Skip

Max at Sea.
September 3, 2009 1:24 PM   Subscribe

The New Yorker has published "Max at Sea", an excerpt from Dave Egger's novelization of his screenplay for Where the Wild Things Are. The book ships on the October first in hardback and creepy hardback. (via Jesse Thorn's Maximum Fun)

The film Where the Wild Things Are is an adaptation (for a definition of "adaptation" that will not get me punched) of the beloved children's book. Saki Knafo has profiled Spike Jonze, director of the movie, in The New York Times. (previously, with trailers) (previously, with a blog)

Hooray!
posted by shadytrees (70 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

 
I can't wait to read the fanfic for the spinoff of the tv series based on the novelization of the screenplay of the children's book.
posted by brain_drain at 1:30 PM on September 3, 2009 [4 favorites]


At least it's not going to rain meatballs.
posted by GuyZero at 1:33 PM on September 3, 2009


Dave Egger's novelization of his screenplay for Where the Wild Things Are

This right here is one of the most horrifying phrases I've ever read.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:34 PM on September 3, 2009 [15 favorites]


excerpt from Dave Egger's novelization of his screenplay

My theory of artistic greatness: you can tell something is a masterwork based on the amount of parasites it is able to support. The trickle-down effect of creative genius.
posted by infinitefloatingbrains at 1:35 PM on September 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


Sure sure, novelization of a screenplay adaptation of a children's book, hah hah, but did anyone actually read the excerpt? Because I just did and I thought it sucked.
posted by nanojath at 1:38 PM on September 3, 2009


Dave Egger's novelization of his screenplay for Where the Wild Things Are

Flagged as twee-tastic.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 1:40 PM on September 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


"I WANT to find some unicorn DNA and then grow a bunch of them and teach them to impale Claire’s friends with their horns. "

This is either a nod to or a rip off of a Perry Bible Fellowship comic.
posted by hermitosis at 1:43 PM on September 3, 2009


That's the thing - images turned into a screenplay turned into a novel... it just gets watered down.

The reason why 'Where the Wild Things Are' still resonates today is that those pictures were emotionally charged. I still remember this vague feeling I had when it was read to me as a child. Its not the images so much as the personal, imaginative reaction to them. You just can't replicate that in long form fiction.
posted by infinitefloatingbrains at 1:45 PM on September 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


This is either a nod to or a rip off of a Perry Bible Fellowship comic. (hermitosis)

Gah. Why did CollegeHumor go and stick a huge "CollegeHumor" graphic over the PBF? That bothers me. They didn't create it.
posted by ocherdraco at 1:48 PM on September 3, 2009


Because I just did and I thought it sucked.

I concur. Irea lly dislike the whole idea of taking the original story, which is really about imagination and magic, and trying to cram it into some sort of "realism".
posted by doctor_negative at 1:49 PM on September 3, 2009


Wow it's true, as hyped as anything is to start the pendulum will swing exactly as far away in the opposite spectrum. What is the What was a stunningly good book, as is the mans work educating kids and running pirate shops. Those things combined excuse his excesses of twee indy hipster-dom
posted by Keith Talent at 1:52 PM on September 3, 2009


> a Perry Bible Fellowship comic.

Non-watermarked version of Nice Shirt, on the official PBF site.
posted by ardgedee at 1:52 PM on September 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


Sure sure, novelization of a screenplay adaptation of a children's book, hah hah, but did anyone actually read the excerpt?

Yes. I am not a fan of Dave Eggers nor Where the Wild Things Are, and I liked it "OK." I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.
posted by mrgrimm at 1:53 PM on September 3, 2009


Wow it's true, as hyped as anything is to start the pendulum will swing exactly as far away in the opposite spectrum. What is the What was a stunningly good book, as is the mans work educating kids and running pirate shops. Those things combined excuse his excesses of twee indy hipster-dom

I don't think anyone who likes good books and has actually read his books would deny he's an excellent writer. Much like you see in the indie music scene, there are a lot of people who care a lot about "credibility" and putting labels on things and all these meta-concepts but, when it comes down to it, they don't actually like music (or books) that much.

