Like Charlemagne in the mind of a 19th-century French nationalist, this blog should, in the weeks ahead, come roaring back to life as the tired soul behind it strikes a happier balance between the things he wants to do and the things he needs to do. In the meantime, enjoy these links re-plucked from the great, fecund florilegium of the Web.
The Cimmerian hears echoes of Robert E. Howard in last week’s discovery of Persian bones.
Why do the spiders in The Hobbit hate being called “attercop”? Jason Fisher explains.
Open Letters Monthly reviews a new translation of Orlando Furioso.
Lex Fajardo visits comic shops in Scandinavia.
Come on, you know you’ve wondered about ancient Roman toilets.
Wulfstan speaks! Hear Anglo-Saxon sermons across a thousand years.
Neil Verma defends historical fiction and ponders the relationship of video games to reading.
Jake Seliger ponders an op-ed about teaching, Borges on literature, and the silly debate among writers about word processors.
Where are the wild things? Janet Potter reads the book based on the movie based on the book.
Bibliographing reads the 19th-century kunstmärchen of Ludwig Tieck.
Writer Beware asks: Do authors need “virtual assistants?” (The answer: no.)
Quid Plura? 
I would totally read that toilet book.
LikeLike
Did you read Bloom’s review of that Canterbury adaption in the Times? It was the most wild irrelevant review I think I’ve ever read … I wondered if he was going senile.
LikeLike
Hi, Kai! I hadn’t seen it until you pointed me to it, but now that I’ve read the review, I’m struck by how lousy it is for one very big reason: it gave me absolutely sense of how Ackroyd’s adaptation actually reads.
LikeLike