Conversation in a Time Boardroom

“So what’s it going to be, fellas? Costello, I’m going to New York with you. We need ourselves a Person of the Year.”

“You!”

“Yeah, I’m the guy steering this committee. And if we’re not careful about nipping this in the bud, we’ll be here close to Christmas. You got any bright ideas, squirt?”

“Don’t you get it? You!”

“I got a name, shortstop.”

“You! That’s our Person of the Year!”

“What the hell did I do?”

“You!”

“You!”

“Yes, that’s it!”

“I was only doing what you did.”

“But that’s just it!”

“We can’t have two Persons of the Year. We had three Good Samaritans last year.”

“Which is why we settle upon you!'”

“That’s a conflict of interest.”

“No, it isn’t. Let me explain. The reader picks up the cover and sees the word ‘You.'”

“Which means the manager?”

“Yes.”

“The coach too?”

“Yes.”

“Anybody playing baseball?”

“Yes.”

“And who are these fellows? Do we need to know their name?”

“Well, we shouldn’t. Because the Person of the Year is ‘You.'”

“Then you’re the Person of the Year?”

“Yes.”

“And who are you?”

“Me. But that’s part of You.'”

“Me? The guy on first?”

“Yes. You’re You too!”

“The first baseman?”

“Yes. He’s Person of the Year too.”

“This is too goddamn conceptual. Priscilla wouldn’t approve.”

“What?”

“I Don’t Give a Darn!”

“That’s next year’s Person of the Year.”

Judith Regan: A Necessary Evil?

Sara Nelson: “As for HarperCollins: it is well known that many Regan books—from Wicked to Howard Stern to three bestsellers about Scott Peterson—made a great deal of money for the company. Without her—and really, without her, will the imprint be able to make and market the books that reflected her uncanny and unseemly taste or lack thereof?—won’t Harper feel the pinch? The marketplace certainly wanted many of these books, which may say more about the marketplace than it does about the morals of editors, but we all live and die by that marketplace.And I can’t help wondering what the brass will say if their numbers are down in the first post-Regan year.”

New Orleans in Trouble

Sara Gran: “For me, things work out fine (I can go to the suburbs or just shop in NYC for books, music, clothes etc.) but what about some poor mom who’s trying to get her kids clothes for school? She has exactly one option in the city: wal-mart, which offers terrible quality at average prices. The reason why I say this is, or might be, the future, is because I wish more people were aware that when it comes to this stuff there is nothing so special about New Orleans, except poverty.”

(via Pinky’s Paperhaus)

Sudafed Users Are Terrorists!

I went to pick up some Sudafed this morning and was shocked that I had to show my photo ID. Apparently, thanks to the PATRIOT Act, your driver’s license is taken, with all of the information recorded into a computer, and only then, after this five minutes of nonsense, are you able to purchase your Sudafed. The effort was initiated in October to go after methamphetamine labs. But this is an utterly debasing thing to go through when you’re standing in line feeling like shit and all you really want to do is rest up and get better. The other thing: does my name go into a fucking database because I had the temerity to want to cure my fucking cold? And is this really the best way to fight meth labs when these drug cooks are going to get their ephedrine elsewhere?

Sam Tanenhaus: Finding Chicks Who Write Nonfiction is Just SO GOSH DARN HARD!

Lee Kottner writes a letter to Tanenhaus about the NYTBR‘s well-documented lack of women nonfiction coverage and receives a response. Tanenhaus claims, “The truth, at least as far as we can tell, is that there remain areas in which women authors tend to be less well (that is, less numerously) represented than men: science, philosophy, economics, politics, public policy, foreign policy, to name some obvious ones.” But, as Kottner demonstrates with a list of books, this isn’t the case at all. As Kottner puts it, “hat it’s not that women are underrepresented anywhere in publishing (except perhaps in science, which I’ll get to later), it’s that the topics we write about are not ‘important,’ e.g., interesting to men.” (via The Other)

