anti-tao lin mass email
i think an editor of a literary magazine sent a mass email to many other editors and writers saying something about me
i encourage those editors and writers to read this entire site to possibly achieve a 'clearer understanding' of the email
thank you
i encourage those editors and writers to read this entire site to possibly achieve a 'clearer understanding' of the email
thank you
103 Comments:
What did it say?
probably to visit this site for an insightful discussion on first serial rights and the structure and function of online literary magazines
Oh
Someone googled a story I just sent out. The only person that could have known of its title was the person I sent it to. i think they were checking if it was published.
i found that out through statcounter.
they're afraid
I sent out that email. I'll admit to it.
My name is Whitney Pastorek, and I am the editor of Pindeldyboz. Tao, you sent us a story that violated our submission policies by not being completely unpublished prior to submission; you then sent that story several other places without informing them of its acceptance at Pboz or its previous appearance elsewhere. When I asked you if this disrespectful act was true, you said yes; then you wrote that "'respect' is abstract and meaninglessness outside of one person and a bad thing to either want or want to give."
I disagree with this theory, because given that I run a literary magazine with the single and simple intention of giving talented writers like yourself a forum to present your work to the masses-- and I do it for free, neither charging money to you nor making money for me-- the least I think I should be able to ask for is respect, of me, my journal, my editorial staff, and the one and only rule we have: do not send us previously published work.
So, when my fellow editors and publishers-- another of whom had been affected by the story in question and its previously-published status-- wondered about the situation, I told them. I am happy to take a stand on this issue, and field any questions people might have about my decision. I am also happy to speak with you, Tao, about YOUR decision and find a way to work together in the future (because, again, I think you're talented), but that discussion has to take place in the real world of real people, not the bunny-rabbit world of lower-case letters and this bizarre writer vs. editor battle you seem to be fighting, a battle that, to me, is about as self-sabotaging as it gets. (I think Kevin Sampsell would agree with me on this.)
My email is whittlz@pindeldyboz.com. I welcome all comments. I hold no ill will towards Tao; I simply want my fellow editors and publishers to know that he does not believe in respect, and that any submission sent by him may be suspect because of that.
"i will destroy you. i will notify all my colleagues. and you will never publish in another obscure, ephemeral internet e-zine again."
Chapman: I don't think that's quite what I said. I informed my colleagues about Tao's position on the meaninglessness of "first serial rights," and his decision not to play by the rules. Rule, actually. Singular. Then I stated my decision not to publish his work anymore.
I also believe that in my letter-- and, hey, let's make it a vow that I'll say this every time the issue is brought up-- I mentioned his talent. God, he's talented. That's what makes this harder.
If I have assurance from Tao that a story he sends me is shiny, I am happy to read it for consideration in Pboz. Until then, I'm afraid our editorial relationship is over. Again, it's really just about respect.
If anyone would like to read the text of the letter I sent, I am happy to share it with you. You'll find my email address in my previous post.
i just typed some questions for whitney but felt tired
it doesn't matter who makes what decisions
here is what life is for most people, first you make assumptions to create a philosophy (you do this whether you know you are doing it or not, and whether you use the word 'philosophy' or not), then you look at your actions to see if they are good or bad in relation to your philosophy
most people's philosophy is that pain and suffering is bad
most people also believe that two causes of pain and suffering are when people see abstractions instead of people and when people structure their lives around abstactions instead of actual people
so a person can look at those things and decide whether an action or an existing structure is good or bad
there is no choice involved
you put all this information into a computer it will probably decide that first serial rights and 'copyrights' are not good and will do things to disrupt that with intent to get people to change their thinking about that
"I disagree with this theory, because given that I run a literary magazine with the single and simple intention of giving talented writers like yourself a forum to present your work to the masses--"
if that was true you would not care about 'first serial rights'
by publishing a story you will increase its readership by a certain amount no matter if it was previously published or not
so there is something else involved, probably that you want to have a 'good' online literary magazine that people will think is 'good' and by extension will think that you are 'good' and will then 'respect' you and the people associated with your magazine
it has almost nothing to do with the writing itself
just read the rest of this site
there was a discussion here about this: http://www.reader-of-depressing-books.blogspot.com/2006/05/i-have-been-interviewed.html
i'm not angry at anyone
people will probably interpret my last comment as me being angry and bitter
but it was just me thinking of how to do things and looking at things like a computer would
if whitney just sent out an email with facts in it i'm OK with that, that is nice, i like that
can you email me the letter whitney please?
Tao, the letter is coming your way.
Also, for the benefit of those watching, this is the text of our submission guideline rule thing. The only reason it exists is to ensure that the words found on Pboz are as fresh as can be. If I was interested in reprinting things, I would go get a job at Reader's Digest.
"We ONLY accept UNPUBLISHED work for both the web and print. In other words, if what you're thinking of sending us can be found anywhere, in any country, in any format (magazine, journal, broadsheet, website) accessible by the general public, DON'T SEND IT. We like shiny things. Once we have published your work, however, you are free to do whatever you want with it, so long as you think of us fondly while you're doing it. In more straightforward terms, we hold first- and one-time rights only."
this is all very cute.
is bear parade still the only place online that pays?
i think blackbird pays
Hi Whitney,
i have a question. why didn't you respond to tao's response? when you read it did you drop your preconceptions about 1st rights for a minute and try and understand what he's saying?
Did you realize that by saying "not the bunny-rabbit world of lower-case letters" that you were being disrespectful?
Do you understand that when you say you disagree with him "because you run a literary magazine etc" that that doesn't make any sense?
What do you mean by "believe in respect?" I understand what tao means, but it means something different to you.
Is the real world the world of preconcieved ideas? Do you mean that real world? Do you think, after reading the lengthy posts tao has written concerning his philosophy, that he makes some interesting and legitamate points worth thinking about? Have you read them? Did you include his argument in your letter to other publishers?
Thank you for your consideration,
Robert Bradley
Hi, Robert. I'm happy to respond to your questions as best I can.
1. why didn't you respond to tao's response?
Tao and I emailed today, and I trust if he had anything more to say to me, he would use that forum, as I don't actually see anything different in his response on this site from the response he gave me when we first discussed his story.
2. when you read it did you drop your preconceptions about 1st rights for a minute and try and understand what he's saying?
I understand what Tao is saying, but I come from a place in which that viewpoint is, sadly, at odds with my own... just as my viewpoint is at odds with his. We are not going to find a common ground here. I have a rule, he has a belief, the two do not meet, and neither of us seems particularly flexible.
And I would like to address this notion of "preconceptions." I come from a theater background, and my first exposure to the world of literary magazines came when I decided to run one. To me, all this "first time serial rights" nonsense is a legalese version of what, to my mind, is a very common-sensical concept: I want to publish unpublished work. That's my "thing." Catchy, huh?
