gene morgan will publish my chapbook online for free soon; kevin sampsell does not want to publish it anymore
today the sky is blue and white with bright blue spots and a small pale moon will be published online by gene morgan, creator, publisher, designer of bear parade
i will post all my emails with kevin sampsell soon where we discuss editing and business and art
i'm afraid
people are going to hate me
but i cannot defend myself philosophically if i do not post everything
the more information that is true that is allowed to be known by anyone who is alive the less pain and suffering will exist in the world
secrecy allows it so that people's actions cannot be easily traced to themselves
the closer action and identity is linked the more conscious the human being will be of other human beings
the less pain and suffering will exist
i'm going to post all the emails and a very long post on editing that i have been working on
none of this will be about ego, proving who is right, identity, arrogance, or proving anything; it will just be a lot of information in one post about editing that is not didactic, that does not come from a 'personality' but could come from a computer or a robot, if a there was a robot computer programmed to blog without preconception about editing
i am not trying to 'get back' at kevin sampsell, to prove that i am better than him, to prove that gene morgan is better than kevin sampsell, or to prove that art plus money equals something not art, or that art plus money equals business, or anything
i'm not trying to prove anything or that anyone is right or wrong, i'm just going to post a lot of information about editing
a lot of people will regardless think that i'm just being immature and trying to 'cause trouble'
but there will be no new opinions in the post that will be posted about editing, only facts and 'past opinions' expressed in emails between kevin sampsell and tao lin
a fact that 'causes trouble' means that there are humans in the world who aren't able to successfully defend themselves philosophically about their actions, or something
something like that
here is how i want to do things; it is lyrics from a song by propagandhi:
‘I’ll call you on your shit / Please call me on mine / We can grow together / Make this shithole planet better / In time.’
what this post means:
thank you for reading and have a good night
i will post all my emails with kevin sampsell soon where we discuss editing and business and art
i'm afraid
people are going to hate me
but i cannot defend myself philosophically if i do not post everything
the more information that is true that is allowed to be known by anyone who is alive the less pain and suffering will exist in the world
secrecy allows it so that people's actions cannot be easily traced to themselves
the closer action and identity is linked the more conscious the human being will be of other human beings
the less pain and suffering will exist
i'm going to post all the emails and a very long post on editing that i have been working on
none of this will be about ego, proving who is right, identity, arrogance, or proving anything; it will just be a lot of information in one post about editing that is not didactic, that does not come from a 'personality' but could come from a computer or a robot, if a there was a robot computer programmed to blog without preconception about editing
i am not trying to 'get back' at kevin sampsell, to prove that i am better than him, to prove that gene morgan is better than kevin sampsell, or to prove that art plus money equals something not art, or that art plus money equals business, or anything
i'm not trying to prove anything or that anyone is right or wrong, i'm just going to post a lot of information about editing
a lot of people will regardless think that i'm just being immature and trying to 'cause trouble'
but there will be no new opinions in the post that will be posted about editing, only facts and 'past opinions' expressed in emails between kevin sampsell and tao lin
a fact that 'causes trouble' means that there are humans in the world who aren't able to successfully defend themselves philosophically about their actions, or something
something like that
here is how i want to do things; it is lyrics from a song by propagandhi:
‘I’ll call you on your shit / Please call me on mine / We can grow together / Make this shithole planet better / In time.’
what this post means:
you can now read my chapbook for free and sooner and whenever you wantthose are the 4 things this post means, in case you were a little confused
you can now read a post about editing and learn about editing and read my emails and kevin sampsell's emails
you can now hate me even more than you did before
you can now read my chapbook and know that it is the 'aesthetic vision' of an individual and not a committee and that no compromises were made in service of business, booksellers, readers, or anything that is not the individual's brain, which was my brain (and for the design of the book, will be gene morgan's brain), which means something that i am not sure what yet but that will be talked about in the post that is forthcoming on editing
thank you for reading and have a good night
37 Comments:
brian beatty's head is an egg and a chicken sits on the egg to keep it warm but the chicken is an obese chicken and breaks the egg when it sits on it then feels confused and walks away.
I don't hate you or think you're an asshole.