As to Tanenhaus’s recent claim that litbloggers are sloppy writers, I would suggest that Tanenhaus, with a team of roughly ten, is sloppier than ten litbloggers put together. This site, with its blog and podcast (which came well before the NYTBR‘s rigid weekly offering), is run by one person. That means one person moderating discussions, making calls, responding to emails, reading the books, setting up equipment, cleaning up the audio, and getting the word out. And all this with a full-time job, freelancing on top of that, and a social life. Give ten litbloggers full-time jobs and the resources to run a book review section and I suspect it would be filled with more passion, more enthusiasm, more controversy, more excitement and more grammatical precision than Tanenhaus has in his left pinkie.

I hereby withdraw Rachel the Hack. The point has been made. But if Tanenhaus is going to call litbloggers “sloppy” without evidence, then the time has come to reinstate the NYTBR‘s grand measure.

browniewatch2007.gif

The True Spirit of Christmas

“It is practical, Mr. Baxter. It’s the most practical idea you ever had. He belongs in here because he thinks he has ideas. He belongs in here until he proves himself or fails and… then… someone else belongs in here until he proves himself or fails and somebody else after that and somebody else after him and so on and so on for always. Oh… I don’t know how to… put it into words like Jimmy could, but… all he wanted, all any of them want is a – is a chance to show – to find out what got while they’re still young and burning like a short cut or a stepping stone. Oh, I know they’re not gonna succeed, at least most of them won’t, they’ll all be like Mr. Waterbury soon enough, most of them, anyway. But they won’t mind it. They’ll find something else, and they’ll be happy, because they had their chance. Because it’s one thing to muff a chance once you’ve had it… it’s another thing never to have had a chance. His name’s already on the door.”

Christmas in July

Mommy Lit: Bona-Fide Genre or Nonsense?

Lizzie Skurnick appears in today’s Style section with an article offering an overview of mommy lit, what Lizzie describes as “written in the wry voices of a generation of women who came of age after feminism, and they have a newly competitive, higher-end set of woes: $10,000 pacifier consultants, nanny-swiping and Harvard-like nursery school applications. Also present is chick-lit’s familiar cast of characters: the single best friend, the dutiful boyfriend (now husband) and a seductive other man who threatens to upset the apple cart.”

Barking Kitten takes umbrage with this, observing, “These writers are but a sliver of society, the hopelessly out-of-touch wealthy inhabiting the coasts. The article does give mention to blogs complaining about this rarified [sic] air, but the publishing world, personified by editor Stacy Creamer, who brought us masterwork The Devil Wears Prada, is all over the trend, anxious to capitalize on a strollerful of publications before the Mummies turn to divorce and menopause.”

Certainly, there have been books, including those cited in Lizzie’s article, that have attempted to capitalize on how to keep chick lit going. As those who read chick lit in the late ’90’s have started families, it makes complete sense to appeal to these new audiences, particularly if you’re an avaricious publisher. However, I must also take partial umbrage with mom lit — not because I have any objection to books which deal with mothers, but because a novel dealing with hyperaffluent maternity suggests more of a masturbatory fantasy than fiction rooted in realism. At least with chick lit, a genre which caters to valid, albeit wildly optimistic tales that often dwell upon women’s issues, there’s some sense of verisimilitude merged with fantasy. Mom lit, by contrast, involves milking the teat on a cash cow.

There’s a Fine Line Between Drug Addicts and Yuppie Scum Who “Can’t” Save

CNN: “Digesting that fact becomes harder when you consider that the Schuetts earn a comfortable living, with Amy, 39, pulling in $150,000 a year as a hospital psychiatrist. True, their income did take a big hit last summer when Brian got laid off from his job as a sales rep for a pharmaceutical firm (he’d been making a base salary of $82,000 a year, plus commissions as high as $24,000)….
Yet, says Amy, ‘We live from one paycheck to the next, we’re struggling to save and we never seem to have enough money to do anything fun.'”

