Does it though Matt? Does it make sense? I'm not really one of those types who rails about government taking over our lives and creeping socialism and black helicopters and all that, but Matt's relaying the extent to which the Swedish state is involved with pop cultural production really touches a nerve. If you can drop out of high school and get government funding to support your punk band, that is not punk. No squalor, no rock. The state is robbing Swedes of their god-given right to keep it real. When will they rise up? You have nothing to lose but your paternity-leave and seat-belts!! p.s. digging the moto jacket Matt. tres euro.

Also, Sorkin was way ahead of you guys.

I wish Matt and Alyssa had said more about the meaning of the Obama trip to the IOC in Copenhagen. The world may love Obama, but my theory is that Obama took votes away from Chicago by his mere presence. Put yourself in the position of an IOC member. After weeks of pouring over proposals that were years in the making, you see the American President waltz in on the day of the voting. And you are going to do... what? Vote the way America asks you to vote? No way! That's poisonous to the IOC's image of independence (and committee members' sense of self-worth). Big mistake, Mr. President.

I can't imagine taking a month to read Underworld. I found it too compelling to put down. I can't read any work of fiction in small pieces like that -- I lose the atmosphere or something.

Alyssa and Matt are missing the most glaring reason why the default profession of everyone on TV who isn't a Doctor or a Trial Lawyer is Architect:* These professions are telegenic. They have all kinds of gear and visible duties and such that make them filmable in a compelling way (the architect's table & rulers etc). Most other jobs don't afford nearly as much to work with visually; it's all sitting in front of a computer screen. I'd bet dollars to donuts that if someone compiled a list of BhTV viewers' professions and then viewed video of everyone commenting in this thread while at work, they'd have a hard time discerning who among us does what. * That is, unless their job is central to the show, as in the Office or Frazier, or is central to the identity of the character, as in King of Queens.

I'd say there's a doctoral dissertation somewhere in the fact that many popular sitcoms of the 70's and 80's centered around a workplace--Cheers, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, Taxi, WKRP in Cincinatti are just the first that come to mind--then in the 90's you had shows based either around a group of friends hanging out (like Seinfeld, or, uh, Friends). The aughts have seen a decline in viewership and quality for most sitcoms, although the best ones, The Office and 30 Rock, are a return to classic workplace situations.

Oof. I'm sure American television is generally funnier than it's ever been, but judge the top 10 or so comedies of the '00's against The League Of Gentlemen, The Office, Garth Marenghi's Darkplace, The Mighty Boosh, Psychoville, Black Books, Peep Show, Extras, Spaced, Green Wing, The I.T. Crowd, The Thick Of It. Yeah, Gordon Ramsay is awesome in his native country and HBO dramas are great, but the U.K. utterly dominates comedy, Matt.

bjkeefe, normally I'd have zipped through it, too. I may have gotten a bit obsessed with some sections of the prose and reread them a couple of times, which slowed me up a bunch.

A diavlog touching on both DFW and DeLillo seems a good a time as any to recommend B.R. Myers' "A Reader's Manifesto" to anyone who hasn't been exposed to it. Searingly cranky and just plain awesome.

Quoting GhaleonQ: Oof. I'm sure American television is generally funnier than it's ever been, but judge the top 10 or so comedies of the '00's against The League Of Gentlemen, The Office, Garth Marenghi's Darkplace, The Mighty Boosh, Psychoville, Black Books, Peep Show, Extras, Spaced, Green Wing, The I.T. Crowd, The Thick Of It. Yeah, Gordon Ramsay is awesome in his native country and HBO dramas are great, but the U.K. utterly dominates comedy, Matt.

Spot on. Black Books was the funniest comedy of the last twenty years. (Is it available in the US?)

Hey! Swedish Jazz is great, and I can't believe it got a shout out. I'm not familiar with the more traditional vein of Swedish Jazz, but the Jazz-Avant-Electronic blend at places like Rune Grammofon has always caught my fancy. I would recommend anyone tickled by the idea to look up Arve Henriksen and Supersilent. Iceland and Finland have their own stunning and internationally renowned music cultures as well, so there must be something about Sub-Arctic Europeans that encourages music-making. edit: oh how embarrassing. Upon further investigation, Rune Grammofon is Norwegian. I was always under the impression it was Swedish. ECM (out of Germany) would be a better source for Swedish Jazz, I imagine. I know they have reach well beyond Sweden, but have released records from notable Swedish Jazzmasters.

