Whenever I read news stories about reclusive authors, like the famous J.D. Salinger, I usually just shake my head. Salinger is again in the news because another author wants to publish a sequel to the classic The Catcher in the Rye (aff link).  So, in typical Salinger fashion, he’s suing to prevent the book from being published.

However, that’s not what I’m really worried about. I have no problems with an author trying to protect his work (even though sometimes they go too far). What I do have a problem with, however, is iconic authors like J.D. Salinger, who have obviously had a huge impact on the American literary scene, shun their own fans.

Continue Reading

How do you turn a boring classic novel into something new and exciting? Add a bunch of brain-hungry zombies, of course. At least, that is the approach that author Seth Grahame-Smith took with his novel Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
(aff link). The novel takes the popular Jane Austen story and turns it upside-down with zombies.

I’m reading the book right now and find it very funny. But I should also admit that I haven’t read the original Pride and Prejudice, so I might be missing out on some of nuances of the story. Nevertheless I’m still being thoroughly entertained. You can bet that when I’m finished, I’ll write a more detailed book review here.

Continue Reading

I’m always on the lookout for authors who not only embrace ebooks but use them to compliment their print book sales. The most interesting way of doing this, I think, is by giving ebooks away for free. Science fiction writer Cory Doctorow does it and I’m sure a lot of other writers do to.

Last night I came across the blog of writer JA Konrath (who goes by the pen name Jack Kilborn) via this Enriched by Words blog post. As I side note, I’d like to mention that I had the pleasure of seeing Konrath in my local bookstore when he stopped by to sign a few copies of his book. He happens to also live in the Chicago area like I do.

Continue Reading

The glitch that caused Amazon’s website to pull many ‘adult oriented’ books (mostly gay & lesbian titles) from its sales rankings, causing the books to be harder to find, caused quite a controversy last week. I detailed it in this post Amazon ‘glitch’ stirs rumors of alleged censorship (April 14).

While the question of whether or not Amazon engaged in deliberate censorship because of homophobic tendencies is still up in the air, the fierce and harsh response to the incident on blogs and Twitter brings up other questions. Were people too quick to judge? Was there a ‘mob mentality’ in the online community?

These questions, and more, were brought up in this NYT article:

Although the way messages speed across social networks makes today’s digital world ripe for mob-fueled conspiracy theories, the controversy over Amazon was striking both for its ferocity and for the velocity with which it spread.

And at least one blogger, Clay Shirky, a professor at New York University, backtracked on his criticism of Amazon:

<

"I was wrong, because I believed things that weren’t true," Mr. Shirky wrote, noting that "the idea that this was an event of mainly technological propagation, rather than a coordinated bit of anti-gay bias, simply escaped me."
Continue Reading

Don’t get too excited. The "verdict" in question is the opinion of U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens who, according to this Wall Street Journal article, says Shakespeare didn’t write all those plays and poems after all:

Justice Stevens, who dropped out of graduate study in English to join the Navy in 1941, is an Oxfordian — that is, he believes the works ascribed to William Shakespeare actually were written by the 17th earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere.

This old argument is nothing new, even on this blog, where I wrote this post a while back that garnered some interesting comments (worth your time to read!).

The argument that Shakespeare didn’t write any of those plays is based on the idea that he was from a lower class family, did not have the right schooling, etc. In other words, it’s typical class warfare. But Shakespearean scholars and academics alike have pretty much debunked that myth. The fact that this same argument is coming from Justice Stevens, isn’t that surprising according to this article from the NY Daily News:

Continue Reading

The news about Amazon’s ‘glitch’ that has resulted in thousands of titles being removed from its ranking system has really spread around the internet like wildfire.

For those of you unfamiliar with the story, thousands of titles, dealing mostly with gay and lesbian themes, were removed from Amazon’s ranking system. This basically means none of those titles will show up on bestseller lists, "Amazon Recommends" lists, and pretty much everything else. In other words, you won’t find those titles unless you specifically search for them.

Amazon says it’s nothing more than a glitch that they are working to fix. Many on the intertubes, however, are pretty sure it’s a conspiracy by Amazon to censor what we read.

Continue Reading

I’m pretty convinced that J.K. Rowling does not read this blog, because if she did, she would have read this earlier post about her problem with ebook piracy. Yet Rowling has still refused to release her popular Harry Potter books into ebook format, creating a ripe environment for unscrupulous pirates to post digital copies of her novels online.

Today I came across this article from the Times Online, which says that her novels, along with other popular books, have shown up on the popular site Scribd.

Continue Reading

Today I was browsing my local bookstore and happened to overhear something that made me shake my head in disbelief. A young girl (probably a teen) was with her mom, and the girl said:

"I didn’t know Fitzgerald wrote Benjamin Button"

I almost ripped my hair out right then and there out of sheer frustration. The girl was, of course, referring to the special-edition book The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (aff link) that was released to coincide with the movie (which I have not seen yet). The story was originally written by F. Scott Fitzgerald.

Continue Reading

I don’t think I have ever watched the Oscars in my entire life. And last night was no exception. Seeing Hollywood pat itself on the back with these awards for the plethora of filth they churn out is less than appealing to me.

However, I did find it interesting to read that the movie The Curious Case of Benjamin Button did win a few minor awards. Then I was shocked to read this LitKicks post that no one even mentioned F. Scott Fitzgerald, who wrote the short story that the movie was loosely based on.

Continue Reading

This story caught my attention for two reasons: First, it’s in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. I have been to Dubai and it’s a beautiful, vibrant city with very nice, hospitable people. Dubai is also very much a "literary" city where poetry is very popular (much more so than here in the US).

The second reason why this story caught my attention is because it deals with censorship. I take a hard, unyielding stand on any form of literary censorship because I firmly believe that literature reveals fundamental truths about the human condition – and those truths cannot be suppressed.

The book A Gulf Between Us by Geraldine Bedell was rejected from the Dubai Literary Festival that is coming up next week. Bedell wrote this piece in the Guardian, obviously upset by her book’s exclusion from the festival. She first describes how her book is not offensive to the Arab culture and might even shed some positive light in that region:

The book certainly isn’t a PR handout for the region, but I suspect (even hope) that makes the overall warmth towards it that much more telling. The book is an affectionate portrait, and I rather expected readers to be surprised that there could be so much to like.

Continue Reading