3. Did you realize that by saying "not the bunny-rabbit world of lower-case letters" that you were being disrespectful?
Ah, but the entire concept of "respect" had been suspended at that point! Remember: "respect is a bad thing to either want or want to give."
4. Do you understand that when you say you disagree with him "because you run a literary magazine etc" that that doesn't make any sense?
It makes sense when the question on the table is him breaking a rule of submitting to my literary magazine. See, the trick is this: it's my literary magazine. In this scenario, I am kind of like God.
5. What do you mean by "believe in respect?" I understand what tao means, but it means something different to you.
If you understand what Tao means when he says that "respect" is "bad," please, illuminate me... because I'm confused. In my world, "respect" means considering, appreciating, and attempting to honor the requests and ideals of others to the best of your ability. And therefore, if my world is Pboz, and in that world I am kind of like God, then when I ask people to only send me unpublished work, the "respectful" thing to do would be to honor that. To try and trick me into taking your previously published story, really, is only going to hurt you in the end, when I find out and take it down and ban you from the site until such time that I feel you can be trusted.
Seeing as how I make no money doing this and my staff and I spend the vast majority of our free time outside of the day jobs that pay our bills reading and responding to short fiction in the hopes that we can give talented writers a forum in which to present their work to the world... I think that's not too much to ask.
5. Is the real world the world of preconcieved ideas?
Well, my mommy did tell me the sky was blue. Perhaps she was a liar. I dunno.
6. Do you mean that real world?
Actually, I was talking about the one on MTV. Do you have any thoughts on date rape?
7. Do you think, after reading the lengthy posts tao has written concerning his philosophy, that he makes some interesting and legitamate points worth thinking about?
Sometimes I envy the idealistic world in which Tao dwells, but seeing as how I'm an evil editor with a literary magazine that I preside over whilst calling myself "God," and pay my bills by working for a giant corporate publication where I spend my days writing funny boxes and blogging about Ashlee Simpson for money, I'm not sure I'm his target audience.
8. Have you read them?
Yep. Every word.
9. Did you include his argument in your letter to other publishers?
Nope. Didn't have to. See above: God.
Anything further I can help you with? Sorry, I've had a few beers. But this really has gotten funny to me. Mostly because I would like to know how writers intend to exist without editors and publishers. To quote something I read earlier today: You might as well go bury your stories in the backyard. It's a symbiotic relationship, people, and I'm not gonna apologize for my role in it. And trust me: I've been screwed over waaaay more times on this end than you have on yours. Wanna do the math? Start here: The editorial staff of Pboz reads, on average, 3000 submissions a year. The number of people who currently purchase copies of our print journal averages out to somewhere around 500. You tell me who's getting the shit kicked out of them in that arrangement.
anyhoosiers. thanks for your questions!
I get it. You're God.
Thanks for answering.
No more questions.
RJB
ok, one more question. what's a funny box?
rbradley,
thank you for asking those questions
whitney,
"Sometimes I envy the idealistic world in which Tao dwells..."
idealistic!?
you will probably just dismiss this, but i'll say it anyway, that i don't have any 'beliefs,' i just look at what actually exists and causes and effects
if i looked at slavery and said slavery shouldn't be happening and i gave a black person plastic surgery and did things to his skin to make him look like a white person and then sent him to school in an all-white school i would be breaking the rules and they'd probably just get angry at me for 'disrespecting' their rules but probably a few people would think about it and that's the value of 'breaking the rules'
i'm not trivializing slavery by comparing first serial rights to it, i would never do this normally but it's the only way, and usually still doesn't work, to show people who don't have the ability to think without preconception what i am talking about
i'm just typing the same things i've typed already on this site many times and more articulately
probably 97% of people will immediately dismiss everything i ever think because of that slavery analogy, due to an inability to think with facts, to think without preconception, or to think without distorting things and creating hierarchies
please be aware that i can predict this and explain why you, 97% of people, behave this way; so maybe be a little more conscious of how you think about things; when information goes into your head, be aware of that
"I would like to know how writers intend to exist without editors and publishers."
exist
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sorry, Gene. The Pedestal has been paying online since maybe 2001.
$30 / poem, $.05 / word for prose. They have grant money though.
take your pboz elsewhere
my submission went out there and pboz was in the way and my submission went into pboz
i know you have the right to ban me
you also have the right to kill homeless people at 4 a.m.
if you kill homeless people you will probably suffer consequences, and if you ban me you will also suffer consequences
if i send submissions to you that are previously published i have the right to do that but i will also suffer consequences
i don't know
i think what i'm trying to say is that there is no way to respond to someone if they say things like, "I just run a lit mag, cause I want to."
i never used the word evil, i only use facts
read my facts off your computer screen
they are facts
they aren't 'for' anyone or anything they are just facts
i don't know
actually i don't have beliefs, ideals, morals, or ethics, i don't know what those words mean; you have to make assumptions for those words to have meaning
in conclusion, have a nice day
good night
hobart pays online submitters with a subscription
hobartpulp.com
i own or have owned pindeldyboz print issue 2, 3, and 4
i like tara wray's story in 4, or 3, i forget which
warning: these two sentences are completely neutral and detached from this blog post
i'm glad some people are paying. so no one be sorry. i just wanted to see if anyone else did.
as far as respect goes, i told noah that he deserved respect from me yesterday in an e-mail, and i meant it.
just running a site and publishing people isn't giving respect.
respect is sticking by those people, even if your views and ideas and rules aren't the same as theirs.
I also understand that you (whitney) didn't feel like tao gave you respect from the start, but once you understand where he's coming from, which you do, it's hard to apply the same rules.
it's like a cop pulling over a speeding car, and seeing a pregnant lady in the front seat. and you're still writing the citation.
that being said,
i own three issues of pboz, and used to worship darby larson's blog before it died. tell that guy he's awesome, whitney.
i think people very much appreciate what you do, and i also think that tao wasn't shitting on you in particular, just on the dated premise that most online journals carry themselves on. which, i should add, is a legit criticism.
Tao:
One last comment and then I'm done.
You say:
"i think what i'm trying to say is that there is no way to respond to someone if they say things like, "I just run a lit mag, cause I want to.""
I would argue that there is similarly no way to respond to someone if they say things like "actually i don't have beliefs, ideals, morals, or ethics, i don't know what those words mean; you have to make assumptions for those words to have meaning"
Thank you for purchasing print issues of Pboz, and thank you for your wonderful submissions in the past. I look forward to anything you want to send in the future, should you have a change of heart about this nonsense. In the meantime, best of luck, and try not to let the realities of daily existence get you down too much.
best,
w
""i think what i'm trying to say is that there is no way to respond to someone if they say things like, "I just run a lit mag, cause I want to.""
I would argue that there is similarly no way to respond to someone if they say things like "actually i don't have beliefs, ideals, morals, or ethics, i don't know what those words mean; you have to make assumptions for those words to have meaning""
i agree
This has been very interesting reading. Thank you.
