Adam Nagourney Goes Deep Inside...

...to tell us that Golly gee, Anderson Cooper is kinda tall!

This is the thing about the Times' reporting strategy these days (at least in some departments) and why it's not working. The Times, faced with dropping revenues, is trying to go after the gossipy style of the tabloids and cable news stations and some blogs, but is seriously sacrificing substance to do so.

What the NYT and the rest of the MSM has yet to grasp about the appeal of the blogosphere is that bloggers may be snappy and snarky but they actually provide a factual look at authority that's not through rose-colored lenses.

The post in question is essentially a personal, rather nasty, look at the CNN/Youtubedebate from the angle of actually being in the room instead of watching it on the telly-screen. Here are his initial impressions:

Anderson Cooper is taller than he looks on television. He also was wearing a much nicer suit than any of the men on stage who wanted to be president. (If you are now looking for some carping about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s fashion sense, you have come to the wrong place: turn the page or click the link, or whatever it is one needs to do these days to move on.) Mr. Cooper is also rather funny, in a droll sort of way...

Oh tee-hee. Not only does Ad-Nag get to subtly dig at the rise of electronic media, he gets to thoroughly let in to his bitchiest instincts and talk about Anderson's height and charm, and then dish about HRC's jacket by pretending not to talk about HRC's jacket (so meta)...and it's all rather, to use his wording, droll. Droll, I tell you! It must feel liberating for Ad-Nag not to be reporting on real stuff! Oh wait, this is the exact same crap he usually writes about... hmmm. At least there's no faux-objectivity here.

Here's the closing graf:

Inside the hall, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, who tends in these settings to speak softly, was not a particularly striking presence; a number of colleagues in the press corps who watched on television rated him the winner of the night. Mr. Edwards seemed coiled and strident in the hall; colleagues watching him on television, where it matters, said he was gripping and compelling. And Mrs. Clinton? This is the one place where impressions inside the hall matched those on television. She DID stand out in that sea of dark suits wearing that (sorry) eye-catching coral jacket.

Ouch! Our main national political reporter at last gets to do his favorite thing--use gender politics to impugn two really excellent candidates, and then get in yet another dig-but-not-a-dig at HRC's jacket. The sad thing is that Edwards' coat comment was a stupid joke. The media, on the other hand, takes this shit seriously. God, this man needs some therapy.

Still, I'm disappointed that Ad-Nag didn't devote an entire post to an important subject: HRC's boobies. Way to miss the forest for the trees, home-slice.

Oh Lord, A Literary Scandal!

I don't even know how to begin with this one. I've spent the morning recuping from a night that involved two extremely potent margaritas and one not-so-potent viewing of "Who's Your Caddy?" (yep, you read right). I think my body has lost all ability to process alcohol-- a far cry from my seven jameson-and sodas-are-nothing days of living in Galways, Ireland.

Anyway, there's no better way to nurse a hangover than with gossip blogs--and my persual of the Gawk led me to a bona fide literary scandal! Apparently a famous writer's less famous wife had left him to join the steady harem of some sort of billionaire mogul! The best part of the Gawker post was that there was a picture of uber-lit-couple Ayelet ("I love my husband more than my kids") Waldman and Michael ("I write books with longish retro titles") Chabon. And the commenters jumped on the possibility that there might be trouble in paradise--either with them or a legion of other hot scribbling-couples.

Then it turned out it weren't nobody who be mad hip yo, and living in Brooklyn--it was Tallahassee couple Elizabeth Dewberry and Robert Butler, neither of whom I am well acquainted with. But nevertheless, the e-mail he sent relating the demise of their union is a prime example of how a lot of writers are creative and eccentric geniuses BATSHIT INSANE. Do scroll through the comments, they are hilarious (Gawker commenters are much better than writers, IMO).

