Barry Trotter (Book 1)
The Hogwash School for Wizards was the most famous school in the wizarding world, and Barry Trotter was its most famous student. His mere presence made sure that every year twenty candidates applied for every open spot, no matter how rapacious Hogwash's tuition became. As a result, Barry and the school had come to an unspoken agreement: regardless of his grades, Barry could remain at Hogwash for as long as he wished. He had just begun his eleventh year...Freshman
Sleepy with boredom and gassy from lunch, Hart Fox sat in the hard plastic chair outside his dean's office. A kid walked in the door, pink detention slip in hand, bobbing his head a little so that the purple spikes of his mohawk didn't get bent on the transom. He slumped down next to Hart. Hart nodded--he remembered tis joker from sophomore American History, constantly arguing in favor of anarcho-syndicalism. Was his name Henry?...Sophomore
Arcing lazily through the air, the Frisbee smacked against the window. “Ooo-oo!” a chiseled and shirtless boy teased as it wobbleplummeted to the ground. “Sarah's in troub-le!”The beauty-boy was righter than he knew: Of all the windows on campus to hit, this one was the worst. It belonged to Stutts’ Professor of Clandestine Affairs, Glenbard North, who had destroyed more students than there were blades of grass on the freshly resodded Old Quad below...Coming Soon!
All you really gotta know is, I'm writing new things constantly and the more I write, the better my books get. So if you've read my earlier work--and millions of you have--we should keep in touch. This fall, at least one and maybe two new books will be available: a Dickens parody AND a comic mystery loosely based on The Beatles. Drop me an email at mikesnewbooks[at]gmail[dot]com, and I'll be sure to let you know release dates, special deals, etc.Monday, February 3, 2003
Michael Wolff Busts Book Biz
Michael Cader called Michael Wolff "a humor columnist with a particular interest in media" as he pointed his readers to Wolff's blitzkrieg of vitriol regarding American book publishing. As Cader points out, many of the same complaints could be leveled at the magazine industry "with a generous measure of backstabbing" added for good measure. So they both stink...Hooray? Stimulating reading.
Followup on Fallaci...
Here's what writer Salman Rushdie said recently (courtesy of J. Schwarz):
"The Bush camp's interest in "evil" and "evildoers" needs no further emphasis. But the Bushies are finding support in some strange quarters. To take just one example, the crazy rage of the writer Oriana Fallaci, directed without discrimination against every Muslim in the world -- "every Muslim, without exception, is a fundamentalist"; "they multiply like protozoa to infinity" -- is one example of what one might call the New Evilism that is busily painting the world in black and white."
And this from a man who spent a decent portion of his adult life under a fatwa. Makes you think.
"The Bush camp's interest in "evil" and "evildoers" needs no further emphasis. But the Bushies are finding support in some strange quarters. To take just one example, the crazy rage of the writer Oriana Fallaci, directed without discrimination against every Muslim in the world -- "every Muslim, without exception, is a fundamentalist"; "they multiply like protozoa to infinity" -- is one example of what one might call the New Evilism that is busily painting the world in black and white."
And this from a man who spent a decent portion of his adult life under a fatwa. Makes you think.
Sunday, February 2, 2003
The current issue of The New Yorker has a lovely little humor piece about reality TV by George Saunders. It is witty, compact, doesn't seem afraid to stir up the imagination, and has a nice satirical point, one that goes beyond the usual "isn't TV stupid?" barrelfish shooting that Shouts is so fond of.
Also: ever since a fascinating college course, I have been interested in the First World War; hence the current exhibit at Britain's Imperial War Museum, "Anthem for Doomed Youth," spotlighting that country's war poets (Sassoon, Graves, Owen and others) was a recent surf. On their site, I dug up a nice review of it in the Sunday Times. Here was the portion that moved me to blog it: "In the best of all worlds, I would wish the history of warfare to form a less prominent part of the education of my children and their children than it did my own," reviewer Jon Stallworthy writes. "In the world in which I find myself living, however, I wonder if American public opinion of an invasion of Iraq would be closer to British public opinion if Americans had heard and read as much about the wars of this past century..."
Most days, the History Channel seems to be all grainy green shots through a tanker's night-vision scope, or smart bomb footage that allows the viewer to watch with delicious anticipation and glorious release. Don't be fooled by the stagecraft--modern war is slaughter with all the efficiencies and scope our technology can muster. It is to killing what McDonald's is to food, and should be undertaken with the greatest unwillingness and trepidation, no matter what the reason, or the perceived odds. Back in 1914, they expected the war to end by Christmas, but an argument could be made that it didn't end until 1945. Much is made of Americans' lust for bloodless (or at least one-sided) conflict, usually negatively, as if being able to countenance the wholesale killing of other humans is a virtue. This sensitivity is our culture's self-protection kicking in; on some wordless level we realize that "the necessitites of war" are just as much of a threat to the way we live as an anthrax attack.
During the First World War, after a few disasterous attempts at documentary, the governments of the countries effectively drew a curtain over what was really going on. Only engineered public ignorance allowed them to fight--no sensible person would've allowed it. I think drawing back the curtain, as widely and as often as we can stand it, is a wise idea. Since we cannot do this in real-time, the conflicts of the past will have to do.
Also: ever since a fascinating college course, I have been interested in the First World War; hence the current exhibit at Britain's Imperial War Museum, "Anthem for Doomed Youth," spotlighting that country's war poets (Sassoon, Graves, Owen and others) was a recent surf. On their site, I dug up a nice review of it in the Sunday Times. Here was the portion that moved me to blog it: "In the best of all worlds, I would wish the history of warfare to form a less prominent part of the education of my children and their children than it did my own," reviewer Jon Stallworthy writes. "In the world in which I find myself living, however, I wonder if American public opinion of an invasion of Iraq would be closer to British public opinion if Americans had heard and read as much about the wars of this past century..."
Most days, the History Channel seems to be all grainy green shots through a tanker's night-vision scope, or smart bomb footage that allows the viewer to watch with delicious anticipation and glorious release. Don't be fooled by the stagecraft--modern war is slaughter with all the efficiencies and scope our technology can muster. It is to killing what McDonald's is to food, and should be undertaken with the greatest unwillingness and trepidation, no matter what the reason, or the perceived odds. Back in 1914, they expected the war to end by Christmas, but an argument could be made that it didn't end until 1945. Much is made of Americans' lust for bloodless (or at least one-sided) conflict, usually negatively, as if being able to countenance the wholesale killing of other humans is a virtue. This sensitivity is our culture's self-protection kicking in; on some wordless level we realize that "the necessitites of war" are just as much of a threat to the way we live as an anthrax attack.
During the First World War, after a few disasterous attempts at documentary, the governments of the countries effectively drew a curtain over what was really going on. Only engineered public ignorance allowed them to fight--no sensible person would've allowed it. I think drawing back the curtain, as widely and as often as we can stand it, is a wise idea. Since we cannot do this in real-time, the conflicts of the past will have to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
