From Ansible: “God damn that Chabon, dragging it out of the grave where she and the other serious writers had buried it to save serious literature from its polluting touch, the horror of its blank, pustular face, the lifeless, meaningless glare of its decaying eyes! What did the fool think he was doing?”

And Ursula’s just getting started.

(Thanks, Andrew!)

[10/15/07 UPDATE: While I did not post the entirety of Ms. Le Guin’s piece, I realize that I may have posted too liberally and have revised this post to limit my excerpt to one mere sentence, which I feel is applicable under fair use. Cory Doctorow, on the other hand, seems to be under the mistaken impression that quoting an author’s piece in its entirety is “fair use.” I feel that Doctorow was wrong to post the entirety of the piece and that, likewise, I was wrong in presenting more than three sentences. I should note that I have not been contacted by LeGuin or the SFWA, but her thoughts on the subject can be found here.]

BBC: “An artist has offered to donate his own head to an Oxford museum – if a collection of shrunken heads has to be returned to South America….Mr Dewan says that he hopes that any posthumous display of his head would have a ‘family friendly’ appeal.”

Finishing touches are being put on two more Segundo podcasts, with Larry N. Gittis momentarily replacing Mr. Segundo. One interview features a guest correspondent and involves superheroes; the other is the first part of a candid two-part interview with a cartoonist of some note. What could be more American than superheroes and cartoons? Stay tuned.

Kevin Burton Smith displays intellectual cowardice in proclaiming how horrible some of the “new noir” books are. What’s so wrong with this position? Well, Smith has failed to cite any specific examples for his argument. And what’s more, he appears more terrified than a mouse squirming in a glue trap. In the comments thread, Smith responded, “Like I don’t have enough people pissed off at me already? Why don’t YOU suggest some names that you think fit those shoes?”

Smith’s observations could have served as a launching point for a fascinating and provocative post, but Smith fails to cite examples of this “mean-spiritedness” and “self-righteous authorial stance” he identifies. I must therefore conclude from Smith’s post that Smith doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about, because he offers no explicit frames of reference for his argument.

Smith’s approach assumes that one cannot broach certain subjects without immediately inflaming an author, a critic, or a literary enthusiast. But this assumes that the author or critic is not mature enough to respond in a thoughtful manner to the argument, or recognize the value of discourse that gets the blood pumping. I suspect this fear of offending people in the literary world is one of the reasons Dale Peck’s form of book reviewing rankled so many a few years ago. But what’s more offensive? Hiding personal enthusiasms that offer helpful frames of reference and staying as safe as a Pat Boone record or being the momentary asshole who spots the leak in the lifeboat? Sure, you’ll hate the asshole. But if it were me, I’d trust him over the diffident one.

Forgive the radio silence. I’m attempting to beat deadlines, laryngitis that doesn’t seem to want to go away completely (despite expectorants, copious steam inhalation, and salt water gargling), and beat many other battles. I hope to offer a post or two later tonight.