It may be 2017, but the internet, including us, is not done talking about the Gilmore Girls revival:
McSweeney’s published a hilarious rejection letter of Rory’s memoir.
The Millions has an essay on how Rory’s changes reflected the changed political mood of the new millennium. It’s quite brilliant, even though it woefully misquotes a scene, attributing one of Lorelai’s funniest lines to the undeserving Rory.
Meanwhile, elsewhere on the Internet:
The NYT wrote about the books that got Obama through the presidency. Among them are Colson Whitehead’s The Underground Railroad, which I liked a lot but perhaps didn’t love, and The Three-Body Problem, which Keets definitely loved.
In Bitch Magazine, there’s an insightful exploration of the vastness of Jane Eyre‘s influence on feminist and female literature.
Joseph March, the hero of Alexander Maksik’s novel Shelter In Place, has two problems: tar, and a bird. The tar is the black, creeping heaviness of his depression, which comes along with periods of mania; the bird is the painful part, the part that pierces his chest. He has bipolar disorder (or rather has something unnamed that, with its cycles from up to down, resembles it), and he’s constantly haunted by his own, inexplicable, internal rhythms of pain and joy. Alexander Maksik has lit upon a perfect metaphor for severe depression.
Continue reading →
This week in media, everyone has an opinion on Gilmore Girls! Here are a few of the best we’ve read, and stay tuned–we’ll be putting up a few opinions of our own here. There seems to be just one thing everyone can agree on: Fat-shaming sucks.
At Vox, Aja Romano makes a compelling argument that Stars Hollow, or maybe the show itself, is in the business of destroying women’s potential.
The Atlantic thinks Rory is a horrible journalist, and we have to agree.
At The New Yorker, Betsy Morais views Rory as a case of arrested development.
Duana at Lainey Gossip bucks the trend, arguing that Rory isn’t that bad.
At Vulture, Amy Sherman-Palladino explains why A Year in the Life ends just before the election: because they didn’t have the budget to show what happens when the actual devil takes over the world. Hee!
At Vanity Fair, Laura Bradley makes the argument that Emily is the real protagonist. I don’t know about that, but she is certainly a delight.
Amy Sherman-Palladino says in her first post-revival interview that Rory doesn’t have to go through with [SPOILER], although from context clues, that seems a little disingenuous.
Watch Pixar’s adorable short about a baby sandpiper learning to find food: Piper.
The Beauty and the Beast pictures out on EW this week are ridiculously exciting for us.
At LA Review of Books‘ blog Avidly, there is a great piece on why Madame Merle is appealing to contemporary feminism. (To be clear, we are still Team Archer, all the way.)
The cast of Girls performed Emily Doe’s powerful essay about sexual assault in honor of her Woman of the Year award:
It’s here!! A full trailer for Netflix’s Gilmore Girls Revival! At least two Adversion writers have shed actual tears watching it. The third isn’t disclosing.
Christopher Marlowe has officially been credited as a co-author on three of Shakespeare’s plays: all three parts of Henry VI. AKA the Shakespeare plays you never quite made it through.
The Walking Dead came back this week, and the resolution to the cliffhanger was almost as terrible as the cliffhanger itself. There are lots of scathing reviews circulating, but Vox calling it “terminally stupid television” sounds about right.
The Awl has a hilarious piece on creepy milk drinkers from popular culture, including good old Walter from Westworld.
Happy Halloween! Read Flavorwire’s collection of classic literature’s six uncanniest moments.
Braindead was officially cancelled this week, according to TVLine. It’s probably for the best since it was hard to imagine the storyline extending into another season, but we’ll miss seeing Johnny Rae Gill and Aaron Tveit every week next summer.
The Baffler wrote a thoughtful analysis of the state of realism in contemporary literature:
Nor do critics worry that the “social issues” presented in our novels rarely attain the complexity of cable television. Or that a novel genuinely concerned with social life (or even the social role of a single person) could itself, against this backdrop, be idiosyncratic. It’s sad, in other words, that the novels of Jonathan Franzen register to most as sociopolitical literature. Freedom isn’t a social novel on the level of Wharton. It’s a decelerated twenty-four-hour news channel.
The first Nashville season five teaser has been released!
People aren’t loving Ewan MacGregor’s directorial debut American Pastoral, which is sad because the book was great. The NYT mildly disliked it, and Rolling Stone haaaated it (and it’s always fun to read a pan).
The New Yorker says Westworld caters disproportionately to stereotypically male fantasies in the excellent piece “The Meta-Politics of Westworld.”
Joss Whedon says he’s a Spuffy shipper, because Spike is a “more evolved” character than Angel. We only agree with the latter statement.
This week, The Good Wife‘s Josh Charles got in costume as a lawyer one more time for an excellent cause:
Not to get TOO political, but you should also check out this collection of the best #TrumpBookReport tweets.
Keith & the Movies gives a rave review to one of our favorite movies from this year, Jane Austen adaptation Love & Friendship.
“I can’t imagine anything a black man would want to be more right now than bulletproof,” says Mike Colter in an article on the Huffington Post, “Marvel’s Luke Cage is the Bulletproof Black Superhero We Need Right Now.”
Aaron Bady of The LA Review of Books calls HBO’s Westworld “the most consciously reflexive TV show I’ve ever seen.”
The New Yorker argues that the so-called “first conservative art show in America” inspired by Donald Trump is quite terrible from an artistic perspective, which, sure.
You know you want to read an epic fanwank from 2009 about the theory of management (supposedly) underlying The Office.
At the LA Review of Books, Aaron Hanlon passionately argues against the tired notion that humanities Ph. D.s are irrational for pursuing their degrees at all.