• Mini Posts via Twitter

  2009-01-07 20:49:10

  • Coming out of the shadow of death. It appears I will in fact live. Haven't been this sick in a long time.

  2009-01-07 11:41:43

  • Spent yesterday in bed with the chills, shakes, and various other unsavory things. I hope today is the last of it.

  2009-01-06 10:17:17

  • Great. I appear to have caught the stomach bug my wife had and now my daughter is throwing up. Should be a fun day at Chez Holtsberry.

  2009-01-06 09:53:54

  • Decide to ride the bus and we get freezing rain. Nice. Miserable morning.

  2009-01-06 00:56:25

  • UT lost its only game to a last second comeback and the wins its last game in simlar fashion. Sorry Buckeyes, sucks don't it?

  2009-01-06 00:44:36

  • 40 yards in 38 seconds with the game on the line.

  2009-01-06 00:21:02

  • I guess that answers my question.

  2009-01-06 00:01:19

  • Is Tressel giving Boeckman time cause he feels bad or because he thinks it will work?

• Right Side of the Web

  • Eunomia
  • Evangelical Outpost
  • From Burke to Kirk
  • Jeremy Lott
  • Mark Byron
  • No Left Turns
  • Obama’s Con
  • Postmodern Conservative.
  • Redstate
  • Ross Douthat - Atlantic
  • Sand in the Gears
  • The Corner
  • this is an adventure

• Sports

  • ESPN
  • FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS
  • iBlog For Cookies
  • MGoBlog
  • MGoBlue: Football
  • Michigan Against the World
  • Michigan FanHouse Blog
  • NFL
  • PGA TOUR
  • Pittsburgh Steelers
  • Pittsburgh Steelers FanHouse
  • Redstate Sports
  • Ronald Bellamy’s underachieving All-Stars
  • Sports Central
  • SportsFilter

• Goodreads

  

Just came across this Jim Lindgren post at The Volokoh Conspiracy on Obama.  The conclusion is rather fascinating and thought provoking:

People should not confuse Obama’s personality with his political orientation: by personality, Obama is the most reasonable, thoughtful, moderate person on either national ticket. He is definitely NOT an ideologue. Yet by political orientation, Obama is the most liberal or progressive candidate to be a party nominee for president in at least a half century - probably ever. That explains why he is in essence a radical incrementalist.

Megan McArdle defines the term:

This is a first class example of what I like to call “Supertwaddle”:  thoroughgoing nonsense wrapped up in just enough technical knowledge to be more thoroughly, amusingly wrong than the ordinary twaddle you buy at your local drugstore or neighborhood bar.  Sadly, it often sounds very convincing to people who a) have no idea what any of the jargon means and b) badly wish to believe the twaddler.

Allow me to use it in a sentence.  There is no shortage of Supertwaddle in comments at the Atlantic these days,

Ross Douthat:

And anyone who believes that McCain is running a uniquely dishonorable campaign for the presidency just doesn’t have enough historical perspective - or enough distance from their own passions - to comment sensibly on contemporary politics. Every successful politician and political movement has to master the art of below-the-belt, us-versus-them political engagement, because that’s how democratic politics works: You can appeal to the electorate’s reason all you want, but you have to appeal to their passions as well, and that means making them dislike and fear the other side as often as it means making them love you.

So if you’re a liberal and you think FDR, LBJ and Bill Clinton didn’t play the same game - and play it damn well, which is why they won elections and the other side lost - then you’re kidding yourself. If you think John McCain hasn’t been playing this game for his whole career, then you’re kidding yourself: It’s just that he used to fight dirty against his enemies within the GOP (social conservatives, for instance, or immigration restrictionists, or Mitt Romney), and how he’s fighting dirty against a candidate that the punditocracy supports, rather than disdains. And if you think that many of the same people who bleat the loudest about the evils of “Rove-style” politics aren’t happy to similarly dirty their hands for the sake of their own causes and candidates - well, you need only look at some of the coverage of Sarah Palin’s family to see how quickly principle gives way to expedience when power is at stake.

I will confess to not being involved in the whole online social networking thing. I don’t have a MySpace page, or twitter, or anything else.

But today I did stumble upon a couple of book orientated social networking sites and decided to try them out.

The first, is Shelfari:

Based in Seattle, Shelfari introduces readers to our global community of book lovers and encourages them to share their literary inclinations and passions with peers, friends, and total strangers (for now). Shelfari was the first social media site focused on books, and will continue to innovate as it brings together the world’s readers. Our mission is the enhance the experience of reading by connecting readers in meaningful conversations about the published word.

Harry Potter fans please note that Shelfari is having a Seven Days of Harry Potter contest:

If you’re like us, you love the Harry Potter books and you’re gonna buy the book right away. If you post a review of Harry Potter 7 on Shelfari.com within a week of its release, you will be entered to win one of the prizes, including a signed copy of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone.