Quoting bjkeefe: I can't imagine taking a month to read Underworld. I found it too compelling to put down. I can't read any work of fiction in small pieces like that -- I lose the atmosphere or something.

I agree, "Underworld" is a great read. Peter Mathiessen's "Shadow Country" is a long novel that is worthwhile, too. John

BBC television is crap (with some exceptions: comedy, politics coverage, docs etc); but BBC radio is great, 'specially radio 3 and 4. But there's no beating the States when it comes to drama: Sopranos, The Wire, Six feet under etc. All we get is bad costume dramas adapted from Trollope and Dickens.

I don't know if I misunderstood something, but it seemed to me that Ms. Rosenberg here claims that a Law and Order prosecutor had an "absurdly high" conviction rate of 70.4 percent. In actual fact, I'm sure that a New York City prosecutor with a 70 percent conviction could likely be fired. According to this article, the New York City felony prosecution conviction rate for all boroughs combined is 88.8 percent. What's unrealistic about Law and Order, of course is not that the prosecutors win so many cases, but that so many go to trial. In real life of course, the vast majority of cases are resolved by guilty pleas.

Matt's overview of the situation that befell Canada at the end of last year is woefully underdeveloped, I'm afraid. The Governor General (the Sovereign's representative in Canada) actually did step in and prorogue Parliament at Stephen Harper's request so that a coalition of NDP, Liberals, and Bloc Quebecois couldn't pass a motion of non-confidence and defeat his government. Ignatieff, who was not the leader of the Liberals at the time, although it was widely assumed he would soon follow Stephane Dion, had little to do with the outcome.

Alyssa seemed to try a bit too hard to show she could list lots of actors and songs. But she should blogginghead again.

I am far from an expert in the area but I also think that the ECM label has Swedish jazz artists represented on their recordings. However, I don't think the country has produced another John Coltrane or Miles Davis. John

Quoting alyssarosenberg: bjkeefe, normally I'd have zipped through it, too. I may have gotten a bit obsessed with some sections of the prose and reread them a couple of times, which slowed me up a bunch.

I can certainly understand that. I should make clear that I am not trying to belittle going through a good book slowly. It's something I've often wished I could do. However, the way it works for me with a good piece of fiction is that I either read it pretty much non-stop (two or three sittings at most) or I never finish it.

Quoting Stapler Malone: Alyssa and Matt are missing the most glaring reason why the default profession of everyone on TV who isn't a Doctor or a Trial Lawyer is Architect:* These professions are telegenic. They have all kinds of gear and visible duties and such that make them filmable in a compelling way (the architect's table & rulers etc). Most other jobs don't afford nearly as much to work with visually; it's all sitting in front of a computer screen. [...]

That sounds like at least part of it. On a related note, I remember reading an article about directors who were grousing when de facto prohibition of cigarette smoking on camera came into being -- "I can't film an actor doing nothing!," I remember one saying. Of course, I expect that a non-trivial part of it also has to do with the mindset of Hollywood: "Hey, a show about X made money. Let's do another one!"

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: I don't know if I misunderstood something, but it seemed to me that Ms. Rosenberg here claims that a Law and Order prosecutor had an "absurdly high" conviction rate of 70.4 percent.

In actual fact, I'm sure that a New York City prosecutor with a 70 percent conviction could likely be fired. According to this article, the New York City felony prosecution conviction rate for all boroughs combined is 88.8 percent.

What's unrealistic about Law and Order, of course is not that the prosecutors win so many cases, but that so many go to trial. In real life of course, the vast majority of cases are resolved by guilty pleas.

Excellent point, Abu Noor. That moment bothered me, too. I remember when Gil Garcetti was running for reelection as DA in Los Angeles, and he was bragging about his 90% conviction rate. As was observed by nearly everyone not on his payroll, the way the system worked, what with all the plea bargains and general reluctance to prosecute cases not considered slam dunks, a monkey could get a 90% conviction rate.

Quoting submersibledirigible: edit: oh how embarrassing. Upon further investigation, Rune Grammofon is Norwegian.

Sounds like a joke from A Prairie Home Companion. ;^)

Quoting otto: Alyssa seemed to try a bit too hard to show she could list lots of actors and songs. But she should blogginghead again.

