Classics and the Western Canon discussion

The Tea Shop has been remodeled, freshly painted and with the chairs re-upholstered (some of our patrons, when the discussion got too exciting, tended to wave their hands about a bit even when they were holding their teacups, to the detriment of clean upholstery).

Enjoy!

http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/2013...

Here's a disturbing account to start the new discussions. Sorry to start with such a gloomy story, but what caught my attention was not the case, but the comments about media, (no) juries, and trial by judges.

(That link no longer is relevant and I don't recall what that gloomy story was! 1/3/20)

Inferno by Dan Brown

I think I had heard something like this was in the works (someone claims to have added it to Goodreads in January), but today was the first advertisement and cover I've seen.

Hardcover, 480 pages
Expected publication: May 14th 2013 by Knopf
Doubleday

(Wonder if his publicists engineered The Economist cover on Hell?)

Lily wrote: "
Inferno
by Dan Brown

I think I had heard something like this was in the works (someone claims to have added it to Goodreads in January), but..."

When The Da Vinci Code first came out and everyone was reading it and talking about it, I thought I should read it too. Around two-thirds of the way through it, I realized that I just don't care, so I gave the book to someone else. I didn't really care about the characters and I thought the plot was boring.

I think I may have rented the movie (but, if I'm not even sure if I saw the movie or not, it obviously did not make much of an impression on me.)

It's great that there are so many Dan Brown fans in the world. Many people are incredibly entertained by his work, but I'm just not one of them.

However, this new book on the Inferno may be interesting. I'm glad you posted this, Lily, because I haven't seen or heard anything about it.

Is anyone here planning on reading it???

Fairly or unfairly, I put Dan Brown in a category with Stephen King and Danielle Steele -- good storytellers, but not the hold on their subjects that I prefer to read. But sometimes, it can be fun to take an excursion. Perhaps the analogy is to ride the Ferris wheel or bumper cars.

Lily wrote: "Fairly or unfairly, I put Dan Brown in a category with Stephen King and Danielle Steele -- good storytellers, but not the hold on their subjects that I prefer to read. But sometimes, it can be fun..."

Lily, I feel the same way about Dan Brown (although I think I would place Brown and Stephen King a few notches above Danielle Steele, but I could be wrong -- I've never read any of Danielle Steele's books, so I could be wrong.)

I would try the bumper cars, but no one could get me on a ferris wheel -- my days of "those rides" are over!! LOL

Barbara wrote: "...a few notches above Danielle Steele, but I could be wrong -- I've never read any of Danielle Steele's books ..."

Barbara -- LOL! At the height of Steele's fame, one of the leading businesswomen in my f2f book club, which had several women more than competent in business, persuaded us to read Danielle Steele.

We all laughed over the redundancies, rather like Stephen King's use of the word "obdurate" in 11/22/63 , only many of hers were about things like "platform shoes" and "spike heeled Loubotins" -- I'm paraphrasing, because I think that was before Loubotin had hit the market.

I'm not going to try and comment on notch level, but all three (Brown, King, Steele) have certainly been able to tell stories that have reached wide swathes of readers and generated significant levels of book sales.

(It's the bumper cars I have always avoided; for all the accidents reported, I could still enjoy a Ferris wheel -- or a "tame" roller-coaster.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danielle...

Barbara wrote: "When The Da Vinci Code first came out and everyone was reading it and talking about it, I thought I should read it too. Around two-thirds of the way through it, I realized that I just don't care, so I gave the book to someone else. I didn't really care about the characters and I thought the plot was boring.
"

Precisely my own experience. But I didn't get as far as 2/3 of the way through, more like 1/3. And I didn't give the book away, but put it on the shelf in case a child or grandchild ever wanted to look at it.

Barbara wrote: "I would try the bumper cars, but no one could get me on a ferris wheel -- my days of "those rides" are over!! LOL "

When our kids were fairly young, maybe 6 and 7, we visited NYC and with their cousins went to an amusement park. We took them on the spider, and they HATED it (as I did), and that was the end of any interest in amusement rides. They never pestered us ever to take them to Disney World, Six Flags, or any other such parks, even though their friends were all going. I'm delighted that we found an early inoculation that saved us that whole issue!

Growing up in a fairly rural part of the U.S., I experienced traveling carnivals as one of the few entertainments each summer, so carousel and Ferris wheel rides were a "big treat" and I have never totally lost that attitude towards either. Although amusement parks have never been a big part of our lives nor have spectator sports, we have found either, along with any number of diversionary activities, to be fun to slip in here and there over the years. Rather like far less than erudite books -- okay for a few hours now and then.

