Princess Sparklefists (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
alexiscartwheel) wrote2009-03-18 10:41 pm
alexiscartwheel) wrote2009-03-18 10:41 pm
Closing some tabs...
First off, we have this gem from last week's Washington Post on how today's college students aren't reading the beat poets, and are therefore idiots. Basically. I think it's just yet another round of "kids these days" BS. Today's young adults aren't less involved in radical politics because they like the Twilight books; there are loads of other societal factors effecting that.
Well, yes, literature does have plenty to author. But just cause I don't really care for Kerouac doesn't make me dumb. You have your classics, we have ours. Okay?
In better news, the New York Times reports that book sales are up in Europe thanks to the recession. Books make for inexpensive but high quality entertainment. (Even French translations of Twilight. If you couldn't tell, I don't like being judgey about what people read. Even if Twilight is kinda lulzy.)
And in the Guardian, "Librarians are necessarily heroes and warriors - albeit in disguise." I would so love to work at the British Library, even if they have misplaced some of their books. And can I just say that the Guardian has a much better books section than most U.S. papers? (Actually, many U.S. papers are ditching books all together. Sad.)
***
This has nothing to do with books, but the SciFi Channel rebrand? EPIC FAIL. SyFy? Seriously? I like io9's assement: "I mean, it's the same name! Just spelled stupidly!" Do they think people won't notice? For current science fiction fans, it's insulting. And for non-fans, well, what exactly has changed? I like some of the alternate options on io9, like "The Why Isn't Battlestar Galactica On Anymore Channel" or "The Look, Just Fuck Off Geeks, We Don't Want Your Kind Round Here Network."
What you see at the next revolution is far more likely to be a well-designed Web site than a radical novel or a poem. Not to be a drag, but that's so uncool. For those of us who care about literature and think it still has a lot to offer, it's time to start chanting, "Hell, no! We won't go!"
Well, yes, literature does have plenty to author. But just cause I don't really care for Kerouac doesn't make me dumb. You have your classics, we have ours. Okay?
In better news, the New York Times reports that book sales are up in Europe thanks to the recession. Books make for inexpensive but high quality entertainment. (Even French translations of Twilight. If you couldn't tell, I don't like being judgey about what people read. Even if Twilight is kinda lulzy.)
And in the Guardian, "Librarians are necessarily heroes and warriors - albeit in disguise." I would so love to work at the British Library, even if they have misplaced some of their books. And can I just say that the Guardian has a much better books section than most U.S. papers? (Actually, many U.S. papers are ditching books all together. Sad.)
***
This has nothing to do with books, but the SciFi Channel rebrand? EPIC FAIL. SyFy? Seriously? I like io9's assement: "I mean, it's the same name! Just spelled stupidly!" Do they think people won't notice? For current science fiction fans, it's insulting. And for non-fans, well, what exactly has changed? I like some of the alternate options on io9, like "The Why Isn't Battlestar Galactica On Anymore Channel" or "The Look, Just Fuck Off Geeks, We Don't Want Your Kind Round Here Network."
no subject
I read that SciFi wanted to be SyFy so they could trademark it or something. And it showed Pirates of the Caribbean the other night. I like pirates and all, but they are so not sci-fi!
no subject
The trademark thing... eh, kind of a lame justification. It took them over 15 years to decide they needed a trademark?