How “The Office” Got Its Groove Back

officechristmas.jpg The recent one-hour Christmas episode, titled “A Benihana Christmas,” is an incomplete but strong return to form: in part because the show has found its narrative thread again, and in part because Harold Ramis directed this installment.

I’ve been truthfully disappointed with the third season. In the wake of The Office‘s success, the writers have pulled their punches, the plotlines have often become tedious (the Michael-Jan romance, in particular, although it may be taking another turn). There hasn’t been an episode yet this season with “Diversity Day” or “Boys and Girls”‘s offensive precision, with “Diwali” serving as the token “Let’s fuck with cultural fragmentation!” episode, although without impish glee or a take-no-prisoners approach. The Office‘s comic fortitude has come from an interesting social source in its American incarnation: the manner in which office life reveals class, racial and gender chasms.

The season premiere, which dealt with the gay Oscar being outed publicly at the office, was more successful in maintaining this front, but too burdened by the awkward character splitting between two offices. It seemed for a while that the writers weren’t really sure where they were going. Even an episode written by Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant involving an employee discovered to be a former convict felt terribly forced: in part because Gervias’s American television writing, perhaps hindered by the threat of Standards & Practices, isn’t nearly as funny as his British television writing. (See also Gervais’s flatline episode for The Simpsons.)

These doubts were put to rest on Thursday (or, in my case, Saturday morning), as “A Benihana Christmas” revealed that The Office was far from dead, shifting unexpectedly into a well-crafted farce in which two competing Christmas parties are juxtaposed against Michael reacting to being dumped by his girlfriend. “I think I’ll go to Angela’s party because that’s the party I know,” said the droll Kevin. Lines like this are laced with irony, revealing the conformist pressures of office life that all of the characters are struggling with. Is it the office environment that prevents Jim from continuing his pranksterism? And is it the office environment which causes these characters to fail in other ways? (The religion-obsessed Angela, the alcoholic Meredith, the career-stalled Ryan, and Phyllis, perhaps the least utilized character reflecting an interesting Midwestern kindheartedness at odds with what is expected.)

These social observations, which I believe lie beneath The Office‘s surface, are evident in the two waitresses that Michael and Andy bring back from Benihana. The waitresses are Asian. And Michael is too inept to distinguish between them and even applies a mark on his “date”‘s wrist to identify her. This, in itself, is quite funny. But what’s even more hilarious (and curiously unmentioned) is that these aren’t the same two waitresses who Michael and Andy were hitting up in the bar (note the blonde streak in the Benihana waitress’s hair). Thus, this nuanced racism of “all Asians looking alike” resonates even more powerfully, suggesting another story to be filled in by the audience. I also like the frilly and collared blouse that Angela wears throughout this episode, which suggests a perfervid Puritanism. I don’t know if it was Ramis who made these artistic decisions or the episode’s writers. (Curiously, “A Benihana Christmas” has no writing credit. I’m wondering if Ramis also came on board as a writer and refused the credit due to WGA regulations.) But the results succeed.

I’m not sure if The Office will be able to sustain this momentum without Ramis, but the episode demonstrates that this is certainly not a television show to give up on. It still has piss and vinegar, and there is great room for more. If it can succeed on its own social and observational terms, without employing too many stunts to appease the NBC execs, then the show’s social possibilities may just be limitless.

[UPDATE: Erin advises me that the episode was written by Jennifer Celotta. Thanks, Erin!]

Judith Regan Gets Her Christmas Bonus

Variety: “News Corp.-owned HarperCollins announced the news late Friday on the East Coast with a terse press release headlined ‘Judith Regan Terminated.’ Termination was effective immediately, the statement said. Move was clearly a reaction — albeit a delayed one — to the embarrassing scandal involving a Regan tome and T.V. special with O.J. Simpson titled ‘If I Did It,’ in which he described the way he would have committed the murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman. That event earned across-the-board condemnation and a statement from Murdoch, who called the event ‘ill-considered’ and yanked both the book and special.”