As for this, at first glance, I don't love it. Seems weird to adapt a children's book into a novel.
posted by drjimmy11 at 1:57 PM on September 3, 2009


This (mp3) is the only 'adaption' of Where The Wild Things Are I think I'll ever enjoy; two little kids reading the story with musical accompaniment. Simple and adorable, like the book. (via)
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 1:59 PM on September 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


Non-watermarked version of Nice Shirt, on the official PBF site.

Funny, they're selling a "Unicorn Power" shirt, and I searched their strips for that title and came up with nothing. It should actually be a "Nice Shirt" shirt.
posted by hermitosis at 2:00 PM on September 3, 2009


I read it. Did not like.

PS. Let the wild rumpus begin? Oh, Dave.
posted by peep at 2:03 PM on September 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


My theory of artistic greatness: you can tell something is a masterwork based on the amount of parasites it is able to support. The trickle-down effect of creative genius.

This totally supports my theory that Pokemon is the capstone of human artistic endeavor.

But I'm completely sold on this movie as a thing to do while I'm home visiting my parents, regardless of its artistic merits.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 2:04 PM on September 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


This totally supports my theory that Pokemon is the capstone of human artistic endeavor.

that aint no theory, it's a fact.

but come on ya old scroodges, how can you watch the trailer and not get shivers? even if they’re twee shivers, or whatever we’re calling it now
posted by Think_Long at 2:08 PM on September 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


I don't have a problem with doing an adult take on a children's classic (for example -- Wicked). I just think this is BORING. I've never been a fan of Egger's prose though. It's so bland.
posted by empath at 2:09 PM on September 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


but come on ya old scroodges, how can you watch the trailer and not get shivers?

I've never read the original books and I adore the trailers and can't wait to see the movie.
posted by empath at 2:10 PM on September 3, 2009


It is amazing how quickly people trip over themselves to hate the very concept of a Where the Wild Things Are movie. It's like someone posted an article about bikes and cars.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 2:14 PM on September 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


The movie may be ok to good considering it is Spike Jonez, the novelization of a screenplay for a (great) kids book? yeah I don't need to read it, my craptastic radar pings like hell to that.
posted by edgeways at 2:15 PM on September 3, 2009


I was wondering where that Eggers piece came from. I read it and, at first, I thought it was sort of a sideways, respectful pastiche on the book and upcoming movie. I hadn't bothered to do the research enough to learn who did it.

I thought the piece was pretty good, and am quite looking forward to the movie.

If you don't really like any idea about the book being made into a movie, maybe this isn't the thread for you?
posted by hippybear at 2:26 PM on September 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


It is amazing how quickly people trip over themselves to hate the very concept of a Where the Wild Things Are movie.

Oh, I have no problem with the movie.

The fact that there is a novelization of the movie makes me itch, though.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 2:26 PM on September 3, 2009 [1 favorite]




The fact that there is a novelization of the movie makes me itch, though.

I don't think that's quite what it is. My impression is that he worked on the book and the screenplay at the same time.
posted by empath at 2:29 PM on September 3, 2009


but come on ya old scroodges, how can you watch the trailer and not get shivers? even if they’re twee shivers, or whatever we’re calling it now

The trailer made it clear to me that this is a movie meant for 20-something adults, not kids. The excerpt here only reinforces that: Max doesn't find the land of the "wild things" through a pure accident of imagination--he stumbles across it while escaping his step father, because he wants to run away, because he misses his dad. It's all about the grown-ups.

I liked the first section of the excerpt, but it goes rapidly, rapidly downhill from there. The dialog is pretty terrible. And how come there's no snow in the woods, if it was snowy enough for a snowfort the day before? Is it because it's aaaaaaaaaall a dreeeeeeeam?

I don't think anyone who likes good books and has actually read his books would deny he's an excellent writer.

I like good books. I only read AHWOSG, but I thought it was awful. Awful!
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 2:30 PM on September 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


FUCK THIS SHIT
posted by fleetmouse at 2:32 PM on September 3, 2009


The Shadow Editors review the Eggers excerpt at the Awl.