Lily wrote: less than erudite books

And I immediately think of the movie Star Trek: The Voyage Home.

Spock has commented on the amount of swearing he hears in late 20th-century San Francisco.


Kirk: You mean the profanity? That's simply the way they talk here. Nobody pays attention to you unless you swear every other word. You'll find it in all the literature of the period.
Spock: For example?
Kirk: Oh the neglected works of Jacqueline Susan. The novels of Harold Robbins...
Spock: Ah, the "Giants".


Now, when I hear someone touting the merits of a pulp fiction sort of author---fun, but not great-- I think, "Ah, the 'Giants'"

I have an acquaintance who writes a mystery series about a female detective. I admire her drive and the modest success she has enjoyed. I forced myself through the first one. Then when the second appeared I just couldn't do it.

I felt guilty and knew she would ask my reaction. So I decided to come clean and tell her it just wasn't the kind of thing I enjoyed. Rather than be insulted she informed me that she is writing to a very specific audience and that in the business there are pretty rigid formulas she needs to adhere to.

In short she is happily creating a product for market while exercising her imagination and brining pleasure to consumers of her work. She has no pretensions.

I am not suggesting Dan Brown or Danielle Steel would feel similarly. Actually, Dan lives near me. I've been in his company a couple of times. He is a really low key, modest guy who hasn't lost touch with his roots as son of a school teacher. Despite this, I have not had the nerve to tell him what my friend said and ask his opinion.

I also haven't bothered to read any of his books.

Everyman wrote: "The Tea Shop has been remodeled, freshly painted and with the chairs re-upholstered..."

I like those wing backs with the bargello, and the leather club chairs with the pull up leg/foot benches! Thx! I'll have a cup of white chai with ginger and lemon -- that's how our moderator nursed me (miserable flowing sinuses) at our recent reading retreat in the Poconos -- and it worked. I was much better the next day. Been especially enjoying fresh ginger and lemon in my tea ever since.

Lily wrote: "I like those wing backs with the bargello, and the leather club chairs with the pull up leg/foot benches! Thx!"

Glad you like them. Just be careful sitting in the wingbacks; you need to check them out and lift any sleeping cats up onto your lap. Since they were there first, you aren't supposed to just shoo them off, but are expected to provide the alternate sleeping surface for them.

Purring will come free.

Everyman wrote: "Purring will come free...."

Sounds fine to me since I'm not allergic!

The cat's only responsibility is to sit on the open book you are trying to read.

Need help finding a quotation. I am pretty sure it's Marcus Aurelius. The gist is: Don't be upset by criticism. If the critic is right be appreciative and change. If he is not right he's the fool not you.

There is one that says don't be upset because you only can control your own emotions. But that's not the one I'm looking for.

Zeke wrote: "Need help finding a quotation. I am pretty sure it's Marcus Aurelius...."

Have you tried a google search for "Quotations Marcus Aurelius"?

If that hasn't been successful, try the phrase as you have it. Sometimes one can be lucky. Or, play around with advanced search (bottom of screen). Good luck! (I'd probably go try, but have some other things right now. I don't know the quotation you want, but the idea is certainly a solid one often found in self-help writings. I'd also make a guess at Montaigne as being the sort of sensible thing he might say. I think there may also be a passage in the Bible, probably the Wisdom Books, to that effect.)

“If someone is able to show me that what I think or do is not right, I will happily change, for I seek the truth, by which no one was ever truly harmed. It is the person who continues in his self-deception and ignorance who is harmed.”

― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quote...

You're the best Thomas!

I went to that site and totally missed it.

Lily wrote: "Sorry to start with such a gloomy story, but what caught my attention was not the case, but the comments about media, (no) juries, and trial by judges..."

No justice system is pretty in closeup, imo. May I change the specific subject matter to a case closer to home? This article on race in Philadelphia (link below) has caused our Mayor Nutter to go nuts. He has compared it to the proverbial shout of "fire" in a crowded theater. He is asking the city's Human Relations Commission essentially to humiliate and punish the author and publisher. Nutter, unlike many in city government, is actually an educated man. What gives?

http://www.phillymag.com/articles/whi...

