March 17, 2003

Please forgive the extraordinary length of this post, which quotes, in full, the text of an article from Saturday’s New York Times. I’m reprinting the article here rather than linking to it on the Times web site because after articles have been on that site for seven days you have to pay to access them, and what if somebody discovers this blog eight days from now and wants to read the article but is so impoverished he or she can’t afford the $1.50 it takes to gain access?

And so, without further ado, “Fish Talks, Town Buzzes,” by Corey Kilgannon.

EW SQUARE, N.Y., March 13

Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Please forgive the extraordinary length

  1. D.R. says:

    It may be the last thing you do since, according to the talking fish, it’s the end of the world.

  2. Lauren says:

    We all laugh now, but it’ll be pretty embarrassing if the fish turns out to be right….(Also, I’m most confused. I thought the whole point of The Little Mermaid was that mermaids don’t have souls. If righteous people are reincarnated as fish, then fish must have souls. Which means it’s the human half of the mermaid that doesn’t have a soul, and, therefore, that humans in general lack souls. Explains a lot, that.) Er. Yes. Anyway. Write the musical.

  3. Akasha says:

    It’s not the talking fish that amazes me, but rather the length of the article… that so much can be written about a talking fish!

  4. Kim says:

    Kudos on deciding to reprint the entire article. Here it is, eight days later, when I just happened upon your site for the first time, wanted to read the article and DON’T have $1.50! You simply must be clairvoyant. Thanks!

  5. Becca says:

    Faustus, I just discovered your blog (hunting you on the net after a write-up of your new book; missed you at the reunion!) &, having previously read & been mightily entertained by the tale of the talking carp, I can only say

    THANK YOU, thank you, thank you

    for performing the public service of preserving it in the blogosphere for those of us who are No Way going to pay NYT that $1.50 to read it again 2 years later but are soooo delighted to see it (and that photo) again!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>