Thanks, otto. I'm still figuring the format out. Also, I was a high school debater, and have an unfortunate and nerdy tendency towards wanting to pile up evidence for arguments.

You guys are right about this: in the show, however, the implication is that Casey Novak's conviction rate (theoretically 71 percent) is supposed to be higher than that of other ADAs (44 percent).

Alyssa, I know you're new at this, but I'm not sure you want to start getting into the to-and-fro in the forum here. We plebs expect our 'heads to be cool and aloof..

Shows involving doctors and lawyers provide easy hooks for an episode of the week. Makes it easy to introduce transient characters, conflicts and drama into the show. Also, remember it is easy to over-ascribe meaning to any trends in TV shows. Any show that is financially successful will spawn attempts to copy the basic formula and suck money from the same trough.

Quoting otto: Alyssa, I know you're new at this, but I'm not sure you want to start getting into the to-and-fro in the forum here. We plebs expect our 'heads to be cool and aloof..

Pay no attention to otto, Alyssa. That is a distinctly non-representative point of view. Most of us highly value diavloggers who participate in the forums.

I'm pretty much like you. Once a book languishes I tend to move on to other shiny objects. I really should read Underworld though. I loved Libra and White Noise.

I really like these culture diavlogs. These two had pretty good chemistry including a funny sitcom cliche*. Silly Matt... *some day I'll figure out how to make diacritical marks on this laptop

Quoting alyssarosenberg: You guys are right about this: in the show, however, the implication is that Casey Novak's conviction rate (theoretically 71 percent) is supposed to be higher than that of other ADAs (44 percent).

Nah, you guys are all wrong! The real reason conviction rates are so high is because innocent people never get prosecuted! See, Ronald Reagan's Attorney General said so:

Perhaps the most radical and foolish attack in this vein came from former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, who, when asked whether “suspects” should have the right to have a lawyer present before police questioning, replied “Suspects who are innocent of a crime should. But the thing is you don’t have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That’s contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.”

(Source) (What are the odds I'll have to explain to someone that I'm being sarcastic?)

I wonder what the conviction rate of Hamilton Burger was?

Quoting themightypuck: I really like these culture diavlogs. These two had pretty good chemistry including a funny sitcom cliche*.

Silly Matt...

*some day I'll figure out how to make diacritical marks on this laptop

If it's a PC laptop, do whatever you have to do to activate the "number pad" keys, which are probably blended in with the regular letter keys -- tap NumLock, probably. Then you can use the old DOS trick for entering so-called extended ASCII characters by holding the ALT key down while entering the character's code number. So, for example, type c,l,i,c,h, and then while holding the ALT key down, press 1,3,0 (no commas -- they're just there for clarity) on the number pad keys, then release the ALT key. You won't see anything on the screen until you let go of the ALT key, but when you do ... cliché! (If you next type the exclamation point yourself, I mean.) (It is an annoyance that this STILL doesn't work with the regular number keys in the top row. I've spoken to Bill Gates about this twice already. ;^)) More codes at the bottom of this page, for example. A second way is just to Google some description of the character you want, and then copy and paste from the

Thanks and DOH!!!!

Quoting themightypuck: Thanks and DOH!!!!

What, forgot about NumLock and the hidden number pad keys? Or is "doh" in reference to the Google kludge? Anyway, y/w.

Quoting themightypuck: I wonder what the conviction rate of Hamilton Burger was?

LOL! Also, @Twin: Just ... wow. Even worse than I'd remembered.

Just how simplé the Mac is and how you should have told me to rtfm. But thank you.

Quoting themightypuck: Just how simplé the Mac is and how you should have told me to rtfm. But thank you.

Heh. If I knew you were a Mac user, I might have. No, wait. If I knew you were a Mac user, I wouldn't have, because Mac users never rtfm.

You wouldn't have to crown a king of American. You could even still call him "president," like they do in Germany and Israel. Most countries seem to have a ceremonial figure head of some sort, and having a leader that is both the head of state and the head of government can be problematic for a lot of reasons. The ability to conflate the two roles of an American president, and charge someone who is criticizing his policies as unpatriotic or seditious, is one that seems to come up often, usually when the president happens to be a Republican. Also, Matthew didn't come close to getting the situation in Canada right. Ignatieff wasn't even a party leader at the time.