I guess I should add a simple description, for those who don't want to take the time to read it. The article is a pretty innocuous description of the experiences of an assortment of white people living in a major, older city. Fluffya, to be specific. I don't know the author, but we live in the same neighborhood. If you can't write this basic stuff about urban living without setting off a firestorm of high-powered people trying to shut you up and ride you out of town on a rail -- we are a lot worse off than even pessimistic me had thought.

Michael wrote: " If you can't write this basic stuff about urban living without setting off a firestorm of high-powered people trying to shut you up and ride you out of town on a rail -- we are a lot worse off than even pessimistic me had thought.
"

But, sadly, you can't and we are.

Why doesn't the mayor simply write his own column in response? LIke this one, for example:

http://www.citypaper.net/blogs/nakedc...

I'm sure there are many more like it, and probably better reasoned ones as well. In any case, "humiliating and punishing" the author is not the answer. Intellectual freedom is what democracy is built on. Or as we like to say in the library business, "This library has something offensive to everyone. If you are not offended by something we own, please complain."

Michael wrote: "I guess I should add a simple description, for those who don't want to take the time to read it. The article is a pretty innocuous description of the experiences of an assortment of white people l..."

What I find most sad is that in today's society, simply telling the truth about one's experiences and opinions is often seen as hostile, if not outright forbidden.

Everyman wrote: "Michael wrote: "I guess I should add a simple description, for those who don't want to take the time to read it. The article is a pretty innocuous description of the experiences of an assortment o..."...
What I find most sad is that in today's society, simply telling the truth about one's experiences and opinions is often seen as hostile, if not outright forbidden."

What is hard to remember and practice, however, is that listening is as important as telling.

Lily wrote: "What is hard to remember and practice, however, is that listening is as important as telling."

Well said. What matters is the conversation, and while it may be difficult to calmly and seriously consider opinions that we disagree with, this is how we justify the opinions we hold as our own.

Lily wrote: "What is hard to remember and practice, however, is that listening is as important as telling."

Lily, I am not certain how you are applying that comment; it sounds to me like good advice for our mayor. If someone wasn't telling, what would there be to listen to? And he clearly doesn't want some things told. As though that could change anything.

Why make it worse by trying to bring down some civic censure on the writer? Where are all those people who love to say we need an honest dialogue about race? With Nutter trying to squelch this bit of actual dialogue -- from a guy living in a rowhouse, in a highly integrated neighborhood -- once again we see a case where the people who like to talk about tolerance and diversity show they really don't mean it. They want only one viewpoint, their preferred orthodoxy. They can't tolerate differences.

I think a large part of the problem is the media culture we live in. Public figures (and victims of crimes,etc.) always have a microphone shoved in their face. The quick response/retort is the mother's milk of cable news.

Contrast this to the past. I was just reading a book about Lincoln as a writer/speaker. He carefully plotted out each speech with a logic and an argument before delivering it. Today, even major policy addresses are crafted with an eye (ear?) towards the sentence that will be pulled out and played ad nauseum on the news.

There is a fair amount of literature on what is called "civic discourse." The junior college (urban, diverse) where my wife works has an initiative to promote it. (Civic discourse is NOT a synonym for PC.) Let us hope that such efforts succeed.

Pericles, too, Zeke.

Zeke wrote: "I think a large part of the problem is the media culture we live in. Public figures (and victims of crimes,etc.) always have a microphone shoved in their face. The quick response/retort is the moth..."

Very good point. The old days did provide time for calm and cleansing, and we often lack it now. But our mayor had to sit down and compose that letter to the Human Relations Commission. Where was his thoughtfulness then? I think this article has been out for a while; I had been ignoring it at first. Is this what you would like your mayor to do, in any similar set of circumstances?

Why didn't Nutter say, crime remains a problem for too many people in this city. We have made strides, but much is left to do. This article is one man's opinion, but I want to assure ALL the law-abiding citizens of this city that we are working to stop any and all forms of crime against them -- whatever their race or ethnicity.

How hard would that have been?

I was unpleasantly surprised by his actual response. And I was pleasantly surprised by the innocuousness of that article -- not some yahoo, but a guy who's been here a while. His closing point was that question -- can I even say that much? Or words to that effect. Unfortunately, as Everyman says in his posts on this, the answer seems to be No. At least, right here in Philadelphia, right now. We are paying a price for trying to eliminate any expression of any thought that someone, somewhere, might find "mean."

Michael wrote: "Lily wrote: "What is hard to remember and practice, however, is that listening is as important as telling."

Lily, I am not certain how you are applying that comment; it sounds to me like good advice for our mayor. If someone wasn't telling, what would there be to listen to? And he clearly doesn't want some things told. As though that could change anything...."

Michael -- I'm tired, so I'll probably mess up what I'll say, but I owe you a response.

In all honesty, I don't know how I'd apply the comment on listening I threw out. I almost deleted it, then let it stand. I appreciated Thomas' add in a subsequent message about the criticality of dialogue. I didn't really intend it as advice, more as an observation. It probably could be advice to both sides, but in my experience, advice seldom works, listening sometimes does. Yet, Jenn (sp) in the text presented exemplifies the difficulties, as does the whole situation.

My feelings on the importance of listening do arise from some one-on-one volunteer work I do where a group of us received initial instruction and then on-going training and support. A good share of our "work" is listening. Over the past several years I have come to realize how astounding that process can be. But that is on a one-to-one basis, not a community basis.

I'm afraid that there are a lot of topics on which we are all going to need to do more listening than we probably have either the time or patience to do if the challenges those topics represent are going budge.

Lily wrote: "I appreciated Thomas' add in a subsequent message about the criticality of dialogue.

Lily, you may well have said everything you have to say on this one; but permit me to respond some more.

Here is my question on the above -- why, actually, is dialogue critical? As I reread your post, I unexpectedly found myself wondering that. I don't like elected officials trying to shut down this article, but I also doubt that it, by itself, would have lead to anything. Maybe having the mayor go bonkers over it is actually more helpful. I see that the Atlantic has now taken up this incident. But I'm not even bothering to link their piece, because they have so little to add.

I think that is because the comments in the article are not terribly surprising to anyone. Not to anyone who has lived in a city and coped with crime, racial conflict, ineffective educational outcomes, the whole ball of wax. What is surprising is how sensitive our African-American mayor proved to be. Was it just a political response by him, or was he outraged by some inadvertent truth he didn't care to confront? It's like there is a fantasy world to which we are all supposed to subscribe, and if anyone says something that punctures that fantasy, he must be minimized, isolated, penalized.


I didn't really intend it as advice, more as an observation. It probably could be advice to both sides, but in my experience, advice seldom works, listening sometimes does.

What are those sides, I wonder? White and black? In this city, there have been major conflicts between Asian and black. And, though it is not mentioned in the article, the chief "flight" in recent years in Philadelphia's population has been the flight of middle-class blacks out of the city. So the core conflict seems as much to be about social-, economic-, and educational-classes as about race itself.


Yet, Jenn (sp) in the text presented exemplifies the difficulties, as does the whole situation.

Jen was the idealist, among the characters he referenced. I thought her efforts were admirable, but I wasn't sure we got the whole story. I suspect she related only the things that reinforced her extremely idealistic views. My experiences are that the breakthroughs, of which she described two, are seldom as clearcut as what she related. But more power to her.

My feelings on the importance of listening do arise from some one-on-one volunteer work I do where a group of us received initial instruction and then on-going training and support. A good share of our "work" is listening. Over the past several years I have come to realize how astounding that process can be. But that is on a one-to-one basis, not a community basis...

Listening is good, yes. And I suspect you would agree that hearing can be even better! I once went through marriage counselling; the experience was worthwhile, although often painful, but the most valuable single aspect of it was a requirement the therapist established that we each had to prove we heard what the other was saying. We each had to repeat back, in our own words, what we thought the other had just said, and do so until the other agreed that we got it.

That thwarted the natural defense we all have of listening selectively, or not at all. Of shifting the other's comment into some other form, perhaps a change of emphasis, or a straw-man elision, that makes it easier and less painful to reply. A couple, or any other antagonists, lol, can dance around a subject for a long, long time without ever achieving any resolution by utilizing such dodges. Or keep battering at shadows on walls that the other doesn't even see or accept.

Possibly the dialogue is both the goal and the truth, as well as the process.

Michael -- I haven't decided yet on my boundaries for further discussion on these themes on this forum. When I do, I shall either post or send a message. In the meantime, my view means nothing significant, but I applaud your efforts to listen to yourself.

Lily, while I asked several questions in my post (#33), they were in the course of thinking aloud on this conflict in Philadelphia. Please don't feel I am asking for answers from you; I'm just pondering different aspects of this odd story that present themselves, as one turns over facts, reactions, and the consequences of a kind of inadvertent dialogue that has followed the mayor's action.