Monday Morning Link Farming

How was your weekend, readers? Mine was very busy indeed. On Saturday, I spent time in lovely Columbia Country NY with my familie francaise--they're not actually family, but close friends for three generations--swimming and eating and best of all, drinking wine at lunch (Macon vin blanc, mmm). Sunday I treked out to the Rock the Bells hip-hop festival, which was a downer because of the abundance of pouring rain and the crowd which was more "Heineken and puke" than "peace and love." Who would have thought that Rage Against the Machine, with all their glorious anarchist-socialism, would attract so many goddamn frat boys?

Anyhooch, the soggy day was redeemed with a viewing of the Simpsons movie which was appropriately hilarious and even a wee bit political, and so now here I am, facing another Monday morning of being a motivational challenged 20-something slacker in hot, humid NYC.

Here goes my procrastination rundown:

• The Times, triumphant in its power to obtain various reading material, reads Hillary's angsty college letters and concludes little. Just like they did with HP 7.

• My man John Edwards rails against big media and the haircut scandal. Amen. (TPM/youtube)

• Caryn James has a typically un-insightful piece on Austen-mania. And concludes, stupidly, as everyone does, that Austen is escapism for women. Not exactly, Caryn, but we shall deal with that later.
  

• Over at HuffPo, another Egalitarian Bookworm takes JKR's side against snooty Byatt and Bloom.

• At Hullaballoo, a really really great explique of Giuliani's horrible legacy of racist mayoring in NYC--a legacy which makes me so mad I have a hard time explaining it to people who weren't New Yorkers during the "glorious Giuliani year." Blech.

JKR spills her secrets

And reveals the answers to fans' burning questions.

Ahh, Trollope, a Refreshing Summer Read...

Or so David Ignatius would have us believe in his WaPo column.

Although we at EBC can't say we approve of this:

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" arrived at our house last weekend, all 759 pages -- two copies to be shared by my wife and three daughters. I'm missing the party, but only because of this summer's addiction to Anthony Trollope -- luxuriating at present in the 841 pages of "Can You Forgive Her?" with a mere 3,643 pages left to complete the sextet of the Palliser novels.

Ditching JK for AT is not cool. Still, the idea of 19th century tomes as "escapist" and fun is definitely something I'm digging. And he makes a good point about the role of the Female in these epic machinations of manners:

But the women in these novels are passionate seekers, embodying bourgeois Europe's journey toward free thought and personal freedom. They refuse the easy comforts and arranged marriages of their class in pursuit of deeper values. Often, as with Austen's Elizabeth Bennet or Trollope's Alice Vavasor, they make themselves positively miserable trying to escape the worthy men who will make them happy. They are too rebellious for their own good, these fine ladies, and when they finally achieve a happy ending (for there is always a happy ending in these books), it is, to the sentimental reader, deeply satisfying. There are so few opportunities in real life to see virtue rewarded.

True.

Stephen Colbert, Egalitarian Bookworm, Reads Harry Potter

The Youtube Debate

Finally, a non-harry potter related post! Ah, but normalcy sucks. A pox on thee, reality.

I thought I'd add my quick two cents since everyone's going gaga over the shiny new format wherin user-submitted questions ere uploaded onto the webby-web and played for all of our, and the candidates', delight. I have to say, I found it more engaging than the usual format and I enjoyed the off-the cuff answers some of the candidates were forced to give.

I'm still an Edwards gal, even though his "personal position" on gay marriage is dubious, he's way more honest than anyone else, and I like the fact that he has said very clearly that he would not let his personal/religious views interfere in any way with his decisions should he become president. I love his righteous anger about healthcare, I like his focus on poverty that seems to have so many pundits baffled ("but he's not poor! how could he care about poverty? I'm so confuuused.") and I will vote for him as long as I think he has a fighting chance.

Hillary Clinton, once my idol, then an object of my scorn, now somewhere in between, is just in her element during these things. She's calm, she positions herself as a uniter, not a divider, and she sounds like an expert and unsurprised at any questions that pop up. I don't trust her to hold fast to a left-wing ideology but I admire her, I have to say.

