June 21, 2004 8:28 PM   Subscribe

Blocked The New Yorker's Joan Acocella looks at literary history in discussing the dread Writer's Block.
posted by LinusMines (4 comments total)
An autobiographical riff on the article at (the fantastic) clap clap.
posted by Marquis at 9:40 PM on June 21, 2004

The first thing this article has going for it: Schadenfreude for Coleridge. Oh, would that his muse had passed him over, sparing us all his crap.

The second thing: It's really good. It's nice to know where all the art and madness, sophomore slump, etc. stuff comes from. Plus, the reader gets to nod knowingly at the names that litter the article, "Oh yes, Melville. Uhhm, Harper Lee. Huh, Salinger, right. " You get to be complicit in the psychoanalysts' condescension for these sad, confused souls, and still think Freud is full of shit.
posted by putzface_dickman at 5:27 AM on June 22, 2004

NewYorkerFilter; and last week's New Yorker, at that.
posted by ChasFile at 7:15 AM on June 22, 2004

Yeah! We want this week's latest on Samuel Coleridge's writer's block!

Oddly enough, I missed last week's New Yorker. Maybe because I don't live in New York, never see it in the local newsagents, don't subscribe to it, and don't hang out on their website. So I would have missed this but for MeFi. Thanks, LinusMines.
posted by rory at 3:10 AM on June 23, 2004

« Older Joseph Pujol   |   This site contains some material which might be... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments