Laila Lalami

Alice Walker is in to Cuba to promote the Spanish translation of her novel Meridian. And no, amigos, she’s not meeting with Fidel, so settle down.

This New York Times article, Arabs in US Raising Money to Back Bush, starts with a startlingly broad generalization:

Wealthy Arab-Americans and foreign-born Muslims who strongly back President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq are adding their names to the ranks of Pioneers and Rangers, the elite Bush supporters who have raised $100,000 or more for his re-election.

Funny thing is, the paper of record has nothing to back up this assertion, save for a few people who happen to be, well, not quite Arab: there’s mention of several wealthy Iranian donors, Pakistani donors, White House dinners, etc. but not really of Ahmed Bin Mohammed of Dearborn or whatever. Perhaps faintly aware of the oddness of the generalization that wealthy Arabs are donating to their nemesis, the writer tries to qualify it:

One reason may be that Arab-Americans are not a monolithic group.

Gee, you think? Why, then, does the very title of the article send the message that these wealthy donors are of the same ethnic group? This is just bizarre.

How can disadvantage persist so long after most laws, minds and practices have changed? Thomas M. Shapiro argues in this sober and authoritative book that we should look to disparities of wealth for the answer. Whites are wealthier than African Americans, and whites’ wealth advantage is much bigger than their advantages in either income or education (the point of Shapiro’s earlier study, Black Wealth/White Wealth, co-authored with Melvin Oliver). Whites start out ahead because they inherit more from their parents, and America’s racially segregated housing markets boost whites’ home equities, while depressing those of African-American families. Shapiro, a professor of sociology at Brandeis, takes readers through the implications of these inequities and concludes that African Americans will not gain significant ground in the wealth divide until inheritance and housing policies change.

The Washington Post reviews Shapiro’s The Hidden Cost of Being African American.

To Americans, a bestseller in Canada is like a tree falling in the forest. Unless it’s written by Margaret Atwood, they don’t hear it and it doesn’t exist. A beautiful novel by Francis Itani followed that parochial rule last fall. No. 1 in Canada, “Deafening” barely made a sound on the other side of the border. This baffling literary disconnect between the world’s two most connected nations is about to be tested again. Guy Vanderhaeghe’s “The Last Crossing” was selected as one of the best books of the year by Canada’s major newspapers. The Canadian Booksellers Association chose it as their favorite novel of 2002, and readers there have sent it to the top of the bestseller list. If there’s any literary justice, any thirst for adventure, any love for a great Western, then “The Last Crossing” won’t just cross the Canadian border, but shatter it.

The Christian Science Monitor reviews The Last Crossing.

The BBC finds it useful to let its readers know that author Helen Fielding just had a baby. We are standing by for news on who Julian Barnes is dating, what Mark Haddon is wearing, and who’s doing Audrey Nifenegger’s makeup.

Anne Tyler responds to the NY Times’ emailed questions.

Wellesley students staged simultaneous readings of all of Shakespeare’s works, including his poetry, in a 24-hour period.

If you’re good at haiku (I’m not), you could enter the Guardian’s Valentine’s Day haiku contest: Verse Your Valentine.

Kareem Fahim reviews Tariq Ali’s Bush in Babylon for the VLS.

In a sense, Bush in Babylon hosts the exiles’ debate: leftist poets versus Pentagon collaborators, a struggle for authorship of an unwritten Iraqi future. One side waits for Nasser, and the other for Jefferson. Perhaps Iraq should be left to a younger generation with a shorter memory.

Read the full review here.

The Florida Review is having trouble staying afloat, due to recent budget cuts.

It is still unclear whether The Florida Review will receive money next year, but this time Leiby said they will be prepared if they do not receive the money. Leiby has already begun work on grant applications and has plans to increase the subscription base as well. Without UCF’s regular contribution, subscriptions were responsible for paying the entire cost of the fall and spring issues, Leiby said. Donations will help to pay for future issues.

They are having a fee-paying contest to help raise funds.