I just don't think robots are all that cool. I used to program computer games and find them cooler than people, easier to interact with. Now I think people are cooler than computer games.
Preconceptions are more fun to deal with.
That's all I think.
To call any of us on our shit: none of this really betters much.
You shouldn't do it. I really don't think you should.
you should continuously threaten to do this until we publish the book, and then do it.
marketing.
ellen,
you are sitting here right now
mike,
no, it makes a difference
death isn't bad
you are being naive
matthew,
please explain
gene,
maybe, if i want more readers
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Death isn't "bad," but the pain and suffering people tend to go through in relation to death isn't all that fun.
I didn't say that it didn't make a difference. Without preconceptions, I couldn't ride a bicycle. Without preconceptions, I wouldn't want to go anywhere.
It's considered naivete. I don't think that's still naivete.
I mean I have considered it some, which is the opposite of naivete.
Tao,
Sorry, I typed my response too fast. You're right. I did say "this doesn't better anything," which sounds like it doesn't make a difference and that death is good/bad. I should've said this:
I don't see how you doing a long post on editing that attempts to sound like a robot will reduce pain and suffering in the world, some of which happens when people die.
I think that is an example of the shit you have requested people call.
all opinions/judgments about death are wastes of opinions/judgments. but it's still hard not to have an opinion, since i am not a robot yet.
tao:
it will be cool to be able to read the chapbook any time.
also: thank you ellen and tao for the book that i have not seen yet because mike (my esteemed roommate) left it at his girlfriend's house and also i am currently living an hour away from the book until the end of the summer.
It was an accident. I too am not a robot. I apologized and felt bad and still feel bad. I wanted to show the story to other people, and I couldn't find my copy.
I wonder if Tao will now say something about how horrible I am.
Big fan. Go for the throat-- Of course, this is my subjective opinion(in the form of enthusiasm) of the forthcoming past factual emails between you and the d-bag. Anyhow, big fan.
I would explain, but Izzy has done such a fine job for me already. His reaction is and will always remain the perception.
That's all.
mike,
the post will explain
bryan,
moth ass
izzy,
okay
matthew,
wait, you didn't want me to do it but izzy wants me to and you agree with him, please explain
brian beatty
That was the explanation. You shouldn't precisely because your intention is and always will be interpreted as you attempting to "go for the throat" and get back at a "d-bag."
Even if that's not why you want to post your messages from Kevin.
Who is, by the way, in no way a "d-bag."
Any act can be interpreted under an emotional context. Every act has an affect as its root. Matthew feels the interpretation will be construed wrongly. But he doesn't realize you are going for the throat, and that this is as good a reason as the next. The moral Matthew should calm down and let people do what they must. Sampsell may not be a d-bag for Matthew. But it still remains to be seen if he is one for Tao. Also, I think most people are also interested in the nuances of the publishing industry.
Who gives a shit why Tao posts the emails. Whether he is pissed or not. Is there really an objective stance? Clearly Tao is deciding between his initial interest(to post) and the "sensible" thing(to not post). Everyone at this point should realize that this is the central conflict for Tao; otherwise he would never have announced that he was going to post and would simply have posted all the emails without warning. The cliche stands: To be or not to be.
Hi Izzy,
I apologize for calling you a he. You are a she, yes?
What I was trying to say was that Tao's stated goal in posting a bunch of emails was to give us all information, free of judgement, free of malice, free of anger, free of disappointment, etc. But, you think he's going for the throat. You insist again, he is going for the throat. He is doing so because Kevin has been a d-bag to him.
Tao seems to state otherwise. But, you call it like you see it. And, I say, everyone else sees it that way, too.
I suggest he reconsider, because I don't think he can be perceived otherwise, no matter how hard he protests to the contrary.
And also because I do not think Kevin is a douche bag. There it is. I said the d word we have avoided. I think Kevin is an incredibly good reader and an incredibly good writer, and that if he made suggestions, it was not because he was trying to sell more books—let's be reasonable, here, everyone...future tense press is not a money-making venture, and doesn't function as one—but because he was trying to keep the work he publishes honest.
It may be that I am a really fucking lousy writer. Go ahead and say that. I am willing to bear that burden. I'll say it: I'm a really bad writer. I can't write a good story. There. Take it. Enjoy. But.
