Wallaceblogging: David, Jon and Jeff and everything after that

Today among other things I read "Just Kids," Evan Hughes' feature in New York magazine about (a little about) the relationships between David Foster Wallace, Jonathan Franzen and most timely Jeffrey Eugenides (whose new novel THE MARRIAGE PLOT comes out this week) when they were young, frustrated, up-and-coming writers. Not a lot of its information is new or surprising, but it does provide some tidbits like Eugenides' firing from his publishing job that will further flavor the stew for people who enjoy things like this, and I am a person who enjoys things like this.

The Franzen/DFW friendship is fairly well trod particularly in the past year or two as Franzen has spoken and written about it (most notably in the New Yorker). I had no idea Eugenides was friends with them, although I appreciated the early reference to the road trip he took with fellow graduate of the best university ever Rick Moody after graduation. (Moody covers a little of this in his memoir THE BLACK VEIL, which somewhat addresses his literary ambitions before getting down to the business of linking his addictive history with the man he believes to have been his Puritan ancestor, as told about in Nathaniel Hawthorne's "The Minister's Black Veil.") Nor does it address, although I'm sure this will be discussed in some interview soon, what in the blue hay Eugenides has been doing for the past 9 years since MIDDLESEX came out, whether he lives in Europe now (I want to say it's Paris?)

I guess this is my disgruntled way of saying I wish the essay had been longer -- say at least the length of the Atlantic cover story on single women in the U.S. which I also read today (, is also worth a read,  could also be book-length etc.)

As to how it relates to THE MARRIAGE PLOT, I believe that was just a convenient temporal hook; although the book is about 20somethings with ambitions, they aren't writerly ones.

What draws me to these pieces, personally, is not just the temptation of some long-preserved literary gossip, the hiss of a jar lid being opened, the whiff of something musty and strange. The glimpses of these writers who were not all that noble and good to each other, nor easy on each others' work, nor frank about their jealousy for each other, are also nice... but not just that either. I think it's because of the coincidence as presented here of these authors all coming up at roughly the same amount of time and being friends, or friends of sorts, what you prefer.

I'm sure there were gaps in time and communication Hughes elided to make his portrait and I don't begrudge him doing so, to overcome the odds of having this kind of group persist over time and varying levels of success. It humanizes them and makes them figures of envy at the same time.

Also, whenever the city of Syracuse decides to start offering authors-who-lived-here-for-a-while tours I will be the first one standing next to the tour guide, expectantly. Or, road trip? I probably have at least two weeks before it starts to snow there.

"'Cause an English major will get me, like, any gig that I want"

John Krasinski educates Diablo Cody, author, about David Foster Wallace.

Blind item

Novelist who complains long and loudly about the unfairness of the publishing industry towards her, specifically the inability of a Particular Weekend Press Book Section to drive sales based on what is viewed as paltry ink spilled, claims of marginalization, etc. Writes a new novel with a satiric publishing satiric component and: tada! Review ink! Are you happy now? Will you stop complaining?

Today I bought a copy of CRYPTONOMICON for $1 at a church sidewalk
sale. I'm not in New York and at this rate I may never come home again
(only joking)

Random House employees make "It Gets Better" PSA

I think this is the first publisher who has done one, and frankly, it's about time.

How to resist subscribing to The Believer now?

Not only did the Believer bring Nick Hornby back, they also added Daniel Handler reading one Nobel Laureate's book a month? ... I've been really, really good this year... and I had a day of woe yesterday... so tempting. (Great idea of Handler's by the way.)

Do free books make me biased?

Travel writer Paul Brady wrote a thoughtful post last week about the ethics of members of the media accepting free things, and the extent to which their opinion can be trusted based on that free stuff. I don't know if he's referring to something recently, but every so often travel journalists or outlets come under fire for accepting free trips and amenities from places or companies who would like some coverage. (Google "mike albo" + thrillist if you want to read about one particular case that sticks out in my mind.) The point Brady drives at is, many other members of the media accept free goods and services in order to do their jobs, and that no matter what readers may think of it, they accept it as The Way The World Works, and so should we.

I wanted to respond to this post in part because Brady mentions book reviewers among his list of people who need and get free stuff as a matter of course. Also, Paul used to be my editor so I'm sure he's already found an error in here that has caused him to stop reading, or he just stopped now that I so rudely referred to him by his first name. (But if you're still reading, I'll take that fruit basket now. 14th floor.)

Let's be fair, I could still write reviews without publishers' galleys and ARCs, but they would be either not current, or few and far between. I could not afford to purchase the number of new books that fall into my possession through reviewing; I would be either waiting to get them at the library, borrowing them from other people or hoping they would turn up on Bookmooch. (Or reading them in a Borders and not buying them... oh wait.) I know this makes me lucky. I know it. The way I square that bounty with my sense of ethics is to donate my old galleys and review copies, instead of selling them as I have heard some people do, and to try to share the wealth as much as possible among friends and family.

But if I ever got the opportunity to speak somewhere and was compensated somehow for it, you bet your stack of Proust I would take it. (Inquire within! Variable rates! May be funny!)