As for the rest: I am tired of Obama managing to say so little about what he's actually going to DO, I adore Kucinich and think everything he says is right and I'm sorry he's not taken seriously, and Joe Biden had the line of the night, which I will embed below here. Watch the question and then gloss over Richardson's pat answer to hear Biden speak. the. truth.

Is Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows a repudiation of the male power structure (or am I just fantasizing?)

SPOILER ALERT*SPOILER ALERT*SPOILER ALERT*

I think it's interesting that people have accused my main woman JK of not being feminist enough because some of her characters conform to gender roles. But to me that's like saying Jane Austen isn't feminist enough--both women, one using realism and the other fantasy, are satirizing and commenting on their contemporary societies. So they are writing things as they are, not as they should be (i.e Hermione being brainy but intimidated by broomsticks, Mrs. Weasley showing her love by feeding her kids etc.) But it's exactly that understanding of human life and the way people really do act that makes her "fantasy" world less fantastic and more poignant; a fantasy reflection of reality. More explained below.

But first, my initial hasty thoughts about Deathly Hallows, which I finished at 7:20 pm yesterday evening after taking a swim and a shower to stave off the ultimate sadness I knew I'd feel when I had no more pages to turn.
In sum:

1)Book 7 was a heart-pounding, unbelievably thrilling, and absorbing read. The chapters flew by! Kudos JKR.

2)Much of the conclusion was satisfying as all hell---and incredibly moving. I cried the most when Dumbledore's portrait cried.

3) I wish there had been more emotional exposition and exploration of the side characters (there was so much to develop with Harry and Lupin, for instance, and the Kreacher plot which was so brilliant) and one less scene of the main three heroes breaking in somewhere using polyjuice potion.

4)Where was Ginny? Why didn't she come in and save Harry's ass? She's so powerful and fiesty. Urgh.

And now to highlight a few interesting things that Rowling did in light of the current world situation.

Killing off Fred Weasley was a cruel move, since he is such a vital, humor-filled character; a young boy who is both brave and the consummate jokester. He is also half of a set of twins, and they are both about 19 or 20 years old in this book. So young to die! We all expected the other generation to get its fair share of Voldermort's wrath, but Fred? And yet, this is the exact age most soldiers are when they die. Young men like F & G often represent (whether they should or not) the shoulders on which our collective hopes lie. Killing Fred, and leaving his twin alive to represent what could have been, is an intense commentary on what war means; the murder of young men and the untold heartbreak it causes.


And of course, we can't forget the symbolism of the elder wand (ahem, Freud) subplot plot. The elder wand, or deathstick, is the biggest, baddest wand around--but it brings trouble to whoever owns it because it practically invites theft and murder. But because Voldemort is so focused on getting this weapon of weapons, he doesn't notice the steady work Harry is doing to unman him by destroying the Horcruxes. Horcruxes, not Hallows, are Harry's quest. In this way, Rowling is making the point that defeating evil is a slogging,workmany kind of task, not something that can be solved with an abracadabra (ahem, President Bush!)

And then there's the theme of powerful motherhood. In the end, Lily Potter is seen as a more important force than James. Her love saves Harry and the magical protection in her blood keeps him alive when Voldemort "kills" him a second time. But more importantly, her childhood kindness to Snape "turns" him from Death-Eater into Harry's secret protector. And then there's other kinds of mother-love--Mrs. Weasley's triumphant defeat of Bellatrix shows that when her children are threatened, she's a powerful witch beyond conjuring food out of midair and Narcissa's love for her son Draco, git that he is, saves Harry again.

Harry's sound lecture of Lupin for even thinking about abandoning his child emphasizes JKR's hatred of men who up and leave their families--which makes her quick offing of Remus a bit contradictory (also, couldn't Lupin have joined them for one teeny-tiny adventure?). And the seeds of Voldemort's evil were sown in a house with no mother, and two brutish men, where Merope was brought up not knowing how to love.