But.
Let's pretend I am a good writer. Try hard. Imagine. I know it's difficult. Here:
A good editor keeps me honest. A good editor looks at what I write and says, "See, this place here? You are totally lying to me. You're taking a short cut. Don't do that. You're better than that. I know you are. Here's an idea. Think about it."
I take short cuts. Good writers do, too. And they might not realize it. They might miss it when they do it.
Future Tense Press is not Knopf. It publishes chapbooks. Really fucking good chapbooks. Edited by someone absolutely dedicated to the art of the sentence, the paragraph, and the story. And who doesn't make money from them.
Too much of this discussion has been about the commodification of art. Art does get commodified. I'm not denying that. I just think if you insist on believing that this is an example of such, you are lying to yourself.
That's why I say don't do it. Seriously, Tao. It probably matters little to Kevin. Maybe it matters little to you. But I say this as someone who deeply admires your writing, and in principle understands your hesitation:
Let it go.
Let it go on principle.
That's all.
Matthew, is it?
Good post/points.
Can you elaborate on the shortcuts that some writers take?
Also, when you say "it matters little" to Kevin and/or Tao, would it be fair to say "matters little" is synonymous with "petty?"
I agree with you. I think that both parties would be better off sans a long post on the editorial process and subsequent email between the two.
And yet, I'd like to read the post on editing, as well as the email.
Mostly the post on editing though.
No one is questioning your writing, Matthew. Chill. The last point I make here is this. This chapbook has been forthcoming for quite a while now. Though it is unecessary to state, Tao obviously had some kind of investment in it--certainly emotional. I understand your argument and agree. For you this is seemingly petty. But for Tao, who is clearly pissed, this is quite significant. I wouldn't disqualify anger so quickly.I understand you are quite above anger and emotional discharge(if you will), but Tao doesn't seem to be, and I don't understand what is wrong with that.
Lastly, this is so much bullshit. Tao with his bullshit rebellious attitude. Just post it or shut the fuck up.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
future tense may not be knopf, but like knopf, it must sell copies. to break even, if anything.
paper presses are impeded by this. they cannot allow a writer to make mistakes. which is boring. i want mistakes. why does everything have to be perfect and not full of shit? and who has the right to be the buffer between art and people anymore?
i am not talking shit about kevin sampsell. i am talking shit about an entire industry.
paper printing will be obsolete in twenty years. it loses money, it kills trees, it has limited distribution. once technology allows for monitors to replicate paper (which is not too far off), books will be nostalgia and nothing more. this blog will be as relevant as a book. it's early, and i've had too much coffee. i no longer think i'm making a cohesive point. coffee.
maybe my point is that, unlike what updike seems to argue, the internet allowing writers to publish what they want will only make writers stronger. tao making mistakes makes him stronger. he is young. he will make mistakes. it should be okay if he makes them, even in public. it should be okay if he is ugly sometimes. it should be okay for someone not to publish him because they have a problem with this, and a different philosophy. everything is okay. people. coffee.
Bear Parade has over 16,000 hits.
If the point of writing is to get people to read your work. Then currently in the small publishing world, getting published on the internet is better.
Basically the only independent publishers that could get that many readers is Akashic or Soft Skull.
But Akashic and Soft Skull couldn't do that for a 15 page weird ass book anyway.
If Tao had that chapbook published by Future Tense, he probably wouldn't have sold 300 copies. But several thousand will end up reading it on Bear Parade.
I agree with gene. Bye.
in ulysses it sez "errors are volitional and are the portals of discovery"
and joyce did everything wrong, you can prove that by applying "critical standards"
so he should know
I hold with Gene and Noah about
1) books becoming obsolete as the primary methods of, um, stuff like "linguistic art distribution" -- poems, stories, whatever
2) free internet publications receiving more attention than moneybound paper publications.
I think paper publications will survive as relics. Unless you birth a whole new generation of people who never experience paper, you’ll be left with people who will at some point experience all the tangible sensations of paper: the feel, the smell, etc. And you'll never simulate the totality of those sensations -- the uncanny valley, where the most realistic computer-drawn face is actually the most creepy and inhuman.