If that strikes you as simply more crass commercial marketing, then skip that part and just track your books and compare notes with friends.

- The other site I joined is Good Reads. Here is what the founder has to say about the site:

When I was in second grade, I discovered the Hardy Boys series. Ever since, I’ve loved to read — both for fun and to improve my mind. And I’m always looking for the next great book. Reviews on Amazon and other sites are helpful, but I thought there might be a better way.

One afternoon while I was scanning a friend’s bookshelf for my next great read, it struck me. When I want to know what books to read, I’d rather turn to a friend than any random person, bestseller list or algorithm. So I thought I’d build a website — a website where I could see my friends’ bookshelves and learn about what they thought of all their books.

Goodreads is that site. It is a place where you can see what your friends are reading and vice versa. You can create “bookshelves” to organize what you’ve read (or want to read). You can comment on each other’s reviews. And on this journey with your friends you can explore new territory, gather information, and expand your mind.

I have to say after just a few moments of noodling around, I like the way this site works. I may just use this to track the books I read.

So if you enjoy this sort of networking sign up and connect with other avid readers.

In reading various accounts and response to the contretemps surrounding Alan Wolfe’s essay on Russell Kirk, I recently came across an intelligent and thought provoking response by R.R. Reno at First Things. I found Reno’s discussion of ordered liberty and his comparing and contrasting the views of Hobbes and Kirk insightful:

Leaving aside the snide tone, Wolfe is correct to note that “everything Kirk says about religion and the social order is breathtakingly unoriginal.” Like so many before him, Kirk thought religion a crucial pillar of a healthy society. But Wolfe is quite wrong when his ends his observation by saying that Kirk is conventional, “except for the remark that without religion we would be in a constant state of war. Given the fact that so many wars have been fought over religion, there is no disputing the creativity of that observation.” Wolfe needs to be careful with his clever, superior lines. Was Hobbes an obvious idiot for saying that without the absolute power of the sovereign we would experience the war of all against all? But wait—don’t sovereigns launch most wars?

I don’t think you need to be a terribly subtle thinker to see that neither Hobbes nor Kirk is a fool. In fact, there is an important similarity between the two that Wolfe’s dismissive review fails to recognize and explore. Both Hobbes and Kirk view the power that imposes order as necessary to control base human impulses and to minimize their destructiveness. But there is also a very important difference. Hobbes saw human beings as pleasure-seeking and pain-avoiding machines; as a consequence, order could only be imposed externally and harshly by the Leviathan. In contrast, Kirk viewed us as complicated spiritual, social, and physical beings. We can fear God and develop self-disciplining inhibitions that allow us to bring order to our lives, and, as a consequence, we can become free, cooperative agents in a democratic process that shapes society into a moral order capable of perpetuating self-disciplined, free social actors. This is the deep anthropological insight of the conservative ideal of ordered liberty.

It appears I have been tagged by my once-upon-a-time co-blogger Phil at Brandywine books with a meme:

In which each player lists eight facts/habits about themselves, the rules of the game being posted at the beginning before those facts/habits are listed, eight people tagged at the end of the post, listing their names. The player then goes to their blogs and leaves them a comment, letting them know that they have been tagged and asking them to read his blog.

I will confess I am not big on these memes (Friday five, etc.) but since Phil is such a gentleman I will comply but with one exception. I am not going to tag eight more people. Sorry, to break the meme but you take what you can get these days.

So here are eight nearly random things about me:

1) I am bad with names and dates (Despite having a graduate degree in history).

2) I have high cholesterol and high blood sugar and so I am trying to eat a low carb diet.

3) I have been married to my high school sweetheart for 13 years this August.

4) I have two cats, two dogs and come September I will have two kids.

5) I am trying to read 75 books in one year. As of now, I have read 44 so I am track to exceed that goal. (But I need to be ahead of the curve because football season always cuts heavily into my reading.)

6) I never liked coffee until I was into my thirties, but now I drink two cups a day religiously.

7) I have five different email accounts.

8) I have always dreamed of living on a lake.

Hope that satisfies Phil and anyone else who was curious about the man behind the blog. If you would like to help me fulfill the eight other people part of this tag please leave a link or a list in the comments.

On a day when you get a link from a prominent source, and are flooded with visitors, it might be a good time to post some content. But alas, I was busy yesterday and unable to do so. I hope a few of the couple thousand people who clicked through Monday come back for a second look.