Wow those people are fucking obnoxious.
posted by empath at 2:32 PM on September 3, 2009


Why do you guys immediately assume that the book and the movie will suck instead of thinking, "Hmm, that's an unusual thing to do. Maybe he was inspired by the book, as many have before him, and that inspiration carried him through the writing of a screenplay and a full-length novel serving as homage to one man's creativity and artistic vision."

Cuz, y'know, that could be good.
posted by ekroh at 2:33 PM on September 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


(that was my review of the shadow editors reviewing the new yorker excerpt of dave egger's novelization of his adapted screenplay of the children's book 'where the wild things are' by maurice sendak)
posted by empath at 2:34 PM on September 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


Why do you guys immediately assume that the book and the movie will suck instead of thinking, "Hmm, that's an unusual thing to do. Maybe he was inspired by the book, as many have before him, and that inspiration carried him through the writing of a screenplay and a full-length novel serving as homage to one man's creativity and artistic vision."

Because we just read part of the book, and it sucked?
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 2:34 PM on September 3, 2009


the original story, which is really about imagination and magic

It is? I always thought that Max had just stumbled upon his parents' stash of acid.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:36 PM on September 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


Here is a piece from the upcoming NYT Magazine about Spike Jonze and the work behind the adaptation of the book.
posted by uaudio at 2:39 PM on September 3, 2009


This thread made me finally watch the trailer. And what I think the trailer and the novelization or whatever it is really misses is - Max is obnoxious (sorry Biblio!) He is obnoxious at home and that is why he is sent to bed. He goes to the land of The Wild Things and he is obnoxious there. And finally the fun of being obnoxious wears off. Oh, and the moral that your mother still loves you in the end.

(I am the mother of a five year old. Not named Max, but might as well be at the moment.)

Fact is, I am not sure why this movie is being made, other than the obvious it will make shedloads of money for Sendak (and all power to him - money for jam as they say). It is a beautiful book that is deep and treasured by many because of its simplicity, and fabulous illustrations, both of which are lost in the movie. And they are re-interpreting it up the wazoo, which never works.
posted by Megami at 2:48 PM on September 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


My theory of artistic greatness: you can tell something is a masterwork based on the amount of parasites it is able to support. The trickle-down effect of creative genius.

I like to imagine a regatta of bloated corpses, great and aspiring artists all. Each are burdened by leeches, and all these bodies are lunging towards some distant goal. Every now and again, a corpse will sink, overpowered by the weight of the parasites, while a new body bobs up from the deeps, joining the competition.

Thanks to you, infinitefloatingbrains, this is my vision of artist competition. When hear someone sing praises of an artist, I will wonder: how many parasites can he or she sustain?
posted by filthy light thief at 2:50 PM on September 3, 2009 [3 favorites]


The movie is being made because Spike Jonze decided to make the movie. He's a director with a long successful track record of doing movies which create a reality entirely their own.

As far as the book being about imagination and magic, I thought the book was about a child's temper tantrum.
posted by hippybear at 3:17 PM on September 3, 2009


Fact is, I am not sure why this movie is being made, other than the obvious it will make shedloads of money for Sendak

I'm just going to copy/paste what I said in the previous post about this, regarding Spike Jonze as a director. Someone implied he was simply a corporate music video director, out to make money.

...his first feature film was about a door in an office that takes you into the head of John Malkovich for 10 minutes before spitting you out near a turnpike in New Jersey. His second movie was Adaptation, which is a highly fictionalised autobiographical account of him trying to adapt The Orchid Thief into a film script. I can just see the dollar signs light up behind the producer's eyes after the pitches for both these movies. McG he ain't.

It's been 7 years since he made Adaptation. The guy doesn't exactly run after the first movie script he can churn out some cheap cash with.


I read the source material after I saw the trailer. I might have read it when I was younger, but it didn't really make an impression. Don't know Dave Eggers at all. But I have every faith in Spike Jonze making this an interesting movie.
posted by slimepuppy at 3:27 PM on September 3, 2009


The review over at the Awl is pretty obnoxious, but they point out what really bugs me about this: that the New Yorker fiction editors decided to devote this issue to what is essentially a promo for the author's upcoming movie. It's as if they gave over their fiction section to Eggers' PR hacks for the week.

