“Children are hell—at least that is the feeling conveyed from Greenberg’s point of view by an early scene in which he attends a pool party of his fortyish peers and their teeming antic offspring. The message is turned on its head near the end of the film by a former bandmate of Greenberg’s, Ivan, a now sober addict running a small-scale tech service and trying to keep together a marriage. He scolds Greenberg for not trying to “get to know” his eight-year-old son, as if eight-year-olds are much worth getting to know. The smug self-righteousness of the young parent knows no bounds.”—
The smug self-righteousness of the young parent doesn’t hold a candle to the smug self-righteousness of the confirmed childless bachelor. Why Christian Lorentzen persists in thinking that the whole world, including the movie Greenberg, is conspiring to try and make him get married and have children is beyond me. I personally am totally okay with Christian’s not having children; in fact it would put my mind at ease if he’d just go ahead and have a vasectomy.
One of the reasons eight year olds are worth getting to know is that they are still capable of having original thoughts; they don’t see the world through a dense filter of preconceptions and received wisdom.
(This is Lindsay now, I hate tumblr): Actually, the character, who is British, doesn’t say anything about “getting to know” his son. He says something like he’s sad that Greenberg “didn’t want to know” his son, meaning in American English “didn’t want to MEET” his son. It’s a Britishism. So it has nothing to do with “getting to know” an 8 year old in the first place, though I agree with Emily’s assessment that 8 year olds are worth knowing. It’s perfectly reasonable that a guy would want his supposed best friend to show any interest at all in meeting his son, whose name Greenberg doesn’t even recognize at first.
(Update: the tone of this was supposed to be know it all-y, not bitchy, not sure if that came through.)
"When Clark Duke interrupts his parents mid-coitus, he temporarily disappears from existence. Mathematical models demonstrate that this is not what would happen. It has been shown conclusively that he would fade from existence a bit at a time, starting with images in photographs."
Very funny! But don’t read the comments, they will make you sad for the internet and the author. I don’t know why I thought readers of I09 would be better equipped to comprehend satire/parody/sarcasm than the average blog commentors. They are not. :(
Last week when I read that hilarious New Yorker story about Polyvore which somehow got by an editor despite the author putting regular words and phrases like “mash up,” “import,” “granular” and “usability testing” in hearing-them-for-the-first-time quotes and expressing surprise that a website was watching a reader use their website (all websites do this!) I decided I wanted to be on Polyvore specifically to create the worst possible fashion sets imaginable. I wouldn’t even need to try very hard!
But then I just went there and oh my god it’s the most boring site/concept I’ve ever seen. Every quadrant of my brain is screaming “Look somewhere else! Anywhere! The wall!” It’s like somethingawful but for boring. (Yeah, this is why I’ll never be rich.)
This is an actual sentence from that New Yorker piece, which, okay, I guess I’m not the target audience but still, LOL:
"Lee called it “usability testing,” as if Helmer—chosen because of the quality, consistency, and popularity of her sets—were a lab rat."
Yes, that’s what “Lee called it.” The only conclusion I could come to from this story, which had absolutely no place in the New Yorker, was that they’re trying to lure in a less educated demographic. Harsh, I know, and I’m sorry it’s woman-targeted (there’s probably some recent story I skipped over where they did the men’s version) I understand that not everyone in the world has encountered things like usability testing, and I didn’t know about it until I worked for the first website I worked for, but the New Yorker can acknowledge that the fashion website they’re profiling didn’t just come up with it, if they even know that, which they don’t seem to. If anyone does a yearly “Stupidest New Yorker articles of the year” round up, this should be on it. (Uh, Sincerely, Greenberg.)
You know what would be funny? If they did a sequel to Greenberg just for DVD with a different, hack, director and an entirely different cast except for Jennifer Jason Leigh and one of the two teenage girls and this would be the synopsis:
"Greenberg is back and anti-social as ever! This time, the severely depressed suicidal misanthrope finds himself in the Australian outback, where he has to rescue his step-niece and her friend from sex traffickers and get back to Los Angeles in time to save his brother’s dog from an auto immune disorder."
(You know, like all those American Pie sequels, but for serious. Yeah, I’m probably going to do this with every serious movie I see in the future.)
That you’re writing from a poorly-handled Gawker item is probably assisting you in making this false assertion. Actually, Amason + Blakeley’s was the only book-to-blog thingie HarperStudio had going. The only other Tumblr-related blog book was Natasha’s Mad Men book, the book…
You tell ‘em, Choire! Also, how exactly would a publisher even run an imprint that had no authors who had ever had blogs or written for the internet these days? It would have to be a very boutique, specialty imprint. About, like, survival in the woods.
"I saw pictures of them in my english book, and they look gay to me; Byron very flamboyant, and Shelley and Keats very feminine-looking. I have read Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, and I believe it possible that a love affair between Shelley and Keats at least, if not Byron also, could have made her disturbed enough to write a book like that. It seems clear that the person who wrote that was starved for affection."
- Some message board post
(I saw Bright Star this weekend and got internet-curious. It’s very boring. Spoiler: Keats never makes a move, dies.)
This is actual advice repeated on actual Lifehacker for how to make the most of networking events (whatever those are, so, uh, not New York): you make a list (with photos and notes) of the important bloggers (“targets”) you want to meet and then go down the list meeting them. And also this:
"If you want to really do things nicely, add your target contact’s image and information to a special contacts list on your smart phone. That way, when you do get contact information from your new friend, you won’t have to enter anything but their number or email address. If they ask you about why you had their information programmed into your phone already, just tell them you’re a big fan and had planned on meeting them. After all, you are and you did! =)”
If I’m missing something in thinking this is batshit crazy advice, I’m totally fine with that.