From Ruth Graham at Slate:
... But the cumulative effect of a Doocified world is that the Web is now flooded with “honest” anecdotes, and “brave” confessions about less-than-perfect parenting. Is it really “brave” when honesty is what’s getting the book deals these days?
Then there’s the fact that the parents writing these stories are, almost without exception, very capable women. These are not the “worst moms ever”; they are competent, loving parents who occasionally feel overwhelmed. They are parents who think and read and write about parenting. Almost by definition, they are doing just fine. Yet, culturally, we applaud their “bad” parenting while becoming less and less tolerant of actual bad parents. This is a country that is increasingly willing to prosecute pregnant women and young mothers for their mistakes with drugs, or for leaving their children home alone in moments of desperation. In a middle-class parenting subculture in which self-acceptance is a bedrock virtue, it’s impossible not to notice a disconnect.
How, in Hollywood accounting, Return of the Jedi made no money and why the guy who played Darth Vader never got paid for his work in it.
Staying on the arts motif and Atlantic Monthly:
... You know the cliché: You're out on the town, you're doing drugs, you're drinking, you're running on the walls, you're pissing on the fireplace. It’s a cliché. Often you run into artists who live that life—and at one point, you find out that they're not actually producing that much art. They're living the life of the artist without the work.
A polemical quote about how all writers under 40 are not writing as individual voices but as spokespersons for a collective.
One of the things I noticed some Christians seriously propose as controversy about Mark Driscoll and plagiarism emerged was to propose that intellectual property, i.e. copyright, is not a truly Christian thing. Well, there's probably no arguing with those sorts of Christians but it's possible to propose that the application of copyright and intellectual property may have other applications than just dealing with plagiarism or fraud and (in the thinking of some) somehow being theft in and of itself. Copyright has also been proposed as the basis from which people can mount a legally actionable case against revenge porn. Send a naked selfie to someone who, after breaking up with you, posts it on a revenge porn site, and what are the options? If there's no defensible thing as intellectual property then you're stuck. Now granted the Christians who would argue against copyright altogether might also argue you're not supposed to ever take naked selfies on mobile devices (and that does sound remarkably foolhardy, personally) but haven't there been studies showing that when people fall in love parts of their brains shut down? Anyway, thought I'd suggest that the range of applications for copyright get interesting because there are so many often conflicting directions it can go, conflicting directions that are obviously expressions of our own frequently conflicted impulses.