Comments for BR Footnote

Comment on The Charms and Troubles of Wikipeda by Victor

Victor — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 05:00:01 +0000

This is the main reason I read brfootnote.theclawmagazine.com. Insightful post.

Comment on The Original of Laura: An almost-novel we weren’t supposed to read. by Elissa Karasik

Elissa Karasik — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:27:49 +0000

Hi Tom and Marina,

Thanks so much for your comments. Reading my post again, I realize that my observation of a lack of moral condemnation in both articles comes across as criticism, when this was not my intention at all. I used both Last Wishes and your piece, Tom, as fodder for some personal reflection on the “the haze of the controversy,” as you termed it, which I found myself both confused and compelled by. I certainly did not mean to imply that either author was wrong to move on from an endless and largely inconclusive ethical debate, but simply recognize an inevitably unsatisfying situation with you. And I agree, Marina, both Last Wishes and Tom’s review are better articles because they do not take time to wag a tiresome finger at how The Original of Laura came to be, and instead evaluate the book for what it is. Nor was it my goal to condemn the publication really, but rather consider why I was so bothered. Dwelling on my disquiet proved a frustrating and nebulous thought process, but it did lead me to a more valuable, substantial set of ideas that I begin to address in the last sentence of my post. Literature is indeed never separate from the personal history and nuance of its author’s artistic exercise, and Nabokov’s adamant demands for draft destruction throughout his career and before he died seem to me a part of The Original of Laura’s hidden autobiography. The disputable publication or lingering wrongness one might feel should remind us of who Nabokov was, and inform our reading of The Original of Laura. I couldn’t agree more- the ethics of Laura’s release are transcended by the manifestation of Nabokov’s psychological compulsions in a novel about intellectually willing oneself out of existence. Sorry for the delayed response, and thanks again,

Elissa.

Comment on The Original of Laura: An almost-novel we weren’t supposed to read. by Marina

Marina — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:58:59 +0000

Elissa -

While I share your disquiet, I think that de la Durantaye’s statement that he does, too, should be enough. As Tom points out, a drawn-out moral condemnation of the piece would not contribute much to the dialogue about the work itself.

After all, as Durantaye notes, this example is hardly unique in literature. If authors always had their posthumous will carried out, we would not know Kafka, Emily Dickinson, or the drafts and annotations of Elizabeth Bishop (published three years ago as Edgar Allen Poe and the Jukebox, which proffer the WASPy poet’s private self: a sexy, perfectionist, melancholic alcoholic).

If we had delayed publication for explicit permission, we would never have had The Diary of Anne Frank or Sylvia Plath’s darkly lyrical Unabridged Journals.

Literature is not purely concerned with the work of art but with the author’s intention, her vision, her process, her hidden autobiography. This is not invasion of the life behind the art but a form of art itself: as Geoff Dyer quotes John Berger saying in a forthcoming BR article by James Wallenstein, the “best readings of art are art.”

Comment on The Original of Laura: An almost-novel we weren’t supposed to read. by Tom

Tom — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:29:02 +0000

I wrote that piece for Boldtype, and though I can see your point in calling my conclusion “unsatisfying,” I was leery of issuing yet another high-minded denouncement. For the record, I would have burned them. But the decisions have all been made and it’s in the stores. What I was most interested in was the cards that purported to be a novel-in-progress, the work itself, the thing behind the haze of controversy. Of course they aren’t entirely independent of each other, but that doesn’t mean each and every review of the book has to be weighed down in discussion or right and wrong.

Comment on The Charms and Troubles of Wikipeda by joshua cohen

joshua cohen — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:59:05 +0000

Comment on The Charms and Troubles of Wikipeda by Nicole Demby

Nicole Demby — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:15:22 +0000

Thanks so much for your reply Evgeny. While I understand your point, what I was trying to say (which perhaps I should have said more clearly) is that perhaps the site achieves something more interesting and relevant than their own stated mission by manifesting the epistemological relativity and reflexivity of internet knowledge. If Wikipedia wants to attract more tenured university professors and fewer uncredentialed common folk as editors, they should make systemic changes to the site as you suggest. Yet we must consider that something of the “wisdom of the crowds” approach might be lost in the process (I’d hedge a bet that your “subject experts” tend to be no less male and white than the current editor pool).

Comment on The Charms and Troubles of Wikipeda by Evgeny

Evgeny — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:14:15 +0000

Ni Nicole – thanks for your review. I think you are being a little bit unfair to what I had to say: 1) I didn’t really touch upon the question of accuracy in that review at all 2) I never suggested that Wikipedia should be subject to the same “restrictive methodologies as more traditional encyclopedias” 3) If Wikipedia defined its mission as being the greatest repository of people’s diverse and obscure interests, I would not be offering any criticism at all. However, they want to be taken seriously as the world’s most reputable source of knowledge. I am fine with extensive entries on the Transformers as the next guy, but in order to fulfill their mission they may need to, well, make a few changes. Please note that it doesn’t necessarily mean purging the site of trivia – it means finding new ways of producing knowledge in areas that are not yet well-covered on the site – or redefining their mission if this fails.

Finally, to say that I “lament” the advent of Wikipedia is misleading – I actually call it one of the greatest social experiments in that essay. The reason why I criticize Andrew Lih’s book is precisely for not telling us WHAT makes it work so well so that its lessons can be applied elsewhere (and no, it doesn’t mean that it’s perfect – hence my criticism of its current approach to knowledge creation).

Comment on Fiction Contest Deadline by Marina

Marina — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:26:34 +0000

Hi Wendy,

Due to the large volume of submissions and the great deal of care we put into evaluating them, the contest winner will be announced in or just prior to the publication of the summer issue.

While most of us do not work directly with the contest, I do, and I can assure you that your submission has been received. (But shouldn’t you already have received confirmation from the delivery confirmation service? This seems like meta-confirmation.)

Other inquiries of this nature may be sent to review@bostonreview.net.

Comment on Fiction Contest Deadline by Wendy S. Musto

Wendy S. Musto — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:01:45 +0000

Have you received my story “Hamse!” for the Fiction contest with October 1, 2009 deadline?
It was sent w/delivery confirmation service.

Also, when will you announce the winners?
Thank you,
Wendy Musto

Comment on Coyne v. Wright on the Evolution of “God” by HO

HO — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:41:28 +0000

atheism is a belief – it is not evidence based and has no basis in science, just like theism is a belief and has no basis in science.

agnosticism is the only rational position to take on the question of the existence or not of a god – atheists are in exactly the same boat as believers – they have no proof and choose to believe anyway.

Wright’s ideas about “god” are about the evolution of the human understanding of god. it would be nice if any of the atheist hordes would actually read what he wrote.