The Vestal Review publishes flash fiction and pays.
Someone behind me just sneezed. Another person said "kazuuntight." Then she said it again because no one answered her the first time.
Okay, she has now said it four times.
I probably won't keep y'all updated on this.
why are all of the places that pay so ugly?
If first serial rights are pointless, then why don't journals just stop bothering with trying to publish self-righteous, aspiring writers and just resolve to publish Hemingway and Carver over and over again?
The kind of nihilism you're preaching could just as easily be turned against you. If securing the rights to publish work is dumb, then why should journals waste their time with new work, when they could just reprint older, better, more memorable work they don't have the rights for.
Also, in terms of magazines securing first serial rights, it's not an issue of magazines taking advantage of you or your work for profit. Most lit mags don't make money. Publishing a beginner's work is a crime of passion for even the most established journals.
All your ideas about publishing seem to be the result of apparent immaturity, a sense of self worth which is completely unrelated to anything you've actually accomplished with your writing, and an all around lack of knowledge concerning the industry which you're attempting to interact with.
"in terms of magazines securing first serial rights, it's not an issue of magazines taking advantage of you or your work for profit. Most lit mags don't make money."
You're right it's not about money, it's about the prestige. If the writer hits it "big," the zine gets to trumpet that they first published such-and-such a story.
I think the assertion that the struggling little literary magazine is an altruistic venture that is only there for the writers to give them a forum in which to be read is specious. If this were so, there would be no obsession with "first serial rights" and publishing only previously unpublished material. Since all these magazines have a very small readership, the best way to call attention to new writers would be to publish the same piece in many magazines at once. That way it would reach the greatest number of people possible. And if there were people who read the same work in several rather obscure places, they would know the writer must really be onto something.
Like marriage, the "first serial rights" is an archaic system for securing someone/thing as a piece of property, a possession. In the case of marriage, the intention is to secure "legitimate offspring" and perhaps a house servant. The purpose of "first serial rights," even for small magazines that don't make money, is to secure potential prestige, which can be spent to inflate the prestige of the magazine and its publisher. I don't see much altruism here.
Okay, thanks for the great discussion and thank you for letting me comment on your blog.
this made for a good reading. thanks!
Something else:
While I wouldn't really care if I saw the same story or poem over and over again in different magazines--if I liked it, of course--I do request to hear if submissions are previously published.
Sometimes we publish them anyway. Like Shane Allison. He's pretty silly and never submits anything correctly. But he's a rail gun of talent.
Sometimes we don't. Why? We elect not to have an infinite amount of publication space, and therefore must sometimes choose between a previously published work and a new, unpublished author. If I love both pieces about the same, yet can only publish one, the status of "previously published" makes my choice easier. I don't feel as bad rejecting the previously published story. It's been published, it has worn its hat down the walkway, it's cool. The new one needs the venue more.
Yeah, yeah, okay: why not just publish both?
Besides the fact NOÖ has very little money, gives itself away, and therefore can only afford so many pages?
I don't like reading magazines that have seven million stories in them. These make me feel anxious and slovenly. Pindeldyboz, somewhat the subject of discussion, is great, a dynamite size. But many college journals are too big. I have no conspiracies regarding this. Only groundless theories. My theories are not trampolines.
But said anxiety makes me choose to limit the amount of work NOÖ publishes. So sometimes the choice between a new author's story and a prev-pubbed story remains, sways me, and thus makes the status of "previously published" a valuable thing to know.
Thank you all for listening. Oregon smells lost in October. I am writing a song about corduroy, stolen dump trucks, and the jump from a bridge at dawn.
It's hard to take Whitney seriously for various and obvious reasons.
It would be interesting to get other online publishers point of view on this. (without having to wait for Tao to be banned from their magazine first) One who, for starters, understands what Tao is saying. Tyler doesn't understand. I believe Tao is referring only to not for profit ezines. So your arguement is off base. (and petulant)
To Mike; rather than speculate about what might happen why not try it Tao's way for a while and find out what really happens. Gotta start somewhere. I think you're all worried over nothing.
Tao: I like the way you don't have arguements. You re-explain or analogize. And hope for the best. Someone either understands or they don't. If they don't understand how and why would/could they argue? The only way I'd trust anything Whitney said, for instance, is if he restated in his own words the merit of your viewpoint. And if he can't then it's back to him being the god of a very small universe.
So if there is a publisher out there willing to think about what Tao is proposing please begin with how you understand his position.
"take your pboz elsewhere
my submission went out there and pboz was in the way and my submission went into pboz"
Whitney, please email me the letter: cagedyellowbird@gmail.com
I like Shane Allison. I liked his poem Jesus Gave Me A Blowjob.
Just seems to me to play nice. Guy asks for no previously published work. Why not send it somewhere else that does not care? No right or wrong besides it is his magazine and he can do what he wants. Plenty of others to choose from and if there are not, you can just buy a web site and sart one up yrself. From now on past simple will only accept work written in bat blood.
jim
Rbradley: There is no "way" to "try," I don't think. We already print both previously published work and first-time authors, as I explained. If you would like to see what we ask for, here are our submission guidelines. My comment simply explained why we request that submissions include notification of previously published status.
Shane Allison is good.
I wish I were talented.
tyler young:
herecreepwretch said what i said and was just going to repeat again so just read his comment
also, why do you hate me?
and why do you assume you are 'better' than me at everything, that you know more than me, that you know everything, and that you are god?
rbradley:
yes, thank you
Whitney here, just wanting to correct a couple of you who seem to have preconceptions about the type of person who edits a literary magazine:
I'm a girl.
thanks!
whitney,
in that case, i have another question. what's it like? being a girl. is it emotional? the girls i know are very emotional.
shouldn't it be WhItnI, or something like that? to avoid confusion. calling yourself the bullet doesn't help. is that a steve mcqueen reference?
that's 4 questions. please number them like before. that was helpful.
tao,
i think people are innured to pain and suffering and that most decisions they make are unconscious and so they can't be said to have a philosophy. they can only have a reaction.
most people don't make assumptions. their assumptions are made for them and are coded straight into their brains, ie, without conscious interference, so that now they simply react. the only way to change this is to do what you are doing, ie, challenge assumptions. And so, no, to the person who said something like can't we all just get along. no, we can't. not until people question their assumptions and begin to make more informed, more conscious decisions.
challenging assumptions will often, or always, be recieved as violence. i approve of this kind of violence. it's necessary. i'm glad you're up to it. but based on what you say about people having a philosophy, I think the problem is much more difficult than you know. not that you don't know how difficult it is...just that it's worse than you suspect.