One of the things that bothers me about Mayor Nutter's reaction to that magazine article is its demonstration that we have reached some Orwellian levels in our attempts to protect people from any degree of offense. Simple observations are verboten if they upset someone's preferred notion of reality. Hence those speech codes on college campuses, for example. Some of them contain flagrant violations of basic constitutional rights; some of those get corrected later, some are left standing to create who-knows-what mischief in some young person's life.

So, speaking of mischief... ! Here is a bizarre case that I stumbled upon, another test of free speech and the efforts we will go to to avoid it.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2...

Here is another take on it, which might read a little more clearly than the Mother Jones article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001...

Patrice had asked in another thread, but it's better moved here, what the lecturer, Richard Brettell, in the Louvre course said about the Mona Lisa.

The course, by the way, is "Museum Masterieces: The Louvre" from the Teaching Company, and if you ever plan to go to the Louvre I highly recommended it to help you get the most out of your visit.

The ML, he noted, is much smaller than most people expect it to be.

The enigmatic smile is probably the most famous thing about the ML. He notes that the portrait on first glance looks like a fairly traditional portrait of a woman beautifully painted, richly dressed, with a hint of a veil over her hair, the folds of her dress wonderfully offered, life in her face, sitting placidly for the painter.

But Brettell is more interested in the background, which makes it very different from traditional portraits. She is not in an interior, as was traditional at the time, but is in front of a kind of balustrade and behind her a "wild and remote and completely impossible landscape." Dali apparently loved this landscape and commented on it in his work. On the left is a curvilinear road cut through the mountains going back to a lake or sea or estuary with rocks and trees that look more like they came from a Chinese painting more than from the alps or any mountains of his experience, even though Brettell contends that da Vinci didn't know anything about Chinese painting. He "invents the mysterious and wild landscape." To the right of the figure we see a bridge, looking like a Roman bridge, that crosses a river that also follows a long curvilinear path to the sea with mountains and mysterious clouds. The "sheer improbability of the relationship between this figure who seems to be completely at home with herself and this wild and improbable landscape makes the painting so powerful and so interesting."

It seems to me clearly an invented landscape because there appears to me, at least, no way that, behind her head, the two sides of the landscape could have been joined as a single landscape. The bodies of water are at too different levels, the river seems to go up instead of down (unless it is flowing towards us rather than away from us). And where does the road go?

Brettell contends that the way you look at the painting is "something unique in the history of portraiture," because you can either look at the figure or you can look at the landscape, but "it's very difficult to look at them as being in the same picture because they're two such completely different realms, one which is near, touchable, human, knowable in a sort of profoundly human way and the other of which is impossibly distant, impossibly strange, impossible almost unearthly, and the bringing together of those two opposing pictorial worlds, opposing worlds of emotion...creates a kind of mystery for the painting."

Is that helpful?

Does anyone know information about the reported purchase of Goodreads by Amazon? A few of my Facebook friends have expressed disappointment and quit Goodreads.

What do folks here think about this? As with Amazon (and Google) in general I am ambivalent. Or maybe I just lack decisiveness and conviction.

Zeke wrote: "...What do folks here think about this?..."

What was the business strategy/plan behind Goodreads? (I.e., how did Goodreads make money?) What is the ebook publishing side of the deal? I.e., why did Amazon buy Goodreads?

Zeke wrote: "Does anyone know information about the reported purchase of Goodreads by Amazon? A few of my Facebook friends have expressed disappointment and quit Goodreads.

What do folks here think about this?..."

It seemed inevitable. Take a look at Amazon's acquisitions:

http://ebookfriendly.com/2013/03/28/h...

I'm ambivalent too. Worse than that though, resigned. Corporate tax policy support this business model, and I don't see it changing any time soon.

Amazon bought Shelfari some time ago, and the connection certainly makes it easier to add books to Shelfari. Adding Goodreads doesn't bother me at all. I'm a big Amazon customer, though, because I need the convenience. I even get peanut butter and toilet paper from Amazon! And where would I be without Audible?

As long as Amazon doesn't mess with the format or try to start charging for participation. I can't imagine that Goodreads was making much, if any, money to repay the creators; they deserve to get a buy-out after all the work and creativity they put into it. I, too, am fairly ambivalent about both Google and Amazon (and Microsoft) and their ability (and willingness) to throw their considerable weight around, but overall they have added more to my life than they have taken from it.

Amazon has a pretty good track record of leaving its subsidiaries alone to do what they do best, so I'm not worried that they will mess with the format. I dislike the "walmart-ization" of the bookselling industry, but the whole industry is changing. This is just one facet of it. There used to be 18 used bookstores in my city. Now there are 5.

http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/...