75 Books, Books #55-60

[NOTE: I did live up to the 75 Book Challenge. The current count for the year is apparently 131, with a few more volumes to be finished before the stroke of midnight. And I’m not even halfway through my writeups. (Again, this list is wildly out of order.) But I’m going to do my best to see if I can get these volumes logged. The problem arises from too much rumination on my end. When I try to write a few sentences, I end up with a paragraph. And so forth. So I’ll see what I can do on this front! But if I don’t get to the end, my profuse apologies. You’ll just have to trust me.]

Book #55 was a reread of Colson Whitehead’s The Intuitionist. I had read this book at the turn of the century, which seemed fitting given this novel’s preoccupation with the 20th, and marveled then at how Whitehead’s use of language served as a skeleton key that sometimes opened doors containing keen observations about racism and sexism. Now that I’m dwelling upon my reread at year’s end, I’m thinking that if Tom LeClair can categorize the early work of Richard Powers, William T. Vollmann and David Foster Wallace as “prodigious fiction,” perhaps Colson Whitehead might be part of a second wave of “prodigious fiction” — a list that might also include Scarlett Thomas. Certainly, taxonomy is as much of a concern in The Intuitionist as it is to this hypothetical “first wave,” particularly the propriety (or lack thereof) we see with the two warring schools of elevator inspectors: the Intuitionists and the Empiricists. But I believe Whitehead is more concerned with how this arranged information affects existence, as opposed to how it is contained within existence, of which more anon. (Podcast interview.)

Book #56 was Colson Whithead’s John Henry Days. This was the first time I had read John Henry Days. I’d been sitting on this book for a while, deliberately holding off on reading it until a special moment arose. When the opportunity to interview Colson Whitehead arose, I knew that the time had come. This book, I’m pleased to report, was more compelling than I expected. Like The Intuitionist, Whitehead’s set up a niche-based coterie — in this case, a group of freelance journalists whose conduct ascribes to a similar set of rules as the elevator inspectors — with which to launch ruminative riffs on the history of John Henry, Meredith Hunter’s death at Altamont (interestingly, Franzen could not bring himself to name Hunter when he reviewed the book), and Paul Robeson, among many others. And I’d argue that these historical tidbits, combined with eccentric moments which challenge our traditional perspective, exist as a way to process arranged information and track its effect upon culture and racism. Ergo, if a second wave of prodigious fiction can be sanctioned, John Henry Days is quite possibly its greatest exemplar. (Podcast interview.)

Book #57 was Colson Whitehead’s Apex Hides the Hurt. So this was it: the third novel by Mr. Whitehead, the novel that certain pals of mine didn’t care for. I didn’t hate this book. I appreciated its frequent inventiveness. But I didn’t find it nearly as enthralling as Whitehead’s other two books. I think this book misfired because Whitehead didn’t surround his unnamed protagonist with advertising figures who challenged his livelihood. Instead, the protagonist is a free agent who operates on his own terms, with a particularly melodramatic figure as one of the foils (a millionaire by the preposterous name of Lucky Aberdeen). The book, as a result, is an enjoyable if pale shadow if the two previous novels. (Podcast interview.)

Book #58 was Jonathan Safran Foer’s Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. I can understand the antagonistic reactions to Foer’s second book. I don’t quibble so much over the book’s child genius protagonist or even its associations with September 11, but I think Updike was right to suggest that Foer could use “a little more silence, a few fewer messages.” This book often contains playfulness for playfulness’s sake. Gilbert Sorrentino, this is not. Because of the large volume of “playful” experiments, I was unable to penetrate the novel’s heart. Nevertheless, know that I read and save every Foer book, with the hope of one day being able to treat JSF with the proper adulthood he deserves. Until that day, Extremely Loud is clearly the work of a kid still playing around. (Podcast interview.)