That sums it up basically. Some people challenge the assumptions that have been fed to them others don't. The vast majority of people really don't basically call it into question because they have a vested interest in not doing it. You see a homeless person on the street and you smell his stink look at the scabs on his face etc. You need to say shit this person is abnormal you know his condition must be a result of being mentally ill or alcoholic or something you can't say to yourself hey this is someone who didn't go along with the program and his condition is the price he is paying. This creature before you bleeding in the street with little ressemblance to humanity as you live is perhaps someone who at some too early point in their life came to the conclusion that it was all a hoax and they weren't marching in the mickey mouse parade any longer. Someone can work all week trying to make the horror and ugliness of it all palatable to its victims and then convince themselves that by editing some literary mag they're providing a forum for voices of dissent to present themselves. You're just keeping the lie alive feeding the monstrous illusion and budweiser is really bad beer.
Mass e-mails are a bad tactic-- but I suspect often used.
This is one case though where I disagree with both sides.
The question is why Tao was submitting there in the first place. What did you expect?
Pboz is a completely conformist lit-journal. It is never, ever going to sway one iota from absolute conformity-- as Whitney indicates. It is what it is. If you don't like its policy, don't submit. Your dishonesty blemishes only yourself.
By the same subway token, what is Whitney complaining about? She accepted the rules of her own game when she began playing it: established lit's ridiculous way of handling writers.
No one asked you to be a slave for demi-puppets, Whitney. That was your choice. If you want to read five million manuscripts and not ask writers to contribute a moment of work, that's your problem.
As I've often said, this is why I don't consider myself a "writer"; I'm a zeenster.
Writers are these mentally handicapped people who expect others-- like editors-- to do everything for them.
All they do is submit their manuscript, and with that, give up total control.
That's the game, Tao! And you played it.
Then they wonder why when their story or article appears in print it's been completely mutilated.
This happened to me, when I wrote a review of JT Leroy's first novel for Bookforum. (Before this on other occasions.)
I told myself, "Never again!"-- and paid a price for it, but independence and SELF-respect is more important to me than success.
(Those who play the machine's game; Whittlz and Tao both, thereby give up their self-respect. We've seen them both here crying about it.)
The Underground Literary Alliance is the only, ONLY, way around this dilemma: writers taking the power over their works into their OWN hands, helping one another cooperatively in a project where no one is slave and no one master.
king,
"The question is why Tao was submitting there in the first place. What did you expect?"
i expected someone to get angry and then for the issue, first serial rights for non-profit literary venues, to get some attention, which is what happened
"By the same subway token, what is Whitney complaining about?"
i intentionally didn't follow her rules, and if she changed the rules she would have to change her worldview and probably her entire life; she would probably have to stop working at her job where she writes articles about jessica simpson, or whatever, and stop trying to 'get ahead,' and move out of new york city, etc.; which is hard to do so she complained
"All they do is submit their manuscript, and with that, give up total control.
That's the game, Tao! And you played it."
oh
"(Those who play the machine's game; Whittlz and Tao both, thereby give up their self-respect. We've seen them both here crying about it.)
The Underground Literary Alliance is the only, ONLY, way around this dilemma: writers taking the power over their works into their OWN hands, helping one another cooperatively in a project where no one is slave and no one master."
'the machine'
'self-respect'
can you define those words using concrete examples from reality?
also, there are thousands of people 'helping one another cooperatively in a project where no one is slave and no one master'
for example bearparade.com or blueberryhamster.com
and if you earnestly believe that this sort of thing, if more widespread, would make for a better world then you should, like christians in africa or china, be trying to influence those who are not doing this sort of thing to begin to do this sort of thing, which is what i thought might begin to happen if only by .01% or whatever by not following pindeldyboz's submission rules, though, like i said, i know that the universe itself has no rules and i'm really just blocking out a lot of information and making assumptions when i do this sort of thing, which is me expressing self-doubt right now
"but based on what you say about people having a philosophy, I think the problem is much more difficult than you know. not that you don't know how difficult it is...just that it's worse than you suspect."
when i say people's actions don't match their philosophies i know they aren't aware of either their own philosophy or probably their own actions either
i'm saying what an outside person would view as the person's philosophy and actions
the people you're thinking about probably haven't been that far outside of the structure to really have been forced to manufacture their own philosophy and those who have usually find there's no way back in. I'm truly amazed at the sort of back stabbing vicious tactics I've been subject to while living overseas and this from fellow americans who are just here as tourists, "why do they care I ask myself, why do they feel a need to make trouble for me?" I've come to believe that it's simply because I don't belong to what they belong to, I'm not a recent college grad spending a year abroad to experience that KULTCHUR before going back to the states to get a masters deegree. Thing is they've got this idea that they're educated, tolerant, well read or whatever but basically they're no different from red neck white trash they hate whatever might challenge the view of the world (much more narrow than they can admit to themselves) that they've built up for themselves. It's not a question for me of someone who's an outsider being able to be heard but of even surviving. Someone needs to hold up a mirror that will show these people what they look like to those they treat with such contempt. The machine is everything that keeps things running as it should be and squashs voices of dissent. When you stop being part of the machine you will no it because then the punishment will start.
Your problem is that you're all nerds who think your opinions about art and culture are important, but you're not willing to work hard to accomplish anything real that would give your opinions merit.
If any of you were important, if any of you were actual doers, then you wouldn't have to blog about everything you do, because people would already know about it.
ps jimmy - "the machine" is the reason why there's hot water in your apartment.
hey maybe we don't have the kinda cult/media conglomerate connections that you got Tyler. What you were involved with the privatisation of EDF/GDF? Man you truly are evil. Everybody I know hates you. Shit I had just as much hot water when it was a public service and your commercials didn't convince anybody who's not completely stupid. Everyone in Belgium is sick of the crappy bands you people promote.
You tell 'em Jimbo. You frickin' loon!
The government put spiders in my brain! Bluah! Bluah! My penis is a microchip! I'm Jimmy! Bluah!
and let me guess why you've shown up here. Just by chance, happened by decided to comment on something that has no signifigance to you or to anyone else in this world. Why talk to people you think are crazy? What it amuses you? You just peruse the web looking for psychotic people. That's pretty fucking sick mang...
Just because you're crazy doesn't mean I don't like you. You have other qualities.
If first serial rights are pointless, then why don't journals just stop bothering with trying to publish self-righteous, aspiring writers and just resolve to publish Hemingway and Carver over and over again?
Starting off clumsy.
The kind of nihilism (I don't think it's nihilism, just a different kind of freedom than you're used to)you're preaching could just as easily be turned against you. If securing the rights to publish work is dumb, then why should journals waste their time with new work, when they could just reprint older, better, more memorable work they don't have the rights for.
You’re suggesting here that old stories and writers are automatically better than any living writers, and you don’t see the need for any new stories to be written. Is this the logic you’re promoting? It's not clear what you're saying otherwise.
Also, in terms of magazines securing first serial rights, it's not an issue of magazines taking advantage of you or your work for profit. Most lit mags don't make money. Publishing a beginner's work is a crime of passion for even the most established journals.