I'm not a fan of Eggers' writing generally, but greatly admire the work he's done with What is the What and his 826 writing centers. That said, last night I went to a volunteer meeting for 826 Boston. The tables were full of stacks of promotional cards for the movie, and the program director conducting the orientation gave it prominent billing throughout her presentation. Totally tacky.
posted by foxy_hedgehog at 3:49 PM on September 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


It's no Dr. Seuss' The Cat in the Hat™: The Movie! - A Little Golden Book, that's for sure.
posted by designbot at 3:57 PM on September 3, 2009


I thought the excerpt was okay, and am really looking forward to seeing the movie after watching the trailer. I suspect, however, that much of my enthusiasm is due to the completely awesome Arcade Fire song it uses.
posted by joelhunt at 3:57 PM on September 3, 2009 [3 favorites]


You know who likes this movie and this screenplay? Maurice Sendak.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 4:34 PM on September 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


You could always just play the Arcade Fire album over the top of The Wizard of Oz instead.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:35 PM on September 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


The problem I see is this: When I read the original book I got to be Max, and the island was right across the creek; I could see the woods from my bedroom window.

I don't recognize Dave Eggers' Max at all. Not in me, and not in any child I know. I usually like Eggers' writing, and I admire his ability to put us inside the mind of his characters. Based on this chapter, he fails to do that this time.
posted by kanewai at 4:40 PM on September 3, 2009


It does seem that Spike Jonze has top writing credit for the screenplay. I don't necessarily know what that means, but I'd bet that Jonze really wrote the movie and Eggers was brought in for some polish.
posted by hippybear at 4:56 PM on September 3, 2009


A Heart Breaking Work of Staggering Coattail Riding.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:20 PM on September 3, 2009 [3 favorites]


I think one of my Traumatic Childhood Experiences™ must have happened in some kind of conjunction with Where The Wild Things Are. I have this very weird mix of nostalgic love and longing combined with a kind of visceral revulsion every time I think of the book or see its cover.

I suppose if I were able to remember sequences of events earlier than late last week, I could go back and try to pin it down, but I also kind of like having dimly-lit corners of my brain that remain a little mysterious. As long as they don't end up with me coming out of a fugue state standing in a tiled room covered in blood, giggling and dual-wielding dripping butcher knives.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:07 PM on September 3, 2009


As far as the book being about imagination and magic, I thought the book was about a child's temper tantrum.

Agreed (not to say that it isn't imaginative and magical!). The book is about sublimating the rage a child feels towards his mother. In fact, this is what many Sendak stories are about. In "In the Night Kitchen," the protagonist's anger at being left out of his parent's bed (implicit in the published version, explicit in an earlier draft) prompts a night-time journey rather like Max's. In "Dear Millie," Millie's anger about parental abandonment and the attention lavished on her baby sibling manifests in the wish-fulfillment kidnapping of the baby by goblins (this is chilling); Millie must atone by rescuing the child.
posted by grobstein at 7:36 PM on September 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


Eh, this is okay, but I'm really holding out for WILD THINGS BEGINGS, the gritty reboot that explores the important questions. What made these things so wild? What is at the root of their dual natures, protector/destroyer? What is the scientific explanation for their powers? The opening scene is a back-alley knife-fight between Moishe and Bruno in Chicago, 1955, and it just gets better from there!
posted by No-sword at 8:46 PM on September 3, 2009


grobstein: I now wonder what the subtext in my childhood favorite Really Rosie was/is.
posted by pxe2000 at 3:05 AM on September 4, 2009


In "Dear Millie," Millie's anger about parental abandonment and the attention lavished on her baby sibling manifests in the wish-fulfillment kidnapping of the baby by goblins (this is chilling); Millie must atone by rescuing the child.

Or, ditto, Outside Over There, which is a heck of a lot like Henson's Labyrinth, probably because they were considering collaborating on the latter.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 5:42 AM on September 4, 2009


Shit, I'm embarrassed to say I meant "Outside Over There" when I said "Dear Millie."
posted by grobstein at 11:17 AM on September 4, 2009


I was reading the Awl review linked in the comments, when it hit me: Stuff like this, and the various Seuss adaptations they compare it to, occupies the exact same place in relation to the childhoods of the moviemakers and their audience as the MGM Wizard of Oz.

