"Unlike the commingled, unedited, frequently inaccurate mass of "information" on the Web, [John Updike] said, "books traditionally have edges.""

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Those kids today and their wacky Internet, part 412541254154

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 22 May 2006 15:55 (nineteen years ago)

There's plenty of other fine moments of 'arrrgh' in said article:

Meanwhile, Steve Berry, author of the if-you-like-Dan-Brown bestseller "The Templar Legacy," explained his formula for writing fact-based fiction:

"The 'oooh' factor plus the 'so what' factor equals high concept," Berry said.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 22 May 2006 15:56 (nineteen years ago)

= the soooooooh what factor?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 22 May 2006 16:11 (nineteen years ago)

BOX OFFICE GOLD, SLOCKI

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 22 May 2006 16:13 (nineteen years ago)

Updike being reactionary? No way!

― Brian Furry (noodle vague), Monday, 22 May 2006 16:16 (nineteen years ago)

How can a "mass of information" (or 'information', whatevs) be "commingled"? Is he saying each little information particle is commingled with other information particles, or that the whole mass is commingled with some unidentified and unreferenced awful thing? Or what?

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Monday, 22 May 2006 16:33 (nineteen years ago)

I'm more worried about the disinformation being propelled by if-you-like-Dan-Brown writers who call their writing "fact-based"

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Monday, 22 May 2006 17:01 (nineteen years ago)

His recent review of Houellebecq left me somewhat cold as well.

― M. White (Miguelito), Monday, 22 May 2006 17:03 (nineteen years ago)

I can't figure out what that "oooh" plus "so what" thing really even means.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Monday, 22 May 2006 18:28 (nineteen years ago)

The metaphor Updike meant to use was that the internet penetrates every orifice of knowledge.

― Aimless (Aimless), Monday, 22 May 2006 18:32 (nineteen years ago)

how is this different from the stuff everybody was agreeing about on the narrowing of the public sphere thread?

― and what (ooo), Monday, 22 May 2006 18:35 (nineteen years ago)

"Updike Burns Down Wikipedia Server"

Self-rightously forces his books into the hands of horified onlookers

― Mr Jones (Mr Jones), Tuesday, 23 May 2006 00:43 (nineteen years ago)

dudes on internet message board in being very defensive about internet shocker

meanwhile Updike OTMFM here: Updike went on at some length, heaping scorn on Kelly's notion that authors who no longer got paid for copies of their work could profit from it by selling "performances" or "access to the creator." ("Now as I read it, this is a pretty grisly scenario.") - of course, this is a boon for any authors whose central authorial trope is a very certain strain of camera-friendly narcissism

― Thomas Tallis (Tommy), Tuesday, 23 May 2006 01:07 (nineteen years ago)

dudes on internet message board in being very defensive about internet shocker

Hooray!

of course, this is a boon for any authors whose central authorial trope is a very certain strain of camera-friendly narcissism

Why thank you. Oh wait. (Kelly's model seems to be the equivalent of saying bands will survive the mp3 era via live performances, which I agree is hard to make work on a parallel level with authors for a variety of perfectly obvious reasons.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 23 May 2006 01:16 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.