That said, speaking for "the book review people — rare though they may be" I can't remember the last time I was accused of being biased toward a book I reviewed just because I got it for free -- not that it doesn't happen, but no recent example comes to mind.

• Is it because a book is $20-$30 and a press trip can be hundreds or thousands of dollars?
• Is it because my audience is (perceived as) too small, because I don't write for the New York Times?
• Is it because the people who make such accusations either don't know, or don't care, that the world of publishing can be insular-to-downright-stuffy and that there is some favor trading out there? 
• Or is it because I write for print publications that are considered as holding to a higher standard than Ellen's Wee Book Reviewe Shoppe-Emporium (Dot Blogspot Dot-Com)?

The divide I see is between old-school newspaper or magazine critics and bloggers; the former are considered more above reproach than the latter, whose public perception can tend to "Yay! I got this free thing and I love it!"* Certainly some bloggers trend positive on books they got to review, but then again, some bloggers only write about books they like in the first place; and some explicitly say that's what they do. Even if, oh, the New York Times Review of Books decided to only run positive reviews, there's no way in hell they would ever admit to that. (Nor will I think they will.)

It would be unfair to insist a person who writes a blog as a hobby must provide objective coverage, acknowledge biases and reflect a balance of opinions in the same way a newspaper would. If I wanted to open Ellen Hated This Book Dot Tumblr-Dot-Com in my spare time, making .3 cents per Amazon referral once in a blue moon, that should be my right. (It's not a terrible idea. I should have started it during my ragier days.) Still, when the FTC implemented blogger disclosure two years ago, it didn't direct the same scrutiny toward newspapers or magazines, implying that the buck stops somewhere, even if it's not here. 

My own conclusion (which I think aligns with Paul's analysis) is that no one is above reproach, and everyone has a bias. I can be trusted and still have a bias. And when I review something, I should think "If I hadn't gotten this for free, would I consider it a good value? Would I recommend a friend pay full price for it?" I think that's a more important question than "To what ethics should we hold our writers?" Not that there shouldn't be a standard -- but as in so many arenas, if we can't all agree on the standard, then we must set it by ourselves.

*And that imitation isn't even of a book blogger but from a sector of bloggers I see as much more prone to rubber-stamping their product recommendations, the "healthy living" bloggers. This can tend to backfire when they all get offered the same products within a few days. Love, and the Internet loves with you, etc.

I won this cookbook from the Big Gay Ice Cream guys on Twitter yesterday. I hope there's at least one thing in here I can manage without outside help.

A Nobel goal

Swedish poet Tomas Tranströmer won the Nobel Prize in Literature this morning.

Salon ran an opinion piece earlier this week called "Why American novelists don't deserve the Nobel Prize." I'm not sure I agree with their conclusion -- American writers are too insular, no one can relate -- because it sounds like just another argument that we are special snowflakes, but I agree with the general sentiment of "Oh, get over yourselves." In truth, the U.S. is probably still disproportionately ahead in prizes claimed over the history of the Nobel, and to loudly whine that it's not faaaaaair every time it goes to a non-American writer doesn't do us any favors. And, though I joke every year about having never heard of the winner, the amount of translated literature that makes it to American shelves is (at an estimated 3 percent) extremely poor, so that could be our myopia working. (I won't hear that, say, the great Eritrean novelist can't exist yet. He or she might be out there!) Perhaps we should better inform ourselves a little more about the rest of world lit, before we start swinging.

What I really want to know is what the people who caused the swell in bets placed that Bob Dylan would be the next winner were thinking. Giant swindle, or misinformed prediction?

(Thanks to Henry for sending that in mere hours before the prize announcement... keep that line to Stockholm open.)

Breaking news: you're old

One of the National Book Award's "5 Under 35" Honorees -- the annual accounting of the next great writers who will wow us all -- is Shani Boianjiu, a 2011 Harvard grad (as in, the 2011 we are now in) whose debut novel won't be out for your judgment until 2013. 2013?!

I get that they're looking for the next big thing, but what sense does it make to choose an author whose book no one has had the chance to read without deep connections? (To be fair, the New Yorker did the same thing to Tea Obreht with its 20 Under 40 list last year. I found that book worthy of praise, but still wished I could have read it in context.)This is nothing against Boianjiu, who I will be keeping an eye out for in future because of this great honor.

Maybe this is the equivalent of the hipster's "Oh, it's an obscure band, you probably never heard of it."

Of the other nominees, Danielle Evans is the only one I have heard of, Mary Beth Keane was nominated by the author I most like of the nominating committee (Julia Glass), Melinda Moustakis has the funniest book title (BEAR DOWN, BEAR NORTH: ALASKA STORIES) and John Corey Whaley wins Most Looks Like Guys I Went To High School With. So we've all got superlatives now!

Counter intelligence

With the recent addition of WORLD WAR Z and James Sallis' DRIVE (basis for the recent movie of the same name), the outlook for picking up a book in a pinch at my most frequented pharmacy is better than it's been in months. (They also have FULL DARK, NO STARS in stock, which would fit the bill.) Not that I've ever seen anyone even approach the bookshelf, but...you know.