Quoting GhaleonQ:
Oof. I'm sure American television is generally funnier than it's ever been, but judge the top 10 or so comedies of the '00's against The League Of Gentlemen, The Office, Garth Marenghi's Darkplace, The Mighty Boosh, Psychoville, Black Books, Peep Show, Extras, Spaced, Green Wing, The I.T. Crowd, The Thick Of It. Yeah, Gordon Ramsay is awesome in his native country and HBO dramas are great, but the U.K. utterly dominates comedy, Matt.

Quoting nikkibong: Spot on. Black Books was the funniest comedy of the last twenty years. (Is it available in the US?)

How did Fawlty Towers, Blackadder and Yes, Minister not make it in to this list of British genius?

Alyssa displays a lack of knowledge about book history in this section on long books. The period when the great long novels were being written was the late 18th and 19th century, when people had more leisure time than they had ever had before, due to industrialization, and possibly more leisure time than we have now (at least people in the literate classes did). The period she describes when everyone had to 'plow the fields' was the medieval and early modern era, and the great works of that era are mostly plays, poetry and philosophical writings, all of them comparatively short.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Alyssa displays a lack of knowledge ...

Ivy Leaguer fight! ;^)

OK. I have trouble getting past the use of "like" to punctuate everything. I can't get past it. How can people who engage in this kind of ephemeral banter, in public, complain about long, ambitious novels? So the spirit of our times is to bore people with superficiality and "jokiness?" But I guess it's nice to know that the new generation of political commentators has a fun-loving side. On the subject of Swedish bands, there is an excellent a cappella pop/jazz quartet called The Real Group. I heard them in France, bought a CD at the concert (rare event for me, but they would not be on Napster), and listen to it pretty frequently.

The US should just start a parliamentary system, elect a Prime Minister and delegate the President to a purely ceremonial role. We in Canada do this exact thing (minus the title "President," we instead have a "Governor General"). Give it a shot.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Alyssa displays a lack of knowledge about book history in this section on long books. The period when the great long novels were being written was the late 18th and 19th century, when people had more leisure time than they had ever had before, due to industrialization, and possibly more leisure time than we have now (at least people in the literate classes did). The period she describes when everyone had to 'plow the fields' was the medieval and early modern era, and the great works of that era are mostly plays, poetry and philosophical writings, all of them comparatively short.

The Divine Comedy, the Summa Theologica, the Canterbury Tales, to mention only three of the best known works from the medieval period, can hardly be described as short. And I can think of a few rather longish early modern works that would try the patience of most people today. What is the connection between more leisure time and industrialization? The leisured, i.e. the rich, have ALWAYS had more time. They didn't have to work. Peasants, or slaves, worked for them. Industrialization merely brought leisure to a new class of people. Reading long novels during the 18th and

Quoting Francoamerican: The Divine Comedy, the Summa Theologica, the Canterbury Tales, to mention only three of the best known works from the medieval period, can hardly be described as short. And I can think of a few rather longish early modern works that would try the patience of most people today.

What is the connection between more leisure time and industrialization? The leisured, i.e. the rich, have ALWAYS had more time. They didn't have to work. Peasants, or slaves, worked for them. Industrialization merely brought leisure to a new class of people.

Reading long novels during the 18th and 19th centuries was mainly an activity of women of the upper and upper-middle classes. They had time on their hands and, I imagine, were rather bored with their humdrum lives.

Point taken about Dante. I said "mostly" not "all" in ref to early modern literature. I maintain the dominant high literary form of that period was the play and the poem, however. Moreover, Alyssa was referring particularly to long novels, not just long books. And the novel arose as part of a leisure culture--as you say it was housewives, but it was urban middle class housewives to whom the first novels were directed and they were often marketed

I'm no expert in northern European history, but isn't Ms. Rosenberg confusing Sweden for Finland when she talks about the "Soviets getting tangled up there"? Or was she right but just fumbled her delivery? I can't help but think of the running joke from John Carpenter's The Thing: MacReady: "Hey Sweden!"
Cooper: "They're Norwegian, Mac."

Quoting johncsnider: I'm no expert in northern European history, but isn't Ms. Rosenberg confusing Sweden for Finland when she talks about the "Soviets getting tangled up there"? Or was she right but just fumbled her delivery?

I can't help but think of the running joke from John Carpenter's The Thing:

MacReady: "Hey Sweden!"
Cooper: "They're Norwegian, Mac."