Anyway, here are some of the links I have been enjoying as I try to catch up with my web reading:

- In the American Conservative Daniel McCarthy reviews a book I very much want to read: George Kennan: A Study of Character by John Lukacs. Here is an interesting snippet:

Lukacs sketches his subject’s life and career succinctly and effectively; his book serves as a marvelous introduction to Kennan. But that is not its objective: this volume really is a study in character, “and by ‘character,’” writes Lukacs, “I mean [Kennan’s] conscious decisions, choices, acts and words, but nothing of his—so-called—subconscious; that is, no attributions of psychoanalytic categories, no ham-handed projections or propositions of secret or hidden motives.” The author wants to communicate as much as possible the demonstrated essence of this man who, he writes, “not only represented but incarnated some of the best and finest traits of American character” and to teach us not only that we ought to read Kennan but, more importantly, how to read him. As Lukacs is (a bit too) fond of saying—does he advert to this quote from Burckhardt in each of his 28 books? —bisogna saper leggere, “You must know how to read.”

- Over at NRO Larry Kudlow has a unique idea for summer reading:

I have an idea for all you summertime book worms. In addition to the trendy novels and biographies you plan to stick in your beach bag, why not insert a book on how to do better than most stock market investors? Or a book on how to sound like a seasoned supply-sider when the conversation turns to economics?

If you’re interested, my good friend Victor Canto has written a book that covers both of these topics. It’s called Cocktail Economics: Discovering Investment Truths from Everyday Conversations (Financial Times Press, 336 pp.). The title promises easy entry into what can be intimidating material: economics and investing. On this front, the book does not disappoint. But it offers so very much more.

- The bete noir of the literary blogosphere, Sam Tanenhaus, has an article at The New Republic that I plan to discuss in more detail as soon as I get a chance: The End of the Journey: From Whittaker Chambers to George W. Bush. So read it now so you will be ready when I post.

What seems like billions of pixels have been spilled to debate the relative merit of, for lack of a better term, online book coverage. The battle lines seemed to have been drawn between the upstarts online and the elders of print (Despite the fact that the lines are not so clear). Various “experts” with haughty opinions have weighed in about what is or isn’t good for “literature” or “books” or “reading.” They have often leeped to the defense of so called professional, or perhaps traditional, newspaper book review sections. One organization mounted a campaign to “save” these sections (must stop using quotation marks). Which is all well and good except so many have felt the need to take snide swipes at blogs and other online sources. Uninformed, unprofessional, biased, gossipy, etc.

The online folks have risen to their own defense to a degree. Some have recognized valid criticisms others have pointed to the equally uninformed opinions of the denizens of print. Insults and barbs have been traded and emotions have run hot and cold.

This whole thing strikes me as silly. The format involved is mostly irrelevant. Does it matter whether a book review is online or in the paper? The format is simply a distribution tool. Obviously, those who make a living doing the distributing will want to think seriously about the future and debate how best to move forward. But for those of us who just enjoy books and book reviews, I fail to see how it matters. We are just looking for interesting, thoughtful, and varied discussion of books. Where and how means little in the long run.

If I want to get a sense of what a book might be like whether I go to my local newspaper, Amazon, Barnes and Noble, a local independent bookstore’s website, or a blog doesn’t really matter. What matters is if the source is one I can trust and has the information I need. Seeing as tastes and perspectives vary greatly, a reader needs to find a source that lines up with their own needs.

As anyone who has read this blog with any regularity knows, I am fascinated by the “professional” mini-reviews of places like Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, Kirkus, etc. For one, I admire the skill it takes to capture a complex book in a few sentences. Not all of these reviews do that but those that do are quite impressive. I have a hard time squeezing all my thoughts and reactions down into a finely honed paragraph. So I admire those that can do so and still effectively communicate about the novel in question.

I also find it interesting how these quick hit reviews choose what to focus on; on how they balance the positive and negative. After all these reviews aren’t really literary criticism, but aimed at giving people a good idea of what the book is like and whether it might line up with their tastes.

But I think it is a mistake to view these sources as somehow tainted with the greed and lust of consumerism; to view them as logical outgrowth of a industry that treats books like any other widget (perhaps more on the larger idea behind this criticism in another post). It seems to me that there is room for a wide variety of book discussion and a number of different ways to approach book reviews.

Let’s face it, there are simple more books being published than one can get a handle on. In the face of this information overload, I think these mini-reviews serve a purpose. They summarize the plot and give one a sense of the style and skill of the author. I think they are a useful tool in making book buying decisions. Are they the only tool? Of course not, my own judgment, advice of friends, past experiences with the author, and more impact whether I buy, or read, a book.

I am sure there are plenty of people who don’t care for these brief takes on books. I am also sure that authors are frustrated with a system that tries to capture their work in a few sentences. But so what? Surely the internet is big enough that we can let a thousand flowers bloom. Can’t we have discussions and reviews of practically any size and scope? Can’t we enjoy and use multiple tools and sources depending on our need, tastes, mood, etc.?

