Posts Tagged ‘Haut or not’

Haut or Not: An Assortment

Wednesday, March 11th, 2009

hodges

David Hodges

Heller, Kafka, Orwell, Vonnegut — welcome to class kids. This semester Mr. Hodges will be teaching us how horrible society is and how to maintain a negative attitude. Then we’re gonna read A Confederacy of Dunces and all kill ourselves in hopes of also being posthumously published. And don’t forget, you can use Tom Wolfe’s book as an ottoman. Lastly, we’ll finish off with a biography of Clarence Thomas, cuz there’s nothing that says justice more than a pube on a can of Pepsi.

Rating: not.

(more…)

Haut or Not: Matt Cozart

Tuesday, March 10th, 2009

photo-311

Melville’s dick on Sister Carrie — that’s all I can think about, and what looks to be a bunch of children’s books on top of Kenneth Koch and William Carlos Williams. Now we know where Matt’s priorities lie: so much depends upon/ a red wheelbarrow / and whether or not it’s nap-time. Such blasphemy doesn’t even compare with John Irving being 3 tiers above D.F. Wallace. [Brief interview with a hideous man: Q) You ever wish your last name began with M?, A) Yes, all the time.] As for O. Henry and O’Hara: O’MyGod

Rating: Not.

Haut or Not

Friday, March 6th, 2009

andy_rooney

HTMLGIANT hereby institutes Haut or Not, where we rate your bookshelves. This was initiated and corroborated by J. Taylor and B. Bulter, respectively, and inspired by this recent post and the unfortunate yet captivating Hot or Not series.

Just email htmlgiant@gmail.com a picture of your bookshelf (or stack of books w/ spines showing) and one us will either rate it ‘haut’ (haute, formal) or ‘not.’ You may also email individual contributors at their personal addresses if you specifically want them to rate you, acknowledging that our tastes vary drastically.

Here are the parameters:

Subject heading: Haut or not

pics: 500 pixel-wide jpeg, ~200kb.

Disclaimer: we are also free to rate, or make commentary on, all implicated vicinity of the photo. For example, if in the far distance we see an out-of-focus neon thing that resembles a dildo, we will assume it’s a dildo. You may insist it’s a $275 Roche-Bobois lamp, but we will ignore you. So please, be careful. If you are not prepared to be made fun of, this is not the venture for you.