I don’t think he suggested that he’s being taken advantage of, just that first serial rights are a hold over from money making magazines and have no place in not for profit ezines. If you're a for profit magazine then 1st rights make sense.
All your ideas about publishing seem to be the result of apparent immaturity,
(His ideas are mature beyond your ability to either understand them or give them a fair, unbiased look.)
a sense of self worth which is completely unrelated to anything you've actually accomplished with your writing, (this is mere opinion and irrelevant to his challenge)
and an all around lack of knowledge concerning the industry which you're attempting to interact with.
are you a publisher...who are you defending? just curious.
Personally, I have little interest in ezines and am more interested in tao's point of view. what brings you here?
I notice you like to use sarcasm and insults in other posts and somewhat in this one, any chance of you answering without them?
Thanks
In answer to all your questions rbradley:
1.) No, I don't care that your parents aren't married.
2.) You say that Tao is only interested in screwing with e-zines, but he double published with Orchid and they're a print journal.
3.) If you don't think a journal or an e-zine has a sufficient audience for your work, then don't send to them. If you feel any kind of publisher doesn't have a big enough audience for your work, then send your work elsewhere. But don't waste an e-zine's or a journal's time by violating their guidelines. Just because you can't get your work into one big market that doesn't give you the right to screw over a bunch of tiny markets
4.) Rbradley, I seriously don't agree with you when you say that the holocaust never happened. That's messed up and you should take a long look at yourself.
5.) Van Halen was not better with Sammy Hagar and any implication you make to the contrary is false.
So Tyler what's your link to cultlike media conglomerate Clearchannel shit they even have a cult name but hey they're cult members and so undoubtly they've got some kind of secret powers and they think hey we can call ourselves Clearchannel (really sounds like a ufo suicide cult got your cyanide pill ready for the next passage of Hailey's comet?) and no one wil remark upon it. Did you have to confess your most intimate secrets to some kind of controler? Your theirs for life now. Pindelyboyz they're infiltrated or some kind of false flag cult run operation?
uterine fibroids
The literary/publishing "machine"? I've been documenting it on my blog and elsewhere for years.
My Report Sept 10 on the ULA site was simply one tiny proof of how the conglomerates dominate.
More proof is upcoming.
The idea that because we're all obscure here means what we say is not worthwhile shows no knowledge whatsoever of how the world operates.
The ULA in fact HAS been trying to remedy this situation by our ballyhoo and noise-making.
Tao: If others are working cooperatively, more power to them. But your rationale for sending to Whitney-- that you somehow can changed a 100% totally brainswashed demi-puppet-- is unbelievable and self-serving.
The bigger question here is the one of blackballing.
I'd like to read a copy of what Whitney's e-mail actually said.
There's not a doubt in my mind that similar mass e-mails have been sent out about the ULA. "Old Hag" for one once mentioned this: "I know we're not supposed to talk about them. . . ."
And so this spring a demi-puppet lit-blogger described our Howl counter-reading as the most exciting literary event she ever witnessed-- without once actually mentioning our name.
These are all people, mind you, who as writers and editors ostensibly believe in free expression and free speech.
But they're the first to squelch it.
Today's literary system IS a closed shop, Tyler-- unless you adapt your brain and your actions completely to the status quo as Whitney has done.
Then you wonder why no hears about us?
(Brezhnev: "There's no dissent in the Soviet Union, Comrade Visitor. Look around you. Do you see any of it around?")
p.s. Tao, your idea of trying to get all your stories published everywhere at once seems a trifle greedy, and is actually anti-Taoist behavior.
Who do you think you are-- Rick Moody?
king, you're not reading my words
i just stared at the screen, i was going to type something, never mind, just go read what i already typed
some people they decide whether to agree with you or not based on who you are or what you have done or what your reputation is
they are unable to see the words on the computer screen without attaching an identity to them
king, i am typing the same things you are, only i'm using concrete and logical language without emotion or any attached identity, and saying why and how for everything
if i was a member of the ULA typing the same things you would probably agree with me
but only if you knew i was a member of the ULA
I read what's up on your blog, Tao-- about sending your story out simultaneously to many sites at once. Your words are there.
Care to leave room for other writers?
There IS a philosophy behind leaving something on the table; not taking everything you can. (Expressed in the film "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" for instance, when the old guy says they shouldn't take everything out of the mountain-- and should clean up afterward. It's a philosophy complete unknown to established lit folk like Moody or Joyce Carol Oates, who simply want everything. Edward G. Robinson in "Key Largo" when asked what he wants: "More!"
The difference in these two fictional characters is striking-- they represent two different ways of viewing the world.)
p.s.
Tyler will be getting more facts. On my blog: I'm writing an essay about how the lit-world works in reality (not what the writers conferences tell you).
I'm also working on another big Monday Report for the ULA, to be up in a week or two at
www.literaryrevolution.com
Facts, ideas, and evidence is how to change the literary world.
Sorry, Tao, but your comment about me agreeing with you if you were a member of the ULA is stark bullshit.
Don't you know, I get into arguments with ULAers all the time?
(Only now we've learned to keep our disagreements private.)
My original point was that you can do whatever you want to do. Submit to corrupt outfits all you want. But then you'll get what you ask for from them.
Btw, I write with passion, sure, but my points-- about Rick Moody, say-- are always buttressed with evidence which can be checked and documented.
I think you have some preconceptions about me and the ULA. . . .
(There CAN be perceptions of hypocrisy when one attacks the established lit world and then appears to want to be part of them at the same time.
Do you think I didn't have a ton of opportunities to be published in all kinds of venues a few years ago when the ULA was getting covered all the time in places like Page Six; when there was a feature article on me in Black Book?
I stuck to publishing my words only in my own zeens and through the ULA.
I've made a lot of talk, sure-- but I've also walked the walk.
These demi-puppet outfits like Pboz mean nothing in the long run. You're going after short-term gain, that's all.
My two cents. Do your own thing, and good luck to you.)
(Curious your comment that you're not posting under your real identity, Tao. This means you're taking no responsibility for your words and actions. I guess Whitney is trying to blackball a ghost. Oh well. But please don't come out with any holier-than-thou crap when it's bullshit, at least not to me when I really have put my real ass on the line by taking on the status quo, and suffered the consequences.
Thank you.)
dear 'king,'
i am posting under my real identity, which is tao lin
on this web site, which is called reader of depressing books, it has my email address and my real name
stop making this into a contest for who is the most bad-ass anti-establishment punk ass bitch
ula uterine fibroids lit game corporation. anti-establishment fibroids. bear parade is a fucking corporate uterine fibroids.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hey tyler,
I read a story once about chevy chase where the guy said everybody hated chevy because he would stand behind you and make faces as you spoke and generally carry on like you were an asshole. But then the guy realized that it wasn’t an act. Chevy couldn’t help it.
