Man, writers are seriously a bunch of nutjobs, perhaps none nuttier, in both name and in the breadth of illness-related self-indulgence, than Steve Almond. I have read exactly one story of his. Check that, I've read half of one story. It was too poopy to finish. But the bottom line is that many people dig this cat, and that's fine. It reminds me of a little tv show called Diff'rent Strokes.
But I digress. Almond manages to shit out essays and stories with the same frequency that most folks perform the biological function. I mean, the guy is everywhere, as he's more than willing to tell you.
And people keep asking for more. I can understand how people want differently flavored stories in various and sundry magazines, but I cannot understand why Salon would print this Almond-pedastalizing attack
that he makes on some writer/blogger from California. Towards the end, there's some commentary about the value/nature/purpose of litblogs (are we a litblog?), but mostly it's just Almond talking about himself, how much better he is than Mark Sarvas, said writer, and fantasizing about some sexual cum violent confrontation that never materializes.
Being that Almond is an alum of our writing program, and a vilified one at that, I have learned much about many horrible things he did while he was here and afterwards (that related back to the program). He appears to be a presence that will continue to exist in the world of books and publishing for a long time, if only because of his fierce determination to put himself there (in a way, it's almost admirable how aggressive he is--we might all be better off with a sliver of his reserves). But the question remains why a reputable source of media such as Salon would stoop to publishing, and PAYING, for this crap. See for yourself.