18
"If Keith weren’t such a brilliant character, the reader might weary of his hypocrisy. But the truth is, he’s hilarious. I got tired of jotting 'hahahaha' and 'LOL' in the margins."
—Liz Phair reviews Keith Richards' Life.
Writing \"LOL\" in book margins is the literary equivalent of studiously applying a booger to a men\'s room wall.
Also, what's the deal with the Awl timing out today? are you guys under attack from some bear-hating Temperance Union?
I'm utterly unable to comprehend the impulse to note the places in a book where I laugh. What's the point? So I know when to laugh next time? Is it to help study for the Funny Exam? HELP ME UNDERSTAND THIS.
Because she's writing a book review?
But that doesn't SAY anything. I write book reviews, too. Do you count the LOLs at the end, and 25 LOLs = Funny Book? What's the critical distinction between LOL and Haha? I'm not ragging on Liz; I like Liz. I like the idea of Liz writing about the Stones. But I don't like LOL, and this is just another example of why.
Yeah, no, I can't defend the use of LOL under any circumstances (unless cat related, maybe? Or at least I wouldn't protest? 'Cause, kitties?). Notes in the margins, yes, LOLs, no.
If I had Art Yucko's talent, you'd be looking at a LolKeith right now.
Liz Phair is 43 and she jots inanities in the margins of books.
No wonder I never liked her.
The Liz Phair police are coming for you.
Damn. It's articles like this that will likely lead me through the proposed NYT "pay wall." Thanks for the link. Read some of the review earlier online and didn't even notice who wrote it. People who don't love Liz Phair lead sad lives and are sexually frustrated as has been SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN!!!
Liz Phair writes well.
Her music is great, especially her often overlooked first album, Exile In Guyville. But this review reads like an extended blurb.
Never in my entire life have I ever overlooked EIG.
That's the only LF album anyone looks at anymore. For good reason.
Up next in the NYTBR: Willow Smith reviews Bieber bio.
One thing I've noticed about the reviews of this book I've read–this one especially–is that they're little more than lengthy plot summaries, with selected quotes that, I'm presuming, reveal the reviewers' sensibilities. Except all the quotes are about the same damn stuff.
Actually, the silly pullquote in this post, with its schoogirlish squee, comes as close as anything in Liz's review toward expressing an angle on the work. But she doesn't take it anywhere (Why is he a hypocrite? I'm listening), so, in the end, it's just squee we have to clean up after.
I wonder what the reason for this review was, other than "Hey we got Liz Phair to write a review!" If you want plot, you read book.
I love you Liz, but you write much better between the bars.
For anybody who has actually *read* "Life," Mick's retort in Slate is a hoot. http://www.slate.com/id/2273611/pagenum/all/
Did it ever occur to her to ask why the Stones haven't put out a good album in more than 30 years?