The literati versus the technorati.

At BookExpo America:

When John Updike approached the lectern in the Convention Center ballroom Saturday morning, most of his bleary-eyed, coffee-swilling audience expected him to talk about his latest novel, "Terrorist." ... [W]ithout warning, he opened fire on the technorati.

"I read last Sunday, and maybe some of you did too, a quite long article by a man called Kevin Kelly," he began.

We were just talking about that article here. Remember? It's the one about how authors are going to have to give up on the technology-conquered idea that they can make money selling copies of their writings.

Updike went on at some length, heaping scorn on Kelly's notion that authors who no longer got paid for copies of their work could profit from it by selling "performances" or "access to the creator." ("Now as I read it, this is a pretty grisly scenario.")

Unlike the commingled, unedited, frequently inaccurate mass of "information" on the Web, he said, "books traditionally have edges." But "the book revolution, which from the Renaissance on taught men and women to cherish and cultivate their individuality, threatens to end in a sparkling pod of snippets.

"So, booksellers," he concluded, "defend your lonely forts. Keep your edges dry. Your edges are our edges. For some of us, books are intrinsic to our human identity."

Meanwhile, a guy named Tom Turvey -- his nickname must be Topsy -- is there from Google, promoting Google's Book Search project.

Told of Updike's criticism, he suggested that there's a bit of an "apples and oranges" thing going on.

"For novelists and trade publishers that publish books to be read sequentially," he said, the utility of searching within a book's content is harder to understand. But this kind of book is a minority, and a lot of publishers know that they can increase their sales by allowing searches that lead potential customers to texts they otherwise might never have found.

And Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak. With a book to sell -- "iWoz: Computer Geek to Cult Icon: Getting to the Core of Apple's Inventor" -- it's not clear if he belongs to the literati or the technorati faction. Asked about the Kelly article, he just says: "It's like everybody's scrambling to figure out how it falls out... and I don't know how it falls out." That sounds like a good condition to have your mind in.

"At those times when you are absolutely sure you're right, go find someone who disagrees."

Said Condoleezza Rice to the graduating students at Boston College. Cue the Bush-hatin' jibes.

How much protesting was there?

About 50 students stood with their backs toward the stage as Rice was introduced to give her commencement speech, but they were quickly drowned out by a standing ovation.

A half-dozen signs that said "Not in my name" were held in the air by students, who sat down by the time Rice started to speak. One banner that said "BC honors lies and torture" was held on the side of the stadium, away from where the students were sitting.

Other students cheered Rice, and an Internet broadcast of the ceremony included a shot of a student, talking on his cell phone, with an "I Like Condi" button pinned to his graduation cap.

I wonder if the coverage of McCain's New School appearance convinced people to be a little more civil.

"An officer is not like a boxing (or hockey) referee, poised to stop a bout only if it becomes too one-sided."

Wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, in an opinion just handed down today:

Justices said four Brigham City, Utah, police officers were justified in going inside a home in 2000 after peeking through a window and seeing a fight between a teenager and adults.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the unanimous court, said that officers had a reasonable basis for going inside to stop violence, even though they could not announce their arrival over loud noise of a party.

"The role of a peace officer includes preventing violence and restoring order, not simply rendering first aid to casualties; an officer is not like a boxing (or hockey) referee, poised to stop a bout only if it becomes too one-sided," Roberts wrote.

The trial judge had ruled that police had violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches by failing to knock before entering the house.

When the adults realized the officers were inside the house, they allegedly became abusive and were charged with disorderly conduct, intoxication and contributing to the delinquency of a minor - all misdemeanors.

So the cops can barge into your house to break up a fight? Better stop fighting in front of open windows.

But here's my question. It's a sports question. A sports and writing question. We're familiar with the way a referee in a boxing can stop a fight if it becomes too one-sided. Why throw in "(or hockey)"? It not only clutters the sentence, it makes the concept harder to grasp. I don't even know about hockey referees stopping one-sided games. Since Roberts is known for the high quality of his writing style, I've got to think that parenthetical really adds something. But what?