This is what Hollywood does - takes your childhood and sells it back to you, often still dripping from what they let their marketing consultants do to it. It is, I suspect, what it will continue to do as long as some form of the "film industry" survives.

I'm disinterested in the movie and the novelization of the movie; I never really connected with Sendak's work. I'm just surprised to see any fiction with even the slightest hint of the fantastic showing up in the New Yorker; I gave up on their fiction years ago because it's all about people in the real world having dreary little mid-life crises.
posted by egypturnash at 2:49 PM on September 5, 2009


Judges are disinterested. You are uninterested.
posted by GuyZero at 7:42 PM on September 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


I just saw the movie, and it is emphatically NOT TERRIBLE. Quite good, in fact.
posted by lalex at 11:22 PM on October 1, 2009


oh you can't leave it at that.
posted by empath at 11:38 PM on October 1, 2009


it was very good! A+ on visuals and costumes (the Wild Thing costumes are surprisingly expressive), B for dialogue. To put it another way, the first and last thirds of the movie were terrific, but the middle third left me a bit bored.

But I am not a real cinemaphile (I see at most 2-3 movies a year), so everyone else's mileage might vary?
posted by lalex at 11:44 PM on October 1, 2009


To put it a third way: anyone who wanted the visual and imaginative spirit of the book to be retained in the movie will probably not be disappointed.
posted by lalex at 11:54 PM on October 1, 2009


To clarify something: I think at least SOME of the protests are not about the movie at all, but rather on the notion that there is a NOVELIZATION of the movie.

In other words:

Where the Wild Things Are was a book. Then it got turned into a movie, which was based on that book.

However -- when the suits at the production company had the meeting to think about marketing tie-ins, and one of them said, "You know, we should release a book to go with the movie..." no one thought to say, "there already is a book, sir, let's just re-release that." Instead, they wrote a whole second book that they're going to tout, and the original classic book -- the one that inspired the whole movie in the first place -- is going to get overlooked.

I'm sure the movie will rock. But when it comes to the BOOK, I didn't need to know Max's original backstory when I read the original book. So I don't see the need for a whole new book WITH that information.

THAT'S what I was shuddering at. The movie is a whole other thing that I don't have a problem with (at least, conceptually).
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:16 AM on October 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


well the novel is for a different audience obviously. I don't think a lot of 5 year old kids are going to want mommy to read them a Dave Eggers book.
posted by empath at 8:57 AM on October 2, 2009


That's my whole point, empath - that the powers that be assume that there is an audience for a Dave Eggers take on WTWTA in the first place.

5-year-old kids aren't interested in a Dave Eggers book -- but who's to say the grown-ups who used to be the 5-year-olds who read the Sendak book are interested either?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:28 AM on October 2, 2009


That's my whole point, empath - that the powers that be assume that there is an audience for a Dave Eggers take on WTWTA in the first place.

I'm getting some clues now. "Suits"? "The powers that be"? "Marketing tie-ins"? It seems to bother you that Dave Eggers's Wild Things is inauthentic and corporate somehow, a form of selling out (bear in mind that Sendak has made strong statements in favor of book and movie; he must be selling out too). Perhaps 1993-Eggers (scroll to "addendum") has something to say to you about selling out. I'm sure the Hollywood execs don't mind that Eggers is coming out with a book, but the postures of Jonze, Eggers, and Sendak all indicate that it's not just a marketing tie-in. It's also a novel.

Personally I do not like Eggers's writing, but I don't think there's anyone out there who doubts he has serious artistic purpose. There's nothing wrong with reinterpreting old art by new, and it doesn't imply any inadequacies in the old art. The Bible, the Odyssey, and Beowulf may all be perfectly fine on their own, but they can also be fruitfully reinterpreted in new art. In a way it's a tribute to the original Sendak that Eggers wants to remake his book. Eggers's Wild Things could be a success or a failure, but it is not an inherently wrong undertaking.
posted by grobstein at 10:34 AM on October 2, 2009


(That link was 2000-Eggers, not 1993-Eggers. Oops.)
posted by grobstein at 10:35 AM on October 2, 2009


The Bible, the Odyssey, and Beowulf may all be perfectly fine on their own, but they can also be fruitfully reinterpreted in new art.

