Showing posts with label the club. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the club. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
A note on the new blog
For any readers interested in the content of this blog who don't want to sift through the inane and silly posts at the new blog, you may be interested in strictly following the "culture" label at "That's how we do it in the T.C." Here's the link. Whenever I write the sort of post that would have shown up at this blog, I'll label it "Culture," and it will show up under that specific URL. For example, a very brief post on how Falstaff reminds me of Jerry, Kramer, and George.
A new blogging adventure
Life changes and blogging changes. I'm starting a new blog:
Here is the blog's introduction.
I'm still not quite sure what I'll be doing with this site; I've flirted with a few different ideas. I'll keep it up on the possibility I return to it (and I'll still use it to check the links I've got on the side). But I like fresh starts, and this new venture energizes me.
It's been fun, and it will stay fun at a new URL combined with a bunch of other funky stuff.
Friday, March 27, 2009
torrential downpour
Internet Culture
Given that I've never sent a text message and joined Facebook about three weeks ago, I had assumed my students were much more technologically aware than I am. However, today I found out a large majority of my students have never heard of Twitter, LOLcats, or Rickrolling. Since I read a lot online, I apparently keep up with things better than they do--even things some in the media tell me they are experts about. But certainly there is an internet culture, about which those "in the know" are casually familiar, and those on the outside have never even heard of.
Moving away from novels
Once I finish Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita, I'm off novels for a while. I'll be reading drama, non-fiction, and poetry. This novel makes me not want to read novels. Maybe that could be a blurb on future editions: "This novel makes me not want to read novels." But I have a lot of non-fiction I want to read, and I enjoy reading drama a lot, so it's a fine thing.
Mostly Vegan
It was about a year ago I went mostly vegan with the intent of doing it for a year. A year later I'm 59 pounds lighter than I was. I will mostly maintain my current lifestyle, but I'll allow for more exceptions. Possibly many more exceptions.
The Club
It was about three years ago I started this blog, which I'd mostly call a colossal failure that I continue to work on. But apparently late March is a time when I do lasting things, so it's a good time for swearing off novels for a while.
The Stupid Thing I Believe
I sort of believe that if there is no God, then "everything is permitted." It's not that there aren't foundations of morality away from religion; it's that if the universe is random and nothing has inherent meaning, if death is the end of individual existence and there is no afterlife, then those foundations are built on nothing, and it doesn't matter if you follow them. I think I only sort of believe this. My feelings for my son make me think maybe I don't believe this.
It can't be a treat to be married to me
I shared much of the above thought with my wife this morning, about ten minutes after I woke up and while she was brushing her teeth.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Torrential Downpour
This blog is about "life in ideas." Sometimes that means attempting to write serious and developed analysis and commentary; often it is an informal diary of my own life in reading and ideas. I prefer to write the former, but find I still need the latter. I'll try to alert you when it is the latter, so you know what posts to skip.
Books and Reading
I was recently telling my wife how amazed I was at the ability of any novel, even a bad one, to entirely suck me into its world. While I'm reading a novel, I can visualize so much of it in detail. She pointed out that I'm a visual person, and that others do not necessarily read that way. And indeed, that's true: others may not visualize events of fiction clearly. Individuals' minds operate in very different ways--again suggesting to me that a solitary, objective method of reading is neither possible nor desirable.
I have so much unread fiction and drama around my house, it seems unnecessary to buy more such books until I put a bigger dent in what I have now (with exception: I still buy fiction and drama for professional use). But there is plenty of poetry and non-fiction out there that I'm still going to buy.
I have come to detest looking at my Riverside Anthology of Literature. I've taught from it for so long, and so next semester I'm giving it up. I'll teach short stories from an anthology exclusively devoted to short stories, and make my own poetry unit out of handouts, links, and attachments. It will be fun to choose utterly whatever poetry I wish.
I assigned Flannery O'Connor's "A Good Man is Hard to Find" for this week, but didn't want to drag that detestably bulky Riverside Anthology of Literature home to read it. I left it in my office, assuming I had an anthology at home with the story in it. I did--an anthology of 50 Short Story Masterpieces. Now, I don't read a lot of short stories. When I read fiction, I prefer to get sucked into a novel's world, and I also read a fair amount of drama, poetry, and non-fiction. But opening up this book and looking at the table of contents, I suddenly have a desire to just sit with this book and read short stories for a while. It's something like serendipity.
rambing, undeveloped thoughts on reason, belief, animals, and rights
This is not intended as a developed argument, but an attempt to articulate some swirling thoughts I've been having.