Is it that in hockey fights break out, and the refs don't stop them unless they're one-sided, and it's actually more like the police situation because the fighting isn't legitimate in the first place, but some people might think the police should ignore fights unless someone is outmatched? In that case, hockey is a more apt analogy in light of the argument that the search was unreasonable.

MORE: Here's the whole opinion. This is the analysis of why the search was reasonable:

The officers were responding, at 3 o’clock in the morning, to complaints about a loud party. As they approached the house, they could hear from within “an altercation occurring, some kind of a fight.” “It was loud and it was tumultuous.” The officers heard “thumping and crashing” and people yelling “stop, stop” and “get off me.” As the trial court found, “it was obvious that … knocking on the front door” would have been futile. The noise seemed to be coming from the back of the house; after looking in the front window and seeing nothing, the officers proceeded around back to investigate further. They found two juveniles drinking beer in the backyard. From there, they could see that a fracas was taking place inside the kitchen. A juvenile, fists clenched, was being held back by several adults. As the officers watch, he breaks free and strikes one of the adults in the face, sending the adult to the sink spitting blood.

In these circumstances, the officers had an objectively reasonable basis for believing both that the injured adult might need help and that the violence in the kitchen was just beginning.

(Usage buffs may discuss whether the sentence I've put in boldface should be in the present tense.)

UPDATE: Marty Lederman links to my post and says:

Althouse ... ponders why the Chief Justice all-of-a-sudden lapsed into a screenwriter's present tense in the final sentence of this paragraph... Are these the Chief's ways of giving we Court-watchers something to talk about on a light decision day?

Well, Marty's giving us Court-watchers something else to talk about...

"I've got everything -- a total smorgasbord."

That's Hillary Clinton, talking not about her politics but her iPod.

You're not tired yet of news stories of what politicians have in their iPods, are you? I want to know if they load up their own iPods or have some staffer do it or if there even is an iPod -- because you know it could just be like what book would you want on a desert island. What would you have in your iPod if you had an iPod and took the trouble to fill it up? All I really want to know is whether, if you have/had an iPod, you are even capable of filling it up without thinking of how whatever you're putting in there will look in the newspaper article about what you've got in your iPod.

Hey, guess what? Hillary has Aretha Franklin's "Respect" in her iPod! Wow! And, of course, it's also an eclectic mix, and includes some (unnamed) classical stuff. I'd just like for once to hear a politician say they don't like classical music and they could go the whole rest of their life without hearing Aretha emote her way through "Respect" again. That would sock it to me.

"Baghdad ER," "The Sopranos," "Big Love."

Did you watch three straight hours of HBO last night? Or did you leave off "Baghdad ER" on the theory that there's something wrong with witnessing real bodily pain and then enjoying "The Sopranos"? Or did you only watch "Baghdad ER" because of that? I saw there was a problem with the line up, but still watched all three.

I think "Baghdad ER" was a good documentary. Is it an anti-war documentary? Several times, amid the carnage, a doctor or nurse says the violence is senseless, but there is no political context to this. We can't tell whether they are saying the continuing acts of enemy violence are senseless or whether the whole project of overthrowing Saddam Hussein made no sense. Basically, this program shows you the reality of what the wounds are and how doctors go about doing their work. This is something that you should not look away from whether you oppose the war or support it. Watching this film involves seeing a leg sawed off, an amputated hand thrown in the trash, a hole in an eyeball sewn closed, and many similarly gruesome things. With perhaps only one exception, the medical personnel are not cynical and weary. It's not like "MASH." They are impressively professional and rational about accomplishing what they need to do. Seeing clearly what that is lets us honor their heroism.

Now, I feel it's crass to go on to write about "The Sopranos" and "Big Love." But this illustrates the dissonance anyone would have felt if they sat down to the three hours HBO offered up last night.