One of the more irritating of these habits is the propensity for calling Finland part of "Scandanavia." Actually, there are three Scandanavian countries: Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. Anyone who has ever been to Finand can immediately tell how separate it is from the Scandanavian countries. (Just look at the people - or listen to the language!) But this speaks to a bigger problem with people like Yglesias, and this DV -- where is the "expertise" ? So Yglesias took a trip to Sweden - whoop dee doo. Millions of Americans have been to Sweden. (Including, ahem, me.) So what? As graz would say: pardon me, but who cares?

You're not wrong, but I think it is acceptable to include Finland as part of Scandanavia. It was once part of Sweden and a lot of Finns speak Swedish or are in fact ethnically Swedish. Then it again you could say they're Baltic or Russianish. They are a distinct people, no doubt, but they can fit under the label of Scandanavia, I think.

Quoting nikkibong:
So Yglesias took a trip to Sweden - whoop dee doo. Millions of Americans have been to Sweden. (Including, ahem, me.)

So what? As graz would say: pardon me, but who cares?

Not that it's always about you... but I'll support your bid for first string status (fwiw)... not only do you believe you could do better... you may already have! In fairness to the "who cares" critique, I guess that could be applied to many of the dv's. Obviously it's subjective, but it seems to apply to some so much more than others. I've never internalized the belief: If you can't say something nice... say nothing at all. I'll make an exception this time.

Quoting graz: Not that it's always about you... but I'll support your bid for first string status (fwiw)... not only do you believe you could do better... you may already have!

Nikki's been recently published twice...he should garner FSS. Also, he posseses the elan of a Welch or Hayes.

In fairness to the "who cares" critique, I guess that could be applied to many of the dv's. Obviously it's subjective, but it seems to apply to some so much more than others.

Yes. Please come prepared. The incident that sticks in my mind was when Bob and Rosa came on and each announced they didn't know about immigration reform, but then proceeded to discuss it.

I've never internalized the belief: If you can't say something nice... say nothing at all. I'll make an exception this time.

They did ok. It was first time jitters, and they don't know each other. I thought the most interesting subject was time. Once you hit 50, there's so much less time to use ahead, than came before. Keeping up with 6 TV dramas...no way. I'm thinking I'd like to watch Six Feet Under on DVD. And I did get sucked into House and NCIS, but for the most part, I consciously avoid one-hour

I'm with you on all of the above. Btw... I'd recommend you follow through on the Six Feet Under series (melodrama at its finest).

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Moreover, Alyssa was referring particularly to long novels, not just long books. And the novel arose as part of a leisure culture--as you say it was housewives, but it was urban middle class housewives to whom the first novels were directed and they were often marketed with explicit reference to the NEW leisure these people had--this was the class to whom, as you say, industrialization brought leisure for the first time. (Newspaper advertising was also developed around this time and you can look at the ads book publishers took out in the major London or Paris newspapers, as well as the way serialized fiction was introduced or framed in the press).

Yes, but her point was that such novels were popular in a period in which people had no more time (and probably less) than today, so the decline in popularity of long novels -- to the extent related to time -- was more likely related to competing forms of entertainment. I think she's likely right that more people have more free time today, although that's debateable, depending on which class you mean and so on (novels were, of course, considered

Quoting stephanie: Yes, but her point was that such novels were popular in a period in which people had no more time (and probably less) than today,

Except that that's false. There was actually MORE leisure time then. That's the point I was making--she's just wrong about people having more time now.
Also false is the notion that people reading novels lived on farms. They didn't. Novels were primarily consumed by urban residents. I'm not making any conjectures about WHY novels are shorter now, and I think you're right that much of it is stylistic. I just meant she was factually wrong about both her characterizations of people's lives at the time when novels were long, whether or not those factors had any impact on literary content.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Except that that's false. There was actually MORE leisure time then. That's the point I was making--she's just wrong about people having more time now.

I think that's debateable and depends on who you are comparing. The average middle class woman who reads probably had no more time then than a stay at home mom or someone with a 9-5 job today, but there's obviously tons of variation. (I agree with your basic point that we are talking about generally privileged classes who became novel readers -- the new middle class and stereotypically women, not the aristocrats Matt seemed to be imagining or the peasants that Alyssa seemed to refer to at first, though she backed off that, if memory serves.)

Also false is the notion that people reading novels lived on farms. They didn't. Novels were primarily consumed by urban residents.

