In this week's coverage of the New York Times Book Review, Alexis the Intern discovers that David Foster Wallace still loves footnotes more than he loves his own mother or, say, the book he's supposed to be reviewing. Meanwhile, Jay McInerney doles out some sass and a Bush clansman comes forth to tackle the NYTBR liberal juggernaut. After the jump, our weekly guide to acting like you're well-read.

Borges: A Life
 By Edwin Williamson
Reviewed by David Foster Wallace

Wallace doesn t care much for Williamson s biography of writer Jorge Luis Borges. While he acknowledges Williamson s discussion of Argentine history and politics isn t too shabby, when Williamson starts making connections between Borges s personal life and his verbal art things start getting crappy. Ultimately, Foster Wallace writes, The big problem with Borges: A Life is that Williamson is an atrocious reader of Borges s work, his interpretations amount to a simplistic, dishonest kind of psychological criticism. We actually found the review quite interesting, but what is up with the footnotes? It seemed like Foster Wallace was like, Hey, can I have 40,000 footnotes in my review? and the editors were like, Um sorry, it s Times policy not to include footnotes. And then Foster Wallace was like, Well, then I guess I ll take my business elsewhere, and the editors were all, No! No! Just kidding! Fine, we ll run your footnotes, even though they are really long and rambling, and this one particularly so:

"Williamson's chapters on Borges's sudden world fame will be of special interest to those American readers who weren't yet alive or reading in the mid-1960's. I was lucky enough to discover Borges as a child, but only because I happened to find "Labyrinths," an early English-language collection of his most famous stories, on my father's bookshelves in 1974. I believed that the book was there only because of my parents' unusually fine taste and discernment — which verily they do possess — but what I didn't know was that by 1974 "Labyrinths" was also on tens of thousands of other homes' shelves in this country, that Borges had actually been a sensation on the order of Tolkien and Gibran among hip readers of the previous decade.

Footfuckingnote?! Glad to know that your parents verily do possess some unusually fine taste and discernment. TMI, Foster Wallace. TMI!! Also troubling was Foster Wallace s use of the word Bluck. What the fuck, may we ask, is bluck? We weren t sure, so we google image searched it, found this dude,David Bluck, and now we understand. Everything.

Men and Cartoons
 By Jonathan Lethem
Reviewed by Jay McInerney

If you haven t read Jonathan Lethem s 2003 novel, The Fortress of Solitude, get ready to be alienated by Jay McInerney. While we must admit that it s kind of sexy when Jay McInerney alienates us, the review really just revolves around the fact that Lethem s new book of short stories isn t The Fortress of Solitude. McInerney gets a little sassy with Lethem, calling some his stories gimmicky. He writes, When the cops leave a can of stuff behind, the couple spray each other, only to reveal past lovers clinging to their bodies. Cute. Next! Yowzahs. As for the photo of Jonathan Lethem, he looks like he just swallowed a gerbil. Incidentally, must the Times insist on running photos of writers next to the reviews? There s a reason these folks are writers, people! It s because they re funny looking! Apologies, Jonno, we think you re brilliant and would totally do you, but, well, yeah.

Letters to the Editor:
We almost peed in our pants when we saw Jonathan Bush s letter to the editor, expressing how he and members of his family were incredulous to see the NYT s two- page review of Kitty Kelley s Bush family tell all. I read the New York Times regularly; thus I was truly surprised and offended to see your review, which treats this rotten book seriously. Honey, the NYT editors let Foster Wallace use the word bluck. They recently devoted a page of the Review to the joys of butt sex. You think they re somehow above reviewing the Kitty Kelley book? No, sir. While most of the letter is terribly written bunch of drivel, Bush offers some truly constructive advice to the Review editors: [The book] should have been dismissed with a brief paragraph such as this: Kitty Kelley has written yet another piece of slanderous trash. If you really think you hate the Bushes, then read it. But don t buy it, borrow it. Oooooh. You tell em, Bushie!