That makes a ton of sense.

Nerds, thanks for letting me know!

Look, there are books I love without much of a narrative (hell, I just saw Only Lovers Left Alive, where there's no plot, and I loved it), but there needs to be something else to hook a reader. Aside from the scene with the light at the beginning of the novel (which, again, Cunningham doesn't do anything with, and I…

Hey Bob! This book is completely up your alley. I should have mentioned it last time I saw you.

100% agree. My favorite staged scene of his is the restaurant showdown in Liberty Valance, with Jimmy, John, and Lee. So perfect.

Exactly, a large part of this book was about the Propaganda department, so it focused on established (or, in the case of Huston, relatively established) directors.

Hah, I do think Ford is probably the greatest American director, but that deserves its own essay, not a one-off line in the middle of a review. And @TheMagicRat:disqus, I hope it didn't sound like i was suggesting that. Ford obviously could knock out any kind of genre he wanted to.

My first real one was when I was 15 and a tad bit of a sociopath. I cheated on my first girlfriend with another girl, then moved on to another one a couple of weeks later, who eventually turned out to be a drug addict. My high school was pretty small, so word got around fast, and I got a lot of shit and stink eyes for…

Fixed!

Awesome to hear, thanks!

They start out pretty rote, then get quite good, then sort of end in a disappointing way. But Why We Broke Up is a pretty dead-on depiction of teenage love. He's definitely worth reading more of.

Yep. It's terrible, and super distracting.

You're actually not that far off.

Weirdly enough, it might not. I didn't mention it, but Burroughs was a notorious liar. I'd treat his letters like another one of his fictions, honestly.

You're totally right, and you can see above for my explanation. It's a mistake that was added on my behalf.

Actually, that phrase wasn't in my original draft. I don't use the phrase since I know how often it's misused (as it was above) - I typically use "raises the question." My apologies, and I share your anger when it's misused.

In a nutshell: because Paul was like, "eh, who could I put on my album? James and Chris, you in?"

The story's on the 25th anniversary edition. Basically, Paul got all of them together on the strength of his charisma. Half of those folks he'd never met and just called them up.

Even with Ram's re-evaluation, I think it's pretty undeniable to say that BOTR is his seminal solo work. Nothing else had the same reach or influence.

Fair point. A number of the albums attribute themselves to "Paul McCartney and Wings," so that's why I called it solo-work. It also just makes the sentence a little clearer as well. Also, thanks!