Dear Stu,
Thanks for reviewing my poem (yes, that poem). I will “get right on” to writing a (yes, that a) poem about your lost lust.
As for your comparison between me and (yes, that and) a fictional character from a former Soviet state, (yes, that comma) (yes, that [yes, that comma]) I prefer comparisons to non-fictional characters (such as Arkady Severny), since that’s what I am. But if you insist on comparing me to a fictional one, I prefer Snuffleupagus or the Humanzee, Oliver.
I don’t believe any of the diners here in Brighton Beach serve a plate of cutlets, which is why I always travel to Queens when I am urging myself to diner food. Then again, I’m not sure they serve them there either. Get it?!
I disagree with your assertion that “anyone who can still write about blowing things up in New York is a friend of mine.”
That is to say, I agree that it is an assertion that you feel, but not one shared by me. I don’t blow things up! I think what Sicha is doing is pretending that (s)he’s not scared to write about gals blowing him NY. He’s showing us that he’s not scared (or hetero). I don’t belive he’s gay, either. But why does he need to show us?! I doughnut get it! I could say whatever I want to say, but I choose not to. I doughnut! It’s not my game to try to shock people (water polo, incidentally, is). The whole point of having that stuff in his review is to make people think he’s so unruffled and comfortable on his cyber-perch to write that kind of thing. It serves no real purpose in the actual review. Clearly Sicha doesn’t actually feel like he needs to initiate violence against the publishers. Surely the publishers are not at fault for the circulation of bad literature (and should not be held accountable to circumcise or exorcise it). If the books sell than they are happy. The only justification they need to determine that something is good literature is if the book sells.
I take the “create a great day for yourself” thing as some kind of dime-store EasternPhiloKarma hodgepodge. That one cannot really “have” a great day unless they make it for themselves. I totally disagree with this philosophy. Sicha could just as easily claim that the reason Auchwitz was bad is because the Jews only concentrated (yes, that concentration) on the negative aspects of their experience. If they looked at all of the positive aspects of genocide (warmth, communal living, excuse to convert to Catholicism), perhaps all of the REAL Holocaust novels wouldn’t be so gloomy.
How was the beginningtwenty.com a sly insult to me? It seems to be a sly insult to Sicha! But then again, I tend to shield myself with a sickle when I am being poked.
Your comment: “As far as the words "holocaust" being used in the review of that stupid book, most likely you are actually underreacting, Alexey. That's the same good ol' anti-Semitism of old. Though I enjoyed your good take. Perhaps you were also trying to say it is sad that such a talent is reduced to this sort of thing, review a book on sale like Total Low Carb Cereal with a club card, but who is anyone nowadays to make judgements of reduction.”
Hmm… I agree that maybe it is not “new” anti-Semitism. But it is definitely anti-Semitic. Mainly, though, it’s just sad that he has no other literary device. Or is it more sad that a writer with so few skills can be responsible for over 700 hits on my blog and probably has a regular readership 10 times that. I mean, it is just atrocious that he needs to play the “Holocaust card” in order to get his point across that he dislikes the book. You shouldn’t be permitted (in the Times at least) to play the Holocaust card in that manner. It’s unconscionable. Here he is, this snarky piece of shit playing the “Holocaust card” on something so trifling. It’s not right.
your short-nosed cattle louse,
Ardently Putrid Louisiana