"The Sopranos." Was Edie Falco's trip to Paris gratuitous enough for you? See gazes upon picturesque sights and feels transformed. It's the old contrast between her interest in higher things -- remember religion? -- and the ugly, evil world she likes to indulge herself by thinking she's not connected to. But why Paris? Sarah Jessica Parker went to Paris in the end of "Sex and the City," so why is HBO dishing up the woman-goes-to-Paris plot again? In Paris, you can really put your thoughts in order? Why would that be? I'm thinking the HBO folks just like to do some filming in Paris. Especially after all that New Jersey, that relentless, endless New Jersey. The "Sex and the City" people got to film in New York and they got to go to Paris. It's only fair that the New Jersey-afflicted crew of "The Sopranos" gets to go to Paris. But it wasn't all Carmela gaping at statues. (Oh, you want an Emmy for that too?) It was Tony getting the finger (from AJ). And Vito getting the pool cue. And that other guy getting the knife in the gut.

"Big Love." Margene spends most of the episode rototilling the dirt backyard, laying down slabs of sod, and keeling over, while Barb and Nicki natter over problems. Margene is the family slave. But all three of the women fuss over their wills. Who should get your children if Bill and you die? The wives all have different opinions. Once Bill dies, there's no ongoing polygamy: the surviving wives will no longer be "living the principle." So do you want one of the un-principle-living wives to have your children? Or do you ship them back to the compound? Meanwhile, we wonder whether 15-year-old Rhonda will wake up to reality and resist getting sealed to the Prophet. She thinks she's so superior, but then she didn't make it to the second round of that acting competition. One of the most amusing scenes had Rhonda saying some lines that turned out to be from "A Long Day's Journey Into Night." Her long journey into night is only beginning, so what could she know of the torment of the character she imagined she could play?

Will the Democratic Party become uniformly anti-war?

The Wall Street Journal has an editorial about Joe Lieberman's troubles with his party and John McCain troubles at The New School commencement:

We doubt all of this will help Democrats with the larger electorate, which whatever its doubts about Iraq does not want a precipitous surrender. Americans haven't trusted a liberal Democrat with the White House during wartime since Vietnam, which is when the seeds of the current antiwar rage were planted. The great mistake that leading Democrats and anti-Communist liberals made during Vietnam was not speaking up against a left that was demanding retreat and sneering at our war heroes. Will any Democrat speak up now?

The WSJ also has the full text of the speech McCain gave at The New School. It reads well on paper, but it must have been dreadful intoned as if the room were not in disarray. A funny thing is that it's titled "Let Us Argue." He got a little more argument than he had in mind.

"We have to pray for your brother. He's in real trouble."

Said Clarence Thomas to President Bush's sister. (Quick: Did you know the President had a sister? Do you know her name?)

More from the same Lloyd Grove column:

Later I had a nice chat with the conservative justice — who's had little use for journalists since his 1991 confirmation hearings, in which Anita Hill accused him of inappropriate sexual advances and Thomas accused the Senate Judiciary Committee of conducting "a high-tech lynching."

"Life is long," I said at one point.

"That's right," Thomas agreed. "That's what you should say when somebody does something to you: Life is lo-o-ong. Ha-ha."

Sounds like Thomas is still trying to get over that unpleasant piece of business from long ago.

Who knows what Thomas was thinking when he said that? And there are so many ways to vocalize "ha-ha." Well, Grove knows the context and heard the intonation, and he's saying Thomas is still pissed. Wouldn't you be?

"McCain sez 'I don't' to backing constitutional ban on gay nups."

Daily News headlines crack me up. I mean, I gay rights are a serious matter. But "gay nups"? Oh, I don't know. Maybe if we'd all get along better if we lightened up and talked about gay nups.

Audible Althouse #50.

The 50th podcast is ready to download or stream.

Freddie's dead, smoking'll kill you (and make you glamorous), shallow fictional characters (and the authors who hate them), the women's studies sociologist who became a prostitute and why the Washington Post is writing so much about it (and what it's not saying), John McCain's lack of awareness and spontaneity while giving a commencement address at The New School, the promotion of movies by stirring up bogus controversies, and wondering how sweet or harsh to make my own writing.

"Do you think I'm foolin'/When I say 'I love you'?"

"Maybe you'll believe me/When I'm finally through, through, through, through..."

Aw, Freddie, we believed you back in 1965. Thanks for all the joy and happiness. And I'm really sad to hear you are finally through, through, through, through...

RIP, Freddie Garrity.

Rewatching "Coffee and Cigarettes."