But these are just disconnected ramblings. What I loved most about the book were the shades of gray. Snape didn't turn out to be "good," just because he was Dumbledore's man through and through. He was still a sadistic teacher and a pathetic person. But he recognized goodness in the form of Lily, and he craved it and worshipped it, even though his own attempts to mimic goodness always came out warped and twisted. He could never see through his bias against Harry but he saved him because Lily was the talisman to which he clung. Therefore it was appropriate that his clearest aid to Harry was in the form of his mother's patronus, the doe.

So Snape wasn't good, he was barely redeemable, he was just human. His relationship with Dumbledore was another instance of his clinging to good even though he couldn't openly emulate it.

Similarly the Malfoys didn't turn good, or turn out to be friends with Harry, but they did abandon evil because Voldemort's treatment of their son (and Harry's rescuing him) made them realize that evil negated love, and their love was stronger than their desire for power.

The shades of gray business obviously works well with Albus and Aberforth and all that but to me, Dumbledore's murky past and his bitter remorse gave him a kind of humanity and realness that made him all the more loveable. I'm glad Rowling de-mystified him and really showed us how much he loved Harry before it all ended.

(view full size)

12 hours to go.

I am going to be sequestering myself from the internet for the rest of the day, and tomorrow as I have already found out too much about the final HP to be comfortable with this free exchange of information business.

As the 12 hour mark nears, I am chilling out in my jammies, listening to Tori Amos' American Doll Posse (hot!) and making T-shirts to wear to B&N tonight--and to guide my arts 'n' crafts project, I downloaded some hot hot fonts. Check it out below.

Peace, love, and quidditch.

A Female Geek and a Male Beauty

Will finally be taking part in Beauty and the Geek... one teensy tiney step towards equal represenation, but I wish the entire premise were reversed. Check out the full deal at EW.com.

"The CW reality hit's co-creators/exec producers Jason Goldberg and Ashton Kutcher have toyed with the idea of a gender reversal since season 1 and decided it was time to test the concept within their proven format this time around. They're keeping mum on whether Mr. Gorgeous (a promoter) and Ms. Geek (a concert pianist with a genius IQ) will be paired together for the tasks that test boy-girl duos' abilities to work together despite massive differences in social aptitude and intelligence. But they will say that mixing things up definitely caused the kind of mayhem perfect for our viewing pleasure."

And, we might add, for the slow eradication of stereotypes.

Michiko Vs. JKR

So the Times' Kakutani decided to 'purchase" the book early and review it in her usually snooty way, and JKR hit back.

In sum:

Michiko: "blah blah blah blah. Harry Potter blah blah. Listen to me!"

JKR: "I am staggered that some American newspapers have decided to publish purported spoilers in the form of reviews in complete disregard of the wishes of literally millions of readers, particularly children, who wanted to reach Harry's final destination by themselves, in their own time," she said. "I am incredibly grateful to all those newspapers, booksellers and others who have chosen not to attempt to spoil Harry's last adventure for fans."

I think JKR just hit that biatch with a big fat "Stupefy!" Do you think "Michi" is exhibiting normal behavior for a Slytherin, or should she be hauled to Azkhaban for this breach?

With Every Silenced Women's Voice, a New One Pipes Up.

A cool new women's mag that tries to subvert the old glossy mag paradigm:

"As We Are" is all about "issues and ideas that support the belief that we are good enough as you are right now! " Visit them www.aswearemagazine.com for their content including articles, blogs, podcasts and the like.

By clicking through from EBC, you are helping me, fellow-ette compete for a prize. But I'm not going to win it. So more importantly, you are helping create a community of women who are sick of the corporate media's treatment of us chicks as nothing more than cream-buying, self-hating mamas-to-be.

More Evidence That JKR ROCKS.

How did I never catch this? She likes Pink (or P!nk) and attacks the celeb skinny craze...And no, she's not attacking skinny people. If you read what she writes, it's a critique of our society's values when it comes to womens' appearances. Awesome.

(on her website under miscellaneous notes, "to girls only")