Is there anything we can do to help?

A. Yes. Click on the Send Money link below.

Filed under: Lit-ish | Comments (0)

FREE VIRGINIA

Posted by Lizzie on 11/19/04

My first response to finishing the book has actually been to savor the silence, since I’m worn out, having been shouted down by that loudmouth Wolfe and his twerpy T.A.s—Jojo, Hoyt, Adam, and yes Charlotte, our Maiden No More. Can’t you and I, fresh from the 676-page exhortation to—what?—face facts?, now relish a quiet duller world, the one between Wolfe productions, free of “ruttingruttingrutting” and fake Ebonics and typographical stunts like “::::::STATIC:::::” and the grinding of the mons pubis?

And, with that, my second response: to get to the task of exchanging glances with everyone who’s lugging this unmistakable $28.95 hardcover around that says, “OK, hi, what is it with ‘mons pubis’ and ‘cleft in the rear declivity’ and ‘winking navels’? Why does Wolfe introduce these wack expressions as though they’re fresh wit and he hasn’t used them a half-dozen times on the facing page?”

I am trying to come up with a glance that can convey this.

It’s SUCH a relief to see the old witty, snazzy V. Hef back in the (digital) pages of Slate. But this prompts the inevitable question: WHAT DASTARDLY TIMES EDITOR KEEPS MUZZLING HER?

Filed under: Lit-ish | Comments (2)

This one’s for T-Muffle

Posted by Lizzie on

quit As a wee lass toiling in the bowels of publishing, we happened upon a very clever book, “The Quit”, by one Evan Harris, detailing the myriad ways one could and should leave pretty much any situation. Now we find that an updated, illustrated edition, “The Art of Quitting,” has somehow made its way into our hot little hands. We will award this means to any end to the reader with the best quit story. Leave your leave-offs below, and we will reward the reader after Thanksgiving. (If yours is really juicy, we’ll post it too.)*

* We should probably admit we are partial to dramatically pre-empting a firing in the workplace, since we always seem to miss the window on that one.

Filed under: Lit-ish | Comments (4)

O/T, but I MUST AGAIN ask — are chiropractors bullshit?

Posted by Lizzie on

We would be remiss if we didn’t come out of our pre-L tryptophan slumber to ask that you go over to Maud’s to welcome new Friday blogger Annie Reid. If it’s any consolation to her, her juxtaposition of poutine poetry and George Orwell give US a whopping case of insecurity.

Filed under: Lit-ish | Comments (1)

Poetry, turkey, sticky

Posted by Lizzie on 11/18/04

Okay, folks, that’s probably it for a while. We haven’t been doing much, and, as T-Day approaches, we are determined to do even less. We’ll leave you with two amusements, however: 1) this week’s NYTBR is going to be the poetry issue (three people jump for joy; a thousand blanch) and, 2) apparently, having learned to read will still not stop some women from being stooooopid. Lord, what will happen if they ever get the vote? [Thanks, correspondent-who-shall-not-be-named and Jimmy, respectively!]

Filed under: Lit-ish | Comments (20)

Plagiarism is probably less irritating when you get to write about it in the New Yorker

Posted by Lizzie on

Almost as soon as I’d sent the letter, though, I began to have second thoughts. The truth was that, although I said I’d been robbed, I didn’t feel that way. Nor did I feel particularly angry. One of the first things I had said to a friend after hearing about the echoes of my article in “Frozen” was that this was the only way I was ever going to get to Broadway—and I was only half joking. On some level, I considered Lavery’s borrowing to be a compliment. A savvier writer would have changed all those references to Lewis, and rewritten the quotes from me, so that their origin was no longer recognizable. But how would I have been better off if Lavery had disguised the source of her inspiration?

Apparently, Malcolm Gladwell doesn’t mind if you lift from his work as long as it winds up on Broadway. On an unrelated note, look out for the musical “Six Degrees of Lois Weisberg” sometime in 2006.

Filed under: Lit-ish | Comments (3)

Older Posts