I think that line meant "in the more openly autobiographic later novel Poole was exactly as McInerney had described her in his earlier work"

It could have been more explicit perhaps but I got the idea. The "well-coiffed" line was sort of crappy, but what are you gonna do?

However this is my real question: So you think the fact that this article connects the character and a real person is somehow being hidden? Craftily camouflaged?

What part of "this article is about Rielle Hunter" is hard to grasp? The title, with Hunter's name in it? The lines about how several authors based their characters named "Allison Poole" on Hunter?

That Bright Lights novel was a bit of 80s fluff to be sure, but I found it funny. I see it very much like Tom Wolfe's fiction, bad fiction writing that nonetheless chronicles a world I didn't know, which makes it more interesting than a lot of other fluff out there. Both Wolfe and Mcinerny would be better off just doing journalism, something that Wolfe used to do very well before he became a bad novelist.

I don't think there was any notion in anyone's mind except yours that the writer here was using sneaky and snarky tricks to describe Rielle Hunter while pretending not to. I can't speak for others, but her photo at the top of the page was the first giveaway for me.

So, yeah: Justin took a grad-studentish shortcut that, as a grad student, he ought to avoid if he intends to write for careful readers.

That was fascinating. I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. Lucky for me, niether do you, so we're even!

Almost right about Vonnegut, but he was never "in a British POW camp". I'd venture to say he was never held captive by the British at all. The scene you mention is from when he was in a German POW camp along with British soldiers who were also POWS, and it's one of my favorites ever. I loved the way he just injected himself, without artifice.

What any of this has to do with this article escapes me though. Entirely. The part where the author of this article said "every word written about this character based on this real person therefore describes this real person without variation" escaped me also. That's my only guess at what you might be trying to critique, which is fine except that it doesn't exist.

Oh and Vonnegut? He was most definitely in Dresden. I'm sorry to report that not knowing this most basic bit of background would tend to impeach that arrogant sense of authority about his work you're trying to project. Just a bit.

By the way, you cited "Bill E." You might have looked at the rest of my screen name.

Sorry, but I'll be honest. I'm far more impressed with the graduate student than I am with the professor who's sneering at him. So far anyway.

A blatant post of concern.

I am concerned about Obama. Terribly concerned. Downright worried.

The problem that McCain is an excellent debater. He prepares. He's sharp. He's on point. He doesn't meander around being contemplative and searching for a complex answer.

-AKA Smith

Here we have honesty, at least, someone admitting that all of the "concern troll" charecterizations are not so far fetched, in fact someone coming this close to using the term to describe onesself.

The corporate conservative-biased media gives McCain a pass. Salon.com, which aspires to be some sort of alternative to that-- gives McCain a pass. Unless there was something in the article I missed.

McCain announced that he was "pro-life". He glared into the camera and said it. He stated unequivically that "full human rights" are to be conferred on a fetus "at the moment of conception".

He said that.

Thus contradicting himself, revealing that he is entirely willing to pander to any degree in order to win over the extreme right base that has scared him by threatening to reject him for his too moderate views on issues of choice and so on.

This is what I saw. This, in a nation nearly destroyed by far right wing excess for eight years, is what should be pushed and mentioned and underlined by anyone offering an alternative to the right wing noise machine.

What does Salon do? Salon presents a long article taking great exception with fine points about Barack Obama's mannerisms, his decision to attend the event, and whether he "won" because McCain looked confident, or something, while reversing himself and expressing views far to the right of most of the country, and most especially most women.

Is this is just more of the exact same soft-on-McCain skew that's basically what you hear in the rest of the corporate media? No, here it's "We're concerned". This is justification for focusing on every little nitpicky point about Barack Obama's gestures or speech patterns while ignoring the embarrasingly shameless pandering himself right out of the mainstream into the far right, of McCain.

Joan Walsh won't use the word but at least the posters here who agree with her will.