A few additions to topics from yesterday:
Because you can never have too much Sarah Silverman â€” yet another interview, this time with Pamela Paul at Slate. Pretty much the same territory, though this is probably a fairly recent development:
Slate: Do you self-Google?
Silverman: Yeah, of course. I bet you self-Google. Everyone self-Googles. And, I have, of course, the Google alert. But I don’t have the time lately to read it. I’m actually losing interest in Googling myself. I’m so sick of myself after these past couple of months.
Sam Anderson, also at Slate, subjects Silverman’s use of irony to a lengthy analysis.
On the subject of further "Jarhead" fallout, Nathaniel Fick, another former Marine who’s written a Gulf War memoir (What’ve you done lately, Iowa Writers’ Workshop?) writes about what the movie does and doesn’t do right (also at Slate).
The trouble started a couple of months ago when University of
Colorado English Prof. Joan Klingel Ray, president of the Jane Austen
Society, slagged off the movie in an interview with the U.K.’s
Telegraph, criticizing everything from Matthew MacFadyen as the male
lead, Mr. Darcy, to the movie’s in-your-face sexual imagery.
"The Darcy in the film does not have the quality of attractiveness
that Colin Firth has," Ray asserted, referring to the star of the
acclaimed 1995 miniseries.
She added: "The film is full of sexual imagery, which is totally
inappropriate to Austen’s novel. In one scene, a wild boar, which I
assume is supposed to represent Darcy, wobbles through a farm with its
sexual equipment on show."
Fortunately, most Austen adaptations follow more closely the long-established historical fact (backed by the fossil record and carbon dating) that the invention of sex did not actually take place until the mid-20th century.