Kelly Link Interview today

If you’re around this afternoon, please feel free to come hear me interview Kelly Link at the Indie and Small Press book fair at 5 pm at the General Society of Mechanics and Tradesmen at 20 West 44th Street. Here’s the Village Voice link:

Date/Time:Sat., December 6, 10:00am-6:00pm, Sun., December 7, 11:00am-5:00pm

Price: free

Contact Info: | Event Website

A NOVEL IDEA

The return of the Indie & Small Press Book Fair

By Angela Ashman

There are plenty of great offerings at the 21st annual Indie & Small Press Book Fair, but we’ll just skip ahead to the most exciting of them all: Kelly Link! The indie publisher and author of all those brilliantly strange, unputdownable short-story collections—including her latest, Pretty Monsters—will be interviewed by blogger extraordinaire Lizzie Skurnick at 5 p.m. today. Other highlights include a potentially chilling discussion on the future of the book industry in the digital age (today at 1 p.m.); a chat with the amazing Katherine Anne Porter (Sunday at noon); the Literary Trivia Smackdown 2.0: The New York Review of Books vs. Lit Bloggers (Sunday at 4 p.m.); and the chance to buy books from more than 100 indie publishers from all over the world. We’d like to see you try that on Amazon.

Thanks to the other bloggers who posted about this, I am flake extraordinaire.

Posted by altehaggen in General @ Saturday, December 6, 2008 3:13 pm | | Comments (4)

Nobody Asked Me To, But I’m Reviewing Twilight

Tuesday, a friend who I’ll call Q was kind enough to take me to the screening of Twilight, a cultural event that had not quite registered as such on my radar despite my plowing through the entirety of the series to pen an exigesis on it for a paper of note. Before the movie aired, a nice young lady “reminded” the crowd, a mix of mid-range critics, teen girls, and David Denby, that all reviews were embargoed until November 21. Does this apply to book critics who plowed the the entirety of the series to pen exegeses in anticipation of said cultural event? Apparently it does, if they have other things to do Still, at the risk of spoiling the movie entirely, I will note that it is based on the book.

There are three ways to take a book to the big screen: ruin the book completely, follow it to a fault, or fix it. The screenwriters of The Devil Wears Prada did it one better by adding some humility, redemption, and Emily Blunt. No such cutwork is needed on Twilight, which is merely better suited to the large screen than the large print, where within its 600 pages it was at worst, plodding, and at best, tendentious. On-screen, the director is free to pare the plot down to its best scenes, then shoot them in glorious, cheesy abandon, releasing a butterfly from the swaddling cocoon of text.

In Twilight, the director has taken the relatively unfussy Pacific Northwest of Meyer’s works and tricked it out with fairy lights, filling it with foggy crags of moss-covered, mile-high trees, rambling Victorians and glass-enclosed, planar aeiries. The vampire movie of my era was The Lost Boys, set in a dusty, California town in which Keifer Sutherland bared his teeth, Jason Patric smoldered, and Jami Gertz tossed her tumbling curls from shoulder to shoulder, accompanied always by a strange half-dead looking child. 

Twilight keeps its half-dead above age, thank god. For those who haven’t read the books, in short, it’s the story of Bella, a very very pale human who is courted by her equally pale and HOT fellow high-school student, Edward, a (SPOILER) vampire who is so overwhelmed by her particular smell (”You’re my brand of heroin”) he’s afraid he’s going to lose control and devour her every time they come near. Bella thus achieves the holy grail of high school romance–having the hot, distant ungettable guy who actually does push you away because he is just that in love with you.

And that’s as sexed-out as it gets. The movie as a whole, in fact, is admirably restrained, innocently playing both young love and violence for camp. When Edward smolders, in veryveryclose-up, angrily at Bella, unconscionably thirsty, we laugh with him, not at him, just as when he bares his chest to show his strange vampiric skin, which sparkles like the gold skirt of a wedding buffet. Even the theme is affectionately spooky, like a friend who comes up behind you and says “Boo!”, then gives you a hug.

In fact, the scariest thing about the movie is how absolutely, and I mean ABSOLUTELY, perfect the casting is. The actress who plays Bella, who is supposed to be beautiful without knowing it, looks a bit like Jenna Malone crossed with Alicia Silverstone in her Clueless era–all endless eyes on top and half-open mouth on bottom, forehead perenially knit in a quizzical, seeking scowl. Alice is the way I pictured her down to the haircut, as is the Dad. There’s a gang of hot hippie vampires who are open-shirted and SCARY. (Did Meyer approve the casting? Did I?) It’s nice to have a Brit as Edward, whose flattened boxer’s face is an anti-Efron tonic itself, and he only slips into accent once, when he asks Bella, “Where you worrit about me?”