You're right. You're all right. Editors deserve your contempt, they deserve to have the rules that make their job easier and more rewarding broken, simply because they tried to put out a magazine. Damn them.
Keep up the good fight, my little spirit warriors!
Just remember this. Your opinions and way of doing things aren't bad because they're obscure, they're obscure because they're bad.
"he was going to accept being published in more places"???
Chapman, with all due respect, you're rationalizing.
He wanted to call attention only if she didn't accept it???
I can't say I get it.
(I also don't understand Tao's remark to me about not posting under one's identity.)
How's this: George W was going to accept the nomination, but if they didn't give it to him he was going to expose all of them as corrupt oil people.
I don't quite understand the integrity or credibility of this line of attack.
p.s. Having an e-mail surely isn't a sign of a person's actual identity. (I receive tons of fake crank e-mails all the time.)
What city do you live in, Tao? Just call me curious.
(I'll also stick to my opinion that beneath the rationalizing, your chief if not only goal is to be published in as many venues as possible. Why not be honest about it? Putting a veneer over it is Eggers-style behavior.
Or maybe you're fooling yourself??)
Have a good day.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
i posted on this site that i had submitted and had accepted the story at more than one place
i did that before pindeldyboz said they were angry at me
i think chapman is right, though, overall
the universe has no answers, it has no rules, it doesn't know anything
i live in the universe
therefore i have no answers, i have no rules, and i don't know anything
yet i am forced to do things, to choose, and to know things
people learn about and accept these things as true i guess in existential philosophy, yet when someone actually says that they are an example of it people get angry or call you an internet lit blog nerd or whatever it was i was called
it should be obvious to everyone that no one knows what to do, no one is right, nothing is right or wrong, we are all fucked, it is impossible to avoid hypocricy if you are a conscious being, it is impossible for me to know any of these things, etc.
"What city do you live in, Tao?"
milford, pennsylvania
"(I'll also stick to my opinion that beneath the rationalizing, your chief if not only goal is to be published in as many venues as possible. Why not be honest about it? Putting a veneer over it is Eggers-style behavior."
i'm going to be very honest right now, because i always try to be
sometimes my goal is to gain as much power in the lit world as possible, sometimes my goal is to focus on real human beings that i can touch in reality as much as possible, sometimes my goal is to try to be as truthful as possible in the world, sometimes my goal is to try to reduce pain and suffering as much as possible in the world, sometimes my goal is to be as selfish as possible and get as much pleasure as possible for myself, sometimes my goal is to try to not care about identity and to destroy my own, etc., about a thousand more goals
and all these goals have probably occurred before within the same hour, if even just 'entertained' for a millisecond
there
i was honest
i want to be self-righteous for a moment*
i am a vegan
i don't eat animals or dairy products
i'm so considerate of living beings that i don't eat them
i spend my money on organic and vegan foods
i am helping the planet
i vote with every dollar
you vote to destroy the planet, destroy animals, destroy human beings, and cause pain and suffering
i vote to do the opposite of those things with my money
i mostly do not spend money on corporations
i vote to put the focus on human beings, not abstractions
king, does the ULA do that?
*disclaimer: i did this because i am bored and need new things to happen, i do not actually believe unsarcastically that i am 'better' than anyone, because 'good' and 'bad' don't exist independently of human beings
I kill everything I fuk cuz i'm a kunt sukin kannibal!
You're making a lot of assumptions about me, Tao, without knowing how I live.
My personal opinion is that you're a fraud from A to Z. My personal bullshit detector has been going off like crazy.
Just my own opinion, of course.
As I'm getting tired of scrolling down, my further remarks will be up shortly on my own blog. All are welcome to join.
Tao's own words ... wow:
"i want to be a child pornographer for a moment*
i am a child pornographer
i don't make pornography featuring adult men or women
i'm so fixated on young people that i do not not make pornographies featuring them
i spend my money on child pornography and vegan foods
i am helping the planet
i vote with every child pornography i make
you vote to destroy the planet, destroy unclothed children, destroy child pornography, and cause pain and suffering
i vote to do the opposite of those things with my money
i mostly do not spend money on corporations
i vote to put the focus on extremely young human beings on film, not abstractions
king, does the ULA do that?
*disclaimer: i did this because i am bored and need new things to happen, i do not actually believe unsarcastically that i am 'better of a child pornographer' than anyone, because 'bad child pornographers' don't exist"
king, i asked a question, that is not an assumption
my comment was stupid, it shouldn't have gotten a serious response
I can relate to what you guys are talking about. The "machine" sucks.
Sometimes, at night, the "machine" comes into my bedroom and picks my boogers and wipes it on the wall next to my bed. And I get yelled at because my mom thinks I did, but I didn't do it, it was the "machine."
Wow, crazy has been splattered all over the walls here.
shut up wells. everything bad that has ever happened to you, you deserved it.
Here's what people are saying:
Tao, I don't understand you. And I disagree with you.
Tao, how do you live without meat?
Are you a computer as you say?
Do you live off the dew, like the koala? They never touch ground, but live in the gum tree all their lives, a poor source of nutrition, the leaves of the gum tree; it's all they eat.
You can't be feeding off the logic of publishers. How do you live?
Hey tao if you're a gonna base your life philosophy on Sartre maybe you should read a book by the guy (which I think is a mistake bescause he was "wrong" [wrong here being like unable to create a foundation for a viable system or at least serve as a barricade against even "worse" ideas (those of Henr-Levi for example)])instead of just a pamphlet (hey actually it's a pamphlet for highschool students)
I agree with rbradley ... wells is a douche.
I don't agree with him about Tao though. It's like this is what people are saying: I understand you Tao. Are you a computer? Where is it? Can I go?
Anyway, if you don't understand Tao, and you want to, just read my blog - unless you want to be like rbradley who is always just eating out Chevy Chase's bottom and beating him off at the same time.
The King is dead, long live the King!
How pleased I am to have been notified that my arch enemy, old King Wenclas has resurfaced.
He was thought to have perished in the infamous slam poetry stampede of '05 alongside his compatriots Michael Jackman and Will Rat Blood but apparently he has the tenacity of a bad penny.
King, wherever there is literary injustice I know you will somehow surface to make it all the unjuster. But beware, king wenk, that I will be on the other side of the microphone and on the underside of the double-sided manuscrit page of gritty prose.
It is humorous to read through these posts and taste your seething hatred of Eggers and Moody once again. It never changes for you, does it? It's exactly as it was six years ago. grumble grumble grumble grumble RICK MOODY! grumble grumble grumble grumble I'M SO "STREET" grumble grumble grumble grumble I HATE DAVE EGGERS. and so on.
