1. "Not everybody's a critic": I'll leave the comment on this Richard Schickel/LA Times piece to Alan Vanneman, who pointed out this link. And some other reactions: from NewsBusters and Galley Cat.
["At the recent Los Angeles Times Festival of Books, there was a fascinating panel featuring writers whose books were written in what time they could spare from their day jobs. Inevitably, blogging was presented as an attractive alternative — it doesn't take much time, and it is a method of publicly expressing oneself (like finger-painting, I thought to myself, but never mind)."]
2. "Hershey sues marijuana candy maker for trademark infringement": What would this guy have made of Hershey's Kisses?
["Hershey Co. has sued a Lafayette man who admitted to making marijuana-laced candy and soft drinks, claiming his products violated the company's trademarks. Kenneth Affolter, 40, was sentenced in March to more than five years in prison for manufacturing forbidden treats with names like Stoney Rancher, Rasta Reese's and Keef Kat. Each came in packaging similar to Hershey's Jolly Rancher, Reese's Peanut Butter Cups and Kit Kat candies, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration."]
3. "Wayward Humpback Pair Moves Toward Ocean": Suddenly, I have this overwhelming urge to watch Star Trek IV.
["At least 15,000 people have trekked to the river’s edge to catch a glimpse of two injured and wayward humpbacks, a mother and calf, first spotted May 13 in a shipping channel in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, about 90 miles off course from their seasonal migration route in the Pacific Ocean between Alaska and Baja California. But on Sunday, the whales appeared to be heading in the right direction, moving down the shipping channel toward the Pacific Ocean, marine officials said."]
4. "Fire consumes historic London ship": The curse of Jack Sparrow?
["The Cutty Sark, thought to be the world's only surviving 19th century tea clipper and a prime relic of the golden age of sail, was engulfed by flames Monday, causing extensive damage to one of London's most popular tourist attractions."]
5. "Now Comes the Night": House contributor Sean Burns reviews Away From Her.
["The great Canadian filmmaker David Cronenberg once said the foundation of horror is that every one of us lives with the implicit knowledge that someday our body will betray our mind. The insidious thing about Alzheimer’s disease is that it’s the reverse—consciousness ebbing away from a functioning physicality—and I honestly can’t imagine anything more terrifying. Twenty-eight-year-old actress Sarah Polley has made this the subject of her directorial debut, and all signs indicate she’s well on her way to becoming a great Canadian filmmaker herself."]
Clip of the Day: Kookie, Kookie, lend me your comb.
_____________________________________________________
"Links for the Day": Each morning, the House editors post a series of weblinks that we think will spark discussion. Comments encouraged.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Links for the Day (May 21st, 2007)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I hope Richard Schickel has a day job lined up for when his elite institution fires his ass from his elite enterprise due to shrinking revenue.
I don't think he's entirely wrong, but the attitude that drives it is one that makes me seek out new writing online and ignore his type of mentality. The best traditional critics - be it it of film, literature, or whatever - are embracing this new medium, spreading interesting ideas, and not clinging onto the past. I think fear plays a large part of that attitude - fear of having to find a new way of making a living and fear of having to defend their positions with ideas instead of institutional reputation.
I include our host here in that group of the best that embrace new directions, and consider it a high compliment. Cheers.
I'm visiting from "Dispatches From Zembla." I too blogged on the Schickel piece. Looks like there's pretty much agreement across the blogosphere that Schickel's a fool! Come for a visit and check it out -- if you're inclined, of course:
Burkean Reflections
By the way, I agree generally, and in my post, with James' comments above. Nice going all around!
Um, yeah...
Schickel surely is not a generous individual. To affect the stance of privilege like that, to say he's smarter than anybody with a blog, shows not just ignorance of the blogosphere but of criticism at large and the world at large.
Everything is an argument.
Honestly, I didn't get past the first few paragraphs because what the fuck would reading the rest tell me? I skimmed down and saw him invoking George Orwell. Alright, cool, you know some great writers to invoke and aspire to. But did George Orwell believe in a hierarchy of knowledge? Did you read that most famous book? You know, the one with the malevolant and omniscient Big Brother, whose gaze invades and corrupts homes, corrupts the world? Or what about Homage to Catalonia? Or Burmese Days? Do you really think you can invoke this writer? I know, I may be wrong here in my accusations, I don't know what he's invoking Orwell for, but GOOD GOD! After those first paragraphs, who in his or her right mind would trust this guy? Crumudegeons.
You know what? I'm not ogoiong to speel check this shit. Because I can.
I recently wrote a letter in response to the Schickel article, now published on my blog. I sent it to the LA Times. I sincerely hope they run it.
Richard Schickel's snottiness would be more convincing if he were himself a better critic. He's a lazy, dull writer, his taste in art is middling, and his editorial is prissy, sort of ignorant and transparently neurotic. This would be less comic if, you know, anyone valued Schickel's opinion. "[Criticism] should be an elite enterprise"? When a man proudly declares that he doesn't value any other non-elite human opinion, and that's supposed to be a good thing... I ain't touchin' that.
Post a Comment