I've become convinced that it is wrong to kill animals for our uses. I have not, however, become convinced that it is wrong to use animals for any human uses (but I can be convinced: I obviously made the transition from meat-eater to vegetarian over an idea, and a commitment to living according to convictions. If I am convinced, I would go vegan instead of mostly vegan). I became a vegetarian by reason: when learning about the intelligence of animals, I decided the animals' lives are worth more than the pleasure I could derive from eating them. But I haven't been compelled by the same reason to suggest that it is always wrong for humans to use animals.
Part of this is a matter of "faith." For what reason do we believe human beings have rights? Perhaps because a state grants human beings rights. Perhaps because a creator endowed all human beings with inherent dignity. But there is no act of reason that convinces me that human beings have rights--reason could just as easily lead me to an existential nihilism in which "everything is permitted" and nothing has any inherent value (see Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamozov for exploration of "everything is permitted," or for that matter Flannery O'Connor's Misfit). As it happens, I do believe all human beings are imbued with dignity--because of my religious belief. And it is my commitment to pacifism and vegetarianism that has led me to move away from existentialism--away from the belief that we should create our own meaning, and toward the belief in absolute moral principles.
It is not by reason that I am led to the belief that all human beings have "dignity" or, if you prefer, "value." And so by reason I am also not compelled to assign animals an inherent "value." Again, this is because by reason alone, I might be led to believe there is no inherent value in anything, and that "everything is permitted." If it is a self-evident truth that human beings have rights, that self-evident truth is a leap of faith. It is a belief that human beings have rights, dignity, value. So too is it a leap of faith to claim animals have rights, dignity, value.
Now, as it happens I do not believe that "everything is permitted," I do believe that human beings have inherent dignity and rights, and I do believe that animals have inherent dignity and should not be slaughtered for our purposes. And though I would consider myself an "animal rights" advocate, I am a little uncomfortable with the term. What "rights" does an animal have? Well, a right to live. A right to freedom? Perhaps--and if I can be convinced by reason that an animals has that right inherently, I would become vegan (well, I'm already "mostly vegan"--I eat cheese sometimes, but most days I am completely vegan. And I like that better).
What is my rambling getting at? Not, I hope, merely my own justification for eating cheese sometimes. It is that there is a tension between reason and belief even for the most secular of arguments. I think there is a tension between reason and belief in discussion of animal rights. Right now, I'm living in that tension.
Books and Reading
I was recently telling my wife how amazed I was at the ability of any novel, even a bad one, to entirely suck me into its world. While I'm reading a novel, I can visualize so much of it in detail. She pointed out that I'm a visual person, and that others do not necessarily read that way. And indeed, that's true: others may not visualize events of fiction clearly. Individuals' minds operate in very different ways--again suggesting to me that a solitary, objective method of reading is neither possible nor desirable.
I have so much unread fiction and drama around my house, it seems unnecessary to buy more such books until I put a bigger dent in what I have now (with exception: I still buy fiction and drama for professional use). But there is plenty of poetry and non-fiction out there that I'm still going to buy.
I have come to detest looking at my Riverside Anthology of Literature. I've taught from it for so long, and so next semester I'm giving it up. I'll teach short stories from an anthology exclusively devoted to short stories, and make my own poetry unit out of handouts, links, and attachments. It will be fun to choose utterly whatever poetry I wish.
I assigned Flannery O'Connor's "A Good Man is Hard to Find" for this week, but didn't want to drag that detestably bulky Riverside Anthology of Literature home to read it. I left it in my office, assuming I had an anthology at home with the story in it. I did--an anthology of 50 Short Story Masterpieces. Now, I don't read a lot of short stories. When I read fiction, I prefer to get sucked into a novel's world, and I also read a fair amount of drama, poetry, and non-fiction. But opening up this book and looking at the table of contents, I suddenly have a desire to just sit with this book and read short stories for a while. It's something like serendipity.
rambing, undeveloped thoughts on reason, belief, animals, and rights
This is not intended as a developed argument, but an attempt to articulate some swirling thoughts I've been having.