As for this interesting war of words, as a former literary journal publisher, I must take a middle of the road stance. Tao Lin -- you really screwed the pooch with your submission style. If I release an issue of my journal (never ever use the word zine, lest you be a confused ULA-er), I do not want to showcase your story at the same time someone else might be showcasing the same story. It's about as lame as when you see the same photo on the cover of the Daily News and the NY Post. That's my angle. From your own, you should think ahead and consider what a situation you would find yourself in if multiple outlets wanted your story and then you were forced to make a decision. Think the journal you have to let down easy will be happy about that? Unlikely.
As for "the bullet," the lethal Ms. Pastorek. La belle balle should know better than to start something along these lines -- but then again, Ms. Pastorek is always itching for a good literate sparring. Beware the late night/early morning emails. They're the crack in the armor.
A bientot.
-Johnny Toilet
If you don't think journals deserve prestige, then don't send to them.
If you don't agree with the rules of something, then don't take part in that something.
Magazines have rules, whether or not you think they're apt or out-dated - that's not your problem and it's not your business.
You have the right to not send to that magazine or you have the right to start your own magazine with its own rules.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
anything that results in ninety comments, one of which is twenty paragraphs long, can, in fact, be considered art.
good/bad judgements aside, what tao did is art. i really don't think anyone can dispute that.
tao created a situation, and people reacted in a way that is somewhat predictable, all the while raising questions about the way we function as writers.
as for people being hurt, and tao hurting people, i think it is the other way around.
the only person hurt by tao's actions is tao.
"suggest that you haven't been honest and considerate in your dealings with other people."
What is considerate about holding the rights on something if you aren't paying any money for it. That is not how capitalism works. That is how magaszines used to do it when they paid money for it.
In capitalism you buy something, you can keep it. You don't pay for it, you have no right over it.
"Which brings us to this -- your project to publish a piece simultaneously conflicted with your obligation as a decent person to treat others in your community with honesty and with respect."
What is that? I'm not even talking about literature. But what is that? What does that come from? That sounds like something a hippy would say high off of acid in the summer of 69.
"It's tempting to take the high road, and say that your art is more important than how you treat other people, or their feelings, or any respect you may owe them."
No, he's saying that if you don't pay for it, what gives you the right to it?
Why do we owe each other respect, we don't know each other. We live in 2006 America our president sends poor people to kill other people to make profits. Our business owners stil pay people $5.15 an hour. But we can't double submit?
"Because making decent or meaningful art ALWAYS involves coming up against some difficult barrier. This is the whole point, is it not? Isn't this part of what makes making art so challenging, and so rewarding when you pull it off, that you had to navigate so many tricky barriers? In fact, isn't it precisely those barriers that, when the artist finds a way around them, give the work of art its power?"
First, what does that mean? Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin played the game and the companies they worked ran them till they were dead.
Richard Yates played the game and no one cares he ever existed.
jean Rhys played the game and stopped fuckign Ford Madox Ford and lived unknown for thirty years.
Sartre played the game and fifty years someone found out he fucked his 14 year old step daughter and somehow the game he played perfectly dismissed his whole work of literature.
Bukowski and Kerouac didn't play the game and outsell Updike and Mailer.
"Yes, such barriers are often erected by society, and its conventions. Yes, it is the role of artists to question those conventions, and challenge them intelligently -- artists, pick your battles! -- but the truth is most of the conventions by which we live (treat others with respect, honesty, and consideration, to name three) are GOOD for the world, and are established in society for a reason."
If Tao wrote an article about double submitting than it would have never gotten published, if it did, it would be linked like twice from obscure bloggers, and nothing would have happened.
It is like those ECO Terrorists, who protested for years, write one article after another. And because nothing happened decided to blow some cars. Then 9-11 happened, and now those kids because they have NO voice, get five years in prison for one blown up SUV because of the Patriot Act.
This is a question of VOICELESSNESS.
"Pick a battle."
Good idea, battling people that learned how to debate in a classroom where no matter who won, nothing happened after. I've been to college, the teacher goes, "Now lets get two people with opposing sides."
They argue, the class stares, and nothing happens.
That is what would have happened.
NOTHING.
BECAUSE NOTHING HAS HAPPENED IN THE MAINSTREAM AMERICAN LITERARY SINCE THE COLD WAR.
The cold war destroyed american literature, and you don't even know it. What do you think would happen if your government told its academia to NOT TALK ABOUT SOMETHING for forty years.
Look, just look at the literary world since World War 2.
You sound like an MFA teacher that never got published.
"The challenge, it seems to me, is to be both a good artist AND a decent person. That is the mark of a great artist. The stereotype of the mysanthrope who is gently forgiven by society because he is a genius is not only a a sad model for anyone to follow in life, but also, thankfully, a cliche, by which I mean a false depiction, that is, unrepresentative of real artists in the real world (who are generally and by far the nicest and most decent people one meets)."
This paragraph is so sad.
So sad.
it sounds like, "Hey, I'm a normal person and i write normal writing, and it is normal but it impresses normal people, so quit writing so well and being weird, you are fucking up my shit."
And that isn't a cliche about genius. Proust, Faulkner, Hemingway, Joyce, Beckett, Woolf, were all completely fucked up people.
That's funny you write in all cliches, then suddenly when a cliche is anti-your being you are like that is a cliche.
Dude, you sound like those characters in movies who are always pissing off great people.
Tao, how do you feel, you are in a movie now?
Does it feel good that a McSweeney's person put you in a movie. Inside of the Great McSweeney's movie that has nothing to do with literature because none of their authors read and nobody actually reads their books.
But damn, you look cool with a McSweeney's book.
"Hi Tao,"
hi
"This post, and the earlier one involving Elizabeth Spiers, suggest that you haven't been honest and considerate in your dealings with other people."
true
"In an earlier post, you reprint an e-mail exchange with Elizabeth Spiers. The only point of the exchange is your allegation that she passed you over for a job without reading the sample blog entries you wrote as part of your job application."
no, it was to think about and discuss self-sabotage, whether or not it is a 'good' way to live
about her reading or not reading the blog entries, my opinion was not said, only the facts were shown
"The allegation, it turns out, is not true. In fact she did read your sample posts."
look at the facts; she said she did, i said the statcounter said she did not
"So, you maligned Elizabeth Spiers in public, by making a false accusation that she didn't do her job, when in fact she did."
i only showed the facts, i only showed the actual emails
"The heart of it is that you were concerned she wasn't reading the posts you had written, and you assumed she hadn't based on a site tracker you were using. Your anxiety about not getting the job led you to make an inaccurate assumption about the job she was doing."
no, can you read the title of the post outloud to yourself in your bathroom every night before bed?
read the title of the post
then read the post, only this time pretend that dave eggers had written it
the post is about whether or not a person can or should live one's life as if it were a pyramid scheme, always giving away with it in mind that things will be returned, with 'death' acting as the solution to the problem normal pyramid schemes have
"The considerate thing would have been to ask if she had had time to read your posts. She undoubtedly would have answered you."
