What we read while getting nostalgic about driving the New York State Thruway in the Summer of ’69:
- Two months ago, John S wrote about the unclear future of television; this week, Slate did the same thing. WITH NO HAT TIP! All we want is an apology, our 75 cents back, and for Seth Stevenson to be fired! (We’re also excited for Slate to continue to be two months behind our intrepid reporting: in October, a careful pondering of the legacy of Funky Winkerbean.)
- We’ve already talked about our fascination with Brewers’ utility infielder Craig Counsell (if parenthetically); apparently, we’re not alone.
- The Economist discusses the rise of home-schooling in America and what that says about the citizenry and the school system. If you hadn’t noticed, we’ve had a few things to say about “Education” ourselves (and by “we,” we mean “Josh”).
- We basically should just tell you to read the New York Times Magazine each week, but when Political Science gets a feature-length article, it merits additional mention: Check out this article chronicling Political Science Professor Bruce Bueno de Mesquita’s impressive modeling to predict Iranian nuclear behavior, among other interesting tidbits.
- Want to know why to you have to shut-off your iPod during take-off? If you’ve ever flown on a plane before, you should find this series of interviews by the Freakonomics blog with an anonymous commercial pilot quite interesting.
- We’ve previously mentioned the NPI-consensus best announcing trio in baseball, but our feelings about this recent Neil Best subject are, shall we say, more nuanced. Yankee fans have a much more intricate relationship with broadcasters, sometimes involving/requiring alcohol.
- You may have noticed by now that two of NPI’s favorite things are rankings and literature. Rankings of literature, then, are a rare and precious thing, like this list of the 100 greatest writers of all time. So we can forgive a few egregious mistakes, like Faulkner at #1 and Shakespeare at #3.
Advertisement

Posted by Tim on August 17, 2009 at 5:10 PM
For the record, the egregious mistake is patronizing Faulkner with his inclusion on such a list. Bill Faulkner is so far beyond any of these guys, it’s kind of an insult.
Posted by John S on August 17, 2009 at 7:33 PM
How can Faulkner be the greatest writer ever if he’s not even the best American novelist of the 20th century?
Posted by Tim on August 17, 2009 at 7:38 PM
Most people who ask that question would add a parentheses that states who they think the best American novelist of the 20th century is.
Posted by Tom on August 17, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Any list that describes Hemingway with a sentence containing the phrase “like his less talented peer F. Scott Fitzgerald” too clearly reveals its inadequacy. I’m sure Alex would agree, if he owned an internets.
Posted by Tom on August 18, 2009 at 3:11 PM
And there’s no Camus. And Tolstoy is too low down compared to stupid Nabokov. And I’m hungry.
Posted by Josh on August 19, 2009 at 1:45 AM
“stupid Nabokov”: We know that Jane Chong has not looked at this comment thread of late…
Posted by Tim on August 20, 2009 at 1:55 AM
I can’t kill Nabokov; after all, he is the author of some of my favorite sentences (“It was delicious meeting you” being the one off the top of my head). It’s interesting to see Tolstoy below Russian writers such as Chekhov and Turgenev; part of me wonders if it’s a class thing. Tolstoy, unlike most of his countrymen (and esp. his contemporary ones), wasn’t a revolutionary. It appears he’s been penalized for that, at least by this list.
I’m just glad, Tom, that you didn’t go after Fyodor. He is, in John’s terms, beyond reproach.
Posted by janechong on August 20, 2009 at 1:18 AM
Nabokov is gibberish to readers who resist complicated art. Anyone able to understand a fraction of his work can at least muster up an appreciation for his brilliance. That is all.
Also, weighing Fitzgerald against Hemingway is commonplace enough, and declaring that Fitzgerald comes up short has somehow become a safe pronouncement to make. That doesn’t make either critical move any less absurd.
Posted by Josh on August 20, 2009 at 4:09 PM
“Nabokov is gibberish to readers who resist complicated art. Anyone able to understand a fraction of his work can at least muster up an appreciation for his brilliance. That is all.”
-Jane Chong’s way of halting any potential for future friendship between herself and Tom.