I've become convinced that it is wrong to kill animals for our uses. I have not, however, become convinced that it is wrong to use animals for any human uses (but I can be convinced: I obviously made the transition from meat-eater to vegetarian over an idea, and a commitment to living according to convictions. If I am convinced, I would go vegan instead of mostly vegan). I became a vegetarian by reason: when learning about the intelligence of animals, I decided the animals' lives are worth more than the pleasure I could derive from eating them. But I haven't been compelled by the same reason to suggest that it is always wrong for humans to use animals.
Part of this is a matter of "faith." For what reason do we believe human beings have rights? Perhaps because a state grants human beings rights. Perhaps because a creator endowed all human beings with inherent dignity. But there is no act of reason that convinces me that human beings have rights--reason could just as easily lead me to an existential nihilism in which "everything is permitted" and nothing has any inherent value (see Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamozov for exploration of "everything is permitted," or for that matter Flannery O'Connor's Misfit). As it happens, I do believe all human beings are imbued with dignity--because of my religious belief. And it is my commitment to pacifism and vegetarianism that has led me to move away from existentialism--away from the belief that we should create our own meaning, and toward the belief in absolute moral principles.
It is not by reason that I am led to the belief that all human beings have "dignity" or, if you prefer, "value." And so by reason I am also not compelled to assign animals an inherent "value." Again, this is because by reason alone, I might be led to believe there is no inherent value in anything, and that "everything is permitted." If it is a self-evident truth that human beings have rights, that self-evident truth is a leap of faith. It is a belief that human beings have rights, dignity, value. So too is it a leap of faith to claim animals have rights, dignity, value.
Now, as it happens I do not believe that "everything is permitted," I do believe that human beings have inherent dignity and rights, and I do believe that animals have inherent dignity and should not be slaughtered for our purposes. And though I would consider myself an "animal rights" advocate, I am a little uncomfortable with the term. What "rights" does an animal have? Well, a right to live. A right to freedom? Perhaps--and if I can be convinced by reason that an animals has that right inherently, I would become vegan (well, I'm already "mostly vegan"--I eat cheese sometimes, but most days I am completely vegan. And I like that better).
What is my rambling getting at? Not, I hope, merely my own justification for eating cheese sometimes. It is that there is a tension between reason and belief even for the most secular of arguments. I think there is a tension between reason and belief in discussion of animal rights. Right now, I'm living in that tension.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
On Contrapuntal Blogging
I came to "content" blogging through sports. My models for writing blogs were sports blogs, and my own sports blog is still where I put in the most work (and get the most readers). When I started Costanza Book Club, it was because I still had ideas I wanted to express about books and ideas. This was meant to be a place to unload some ideas, start some discussions, provide some links to things of a literary nature. I had never read another blog about literature before starting writing here, so I largely used my experience sports-blogging as a model of tone (which is why I don't think I've ever reached the level of formality and focus I see on some of the better lit blogs).
But I also started this blog with the explicit intent of writing contrapuntally. It is a style of writing that was encouraged by one of my grad school professors, Don Ringnalda (sadly, he recently died of cancer). Broadly speaking, this means writing with a willingness to jump around, to make unexpected connections, to explore different subjects around a central theme in a very free way. It is a form of writing that can bring about unique insights.
Blogging is a good medium for contrapuntal writing, in my opinion: the free form and the personal nature encourage it. Mention of a book I'm reading can lead to comparisons with other books, a connection to a theory, a TV show, a film, a relevant current event, or my own peculiar religious, social, political, or ethical ideas. It's not meant to be rambling or broad--it's meant to be an open exploration, following the threads where they may go.
Even as I tried this in earlier blog posts, I don't think I was always terribly successful. I don't find in my archives great models of contrapuntal writing. There's an openness to making connections, a willingness to follow a thought in peculiar ways, but I think I can do better.
So, in general dissatisfaction with this blog, I'm going to recommit to writing contrapuntally here. I hope it provides me with more satistfaction in my writing, and provides a challenge to my writing and thinking. Maybe it will make the blog more interesting, maybe not. But it will provide my blogging here with more purpose.
