It’s Banned Books Week — time to celebrate your right to read Women in Love, Ulysses, and other notables from the ALA’s list of banned or challenged books. Though, according to the Wall Street Journal, this is a whole lotta hoo-ha over nothing.
Cheers to You, Madame Bovary
Tuesday Links: Saunders Blogs; Quarterly Conversation; New Yorker Festival
George Saunders is taking up residence at the Powell’s Blog this week as he embarks on a book tour promoting his latest (released today), The Braindead Megaphone. To my knowledge, it is Saunders’ first foray into blogging, a format we discussed nearly two years ago (scroll down). His concern: “I worry about how much I would have to pay myself to keep my blog supplied with content. My fear is that, knowing I was working for myself, I would start cheating myself, only submitting my worst pieces, then get into a labor dispute with myself and never speak to me again.” Hopefully, his fears aren’t realized.A new issue of Scott Esposito’s terrific Quarterly Conversation has arrived. It features, among several notable contributors, Garth, who “sorts out literary feuds, dissects James Wood’s essay against Don DeLillo’s 832-page opus Underworld, and argues that this book actually evolves the novel forward.”Emdashes has the schedule for this year’s New Yorker Festival. It looks fantastic as usual. I should really go sometime.
A Presidential Conversation Continued
We highlighted the first installment of President Obama’s conversation with Marilynne Robinson, published in The New York Review of Books. Part II is now here. We have a few pieces on Robinson to pair with it.
●
●
2 comments:
Add Your Comment: Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
To Antarctica We Go
Recommended Reading: Chris Jones went to Antarctica, and on the way he started believing in ghosts.
●
●
Ulin on King
David Ulin offers a brief consideration of Stephen King. King’s work, Ulin writes, “exposes, with real acuity, a lot about who we are.”
Wow–thanks for pointing out the Mitchell Muncy WSJ op-ed. Muncy seems to feel that a 10% success rate in book banning is negligible; one wonders how high the percentage needs to be in order to be significant. Regardless, saying that attempted bannings don’t matter simply because the books weren’t ultimately banned is a little like saying that attempted murders aren’t a problem because the victims all survived–or that attempted terrorist attacks aren’t anything to worry about because they didn’t succeed. And his conclusion–that Banned Books Week is actually a form of *censorship*–is mind-boggling.
I’ve written a much longer response to the Muncy piece here:
http://fictionwritersreview.com/blog/banned-books-week-an-act-of-censorship-say-what
Thanks again for bringing this up.