A serious article that's funny!

[Bêthberry]

I'm still laughing over her description of Alice:

Originally Posted by Bidisha

Critics ignore the tough heroines created by Tamora Pierce and Trudi Canavan, but acclaim Lewis Carroll's creepily pliable Alice, who obediently consumes whatever cupcakes and potions she finds in Wonderland.

That Alice, she's just such a tart.

But I am seriously surprised to see a Guardian article which modifies "complexity" with "awesome." That's like, just awesome criticism.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

I quite like this article, though my focus lies elsewhere.
I am more interested in the pop vs. classics discussion.
Especially academics are horrible when it comes to this, denouncing a work of art because it has a broad public appeal, yet they have no problem reading it themselves if it is more than 100 years old. . .

[Estelyn Telcontar]

The LotR reference is a classic case of Jackson trumping Tolkien - the image of the Eye is wittily described, yet has nothing whatsoever to do with the book. The latter gets bashed for something that it does not contain, but which is in the movie.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I'm still laughing over her description of Alice:

.

Just say no they say, but often it's much more interesting to say "yes"

Anyway, the writer has a way with words yes, but it's always a bit irksome to read people with this kind of a feminist axe to grind, you know, the kind who sees penises everywhere, terrible oppressive penises. You can almost smell the sulphur...