London Review of Books

what's the deal with theory *slapbass flourish*

you-know-who is blogging GoT: i am reaching for a lanchester/lannister joke but luckily someone just rolled me out of the moon door

he has also watched some other TV shows

Do you go to TE's Humour bash Mark S ?

I dug "you know nothing, john lanchester" from a while back

what language is the pinefox now posting in before he reaches for babelfish?

(i'm out of town that day i think, in hastings with my sister)

To be fair, that Lanchester piece seemed fine. I have never seen GoT, so I may well not know what I'm talking about.

Mark S I learned it from my friend R J G

The GOT piece is fine. I liked the "Tony Blair or Ladyhitler" line. But even when he's OTM, he's a bit muddy. It's not so much "John, you took the words out of mouth" as "John, you took the words out of my mouth, added some syllables, and made them a tiny bit less clear"

Crosspost to the a "a box of ___ every month" thread?

www.londonreviewbookbox.co.uk

Letter commissioned for the first issue:

SIR: The London Review doesn’t have, or intend to seek, an Arts Council subsidy. This means that the envious, the indolent, the mischievous must, if they wish to be damaging, take issue with the journal itself, and not with the way it is financed. Most writers believe that they are (or, given the chance, could be) terrific editors, and they are particularly contemptuous of the skills that go into producing journals from which their own works are excluded. Arts Council grants, I’ve come to see, make it all too easy for the whimper of neglect to masquerade as public-spirited dismay. The London Review won’t have to get annoyed about this kind of thing.

It will have other things to get annoyed about, but many of these can be seen as pretty well routine: the publishers will be cagey, the librarians won’t want to know, the backbiters will go on about élitism, metropolitan cliquishness, lack of compassion for the avant-garde, the sycophants will wait and see. The appalling thing about our ‘literary culture’ at the moment is that a large section of its representatives seem to get more of a kick out of seeing things collapse than they do out of seeing them survive. Sooner or later (and I would like to think that this might be the moment) they must ask themselves if they really do want another serious reviewing journal; or if, in their heart of hearts, they prefer to sit around complaining that they haven’t got one.

Ian Hamilton

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v01/n01/letters

they shd commission a letter from ilx for the whateverth issue

Thank you for your service Ian. We're gonna nationalise it now and lock all the white literary London boys now.

Astonishing letters-page controversy:

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v10/n03/christopher-norris/paul-de-mans-past

yeah i remember all that de man stuff very clearly :(

Salad days

just finally finished reading empson's seven types of ambiguity properly for the first time (only ever skipped thru bits of it before): not always crystal clear but good not bad

was a bit startled to discover it had an index, something i was convinced i had claimed that it did not here in this very thread: rereading i discover it was the pinefox who said this (his copy had an editor;s note saying not) and that i then posted a link to an on-line version which did

anyway i came to post the following line on proust as i felt it was funny and apposite, only to find i already posted it three years ago lol: "Parodies are appreciative criticisms in this sense, and much of Proust reads like the work of a superb appreciative critic upon a novel which has unfortunately not survived" -- thats right william

(i can only think that three years ago i couldn't locate my physical copy, not at all an unusual situation in my house)

the unsurviving novel is proust

given where the sentence comes in the book it's in, empson is kind of saying "it me, i'm proust"

je suis etc

CALL ME MADELEINE

Some days the novel reads you.