(no subject)

[sea_changed]

My protracted absence from DW is now, I believe, finished: I blame school stress and then a wonderful trip to New York (which I will hopefully write more on) and then my sister visiting on her spring break (which meant eating our respective weights in excellent food--she cooks for me, I buy her good food in town--and watching a dizzying number of Buffy episodes); none of which leaves much time for things that are neither productive nor an immediate stress-alieviator.

I have at least a month of Reading Wednesdays to compress and catch up on, but in the meantime, some miscellaneous things on the internet that have caught my eye as of late:

10 Great Irish Novels Not Set in Ireland

Worth reading if only for the quoted review of Dorian Grey (which perhaps obviously dates from 1890, rather than 1980): "Mr Oscar Wilde has again been writing stuff that were better unwritten; and while The Picture of Dorian Gray, which he contributes to Lippincott’s, is ingenious, interesting, full of cleverness, and plainly the work of a man of letters. . .it is false to morality—for it is not made sufficiently clear that the writer does not prefer a course of unnatural iniquity to a life of cleanliness, health and sanity. . .Mr. Wilde has brains, and art, and style; but if he can write for none but outlawed noblemen and perverted telegraph-boys, the sooner he takes to tailoring (or some other decent trade) the better for his own reputation and the public morals.”

It's also intrigued me about Let the Great World Spin and The Lesser Bohemians, both of which are going on my already greatly burdened TBR.

A Counterculture Portraitist’s Chronicle of New York’s Youth

Some great photographs; I'll definitely be checking out the forthcoming book of Green's work.

The house that inspired Wuthering Heights could be yours

...if you've got $1.62 million lying around.

(And speaking of the Brontës, I found the review/recommendation of Villette in the most recent Slightly Foxed to be horribly disappointing: as someone who loves the book well past the point of rationality, that review would never have made me think twice about picking it up.)

Letter of Recommendation: Sleep, ‘Dopesmoker’

The origin story of ‘‘Dopesmoker’’ sounds like a light-bulb joke co-written by Nancy Reagan and Sisyphus: Three California stoners decide to write a song about how much they love marijuana, but they’re so high that it takes them four years.

I just remembered that this existed, and the immediate reread was well worth it. Reads like an Inherent Vice tie-in picked up off the cutting-room floor.

(Incidentally, I feel as though a drinking game of some kind should be started for historical fiction whose time period is woefully mis-described in reviews; this brought to you by my having to read with my own two eyes the setting of A Gentleman's Guide. . . confidently asserted to be "Victorian." Though Lee certainly brings it on herself--historical, well, anything, was not that book's strong suit--it does say right up front that it's set in the 1700s, so this one's on the blogger (and an appallingly non-satirical iteration of the "Victorian women in the 1700s" joke that's been circulating around tumblr of late.))

Comments

[breathedout]

OMG that Dorian Grey review is amazing. I too hope to write for outlawed noblemen and perverted telegraph-boys.

I thought Let the Great World Spin was AWFUL: offensively poorly written, with cardboard characterization mostly composed of gross stereotypes, particularly egregious when it came to the depiction of sex workers but really pretty bad all around. But the group of people with whom I read it had a wider diversity of opinion, and some of them absolutely loved it. Suffice to say I'll be curious as to your thoughts if you get there.

[sea_changed]

It's so aspirational! Always write in such a way that even the drags are compliments.

Oh, fascinating: those kinds of books are always interesting--at least in theory--in that they show how drastically different people's reading priorities are. I'll definitely post about it if I ever get to it.

[oursin]

While, as a historian, along with other historians, one may posit for purposes of argument a 'long Victorian era' (just to get back at 'the long Eighteenth Century' people), from, say, the late C18th Evangelical revival to - what, 1914/1918/1939/1945/'between the end of the Chatterley ban/And the Beatles' first LP'? - the cavalier way people describe historical fiction is indeed irksome.

(And do not get me started on people's misconceptions of what actual Victorians were actually like.)

I have also posited that 'Regency fiction' inhabits a parallel universe, in which Prinny was in fact an undead horror (not that that doesn't make a lot of sense...) and was therefore in charge for a lot longer than in our time-line.

ETA Beehive hairdos were the 1960s, consequent upon the introduction of powerfully holding hairspray/ pedantry

[sea_changed]

As a long 18th century person myself I of course find this preposterous (I say, wondering if I can make the 18th century stretch through to Victoria actually taking the throne)--but I do take the point. And I'm tolerant of period slippage to some extend in historical fiction description--"the Regency" has, of course, long since stopped referring to its actual nine-year span--at some point it becomes too inaccurate (and misleading) to bear.

Truly, most "Regency fiction" inhabits its own parallel universe anyway, so undead horrors seem not the least plausible explanation.

(And yes, I believe that was part of the joke--calling 18th bewigged updos "beehives" fitting appallingly well with what tends to pass for history on tumblr.)

[oursin]

Truly, most "Regency fiction" inhabits its own parallel universe anyway.

Yeah. An implausible number of hott young Dukes and an implausibly low frequency of syphilis among them...