The Bible, the Odyssey, and Beowulf are also all considerably more than 40 years old. It'd be one thing if Dave Eggers were doing a Big Artistic Re-tread of a much older folktale, one which had been in all of consciousnesses for eons -- but this is a Big Artistic Retread of something that's only been around for a generation, and...I just don't see why Dave Eggers feels he needs to flesh out a story that was plenty fleshed out enough for him when he was five.

Again, I have no problem with Dave Eggers' artistic take with the film. But if you think that the reason that a book version of the film exists for sheerly artistic reasons, then I'm afraid we may have to step outside.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:54 AM on October 2, 2009


Again, I have no problem with Dave Eggers' artistic take with the film. But if you think that the reason that a book version of the film exists for sheerly artistic reasons, then I'm afraid we may have to step outside.

Wait. You're not saying you believe the film can be somehow artistically pure, whereas the novelization cannot, are you? Because then we would certainly have to step outside. I would be out there already, from sheer confusion.

Can there not be a written, adult take on a fairy tale, either? Or is that somehow different because fairy tales are usually more than 40 years old?
posted by grobstein at 12:01 PM on October 2, 2009


Mind you, I love Sendak's Wild Things and probably would not like Eggers's -- but that has to do with what his work is like, rather than some basic flaw in the project.
posted by grobstein at 12:02 PM on October 2, 2009


You're not saying you believe the film can be somehow artistically pure, whereas the novelization cannot, are you? Because then we would certainly have to step outside. I would be out there already, from sheer confusion.

There are sufficient differences between books and films for them to be two different genres. Books inspire films all the time, and vice-versa. But they are two distinctly different art forms.

Can there not be a written, adult take on a fairy tale, either?

Oh, hell yeah, there can be (she said, thinking with admiration of Neil Gaiman's Snow, Glass, Apples, for instance). And strangely, I actually wouldn't have been bothered if Eggers had done his own novel outright, instead OF the intervening movie.

But I just get the sense, with the fact that it was a novelized version of his movie, that it was more of an ego thing in Eggers' motivation for novelizing the movie than any grand artistic re-portrayal, as if he just got so proud of the backstory that he thought up for the original book that he just had to share it with everyone...when in truth, the only reason he had to think up this "backstory" all along was because the movie forced him to (and the reason the movie forced him to was simply because "you can't make a feature-length movie out of a ten-sentence text"). It just feels a little shamelessly attention-grabby, for some reason. And, it's also part of the reason why I suspect it was at least encouraged by a marketing team.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:14 PM on October 2, 2009


I'm fairly sure a novel is a different genre than a child's picture-book.
posted by empath at 12:25 PM on October 2, 2009


I'm fairly sure a novel is a different genre than a child's picture-book.

A fair point, but there's a difference between it being a different genre and it being a different art form entirely. It's like: dogs and wolves are in the same basic canid genus, but dogs and elk are not even the same genus. A novel and a picturebook are like dogs and wolves, but a novel and a movie are like a dog and an elk.

For the record, incidentally, I'm just stating why I am bothered by the novelization, and why I believe others are also. I only brought this up because I've been seeing a lot of this conversation in here:

"I'm bothered by the novelization."
"I don't understand why someone wouldn't like the movie."
"But I didn't say the movie bothered me, just the novelization."
"But why? The movie looks aweseome."
"....Again, not talking about the movie. Just the novelization OF the movie."
"I just saw the movie, and it was awesome, so you can rest easy!"
"But..."

I was explaining why it was the novelization, and not the movie, just sat wrong with me personally, and why I believed the others I've seen cringing at the novelization specifically may have also felt the same way. Everyone is, as ever, free to disagree - I'm not trying to convince anyone otherwise, just clarify my own position.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:44 PM on October 2, 2009


« Older 14 iPhones, 23 MacBook Pro laptops and 9 iPod...   |   Lunar Jamming Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post