Maurice Sendak: Still alive, adorably grumpy

Important clippings from a Guardian profile of the WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE author and illustrator:

• "The monsters from WILD THINGS were based on his own relatives. They would visit his house in Brooklyn when he was growing up ('All crazy – crazy faces and wild eyes') and pinch his cheeks until they were red."
• Sendak on childhood: "I refuse to cater to the bullshit of innocence."
• "If he had come from a happy home, says Sendak, he would never have become an artist, at least not the kind of artist he is."
• Sendak on work: "I have to accept my role. I will never kill myself like Vincent Van Gogh. Nor will I paint beautiful water lilies like Monet. I can't do that. I'm in the idiot role of being a kiddie book person."

September Unbookening and the cloud of inspecific dissatisfaction

Bought 6 books
Received 11 to review
Checked out 4 from the library
Got 1 as a gift
22 in

Lent 3
Gave away 6
Returned 7
16 out

I suppose a better person would have spent that Groupon on books to donate... but I am not that better person. Have I used the excuse that "Well, I'm just going to spend all of [next month] reading and not shopping" yet? I haven't? Sweet!

In September I only finished half the number of books as I did in August, for a few reasons (slogging through a few longer books, fewer holidays, "there's never any time!" etc). But there isn't really an unbookening correlation; I did just about as well last month (i.e. not well). I guess the ideal Unbookening month would either fall right before I move again, or in which I read a lot of books I owned but didn't end up liking -- but those are both unappetizing prospects for life.

But lately I'm finding/ I am the book, and you are the binding

• Did anyone else make it all the way through that email from B&N's CEO saying it had bought Borders' customer list? Admittedly, I don't think I've bought something from BN.com in years... so I'm curious what they have on me now, but I just assumed they had all my customer information already.
• That said, "Barnes & Noble uniquely appreciates the importance bookstores play within local communities, and we're very sorry your Borders store closed" ?? Way to slather it on. Admit it, you're sorry all the way to the bank because you outlived the other big-box bookstore! It's okay!
• Thank you Dominique Browning for fueling my nightmares. 
• This week I used my Kindle while on an elliptical machine and managed to not fall off, not drop it and avoid both of those things for 30 minutes. It made the time fly, but I really felt like a show-offy jerk doing so (or a Stuff White People Like entry). But I wasn't showing off! I just wanted to make a boring chore less boring.
• Ironic or not, I was reading THE HUNGER GAMES at the time. I have a theory on this book, but I'm not sure whether I should air it out now or wait to finish the trilogy to see if it supports my theory. 
• I think I'm going to a midnight release party for the new Haruki Murakami book, this despite the fact that I am not the biggest fan out there (although I like certain aspects of his writing). This ought to be good.
• What's worse: the fact that my mom referred to FREEDOM as "that book set in Minnesota," or that I guessed it right on the first try?
• This has been a post about nothing.

Will they or won't they?

Last night I went to a sneak preview of "Anonymous," a big-budget
costume drama about William Shakespeare. It was directed by Roland
Emmerich of "Independence Day" fame and is just like "Independence
Day," except instead of aliens invading New York City, a bunch of
really good plays invade London.

Emmerich personally is of the belief that Shakespeare was not the
author of the plays that bear his name, and "Anonymous" espouses the
view of the Oxfordian faction of people with Shakespeare authorship
issues -- that is, proposes that the Earl of Oxford wrote the plays
and, for a couple of reasons, pawned them off on an illiterate actor.
The film will apparently also be accompanied by classroom materials
and a documentary about Shakespearean authorship. (At the screening
last night, Emmerich wore a broad grin and insistently repeated to the
Shakespeare scholar he was paired with, who was indignant at the
movie's flippancy with the facts, "I am not a scholar, but...")

"Anonymous" is packed with ponderous line readings, confusing
intrigues and unconvincing false facial hair. The snippets of plays,
lines and scenarios from Shakespeare (spoiler: someone gets stabbed
Polonius-style) are the best thing about it, including appearances by
the well-regarded Shakespearean actor Mark Rylance as Richard Burbage.
Nor did it convince me to that side of the authorship controversy,
although I wouldn't say people who question Shakespeare as Shakespeare
need to be thrown out of the establishment. (There is some mystery
there.) And yet I am tempted to go easy on it simply because it
exists. It's not as if we get lit-major conspiracy blockbusters every
year, and I'd rather watch a bad movie about Shakespeare than most
other genres of bad movie.

That said, I'm not sure what this movie's audience is -- fans of
Emmerich's last movie (2012, if I recall correctly) probably aren't
interested in period costumes, British royals or actors who aren't
John Cusack. If this is the director's frivolous years-to-fruition
passion project (or one he adopted from a screenwriter, as the Q and A
suggested), maybe I have more in common than I would have thought with
the guy who drowned the New York Public Library in "The Day After
Tomorrow."