Comments on: The New Yorker slobbers over Alice Munro

By: Barryfitz McMorleyoconnellcuddy

Barryfitz McMorleyoconnellcuddy — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:09:46 +0000

What’s mean and nasty, you ask? I’ll tell you . . . limply offering “well-deserved” where only “monumentally deserved” or “enormously merited” will suffice. This is an outrage, Whitlock.

By: Shaun Smith

Shaun Smith — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 21:10:04 +0000

Hey, this is CanLit dagnabit, no humour allowed!

By: Nic Boshart

Nic Boshart — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 19:46:04 +0000

Can you point out to me exactly what portion of this blog post is mean? Alice Munro’s prose style can be a little dry? Is that the clever nastiness you’re speaking of?
This piece is nothing more than a short article on a funny reaction to literary news. It’s okay, both Ms. Munro and The New Yorker can take a little ribbing now and again. They’re grown ups.

By: patricia

patricia — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 18:44:19 +0000

The ‘stodgy elitist institution’ argument is a horse that has been flogged to death. This snarky commentary serves no purpose other than to amuse the author of the post, and I suppose the various readers who snigger at its clever nastiness.

I have noticed an increasing level of meanness in this blog recently, which I think is sad, and does a great disservice to Q&Q.

Oh, and congratulations to Ms. Munro.

By: Nic Boshart

Nic Boshart — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:59:38 +0000

Oh come on, he’s poking fun at a stodgy institution for being elitist. Good article Nathan, people need to chill the ‘eff’ out.

By: patricia

patricia — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 12:19:16 +0000

I gotta say, I was pretty turned off by this comment, too. The elitist sarcasm on this blog has really become very tiresome.

By: Michael

Michael — Sun, 31 May 2009 19:32:34 +0000

Who the eff are you? Given the low quality of the sarcasm here–in turn the lowest form of commentary–you are in no position to judge either Munro or the New Yorker.