Except it was pointed out, in the very story I suppose you sped-read, that Weiner was not speaking out so much for herself but for other female writers.

I've read both Franzen and Weiner. His stuff is not the high falutin' literature that he thinks it is. Her stuff is very readable but on the lighter side.

woman shouldnt have opinion because she's not as good as me, some other people - jf

Franzen is a medium talent, I thought "Freedom" was excellent but his other stuff was meh.

When I read Franzen I'm almost always wishing I was reading DFW instead.

But she's not just calling for her work to be reviewed, she's calling for equal treatment. For example, a Carl Hiassen mystery (formulaic fluff by a man for men) will get covered by the Times, but formulaic fluff written by a woman for women will not. If the Times just never covered commercial (non literature) works…

Where is her long essay about this, where she really makes a case? She has no case. So she tweets. (...) No case for why formulaic fiction ought to be reviewed in the New York Times.

Seriously. The fucking nerve it takes to suggest that Oprah's followers (mostly women) would be turned off by his "high-art literary traditions" is just so gross. And it seemed to me to be a huge slap in the face to Oprah. Like Franzen thought her incapable of truly appreciating his work.

"There may still be gender imbalances in the world of books, but very strong numbers of women are writing, editing, publishing and reviewing novels."

Exactly, which is worse: digitally slimming the actress's waist in post-production or forcing the real, live woman into a corset for weeks/months during filming, all in order to promote an unrealistic standard of beauty?

I don't particularly like Jennifer Weiner's books. If I'm going to read "plus sized woman has shitty/non-existent relationship and isn't valued, finds true love and self-esteem and everyone regrets the way they treated her," I'd pick Jennifer Crusie because she does the same thing but funnier. Franzen's not wrong that…

Sigh. Every time this comes up, and I think Weiner has a point about book coverage for female authors in general, it feels like watching a USC-Notre Dame game where I wish that both sides could lose.

Honestly, I'm probably just showing my lack of literary credentials (beyond, you know, literacy), but he just doesn't sound like my jam. I mean, Jennifer Weiner doesn't sound like his jam, either, but at least he could just say, "I'm not interested in her books," rather than trying to make it sound like she writes…

Ok, Jonathon, I'll say it, "she's really good, you should read her" There, does that help? Probably not, because you just want to mansplain a writer of "chick lit" which you feel it's fine to to look down upon, without bothering to read her books. I haven't bothered to read yours, but here is my review of them. …

Anti-choice groups give them pre-written bills they can just file. I work for a state legislature analyzing bills. This is something I see often.

I know it's hard for you to keep your ultra-right wing tendencies in check but what did that comment being dumb as fuck have to do with anything that could be considered "ultra-liberal?"

Congratulations! I have decided that this is the dumbest comment posted to Deadspin tonight.

Chuck knows in today's NBA it makes sense to discuss a coaching change with your max player(s). He's just pissed that he didn't have that option back in the day.

So you hire someone your star player doesn't want, doesn't buy into the system, and that makes you better how? It's the NBA, players run things all the time. If a coach can't get the players to buy in, especially the best player on the team, then he's not gonna be there very long.