(Since I mislabeled my previous links post a day too early, I’m labeling this one a day late to make sure the universe’s (or at least, this blog’s) math squares up.)
1. Literary insults (via Page-Turner at New Yorker.com).
2. Best Book Designs of 2012.
3. A survey of readers shows rural types read less than urbanites or suburbanites. Seems about right.
4. Writers who don’t live in NYC. Sometimes I wonder how living in a city with an actual literary culture would’ve affected my writing. Since I live nowhere near any literary culture more vibrant than a community library (though I have facetiously proposed to my writing students that we stage a poetry reading at the popular local venue of the bowling alley), I suspect that I’m less likely to feel an influence to write like my neighbor-writers do, so I’m more free to write about what I choose in the style that I choose. On the other hand, I also lack positive influence. But on the third hand, I’m not neutering my writing to appeal to a paying audience, but also, living where I do, I sometimes forget that there are other people besides myself who care about writing.
5. Key & Peele’s self-aware bully.
Some selections of writings about guns and school and guns in school follow. I am hesitant to post these, because I don’t want to make this blog too political, but I do appreciate the viewpoints these authors raise.
6. A writer points out, from her experience, that “much of gun-loving actually is [is] a passion for destruction veiled as protection.”
7. Adam Gopnik’s “The Simple Truth About Gun Control.”
8. “Should Teachers Carry Guns?”(Certainly not this teacher. I’m way too clumsy. And the few times I have fired my relatives’ guns, I’ve become anxious about holding that much destructive power in my own hand — Vonnegut’s “Deadeye Dick” came to mind. Also, a friend has said that he prefers a Taser for self-defense over a gun, because using a gun permanently changes the lives of both the shooter and the shootee.)
9. Jeffrey Toobin on the Second Amendment.
10. The U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”) allows people to bear arms, but it doesn’t seem to mention a right to bullets. And of course, if we look at that amendment with an Originalist framework, what the Framers knew as “Arms” were things that were single-shot, black-powder, heavy, and inaccurate. Anything more advanced than that would not be what the Framers intended, no?