Interlude: How was your August?
back soon with more dispatch
Hello, again. I have a piece on crypto books (I know, I know, I’m with you), value systems, misconceptions of fanfiction, making ourselves (un)available for profit, and why art by committee and monopolies are not good for us.1 It’s percolating, I’m writing, but then I was pulled away from editing by the ceaseless churn of the New York City real estate market (unenviable! draining! mildly humiliating!). So, once again, Eileen Myles’s poem holds true for this gloamy month of summer:
And not one of them did!
In the meantime, welcome to the new readers who possibly joined from my colleague Christine Jacobson’s utterly fabulous newsletter, “Luxe Libris.” Each monthly issue includes a fascinating interview with a rare book practitioner on their work and their style, incorporating fashion history, bookishness, and design. If you enjoy insightful, highly-informed conversations, I highly recommend subscribing!
No housekeeping, as we are houseseeking (see above comments re: NYC real estate).
bird: enjoy this little dude enjoying a shower.
See you in September, when there will be—
More later.
My friend Sam wrote and pointed out that this sentence should read that “art by committee and monopolies is not good for us,” as art is the singular noun here. I originally meant to say that “art by committee” and “monopolies” (separate) are not good for us, but art by committee and by monopoly also is not good for us. In any case, however you read the sentence, I am not in favor, and take it with a grain of grammar salt.