Also: Bella — as does the rest of the cast — looks 15. I’ll never get used to this shooting with actual children. How old was Jami Gertz when they made The Lost Boys? My age? My one quibble with it: I cannot get used to this Zac Efron/Pete Wentz haircut they give everyone, which looks like how a blowout appears just BEFORE they actually blow it back. They have also, incidentally, added a diverse cast, something along the order of my hometown, Jersey City. This is not how remote towns of the Pacific Northwest looked the last time I was there, but I’m going to assume this was the work of our new administration, and look forward to seeing it across Hollywood, especially if this man is always there with his shirt off.

The acting, in the main, follows the mode patented by Neve Campbell in Party of Five — simultaneously lacking affect and overly mannered, given to meaningful pauses, deep gazes and variable tremors. Edward himself is wont to devolve into smoldering agonies reminiscent of the silent film era — the dark eye shadow may be leading me here — but Bella is truly mesmerizing. During the period where she pretends to be angry at her father to get away, secretly in agony, I acually turned to Q and said, “I’m going to cry!” which is about as close as it gets for me.

The audience needed no such encouragement. Q was worried, as the screen lit up, that the crowd might be rowdy, but I was like, “What’s the point of a movie if you’re not going to talk to the characters as if they could hear you?” I admit I was perplexed when the young girls in the front cheered ESPECIALLY at this exchange: “So the lion fell in love with lamb.” “Stupid lamb.” “Masochistic, self-hating lion.” (There’s a WHOLE COMMUNITY about it! Is it the religion? The lion? Do they think it’s FUNNY?)

My favorite crowd moment, however, occurred after the 80th time Edward informed Bella that she needed to get away from him. (Gah, shades of Freshman year.) When Bella cried, ”You just can’t say stuff like that to me ever!” the woman behind me, incredulous, finally erupted, “How long she know him?”

Twilight the book had plot. Twilight the movie has heart — one alive in a body still pumping real blood. In its pure dopiness and innocence, it reminded me nothing so much of Legend, that movie that killed Mia Sara’s career and brought handsome Tom Cruise to my attention, when he was handsome. It didn’t only make me want to see the sequel. It made me want to read the book. 

Posted by altehaggen in General @ Friday, November 21, 2008 5:24 pm | Tags: , | Comments (3)

Come for the fishing, stay for the…

Well, this is clearly the most brilliant short film of our era. I don’t know how to make it smaller, but you don’t care.

Also, terrif.

Posted by altehaggen in General @ Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:00 pm | Tags: , | Comments (2)

Avast, me hearties!

Today I’m pirating (I mean, guest-blogging) the lovely Old Hag.  In a brave and glorious act of self-promotion (though maybe if I do this often enough, I’ll also  inspire Lizzie to post more often again. We miss you, Old Hag!)

And because Lizzie is a clever fancypants (don’t even try to deny it!) and because I assume her readers are also clever, and wearers of pants that are fancy,  I thought I might take this opportunity to ask you all what you think of children’s books?

Because the entire (shameless pirate-hussy that I am) reason for my visit is that I’ve just published my first book for kids, Up and Down the Scratchy Mountains, and I’m finding I have a complicated relationship with becoming a children’s author.  As opposed to being a “writer” or a “poet” or a “waitress” for that matter.

Not because I don’t think it totally rocks to write for kids.  IT TOTALLY ROCKS! But because I feel these silly twinges when I head out into the world of  clever pants.

Maybe my issues stem from the fact that a lot of MFA programs won’t count children’s books toward tenure (and I am, for better or for worse, a product of that world). Maybe my problems arise from being told by Yaddo that they cannot fund the writing of children’s books, no matter how good or literary.  Maybe it’s the lack of children’s coverage in newspapers. Maybe it’s just that poets I know insist on referring to children’s books as “genre.”

But whatever the case, I’m steamed.

And I thought that maybe I could ask you what you think…

What say you?  Are children’s books literary?  If you meet someone at a party, and they tell you they are an author, and then you find out they write for kids, does that change the way you think about them as writers?

Tell me the truth?  Or spank me and send me to bed!

And maybe… either way… when your cousin’s kid has a birthday, or your friend-with-a-baby invites you over for dinner…

You’ll buy my book!

Posted by laurel in General @ Thursday, August 28, 2008 8:43 pm | Tags: , , , , , | Comments (8)

Next page