@spanish bombs I love "Vilette," but it's definitely an acquired taste. I wouldn't recommend it to any of my friends that weren't already big into Victorian literature.
I think it's totally fine to dislike or even hate "Middlemarch" or suggest reading other things instead, but I think this is the dumbest and laziest piece of writing I've ever seen on the Awl. Which normally has some of the smartest writing out there. Not the least because "A Doll's House" isn't a novel. I mean, suggesting reading YA lit like "Black Beauty" or "Alice in Wonderland" instead of "Middlemarch"? They're not trying to do the same thing at all. Nor are Russian novels, written by men, in another language. "Middlemarch" is important in British literature because of its place in the evolution of the novel in English. Again, if you hate it, that's totally cool. Just critique it in some sort of context. Listing a few books you like better that happened to be published in the same decade in different countries isn't really much of a context, without placing what was going on in that decade in those countries in context.
I love this so much.
Being in Knoxville, I wholeheartedly endorse this.
As a reader of both literary fiction and the "low-brow" "chick lit" variety - in equal, rather large quantities - I would love some NYT/other smart reviews of the latter. Some of it really is better than others. And some books by the same author are better than other ones. Just like mystery novels or political thrillers. As either Picoult or Weiner pointed out in the HuffPo piece (I think it was there, at least), you don't see the NYT not reviewing romantic comedies because they aren't indie films.
What if one happens to be unemployed? How do I duck out for a quick drink if I don't have a job to duck out from?
I've had to hide out in a bathroom stall to sob a couple of times.
You left out the part where they knock off work at 4 to meet other writers for cocktails before going to a reading (with more cocktails) and then going out for drinks after.
Also, if evolution requires me to have "the female interest in mating with the highest-status male available," does that mean conservatives are now ok with gold-diggers? Or just that I should pursue that while searching for a mate?