Yeah, there I was trying to broadening the discussion, which is why I said even if you don't go back that far (i.e., US, 19th century or early 20th, say). Obviously novels were popular well beyond the period in which they first became the thing -- people clustering on the shores waiting for Dickens' latest installment and

Quoting stephanie: I think that's debateable and depends on who you are comparing. The average middle class woman who reads probably had no more time then than a stay at home mom or someone with a 9-5 job today, but there's obviously tons of variation.

And I'm saying it's explicitly not debateable. There are whole schools of history devoted to studying this sort of thing, starting with Peter Bailey and continuing to contemporary scholars like Deb Cohen, as well as litcrit folk like Nancy Armstrong. It's not impossible to verify historically because this particular class of urban women kept diaries; indeed, they are the easiest demographic for social historians to track.

Quoting stephanie: Yes, like I said before, on the specific point I agree with you, but in the context of the discussion and interpreting her comments more casually, I think her overriding point was more correct than Matt's (competing entertainment vs. lack of time), and that in any case both of them were wrong to ignore mass market books and to ignore changing style and the like to trends in literary works.

All of these thematic points may have validity, but I find it hard to engage

Quoting graz: I'm with you on all of the above. Btw... I'd recommend you follow through on the Six Feet Under series (melodrama at its finest).

The ultimate decadence...ep after ep, day after day. Think of all the great novels I could read with that time, or calculus thingamabobs I could learn to...what's it called?

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: And I'm saying it's explicitly not debateable. There are whole schools of history devoted to studying this sort of thing, starting with Peter Bailey and continuing to contemporary scholars like Deb Cohen, as well as litcrit folk like Nancy Armstrong. It's not impossible to verify historically because this particular class of urban women kept diaries; indeed, they are the easiest demographic for social historians to track.

It's debateable, because it depends on what groups you think should be comparing. For example, you seem to be limiting your comparison to a particular class of urban women c. late 18th c or so vs. I don't know who in the contemporary era. I don't think it's fair to assume that Alyssa was limiting the discussion -- which was phrased quite casually -- to those particular urban women, as opposed to people who would have read novels in the past. Yes, when we talk about the rise of the novel and who were stereotyped as novel readers, especially when the novel was deplored, those were the people being focused on, but I don't think it's necessary to limit the conversation to them. More significantly, in order to compare them

Okay, I see your points. On the question of comparing Georgian and Victorian novels to contemporary ones and whether high or popular lit is the better comparison, I'd agree with you that we should include pop fiction and that doing so eliminates any significance to the issue of book length. As I said, I think you are correct that it is stylistic rather than structural changes in lit that matter. And of course all of that is debateable. But what I am saying is that Alyssa, as I understood in the DV, made a specific comparison. And whether that comparison was the best or most relevant one is debateable (as you have said, and I agree with, it probably isn't). However, the point I'm making is that the actual facts of that comparison are un-debatably false. So even if it's an irrelevant comparison to the bigger question about literature, the facts are still false. I simply wanted to call her out for that factual error, not to make any points about the substance of the issue re: books. On the specific factual error I am referring to: my understanding was that Alyssa was referring to the late 18th and

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: But what I am saying is that Alyssa, as I understood in the DV, made a specific comparison.

I think we are disagreeing somewhat on what comparison she intended to make. I agree with you that her comment that people had less time then (whenever then was supposed to be, and I didn't think that was as clear as you seem to have interpreted it) was wrong, especially when you add in her comment about peasants plowing the fields or whatever. But because her comment seemed casual and because I agreed with her underlying point -- that Matt's argument that it made more sense to read long books then, because people had more time, was wrong, in that the bigger difference is competition -- I was inclined to see it as a causal remark, not something essential to her argument.

On the specific factual error I am referring to: my understanding was that Alyssa was referring to the late 18th and 19th century when she spoke of the era of the long novel and making the claim that people who read those books had less leisure than they would today. We can debate whether that

Quoting stephanie: However, I (again) do think that given the point that Matt was trying to make, that the average reader then or now is not really significant. Granted, Alyssa's comment was still inaccurate, so I concede on that.

Right, and I concede that on the more substantive question of whether leisure time or literary style changes matter more, she was right. So we're basically in agreement on both the facts and the thematic significance. It's just that I can't quite overlook the factual error in order to give full consideration to her argument, and you can.