With e-books, even if you defeated electricity problems, built little chips that gave off the right smell .. it would be too hard to convince the brain, which can distinguish the difference between things on minute micro-levels, even if we lack the understanding to identify that distinction beyond "feeling something's off."
So books will turn into phonographs or records, things you get for the sensation of the experience more than the content contained within.
And the internet will turn into the primary distribution .. method? market? arena? for books.
Um, I don’t know if people effectually sic the economy on it. Like charge for shit. Theoretically, nothing stays free for too long. But there’s a difference between, say, human bodies needing a gate to get past a stone wall, getting charged to go through that gate, and dumb computer code needing other code to display more code. Code’s a much flimsier barrier.
Probably people will figure it out and charge for all shit, and free shit will settle back into its utopian underground status. But for a while it shall be glorious.
The d-word was douche and not dirt? Seriously?
Two things:
1) If anyone is a d-bag, Joyce is a d-bag.
2) There will never be an end to paper publications.
So much to respond to.
Let's begin:
Trevor: Hi. Matthew, yes. Matthew Simmons. Writers take all sorts of shortcuts. I take all sorts of shortcuts. "Hmm, I want to convey an emotional tone...let's just invent a character who acts as an agency of my desire to move the story along."
Reader reads and say, "Interesting story, but there was this character who helped move the story along who seemed completely implausible, and only helped to move the story along. As if the writer created said character because they couldn't really figure out what the fuck else to do. Good story. Not great, but good."
Editor says to writer, "Hey. So, yeah. Good story. But this guy? This character? Totally dropped in to act as an agent of your desire to move the story in such and such a direction, but false. False. Absolutely false. Reconsider. I love you, writer, Don't fucking cheat me."
General example. Not specific. Maybe if you'd like, I can go through a story of mine, a bad story, and show you an example. I've done it. I know I've done it. I'm embarrassed to have done it. Sometimes, I'm stuck, and in the short term can't figure out what else to do. My editors call me on my shit.
Re, matters little: Tao will move on. Kevin will move on. Yeah, petty. Not emotionally. But, in the grand scheme.
I, on the other hand, remain deeply disappointed that a favorite publisher and favorite writer will not be moving on together. That's all.
Izzy: I only did the "go ahead and call me a crappy writer" thing to defuse that as an argument. "You, Matthew, need editied, because you are a crappy writer." It came off as defensive. And I am sorry. I did not mean it to be so. I was attempting to level the playing field. I did a lousy job of it, is all. Sorry.
What I am trying to point out, when I use your posts to bolster what I am saying is: Tao is saying that anger is not involved in his decision to post the emails. He is explicitly stating that he has no emotional investment in this. He is just trying to allow complete, unfettered access to infomation. I am saying that even if that is truly his motivation, readers will never see it as such. And you don't, right? You encourage him to "go for the throat."
I don't think he should do it. I think if he does, he should admit why. I think when he says it is not an emotional choice it is (sorry, Tao) a canard.
Tao is a good writer. But, he is a good writer when he does not lie to himself.
Don't lie to yourself, Tao. Hate me for saying this. But, don't lie to yourself. Don't cheapen your very important work by lying to yourself.
Gene: yes, I know Future Tense wants to sell books. But, I know Kevin. I know Kevin alomost never even breaks even on his chapbooks. Seriously. Future Tense is a labor of love. Like Bear Parade.
Significant difference. I don't believe the follosing has ever occurred to Kevin: "Jeez, if this small editing change is made, Future Tense will sell a heck of a lot more books!"
I do think this has occurred to Kevin: "Man this is a good story. Good. But. Hmm...I read this and I wonder if the author has ever thought of [this]. If the author considered [this], I bet even more would happen/occur/mean in the story. I think I'll mention it."
Gene, I get what you are saying. But, I think the targets are different. I don't think it's reasonable to equate Future Tense with "the industry." Magdalen Powers published an amazing book with Future Tense. A book that will never sell. No edits will ever make it a bestseller. A book that sells enough to break even. Financially. Artistically, though, it has paid off in spades. One person buys it, and it has more than made up for the trouble. (I bought two, so, yeah. It has more than done what it should. You should buy a copy. And ask her to send Bear Parade a few stories to publish. She's amazing.)