I'd rather rewatch a movie I love than watch something new. Much as I'd like to add more titles to the list of movies I love, the rewatching experience is so much deeper and more pleasurable. You can't really see things the first time. The other night we were going to rewatch "My Dinner With Andre" (my most rewatched movie), but then we hit upon the somewhat similar "Coffee and Cigarettes" (which I watched -- and blogged -- a year and a half ago).

So, yeah, "Coffee and Cigarettes" turned out to be nicely rewatchable. I found new appreciation for the lesser scenes. Aware Bill Murray was going to be insignificant, I got so much more out of watching him drink that coffee straight out of the carafe. Knowing where the longueurs were, I relaxed and took in the luscious black-and-white photography -- all those checkered tablecloths and checkered tiles, seen from above with circular coffee cups and swirly cigarette smoke.

Speaking of photography, the "My Dinner With Andre" DVD is horrible. Every time I think of watching it again, I have to air the same complaint. At least this time, I had a new way to say it: It's like watching the movie on YouTube.

"Anonymous Lawyer."

I've been sent a review copy of "Anonymous Lawyer," the novel Jeremy Blachman made out of his blog Anonymous Lawyer. Maybe you're already a fan of the blog, and, if so, I have a free copy of the book to give away, and I'll have the publisher send it to you if you're the one in the comments here to give me the best explanation of why I ought to read this book, given that I've formed a resistance to it after reading 20 pages.

My resistance is based on the thinness and emptiness of the narrator, who is a partner in a big law firm. I get the stark impression that the novel is not written from the perspective of a person who has ever lived such a life or has any desire to understand someone who has, but from the perspective of a young person who has worked as a summer associate in a law firm and hated it and hated people like the Anonymous Lawyer.

I already understand the bad feeling many young people get from working in law firms, and I don't want to spend my time reading what I think is merely projected hatred and not a real character that can be understood.

"Toward the end of shooting... I was, like: 'You guys have got to let me be kind somewhere. This is boring.'"

Chloe Sevigny talks about playing Nicki on "Big Love."

"The woman with a PhD in sociology, an expertise in women's studies and a former career as a well-regarded college professor."

Accused of running a house of prostitution in her $400,000 suburban home. The neighbors had gotten suspicious:

For months, Bonnie Sorak and other residents on Shirley Meadow Court had speculated about the goings-on at the home of the woman known to take walks at midnight, string Christmas lights at 4 a.m. and always buy candy when schoolkids went door to door. Lately, neighbors had noticed, men in golf shirts driving Lexuses and other nice cars seemed to be frequenting the house. Sorak had idly wondered if Britton was dealing drugs. Another neighbor had joked that she must be turning tricks.

Now, as Sorak pulled up to her house, her two small children in the backseat, she spotted police. Hurriedly closing the garage door behind her, she called her husband: "The SWAT team is over there now."

Men in golf shirts! That gets the neighbors talking. Too many men, too similarly dressed, all with nice cars, and just not staying long enough.

"True belief means . . . that you hate the polytheists and infidels but do not treat them unjustly."

A lesson from a textbook for Saudi 5th graders. For 8th graders: ""As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus." Meanwhile, the Saudi government has gone about bragging that it has "eliminated what might be perceived as intolerance from old textbooks."

Tommy Thompson and "the three little T's."

It's funny that a guy with the initials TT -- does he drive a TT? -- seized upon the rhetorical device of "the three little T's" to denounce Governor Doyle:

Thompson, [gubernatorial candidate Mark] Green and Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, who bowed out of the race earlier this spring, heaped scorn on a governor they characterized as a tool of the state teachers union, the trial lawyers and tribal gambling interests ("the three little T's," Thompson called them).

"We believe in the big T that trumps all those other Ts. That's you, the taxpayer," Thompson said. "This T is going to spend my summer and fall making sure you taxpayers know that."...

Green accused Doyle of "selling out" the state to special interests by vetoing legislation that would have limited corporate liability, opposing expansion of Milwaukee's school choice program and fighting legislative oversight of tribal gambling compacts.

Unfortunately, Green seems to be a hardcore social conservative. He favors making abortion illegal except to save a woman's life.