Our daily round-up of bookish links. Tastes great with coffee.
“During the late 19th century and early 20th century, lesbians were entirely unrepresented in science fiction, with homosexuality an act only depraved men engaged in.”
I’d like to sit this sentence down for a nice chat. I’d ask it “do you know that by giving us a time range like this you imply that there were representations of lesbians in science fiction before the the late 19th Century? And that you are implying, even though I think you are referencing the nature of the portrayals of gay men in science fiction, that all pre-mid 20th Century homosexuals were depraved?” I would then give it milk and cookies and pat it on its head and sigh.
“Austen fans can read Fraiman’s lively and illuminating notes right in the margins of the book. Ever wonder what shoe roses are? How to tell a phaeton from a barouche?”
This annotated digital edition of Pride and Prejudice sounds really cool. I wonder if it will finally explain which one was too proud and which one was too prejudiced.
“Based on Grossman’s book, which is described as Harry Potter for grown-ups, the one-hour drama follows a group of 20-somethings in New York who study magic and have access to a magical world.”
I bet this adaptation of Lev Grossman’s The Magicians will do well. But it won’t be as popular as my new literary drinking game in which everytime someone refers to something as “Harry Potter for grown-ups,” JK Rowling does a shot of butterbeer out of The Goblet of Fire. (via The Millions)
What are you reading this morning?