Book #59 was Erica Jong’s Fear of Flying. I was probably the last person on earth who hadn’t read this book. This novel was daring for its time. But I found myself more fascinated by Isadora Wing’s neurotic narration, an introspective juggernaut of questions which suggests that gender relations haven’t changed nearly as much as we believe they have, than Wing’s sexual affairs. Thirty years later, the adultery here is no more daring than Peyton Place. But at some point, I hope to investigate the book’s three sequels. (Podcast interview.)

Book #60 was The May Queen, edited by Nicole Richesin. Some of my thoughts on this light but entertaining anthology are contained within my mammoth report from April. (Podcast interview with May Queen contributors.)

Rachel the Hack: Miscellany

rachelhack.jpg

It’s time for a new installment of Rachel the Hack, an essential guide to understanding Ms. Donadio’s warblings.

There were two items we missed last week, articles composed for the annual “Ideas” issue of the New York Times Magazine: “Straw That Saves Lives” and “Walk-In Health Care”. The question, however, is whether these are genuine ideas or adverts for specific products. Presumably, these blurbs are intended to suggest that Donadio is a socially conscious thinker. But it’s telling that these mini-articles seem less concerned with the social circumstances that frame these articles (respectively, the lack of sanitized water and uninsured medical care) and more interested in journalism-as-advertising copy.

A 10-inch plastic tube — think of it as a reverse snorkel — LifeStraw employs a system of seven filters, some using mesh, some using chemicals, some as fine as six microns (more than 10 times finer than a human hair). The straw costs $3 to make and lasts for a year, filtering two liters of water per day.

This is journalism? It sounds to me like a paragraph stolen verbatim from LifeStraw’s Christmas catalog. Why isn’t Donadio employed at an advertising agency? She’s clearly more enthused by trying to describe the dimensions and pricing of items instead of the one billion people her heart allegedly bleeds for. Alas, such humorless “writers” of this ilk often become critics.

Which brings us to the latest “article” written “By Rachel Donadio” in this week’s NYTBR: a compendium of war book titles selected by other authors. But seeing as how Donadio only “wrote” the introductory paragraph and the one-line bios, this is hardly authorship proper. Sure, Donadio (or one of her fellow editors) did the legwork, solicited the authors, and possibly over-edited their sentences so as to suffocate the life out of them. (You’re really asking me to believe that the lively Anthony Swofford contributed the lifeless sentence, “His portraits are as fresh today as when he first stepped into Vietnam as a Marine infantry officer in 1965?”) Why then the need for a personal credit? Is there some kind of end-of-the-year article quota that Donadio has to fill before her annual review? If so, we hope Donadio gets a nice bonus for dulling the NYTBR‘s great promise!

More Tidbits

Roundup, Raw Hide

  • There are two schools of getting babies to sleep: the Ayn Rand “let them cry to their hearts’ content” doctrine and subscribing to the soothing touchy-feely Oprah approach. As it turns out, both schools are correct. So it seems when it comes to babies at least, conservatives and liberals can find a common ground. Of course, since many politicians are enfants terrible, at least when judged against the manner the average population works, it remains to be seen whether the approaching session of Congress will come to similar accord in other matters. (via Amardeep Singh)
  • Michael Richards, Andy Dick, and now Rosie O’Donnell. I’m wondering what’s more offensive: the lousy attempts at humor or the political correctness that demands incessant apologies.
  • Slow news day? Okay. World’s tallest man saves dolphin. So long and thanks for all the inch. (via The Beat)
  • Taking pages from the Bookslut and Edrants playbook, Bookburger lists the best and worst book covers of 2006.
  • Jenny D has a delightful 2006 books list.
  • Over at The Washington Post, Richard Ford participated in an online chat. Even Ford fanboy Tod Goldberg gets name-checked. But I liked Ford’s answer to the wholly ridiculous question “Why do you write?” (via The Millions)
  • Who knew that science fiction was all about whether or not the reader is an attractive woman? Apparently, an assclown named Razib, perhaps pining for the gender gap so prominent during the Eisenhower administration, was shocked (shocked!) that “a very attractive hostess” in a wine bar had read Hyperion and Snow Crash. If we are to use the terms of Razib’s argument, one must then ask why a brown-skinned man like Razib was doing in a wine bar, clearly the exclusive province of Caucasians! I know this, because Ann Coulter told me that racist antebellum times represented “a chivalric, honor-based culture that was driven down by the brute force of crass Yankee capitalism.” I therefore must believe her when she says that this is so! And we all know that the Confederacy meant rewarding the true winner: the glorious white male! So what business does Razib have drinking wine among the elite? It lacks honor and chivalry and respect for the white man. I’m shocked (shocked!) that any brown-skinned man would be doing this. Am I a freak to think this is freaky? I haven’t had a sip of wine, so it isn’t the alcohol. Guess it has to be my specious and outdated logic! (via Gwenda)