But I also started this blog with the explicit intent of writing contrapuntally. It is a style of writing that was encouraged by one of my grad school professors, Don Ringnalda (sadly, he recently died of cancer). Broadly speaking, this means writing with a willingness to jump around, to make unexpected connections, to explore different subjects around a central theme in a very free way. It is a form of writing that can bring about unique insights.
Blogging is a good medium for contrapuntal writing, in my opinion: the free form and the personal nature encourage it. Mention of a book I'm reading can lead to comparisons with other books, a connection to a theory, a TV show, a film, a relevant current event, or my own peculiar religious, social, political, or ethical ideas. It's not meant to be rambling or broad--it's meant to be an open exploration, following the threads where they may go.
Even as I tried this in earlier blog posts, I don't think I was always terribly successful. I don't find in my archives great models of contrapuntal writing. There's an openness to making connections, a willingness to follow a thought in peculiar ways, but I think I can do better.
So, in general dissatisfaction with this blog, I'm going to recommit to writing contrapuntally here. I hope it provides me with more satistfaction in my writing, and provides a challenge to my writing and thinking. Maybe it will make the blog more interesting, maybe not. But it will provide my blogging here with more purpose.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Another take on Minneapolis Beggars
"Minneapolis in trouble? Then bash the beggars" by Nick Coleman
Coleman writes of the targetting of panhandlers as a distraction from bigger issues, as a shift to an easy target. He also looks at "upscale kinds of begging" that we do allow.
I would like to note that I try very hard to stay out of political discussions in the blogosphere. However, I will often write about social issues, occasionally about religious issues, and I do address ethical and moral issues. I'm commenting on treatment of beggars because I see it as a moral issue, not because in this case it is a political issue, too. When I use a blog to condemn war, it is because I am an ethical pacifist, not because I am trying to be an anti-war partisan. I used to write at a blog where I would talk about the evils of war and torture, not because I wish to be political, but because I see war and torture and moral evils to be condemned (if you want another case of hypocrisy, I don't understand how anybody worshiping a lord that was wrongfully tortured and executed could possibly argue in favor of torture in any circumstances).
Coleman writes of the targetting of panhandlers as a distraction from bigger issues, as a shift to an easy target. He also looks at "upscale kinds of begging" that we do allow.
I would like to note that I try very hard to stay out of political discussions in the blogosphere. However, I will often write about social issues, occasionally about religious issues, and I do address ethical and moral issues. I'm commenting on treatment of beggars because I see it as a moral issue, not because in this case it is a political issue, too. When I use a blog to condemn war, it is because I am an ethical pacifist, not because I am trying to be an anti-war partisan. I used to write at a blog where I would talk about the evils of war and torture, not because I wish to be political, but because I see war and torture and moral evils to be condemned (if you want another case of hypocrisy, I don't understand how anybody worshiping a lord that was wrongfully tortured and executed could possibly argue in favor of torture in any circumstances).
Sunday, May 06, 2007
From defunct to re-funked
I'm back, baby!
I'm resurrecting Costanza's Book Club. I started this blog as a chance to share ideas about ideas, and I feel that I failed. In v. 2.0 of the Club, I intend this to be much more accessible. Yes, I'm going to talk about books and literary theory, but more often I'm going to try apply literary theory to cultural productions like television shows. It will be a place to discuss ideas, but it will be a place to discuss ideas within the context of popular culture.
Right now, I'm the only contributor: I'll be setting the agenda of discourse. But if you'd like to join the Club, just prove your chops in the comments. I would like more contributors: I want this to be a place where others can share ideas on whatever cultural productions we wish.
I've got high hopes for this reborn blog. Please read, please comment, and perhaps, please join.
I'm resurrecting Costanza's Book Club. I started this blog as a chance to share ideas about ideas, and I feel that I failed. In v. 2.0 of the Club, I intend this to be much more accessible. Yes, I'm going to talk about books and literary theory, but more often I'm going to try apply literary theory to cultural productions like television shows. It will be a place to discuss ideas, but it will be a place to discuss ideas within the context of popular culture.
Right now, I'm the only contributor: I'll be setting the agenda of discourse. But if you'd like to join the Club, just prove your chops in the comments. I would like more contributors: I want this to be a place where others can share ideas on whatever cultural productions we wish.