Sometimes I enjoy a long essay-like book review that uses a book to discuss big ideas and that has the time and space to dig deeper. Sometimes I want a short take that simple lets me know what a book is about and gives me sense of its worth. Sometimes I enjoy, or want, the opinion of experts, of people who have spent considerable time on a subject, while other times I may enjoy reading the opinions of someone who simply enjoys books. And of course, there are a great many attributes in between expert and amateur.

And I think this is the beauty of online discussion of books, you can find practically anything you want. With the risk of sounding like a raging relativist, I think we can enjoy all sorts of things without labeling one style or format good and another bad.

This blogs stats have dropped propitiously in the last six months or so. In October of last year the site had over 4500 visitors according to site meter. The next month dropped below 3500 and the past four months have all been under 2000. Part of the explanation for this was a spam attack which resulted in the site being kicked out of the Google index and part of the drop was do to limited posting because of off-line issues.

But one of the reason why I think the number have dropped is because the content has become rather static. Blogs generally do well when there is a conversation involved; something to discuss. This site has devolved to almost completely book reviews and not particularly in depth one’s at that. This type of content doesn’t generate much conversation or engage readers from other blogs. I am not complaining about the readers I do have. I know there are people out there who seem to enjoy my - and Jeff’s - quirky reviews; and God Bless them.

To really engage the literary blogosphere, however, I think I need to get back into the conversation. I need to read and comment on other blogs and link to there posts while adding my own perspective. I need to do this not because I simply want to pad my stats, but because I think it is the kind of interaction that makes blogs interesting. It gets the creative juices flowing, helps stimulate ideas, and new perspectives. And let’s face it, this blog could use a little jump start.

I also want to address that perennial problem of improving my writing. Not every review can be a masterpiece, but I want to try and hone my reviewing skills. I see it as a challenge to work harder at writing sharp and insightful reviews rather than just cut and pasting a few quotes from around the web.

As always, who knows how much of this I will succeed in implementing, but in the spirit of the blog I wanted to think out aloud in this space. As always, thoughts and comments are appreciated.

Sorry about the radio silence of late but off-line life has been intruding. I have some reviews and some opinions I would like to share but I need to find some time to get them down in pixels.

There has been a lot of discussion in lit blogs about local newspaper coverage of books. Ohio papers are working at unique ways to bring coverage to the web. I thought I would offer some links to give you an idea of what this entails.

- The Columbus Dispatch is looking to start an online book club and has asked readers to pick the first book. The choices are: Up in Honey’s Room by Elmore Leonard; The Woods by Harlan Coben; or The Yiddish Policemen’s Union by Michael Chabon.

- Dispatch Book Critic Bill Eichenberger has also started a blog with the rather pedestrian title of Book Blog. One small complaint: good luck finding it from the main page of the paper’s website!

- Dayton Daily News also has a book blog more inventively titled Book Nook.

- The Cincinnati Enquirer’s Sara Pearce has a book blog called LitChick.

- The Cleveland Plain Dealer (or at least Cleveland.com) doesn’t have a book blog but has been running reviews from Blogcritics for some time now and, unlike some of the other papers, they have a nice - and easy to find - book section.

I haven’t done any research on other papers. Does your local or state paper have a book blog or a good online book section? It would be interesting to see how many papers are moving in this direction.

Next Page →

• Search for:

• Syndicate

  RSS Feed

  

  

  

  

• Ticket Brokers

  Get Premium Boston Red Sox tickets, New York Yankees baseball tickets, Cubs tickets, San Francisco Giants tickets and Los Angeles Dodgers tickets at Neco.com.

• Blog Monetization

  
  blog advertising is good for you

• Categories

  Select Category Admin All About Ella All about me Asides Books and Culture Books: News Culture Faith Foreign Policy Miscellany pictures Politics Site News Sports Sports: Col BB Sports: Col FB Sports: MLB Sports: NBA Sports: NFL Sports: PGA The Blogosphere The Media The World of Technology Twitter Uncategorized Video

• Archives

  Select Month January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002 February 2002 January 2002 December 2001 November 2001

• Tags

  Anwar Ibrahim Barack Obama Big Ten Big Ten Football blogs British Open Carson Palmer Cincinnati Bengals energy family fandom Fantasy Football features Fed Ex Cup going mobile good life Great State of Michigan information age Jib Jab John McCain John Prine life choices lyrics Michigan Wolverines Michigan Wolverines football mortgages music News Ohio State Buckeyes football On the radio Paul Simon PGA photos Pittsburgh Steelers Rich Rodriguez Sarah Palin Satire Sharia Site News Tiger Twitter vacation Video Videos YouTube

• My Flickr Pics

  

• My Amazon Wish List

• Site Meter

• Admin

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org