Welcome to the Playpen, our space for ferrety banter and whimsical snippets of things that aren't quite long enough for articles (although they might be) but that caught your eye anyway.

at 23:20 on 09-01-2016, Craverguy
I guess it gets better treatment in the UK. Over here, it only gets shown on TV on Turner Classic Movies, and then only every two or three years when the stars are aligned.

If I had to name a single weakness to the film, it's that it treats
Inspector Doppler being Milo in disguise
as a shocking revelation. That probably works on stage, where even the best seats in the house are 50 feet away from the actors, but in a movie with the cameras right on top of them at all times, it's immediately obvious to anyone who isn't seriously vision impaired.
at 17:48 on 09-01-2016, Jamie Johnston
Gosh it's been years since I saw that film but I remember it being very good. Surprised to know it's so hard to get hold of! They certainly used to show it on UK television fairly often.
at 03:00 on 09-01-2016, Craverguy
Since the real reviews by Arthur and the gang are down for the time being, here's a Craverguy Capsule Review to tide you over:

I finally got my hands on a copy of the 1972 version of Sleuth, after almost 10 years of questing. If you get a chance to see it (and I wouldn't judge you for downloading it illegally, given the extortionate prices being asked for used DVD copies here in America), I highly recommend it.

Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine are brilliant and would have each been a strong contender for the Best Actor Oscar in any other year; the script is great: very tense, witty, and surprisingly funny (you can see why Anthony Shaffer won a Tony and two Edgar Awards for it, and I'm a bit surprised he wasn't also Oscar-nominated); and the direction by Joseph Mankiewicz is really quite dynamic considering the whole business takes place in three rooms and a hallway.

Five stars, would watch again (and can now, thanks to the magic of region-free Korean imports).
at 02:18 on 06-01-2016, Ichneumon
That "Christ Haters" bit just had me going "...what?!" over and over again until I forced myself to look away. Like, I know bigots who use religion as a cudgel exist in numbers—we have Ted Cruz to show for it on this side of the pond, among others—but normally they're at least housetrained. I mean, wow. Thanks for reading this so I don't have to, Scott. I don't think I could make it that far without the full MST3K treatment.

Also, I pretty much agree with what everyone said about the Burroughs thing. I get that the piece was meant to satirise the tone and content of that very stupid list, but it still ticked me off for all those reasons, and I'm glad there was some truly interesting conversation about it. (As for the semantics: Accidentally shooting someone during a drunken William Tell act is manslaughter, and generally subject to criminal culpability, but it's still an accident—and in this case, one that personally haunted Burroughs for the rest of his life in a way that few of his other poor decisions did.)

Incidental note: I have really enjoyed what I've read of Bukowski's poetry, but I've never bothered with his prose for whatever reason. I suppose because his sad, dingy view of the world works best in measured doses.
at 23:06 on 05-01-2016, Jamie Johnston
... the article editor itself only recognises the years from 2006 to 2015...

The Decennium Bug strikes!
at 18:29 on 03-01-2016, Janne Kirjasniemi
he was becoming a Catholic because it was the religion a Vulcan would practice.

That's highly illogical.
at 16:45 on 03-01-2016, Arthur B
The Chronicles of Dino Tour, an insider account of an amazingly inept dinosaur play.

I have no idea whether or not it's true, but if it isn't it's a good story anyway.
at 17:40 on 02-01-2016, Craverguy
The first warning sign was probably when he said he was becoming a Catholic because it was the religion a Vulcan would practice.
at 13:01 on 02-01-2016, Arthur B
That's the thing he wrote before he got the whole zeal-of-the-convert thing going on, isn't it?

Re: the Scott Lynch rant, whilst shooting fish in a barrel is kind of trite and uninteresting, tossing a grenade in the barrel and blowing the fish sky-high never gets old and that essay's a good example of it, though a bit free and easy on the mental health digs.
at 11:30 on 02-01-2016, Craverguy
I really enjoyed Wright's Golden Age Trilogy.

Too bad the guy who wrote it is such a shit.
at 06:26 on 01-01-2016, James D
I feel the same way about Bukowski - did he have some misogynist views? Sure, plenty. But most of his stuff (that I've read, at least) was heavily autobiographical, and not put forward with an authoritative narrative voice. If that isn't enough for some people to enjoy his work, that's fine, but for me the difference between "this is the way I see things" and "this is the way things are" is enough to let me enjoy his viewpoint without the negative aspects ruining the experience.
at 01:01 on 01-01-2016, Arthur B
But I would think Burroughs is worth a read from the human experience point of view, and that horrible shooting did loom over that work in a big way. But to consider that his work offers some simple views on manliness or something is of course ludicrous.

