I'm certain there's a word that describes an instinctive reaction in some people to avoid for as long as possible any new thing that is glowingly praised by everybody else. And I'm sure we've all experienced it.

My best example of this phenomenon was refusing to read GoST for about three years after it had been published. I was certain I would hate it, that it was pretentious, and was only being promoted by people who refused to accept anything but novels as 'literature' (I really must do that post on defending SF&F).

Of course, I ended up loving it.

Now, in all fairness, I've only read it the once, making it one of those few books in my collection that I haven't re-read, and one of a very small number that I claim to like but haven't re-read. So, if I read it today, eight years after I first did, I possibly might hate it. Who knows?

What I do know is that the woman herself - and all her other writing - evoke mixed feelings in me. Strong mixed feelings. I mean, I know she's an idealistic nutjob, and she waffles - oh how she waffles - but she does occasionally come up with some really relevant questions and opinions.

Anyway, the point of all that intro, was to point you to her latest article. So much waffling, and so many random tangents, but some very valid issues too. Especially that bit about one particularly self-important news anchor.

And yes, posts will probably be infrequent for the near future, and the ones that do occur will probably only be related to this topic.


Space Bar said...

what latest article? it's going to some google sign-in page!

Veena said...

SB: Check Outlook.

Space Bar said...

r guardian? same piece, i'm guessing, but will go look.

??! said...

Ooops. Corrected now.


Tabula Rasa said...

you know, your original sentiments about gost were spot on (with my original sentiments). and i never did manage to get past page 22 of that book, despite a year of trying.

ok, off to read linked article.

Falstaff said...

The thing that annoys me about AR - and which this new piece is a good example of - is that for someone who claims to be so vehemently Anti-Bush her rhetoric usually ends up taking the same dichotomosing, us vs. them route ('Side A' vs 'Side B'; 'Justice' vs. 'Civil War'). I agree with a lot of what she says here (and clearly share her disdain for the 'India's 9/11 rhetoric'), though I'm bemused by her choosing to extol the importance of context and then limiting that context to the historical / political (as though economics didn't matter). I just wish she was less intent on choosing up sides.

km said...

Unlike TR, I did get past page 22. Page 23. But that was it.

Kidding. I stopped at the second page.

//Falstaff, Side B always wins.

Falstaff said...

km: I don't know that Side B always wins. Consider these

??! said...

Like I said, only read it the once. I think it was a phase where I had this thing for back-and-forth storylines. Which is why I also liked Memento (the film).

Yep. I thought she contradicted herself at least twice in there too.

km said...

"I am the walrus" was a side-B. I rest my case.

//jeez, that song was Side-B.

km said...

??!: Not a fan of Memento either :) But I can see why some people just love that film.