[UPDATE: Razib, lacking any sense of irony, has responded, calling me a “white racist” and adding, “I suppose Ed’s point was that stereotyping is pernicious, but I would contend that inaccurate stereotyping is especially pernicious, and I can’t believe that the snippet above reflects anything but rhetoric.” I figured the Ann Coulter reference would say it all, but Razib clearly hasn’t considered that I was actually satirizing inaccurate stereotyping: the same inaccurate stereotyping that Razib himself is guilty of.]

It’s the Real Thing!

What Happens To Your Body If You Drink a Coke Right Now? “As the rave inside of you dies down you’ll start to have a sugar crash. You may become irritable and/or sluggish. You’ve also now, literally, pissed away all the water that was in the Coke. But not before infusing it with valuable nutrients your body could have used for things like even having the ability to hydrate your system or build strong bones and teeth.”

(via Quiddity)

One Thing’s For Sure: Cronkite, She Ain’t

James Wolcott: “No one over the age of 30 should be resorting to all those exclamation marks and capital letters like some juiced-up Crackberry addict. Couric officially bottomed out with a post entitled ‘Katie’s Apple Pie: The Recipe!’ in which she revealed, ‘Mushy apples are the most disappointing, ‘un-a-peeling’ (HA HA) culinary experience there is,’ and described Mutsu apples she picked from the tree as ‘GINORMOUS!’ Perhaps Couric is trying to relate to younger viewers and readers at their own dippy level—never a good idea. Or perhaps she’s trying to prove that despite the dizzy heights she’s reached in the news business, the fame and money that have been slung her way, she’s still the same unspoiled, unpretentious batch of homemade fudge she was before she clawed her way to the top. Katie Couric is caught in a tug-of-war between her serious journalistic side and the girlie side that wants to be everybody’s darling. It’s the girlie side that needs to go.”

It’s Official: Klosterman Just As Whiny as Franzen

Popmatters: “The one thing that has always bothered me about the Charlie Brown Christmas special is that the other kids never admit to Charlie Brown that he was right about the little tree.”

Look at it this way, at least he didn’t publish in The New Yorker and a book. Then again, I suppose we can look forward to Klosterman V: Paragraphs I Wrote While on the Can.

I hereby adopt a new writing axiom: When a male essayist starts looking to Peanuts for a desperate introspective connection (instead of, say, the fascinating people around him), he’s gone well over the edge of needlessly confessional neuroses and must be stopped at all costs.

Jurassic Libel

You have to hand it to Michael Crichton. Just when you think he’s hit the nadir, he somehow manages to slide down further into the morass.

Talking Points Muckraker points to this latest item. Earlier this year, Michael Crowley wrote an article criticizing Crichton’s stance on global warming. So what did Crichton do? Instead of engaging Crowley on his issues, he’s included a character in his next novel, Next, named “Mick Crowley” a child molester with a small penis.

Roundup from No Particular Declivity

* — It is my hope to introduce “Blanchettlicious” into common vernacular. The term signifies someone “exuding smart and sexy” and I’m hoping it can replace such general monosyllabic terms such as “hot” that fail to do justice to the sublime complexities of women.