Hope one of our MM posters doesn't mind my sharing this here. Going to her site led me to this article Note the comments as well as article itself.

Another question that struck me was whether Goodreads felt itself in need of a good infusion of capital to meet its server demands. I don't know what part of their costs those have been, but we have all known the difficulties with access occasionally in recent months. That is an aspect I would think Amazon should be in a position to support.

I actually failed to understand the euphemism that Goodreads used when they sent me a message that they had "joined the Amazon family." I didn't realize that they'd been bought; I only learned that now when I got the update for this discussion.

While I acknowledge that the creators of Goodreads are free to do as they choose, I liked the fact that Goodreads was not part of the Amazon empire--or any empire. I liked the fact that Goodreads was about enjoying books, not selling them; its attraction was that it was a club for book lovers, not a store.

Amazon may be a hands-off owner, and Goodreads may be run exactly as before; but one option has been closed forever: the option of doing anything that, for whatever reason, displeases Amazon. And it is conceivable that the interests of readers and the interests of Amazon may not always coincide.

In fact, I'm feeling my own very first conflict about the change. I have cheerfully worked as a Goodreads librarian, volunteering my effort for the benefit of my fellow readers; the idea of volunteering my effort for Amazon is much less inspiring. I'm not saying I'll stop doing it, but the meaning of it has changed for me.

On reflection, I would have liked it better if the Goodreads owners had asked the members whether they would prefer to pay a membership fee rather than see the site sold to a retailer. As things stand, I must say I'm disappointed.

Paul wrote: "...I liked the fact that Goodreads was about enjoying books, not selling them..."

Paul, how did Goodreads make money? I have more or less presumed it was by selling ads. Now I recognize that is different than retailing books, but it seems to me that is also "selling books."

Apparently there is an ebooks publishing piece in here, which I don't understand yet.

I can understand your feelings about being a librarian under the new arrangement. Especially as Amazon acts as a conduit for resellers and for ebooks as distinct from traditional books, there seems to me to be more and more difficulties with how to associate reviews with editions that differ significantly, whatever "significantly" may be.

Lily wrote: "Paul, how did Goodreads make money? I have more or less presumed it was by selling ads. Now I recog..."

Hi Lily. My impression, right or wrong, based on reading the bios of the founders and on the site as a whole, was that Goodreads was not a commercial enterprise but mainly a hobby project of people who had already made their fortune in a previous computing venture. While they did sell e-books (including mine) and offered marketing packages to authors for a price, it was very soft-sell and by far the dominant impression, for me, was that Goodreads was a site built by book lovers for book lovers.

It's possible too that the idea all along was to build up a site that would accumulate enough member-users to make it attractive to a commercial operation like Amazon, who would then pay big bucks for it, as appears to have happened.

I'm a capitalist and I have nothing particularly against Amazon or any business enterprise, but in my case I came to Goodreads in large part to get away from Amazon, some of whose practices had started to irk me. I wrote 34 book reviews on Amazon, wanting to give back something to those readers who had helped me make selections by writing thoughtful reviews. I felt good about helping my fellow readers, but slightly conflicted about providing unpaid marketing work for Amazon. When I discovered Goodreads, I was delighted and decided I would write all my book reviews here from now on, conflict-free.

I'm sure that Goodreads will be just fine and that its being acquired by Amazon will not make any serious difference. But I'm reminded of an episode of The Avengers that I watched as a kid, in which Emma Peel, in a strange house, tries to leave a certain room, but finds that every door always leads back to that same room. Amazon to me is becoming like that house, or maybe like the Hotel California, where you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

James Joyce wrote: "Collide with man. Collude with money."

One more take on the Amazon kerfuffle:

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/31/amazo...

Thomas wrote: "James Joyce wrote: "Collide with man. Collude with money."

One more take on the Amazon kerfuffle: http://www.salon.com/2013/03/31/amazo..."

Atlantic Monthly dips into the conversation:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/a...

Oh, dear! Now we have another Dante translation to master. Did you catch this this morning? http://www.npr.org/2013/04/13/1770452...

Laurele wrote: "Oh, dear! Now we have another Dante translation to master. Did you catch this this morning? http://www.npr.org/2013/04/13/1770452..."

Oh dear would indeed be right, except that the excerpt didn't inspire me to consider his translation any more compelling to read than Ciardi or Musa.