Lileks pleads not guilty

In his Bleat today, James Lileks denies that he is our own anti-Keillor. I don’t think I am violating our correspondent’s confidences to confirm the veracity of James’s denial, but that’s as far as I will go in narrowing the circle of suspicion at the Star Tribune.
Check out James’s 12/03/07 post. Despite his denial, he takes a run at Keillor’s most recent offering in the Star Tribune and does a good impression of the anti-Keillor. Keillor’s deep weekly thoughts are prominently featured in the Star Tribune’s Sunday opinion section. James warms to the task with a question of general applicability concerning Keillor’s columns: “[W]ithout his name on the top, I wonder if editors would shovel out 12 inches of white space for these disconnected mutterings.”
Careful readers may observe how a professional achieves his effects. The answer to James’s question is of course implicit in its conclusion. Careful readers may also come to understand the ruin of the Star Tribune when considering Keillor’s prominent role in contrast with James’s relegation to cyberspace.
To comment on this post, go here.

Responses

Books to read from Power Line