I've got high hopes for this reborn blog. Please read, please comment, and perhaps, please join.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
This blog sucks
Rereading a lot of old posts, I'm depressed. On the one hand, I think, "I used to think this way, with such overflowing energy. What happened?" On the other hand, I think, "The things I wrote before that I thought were good were really lousy."
I hate this blog. I am not deleting it because I have links on the side that I use to get to interesting things. But this site, for all intents and purposes, is dead.
I hate this blog. I am not deleting it because I have links on the side that I use to get to interesting things. But this site, for all intents and purposes, is dead.
Hiatus
I'm considering this project a failure. I had two goals in creating this blog.
1. Find a place to start dialogue about literature and theory. This was a failure--it has never turned into a place of dialogue. The PV blog has had more intellectual dialogue than this one, and even the stupid Sven blog has found a niche.
2. Find a place to express my ideas about literature and theory. Well, that's what it was, even with very few readers. But I haven't written a post that really interested me in months.
I'm going on hiatus here. Rob still has access and can write if he wants to. Soon I'll put together a post that will link to my favorite essays I've written.
Smell you later.
1. Find a place to start dialogue about literature and theory. This was a failure--it has never turned into a place of dialogue. The PV blog has had more intellectual dialogue than this one, and even the stupid Sven blog has found a niche.
2. Find a place to express my ideas about literature and theory. Well, that's what it was, even with very few readers. But I haven't written a post that really interested me in months.
I'm going on hiatus here. Rob still has access and can write if he wants to. Soon I'll put together a post that will link to my favorite essays I've written.
Smell you later.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
This is the end...
I'm seriously considering deleting this blog. Destroying it, blowing it up for all-time. I would probably copy some of my favorite "essays" I've written, but that's it. I still need a place to express ideas of a literary nature--but I'm finding ways to do so in other venues. The hell with it. I think I may have said all I really have to say in this spot.
I'll give the next 48 hours for anybody to convince me I shouldn't.
I could always just go on hiatus and leave this here...but that's so unfulfilling.
Should this be the end of Costanza Book Club?
Here's what I'd probably do: I'd go through and delete most of the posts, leaving just my favorite ones up here as a sort of database of my ideas.
I'll give the next 48 hours for anybody to convince me I shouldn't.
I could always just go on hiatus and leave this here...but that's so unfulfilling.
Should this be the end of Costanza Book Club?
Here's what I'd probably do: I'd go through and delete most of the posts, leaving just my favorite ones up here as a sort of database of my ideas.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Comments and Links
The MLA rejects Auteur theory.
Using the Modern Language Association rules for a works cited page, citations for written material identify the author first, then the title. Citations for visual material such as film and television programs identify the title first, then people involved in the creation of the work.
Changing Scope
I’m continuing to add links to sites that are literary, academic, or philosophical in nature. I’m also adding links to some science magazines (it’s important—people devoted to ideas can’t go on ignorant of scientific discoveries and their meaning) and some liberal political sites (not because I want political discussion at this site, but because I increasingly use my blogs as a launching point to see everything I care about on the internet, and so I don’t check very much that I don’t link to).
The King’s Bed
By MEGAN MARSHALL
You may know of my complete contempt for all royalty and nobility (but lest we live in a world without contradictions, The Three Musketeers is one of my favorite books).
Freedom and belief
Theo Hobson
THE NUTTY PROFESSORS: The history of academic charisma.
by ANTHONY GRAFTON
How Gandhi Got His Mojo Back
by Swati Gauri Sharma
Using the Modern Language Association rules for a works cited page, citations for written material identify the author first, then the title. Citations for visual material such as film and television programs identify the title first, then people involved in the creation of the work.
Changing Scope
I’m continuing to add links to sites that are literary, academic, or philosophical in nature. I’m also adding links to some science magazines (it’s important—people devoted to ideas can’t go on ignorant of scientific discoveries and their meaning) and some liberal political sites (not because I want political discussion at this site, but because I increasingly use my blogs as a launching point to see everything I care about on the internet, and so I don’t check very much that I don’t link to).
The King’s Bed
By MEGAN MARSHALL
You may know of my complete contempt for all royalty and nobility (but lest we live in a world without contradictions, The Three Musketeers is one of my favorite books).
