As a reviewer, the more I read about this book, the less interested I was, It struck me as tendentious, unoriginal, drab. using his shaky methodology, I could convincingly argue that the author was actually an educated slave in the household of a rich family, one who was, say, a tutor. Then maybe give it some spice and say he wrote under duress because Homer was under a deadline and suffering writer's block. And see, all that savagery is really the slave's revenge against the white warrior class that oppressed him. Oh, did I forget to mention he was probably a man of color? So you get race, class and gender in a lovely package. And of course white Homer would steal from a slave of color. This is history's first major plagiarism scandal!

The author of this book and even the scholars quoted at second hand by O'Hehir seem either venal or dense to me.

<<Other scholars puzzled over the text.... people and things always carry the same attributes whether or not they seem appropriate in context. The Trojan hero Hector is "man-killing Hector" even in a peaceful setting; Odysseus is "resourceful" or "wily" even when he is lost, clueless and terrified. The "life-giving Earth" is still described that way when fallen heroes are being buried in it>>.

There's nothing remotely puzzling about the repetitions when you listen to the work being read. Tags like "man-killing Hector" are in one sense the equivalent of a costume--they identify individuals in a long, complex work. But they go deeper--they can also refer to the character's essence.

People "puzzled" by this are either prisoners of their own period's story-telling, or desperate to create a problem that they can then offer a cooked-up solution to. When I recently listened to the sublime Derek Jacobi's performance of The Iliad, I smiled with recognition each time I heard a character's tag repeated. I wasn't puzzled or annoyed, I enjoyed it, and if there was dramatic contrast between the tag and the moment, even better! Honestly, anyone who can wonder how Homer can call it "the life-giving Earth" when someone is being buried shouldn't be engaged in literary criticism, shouldn't even be reading books of any kind.

Interesting note about no screen chemistry between Foxx and Farrell. I watched them present the original 2-hour pilot to Miami Vice on NBC last week, along with some scenes from the film, and what a contrast.

The original pair sizzled and outclassed the rest of the cast, but Foxx and Farrell seemed totally disconnected and there was a very weird vibe going on. You got the distinct feeling that Farrell didn't want to be there, with Foxx or without, and that Foxx was pretending nothing was going on.

Maybe since Brokeback Mountain, buddy movies unnerve the two leads. . . .

Holleran is one of the few writers, gay or straight, whose books I want to re-read to experience the world he creates. When people at readings or in interviews ask which post-WW II authors I admire most, who's inspired me as a novelist, I rank Holleran with Roth and Brookner and Baldwin. I couldn't put Grief down it was so compelling. It has amazing depth, richness, and resonance given how short it is. It's filled with one quotable line after another and it offers a brand new view of Washington, DC. If you've recently read Team of Rivals, as I have, it will mean even more. I'm so glad to see salon give Holleran his due, especially since Dancer inspired some very strange commentary in the 90s, so much so that I had to write an essay called "Why are They Bashing Dancer from the Dance?" which appeared in Lambda Book Report and my book Journeys & Arrivals.

There's only one reason Coulter would be gay-bashing. She herself is gay and is trying to divert attention from her own secret. We've all met people like that. I mean, honestly, what was all that about her sharing an address with her female real estate broker? And look at her attempts at being feminine and sexy--those are desperate camouflage. That explains the anomaly, as Kathy Griffin points out, of Coulter wearing a cocktail dress at 7:00 in the morning. And speaking of drowning her in ridicule, I think it's time for salon.com to have a Coulter Watch, written in turns by Griffin, Mark Leyner, Molly Ivins.

The sheer inanity of his comments is overwhelming--when we see them in print, which has never been often enough because the MSM "protects" the public from hearing and reading how this man thinks. Usually the excerpts past muster as borderline literate or on-target. Here, however, he sounds, as usual, like someone whose index cards have fallen and gotten put back together in random order. It's almost as if he's adopting Wm. Burroughs via David Bowie and using cut-ups to put together an answer.

The letter doesn't make sense (unless ot's a goof). His dad is very secretive and he found his dad's porn stash? Well, you'd expect anyone with kids to keep his porn hidden. But the implication is that the letter writer had to do some significant snooping to find it. Now, why is he or she doing this? I think the writer has some real problems that need therapy even before dealing with the fact that the father might be gay, or bi, or bi-curious (none of which is anyone's business).

And Cary, your letter is a gross over-reaction. No matter how old the kid is, it's not his duty to confront the dad or speak to the mother, especially in a homophobic environment. You've really steered your correspondent wrong and could create a nightmare for the entire family. This isn't the first time you've dealt with somebody wanting to reveal someone else's possible gay identity like this. I think you may need some therapy yourself to look into why you feel the need to respond the way you do. You certainly should steer clear of this topic until you gain more insight.