Beyond that, I think you lose the original argument. This is not about the paper vs. digital publishing arraingment. This is about editing.
Or, I thought this was about editing.
And, from what I know of Tao (or what I think I know of Tao), he doesn't want flawed work to appear under his name. He writes, and rewrites, and rewrited, and rewrites. Because he wants things a certain way.
And, so does Kevin. And Kevin is brave enough to say, "Hey, author. Great story. But...what about this."
Good on Kevin.
Good on the man who wants to keep the artist honest.
And beyond that, Gene, screw Updike. This isn't about Updike and internet publishing. You have a really fucking cool site. With really amazing "books". That's not what I'm arguing.
Keep it up. I love Bear Parade. Wish I had a manuscript to send to it.
Noah: I am certain Bear Parade gets more hits than Future Tense sells books. Sure. Okay.
But, that's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about editing. That's all. Future Tense. Editing. Hits is a completely different issue. One Tao didn't bring up.
Chapman: Joyce and Tao are fundametally different kinds of writers. In fact, we are not discussing spelling or syntax errors. We are discussing errors in intention and formal choices that don't mesh with intention. That's all.
Joyce was right. Joyce was amazing.
This is different.
Mike: really interesting stuff. But, not germaine to what I was saying.
And, in fact, you probably weren't writing to me. You had larger concerns. Cool. Really. I wanted to sort of respond, in case you were in some way addressing me. If you weren't, feel free to ignore this.
Chuck: Yes, the d-word could be dirt. Good point.
Steve: here, here. If only because reading from a screen hurts my eyes and depresses me.
Additional comment: I did not put "books" in quotes in this message to gene to denigrate what he is doing. Bear Parade really is very cool. I just wasn't sure if one should call e-books books without the quotes. We live in a transitional period.
Matt: Yeah, I was sort of just leaping off the paper versus internet discussion that Gene and Noah brought up. Don't worry!
Also, since you're here: Are you still doing Monkeybicycle? I saw somewhere that you stopped doing it.
Steve, please talk about why there will never be an end to print publications.
matthew, i don't know what you mean when you say 'keeping the writer honest'
i don't know what you mean either each time you use the word 'good'
each time the word 'good' is used i just feel like i'm confused and fucked, since i've never known this magical thing called 'good,' but only that certain things produce certain, different effects in different people's brains
matthew, i think that sampsell never really liked my writing
if you read the edits you will see that they are small and i took some of them
and that i asked sampsell to tell me if he would only publish the chapbook if i took all his edits, and he did not give me that chance, but just sent the email cancelling the chapbook while we were still discussing edits
that is honestly what i think in regards to publishing with sampsell
the post is about editing though
it isn't about sampsell and i
the reason this discussion, most of these arguments in this comments section, will never be resolved is because some people here think in concrete terms and others think abstractly and with words 'good,' 'better'
to the person who thinks in concrete terms the word 'good' means nothing unless defined within a context
"Re, matters little: Tao will move on. Kevin will move on. Yeah, petty. Not emotionally. But, in the grand scheme.
I, on the other hand, remain deeply disappointed that a favorite publisher and favorite writer will not be moving on together."
'moving on,' i don't understand
people have been 'moving on' for thousands of years
things only ever change when someone says, 'wait, we need to stop and think about what we are actually doing'
i'm saying, 'wait, we need to stop using words like GOOD, BETTER, or BEST when talking about art'
it has been happening for hundreds of years i guess
hey matthew.
i went off topic. sorry.
you are right about things.
there is a need for editors, sometimes, and the way people talk about sampsell is great, so i'm sure he's really talented and relevant at what he does.
i will buy the book you recommend, and i will probably like it. we need new writers all the time, and i don't read enough. we still have no books other than tao's lined up.
i am excited about publishing this book on the internet. it's fucking awesome. i hope everyone reads it.
as for the paper vs. electronics thing, i'm sorry for going off topic. it was a mistake. i drank too much coffee.
books will never be replaced. they will just grow distant.
they will go the way of vinyl. and i still buy records. new ones.
i need to read this long post now, and learn about editing.
Post a Comment
<< Home