Freedom and belief
Theo Hobson
THE NUTTY PROFESSORS: The history of academic charisma.
by ANTHONY GRAFTON
How Gandhi Got His Mojo Back
by Swati Gauri Sharma
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Today's Links (and why we're here)
I started Costanza Book Club in part because I missed the academic discourse on literature and theory from my time attending Grad School at St. Thomas. I wanted a place to share various ideas, but also a place to discuss various ideas (the former has worked better than the latter so far).
But I also want Costanza Book Club to be a place that can contribute something to the intellectual life of anybody who reads it. So I'll try more frequently to link to articles that I find interesting, hopefully on topics of literature and theory, but also on education, film, comedy, and history. These aren't articles that express views I necessarily agree with--just articles that have something to contribute to our world of ideas.
Also, I'll be spending time looking for other good sites around the web that deal with literature and theory. If I find them, I'll link to them. And suggested reading is always welcome.
“Comedian Turned Activist, With His Own Campaign” (A.O. Scott)
“Equal-Opportunity Offender Plays Anti-Semitism for Laughs” (Sharon Waxman)
“Turkish Novelist Faces Trial” (Lawrence Van Gelder)
“Textbook Foolishness” (Jennifer Washburn)
“When Can We Finally Be Funny Again?” (Bill Maher)
“Universities should give students the freedom to think - not threaten them with petty rules and regulations” (Marcel Berlins)
“A lament for idle summers” (Karin Klein)
“Girl Moved To Tears By Of Mice And Men Cliffs Notes”
“State of the Annotation” (Scott McLemee)
But I also want Costanza Book Club to be a place that can contribute something to the intellectual life of anybody who reads it. So I'll try more frequently to link to articles that I find interesting, hopefully on topics of literature and theory, but also on education, film, comedy, and history. These aren't articles that express views I necessarily agree with--just articles that have something to contribute to our world of ideas.
Also, I'll be spending time looking for other good sites around the web that deal with literature and theory. If I find them, I'll link to them. And suggested reading is always welcome.
“Comedian Turned Activist, With His Own Campaign” (A.O. Scott)
“Equal-Opportunity Offender Plays Anti-Semitism for Laughs” (Sharon Waxman)
“Turkish Novelist Faces Trial” (Lawrence Van Gelder)
“Textbook Foolishness” (Jennifer Washburn)
“When Can We Finally Be Funny Again?” (Bill Maher)
“Universities should give students the freedom to think - not threaten them with petty rules and regulations” (Marcel Berlins)
“A lament for idle summers” (Karin Klein)
“Girl Moved To Tears By Of Mice And Men Cliffs Notes”
“State of the Annotation” (Scott McLemee)
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Another Link in the Chain
"Ted Hughes, the Domestic Tyrant" by David Smith
Should the fact that Ted Hughes was a raging asshole who drove TWO lovers to suicide make us appreciate his poetry less? Well, "should" isn't the right word. What does it do for you? I still think Crow is one of the truly brilliant poetry collections of all-time.
"Britain's Democracy Problem" by Tim Luckhurst
Plus you've got a freaking queen.
I figure that if I am relatively unable to contribute much to literary and theoretical discourse during football season, I can at least seek out links that may amuse you.
You might notice that there are some changes in the links at Costanza's Book Club. I'm going to continue seeking out newspapers from anywhere in the world that have particularly good Opinion and/or Books sections (I have a lot of office hours to fill). If there's a site you go for literary or intellectual chatter, let me know.
Should the fact that Ted Hughes was a raging asshole who drove TWO lovers to suicide make us appreciate his poetry less? Well, "should" isn't the right word. What does it do for you? I still think Crow is one of the truly brilliant poetry collections of all-time.
"Britain's Democracy Problem" by Tim Luckhurst
Plus you've got a freaking queen.
I figure that if I am relatively unable to contribute much to literary and theoretical discourse during football season, I can at least seek out links that may amuse you.
You might notice that there are some changes in the links at Costanza's Book Club. I'm going to continue seeking out newspapers from anywhere in the world that have particularly good Opinion and/or Books sections (I have a lot of office hours to fill). If there's a site you go for literary or intellectual chatter, let me know.
Monday, May 01, 2006
New Feature at Costanza's Book Club
I've added a section for links to literary databases or frequently updated sites relating to art and critical theory. The links are very thin right now. If you've got any sites relating to literature, film, or theory that you think I'd enjoy that I should add to the links, please let me know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
