Log in

No account? Create an account

John Palcewski's Journal

Works In Progress

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Palcewski's Presence on the Web

Imagine my surprise this morning when I checked Google for an indication of my web presence, i.e., the number of sites that pop up when you enter “John Palcewski” into that search engine. For the past couple of years I've been in the 800 to 900 range.

And now?

As you can see, I’m at an astonishing 12,400.

To find out why, I checked the tracker on my biography site. Usually I get two, three hits a day. But this morning I see that I’ve been visited by 300 people, and the number is slowly climbing as we speak.

What accounts for this? Well, lately I’ve been posting comments on various Liberal political blogs, venting my spleen about how America is going to hell in a handbasket. The other day on Brad DeLong’s site I pointed out the glaring discrepancy between a New York Times account of President Bush’s meeting with a bunch of former secretaries of state and defense, and that of the Washington Post.

The Post’s Bush-loving Jim VandeHei gave his readers the distinct impression that the president actually was reaching out and soliciting contrary viewpoints. But the Times article by David Sanger revealed that the president spent 40 minutes of the hour-long meeting on an extraordinarily upbeat assessment of the situation in Iraq, and then gave the assembled secretaries from “5 to 10 minutes” to respond. That’s roughly about a minute apiece. (We ignore Colin Powell, Bush’s former Secretary of State, because he inexplicably remained silent throughout the whole thing.)

Anyway, my post caught the attention of a Salon.com editor and he not only gave me a credit, but linked my bio page.


  • 1
Salon.com (typically) rocks. Nice one!! Now if the book would get published this week... (!)

Nice thought, but I'm not holding my breath! Have you seen this piece by Lawrence Van Gelder in the Times?

"Submitted to 20 publishers and agents, the typed manuscripts of the opening chapters of two books were assumed to be the work of aspiring novelists. Of 21 replies, all but one were rejections. Sent by The Sunday Times of London, the manuscripts were the opening chapters of novels that won Booker Prizes in the 1970's.

"One was "Holiday," by Stanley Middleton; the other was "In a Free State," by Sir V. S. Naipaul, winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Literature.

"Mr. Middleton said he wasn't surprised. "People don't seem to know what a good novel is nowadays," he said. Mr. Naipaul said: "To see something is well written and appetizingly written takes a lot of talent, and there is not a great deal of that around. With all the other forms of entertainment today, there are very few people around who would understand what a good paragraph is."

Then this, in the London Times:

"Only Barbara Levy, a London literary agent, expressed an interest, and that was for Middleton's novel.

"She was unimpressed by Naipaul's book. She wrote: 'We . . . thought it was quite original. In the end though I'm afraid we just weren't quite enthusiastic enough to be able to offer to take things further.'"

* * *
Now, I should be enormously flattered because I got a similarly worded email from a New York literary agent in response to DROWNING:

"Dear John, I enjoyed reading these pages, and both you and Maria have led amazing lives, especially considering what you endured during your earlier years. Because I read so many fine manuscripts, I eventually take on only authors whose work not only shows a superior quality, but to which I can also relate on a strong and personal basis. I appreciate your talent but I'm afraid I didn't respond with the rare enthusiasm I believe is necessary to give you the attention your work deserves."

This is so terribly discouraging. It seems that Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie have no problem getting published, because the print houses want to, as Hollywood does, "guarantee" their success. It's not about the material of a book, but rather the "saleability" of it.

Just how did J.K. Rowling get her quirky little story about wizards in training onto the page? I've read it before but I think some key elements were left out... maybe the part where she uses that wizard power to hypnotize an agent to sell her manuscript.

Still... I don't have any choice but to keep writing, futile an effort as it is.

god, soooo depressing.

but the salon heads-up is great. awesome!

Samuel Beckett on persistence: "I may have many faults, but changing my tune isn't one of them."

Good on ya, John. Thank you for being so vocal...the silence of my generation (and younger) is really creeping me out.

Yes, it truly IS creepy that so many just look the other way while the Bush/Cheney/Rove Fascists dismantle the concept of separation of powers and laugh at the notion of judicial review and congressional oversight. I fear that people will wake up...TOO LATE.

Seen this one?

Pentagon Study Links Fatalities to Body Armor

A secret Pentagon study has found that as many as 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor. Such armor has been available since 2003, but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.

Yes, and I'm sorry to say that it's just one outrage among a multitude. We're getting an imperial presidency shoved down our throats, and I'd hate to think there's not a damned thing we can do about it. Four in ten Americans continue to believe--in the face of all evidence to the contrary--that Bush is a great leader. Someone please explain that one to me.

You have been busy! Good.


Re: You have been busy! Good.

Thanks! Might as well be busy as I have a LOT of time on my hands in this beautiful place...

Good job, JP. Thanks for stopping by. The Heretik

Joe, many thanks for posting, and most especially thanks for your voice against the moron's madness.

You've nailed it:

as he steals
the clocks

he tells us
there is no time

I suggest a participation at the "60 minutes talk-show"...
(I don't know if this is an "under-Bush-supremacy" show, I'm italian and I know the political censorship in the italian transmissions, but I don't know in USA. However I watch this talk show and a lot of situations like this are normally represented).

  • 1