I think this the bit which is key. Whatever Burroughs was doing with his writing, he certainly wasn't trying to put himself forward as some sort of role model and he would have probably been aghast at anyone suggesting that he was one. You can think what you like about Burroughs shooting Joan Vollmer, and you can hold him as criminally responsible as you like, but it doesn't really make much difference one way or the other to his writing because, at least in my reading, he never asks you to endorse the shooting - or, for that matter, any of the other autobiographical bits he works in.
at 22:18 on 31-12-2015, Janne Kirjasniemi
Yeah, I think the article's point was to lampoon what could be construed to be the Esquire article's approach to the subject. That is, that being a man is some sort of moral stance and the literature listed gives guidelines to what that manliness is. Of course some literature offers some strong (and very often very wrongheaded) views on morality or virtue, but approaching literature and valuing it through its prescriptive or didactic qualities is a very narrow-minded approach and misses the point of great literature. That is that it is not about what being a good human is about, but rather how large, varied and pretty absurd the whole human experience is what ever way you approach it.

And from that point of view, the spectrum of human experience through the artists words and the readers construction of meaning from them, you could compile lists of works worth a read for any human, which from the point of view of a men's magazine's sales department would come through as books for men to read, but whether that was the point of the Esquire list, I do not know and am really not arguing for.

But I would think Burroughs is worth a read from the human experience point of view, and that horrible shooting did loom over that work in a big way. But to consider that his work offers some simple views on manliness or something is of course ludicrous.

The greatest problem of that Esquire list is that it is so heavily lopsided, that simply saying it is biased and subjective is not really enough. I mean, that is someone's list of best books, but it is offered as Esquire's list and not just some random guys list.
at 21:16 on 31-12-2015, James D
Well the article was clearly sensationalized to get attention - not saying that that necessarily invalidates any of its points, mind you, but the details also probably shouldn't be taken literally.
at 20:36 on 31-12-2015, Robinson L
I'm not terribly familiar with either case, but my understanding is that Burroughs fully intended not to injury or kill. What he did was immensely (and tragically) reckless, but not deliberately malicious; whereas Mailer was deliberately malicious. That, as I understand it, is the distinction, and it seems a reasonable distinction to me.

@Ichneumon: I feel like I ought to say something more in response to your message, but I can't seem to find the right words beyond thanking your for speaking out. And as far as I'm concerned - not meaning to speak for anyone else here - scream away, if you feel so inclined.
at 16:10 on 31-12-2015, Janne Kirjasniemi
Getting into the car somewhat voluntarily I meant to write.
at 16:09 on 31-12-2015, Janne Kirjasniemi
Perhaps it would be comparable to getting into that car drunk and drugged with a passenger likewise drunk, in withdrawal and getting into the car. A tragedy to be sure, but Burroughs was culpable for it, whatever his intentions actually were.
at 11:07 on 31-12-2015, Bill
He pointed a gun at her, shot her and killed her. Calling this an "accidental death" like his car skidded on a wet road is ridiculous.
at 05:57 on 31-12-2015, Ichneumon
P.S. I really wish there were a better means of editing one's comments, solely because I hate looking at my own godawful minor grammar mistakes.
at 05:55 on 31-12-2015, Ichneumon
Regarding Solnit's article: On one level, I really do appreciate the underlying message; and as a rejoinder to the article its title references, I found it fairly amusing. While Esquire does have some true excellent reporting and a number of good-to-great columns, some of their articles are, well, exactly what you would expect given some of those excerpts. (That, and both their men's fashion and cheesecake photo spreads are consistently ridiculous for weirdly similar reasons... and their investment columnist is practically a human caricature of a Wall Street carpetbagger, but I digress.)

But on another... if I may be entirely petty and thin-skinned for a moment, the dismissal of William Burroughs pissed me off for a number of reasons. While there are certainly many, many qualms to be had with his work, not the least being his sometimes quite nasty lapses into misogyny, but the way Solnit that frames the accidental death of his spouse in the same terms as Mailer very intentionally stabbing his wife actually offended me. I am also sorely tempted to scream about how bad well-meaning members of the favoured majority can be when dealing with "problematic behaviour" in members of disadvantaged minorities*, but perhaps this is not the time and place.

*This is in no way a defence of Milo Yiannopoulos. Fuck that guy.
at 11:42 on 30-12-2015, Jamie Johnston
Did we all know about Nanogenmo? I didn't.
at 20:00 on 29-12-2015, Robinson L
This seemed like an article which may be of interest to other Ferretneurons (some of you have probably read it already): 80 Books No Woman Should Read; not an actual list, but a somewhat tongue-in-cheek response to a piece in Esquire which apparently still gets circulated every so often, "The 80 Best Books Every Man Should Read." It features a good discussion of contemporary gender politics, examining the effects of patriarchal literature on women and men (with a bit of questioning the whole gender binary thrown in), and a gleeful willingness to talk smack about several of the 20th Century's "Great Man" authors (and Ayn Rand).

There's a follow-up article inspired by the reaction the author got - mostly from men - about her mention of identifying with the eponymous Lolita of Nabokov's novel, but I haven't read that one yet.