uh, read the emails
i did ask
considerateness does not precede everything for me
james chapman said something about civil disobedience
is that when someone does something for the 'greater good' for the majority at the expense of the 'status quo' mindset of the minority?
considerateness does not preempt that for me
"In the post above you admit to misleading Pboz and a number of other publications about the nature of a submission you sent them. You basically mis-represented your work as unpublished, when you knew it had been or was about to be published elsewhere."
yes
i did this to bring attention to (1) myself and to (2) the idea of not having first serial rights for non-profit magazines; attention to (1) brings attention to (2) and vice versa
"Of course, as we know, had you been honest with these folks they most likely would not have published your story once it had appeared in the first journal to accept it."
i know
"Which brings us to this -- your project to publish a piece simultaneously conflicted with your obligation as a decent person to treat others in your community with honesty and with respect."
my obligation, most of the time, is to think as comprehensively (both in time and in inclusiveness) as possible with this worldview: to reduce pain and suffering
if i think about something and the facts conclude that something can be done to reduce pain and suffering then i will do that, i have no choice; if i choose not to do it my life is meaningless and i should, to match that, stop caring about anything, stop eating, and stop being alive
"It's tempting to take the high road, and say that your art is more important than how you treat other people, or their feelings, or any respect you may owe them."
i think it would be a nicer world if people treated people as people, without such abstract intermediaries as 'respect,' 'success,' 'getting ahead,' etc.
there are three ways, among many other ways, to live
1. focus only on other human beings
2. focus only on the advancement of oneself in abstract ways such as 'being respected,' 'being successful,' 'being worth a lot of money,' 'being seen as the editor of a really "good" literary magazine'
3. focus on both
99.9% of people live by (2), including me, at this point
there are degrees to it
my actions assumed that the world would be 'better' if more people lived by (1) or closer to (1)
"Because making decent or meaningful art ALWAYS involves coming up against some difficult barrier. This is the whole point, is it not? Isn't this part of what makes making art so challenging, and so rewarding when you pull it off, that you had to navigate so many tricky barriers? In fact, isn't it precisely those barriers that, when the artist finds a way around them, give the work of art its power?"
you assume that art is different than life
listen to me: one thing exists in the universe, and that is everything that is in the universe
you think in terms of 'reward' for making art
when i write a poem i like i do not feel rewarded
this isn't the world cup
also, what are you talking about?
your paragraph, about half the words were abstractions that you did not define, the other half were conjunctions and your phrase 'difficult barrier'
"Yes, such barriers are often erected by society, and its conventions. Yes, it is the role of artists to question those conventions, and challenge them intelligently -- artists, pick your battles! -- but the truth is most of the conventions by which we live (treat others with respect, honesty, and consideration, to name three) are GOOD for the world, and are established in society for a reason."
exactly
i am challenging the convention of first serial rights for non-profit magazines
i explained my rational, i used logic, i went through it step-by-step, had a dicussion with it on this blog with editors, and concluded that first serial rights put the focus on abstractions and insatiable abstractions (success, prestige, respect, etc.) rather than humans or the writing itself
whitney and others have defended first serial rights by saying that they are not hurting anyone, that they can have their own rules, and that they want to have a 'good' magazine
that is like me saying to someone
'slavery causes pain and suffering to black people'
then them saying, 'i am not hurting anyone that isn't already being hurt, i have my own rules since i started this plantation myself, and i want to have a good plantation'
"So, in making art you necessarily run up against these impediments. If you write a memoir you have to consider the feelings of the people you will write about."
i would consider the feelings of the people i am writing about, but i would be mathematical about it
if the memoir will help 1000 weak and depressed people and hurt the feelings of 5 powerful and happy peopl then i will write the memoir
"The challenge, it seems to me, is to be both a good artist AND a decent person."
'decency' is determined by society, which is a fleeting, always-changing thing, even determined by geography, family, and situation
'art' to me, and based on the rhetoric of like 99% of writers, is about death, limited-time, the mysteries of the universe, the problems of being and existence and arbitrariness, etc., which are constant and problems all people and animals have no matter what society they exist in
"That is the mark of a great artist."
your definition of a great artist is an artist who is a good artist and a decent person
when you use words like 'great' 'good' and 'decent' without defining them in concrete terms for specific situations you are assuming that either (1) there is a permanant and concrete definition for these words, much like 'moose' or 'bear' (2) the definition for these words is my own life, my own actions
since (1) is not true, you are just telling me that you are god, and that your actions determine the words 'great' 'good' and 'decent'
you are really just defining yourself, you are telling me what you think is 'great' 'good' or 'decent'
criticism of art is self-definition
art that does not exclude information is self-destroying
criticism is just an assertion of the 'self'
i assumed, by being against first serial rights, that the more 'self' there is the more pain and suffering will be in the world
without 'self' there is no such thing as 'success'
"More to the point, if you want to say society is unfair because it imposes restraints on you that make it difficult for you to be a great artist, I would say, first, welcome to the adult world, but second, what you are really saying is that, as an artist, you have limitations, but rather than address them, or find a way beyond them, you would rather shift the blame for them to the world at large."
i do not blame the world
i take one assumption, 'pain and suffering is bad' and impose that on the world
'pain and suffering is bad' blames the world
'pain and suffering is bad' does not blame itself
'pain and suffering is bad' does not say, 'maybe i am wrong'
in a comprehensive worldview it does say that, and i do say that, all the time, on this site, that i do not know anything, that no one knows anything, and that all actions and philosophies are equally based on assumptions
"This is not only the easy and cheap way out of the artist's dilemma, but also an unproductive strategy for anyone trying to grow beyond his or her limits, either as an artist or as a person."
why would anyone want to 'grow' as an artist or a person?
what does 'grow' mean?
what if rick moody wanted to be a buddhist monk?
he would grow by not talking anymore, not writing anymore
what if a buddhist monk wanted to be rick moody?
he would move to the suburbs, research the suburbs, make connections, write a book about the suburbs, use connections
please use specific concrete words
use nouns
if you don't i can't respond to you without also taking and participating in your worldview, which is that 'everyone is the same person with the same definition of all qualitative words'
"There is also the question of the worth of your project.
There doesn't seem to be much point in publishing a story in more than one place, because that sort of thing already happens. The New Yorker publishes stories from forthcoming collections. One of the first issues of McSweeney's published a story that had already appeared somewhere else. No one cared or paid much attention. Eggers made a joke about it in the introduction to his journal."
i already explained the 'worth,' or to be more precise, 'the effect' of what i did in these comments, in the post itself, in earlier comments, in that other thread, and in the comments of that other thread
"Stories get reprinted in anthologies that come out soon after the collection that contained the story. Aimee Bender had a story that was simultaneously in Stumbling and Raging and her collection Wilful Creatures."
i know
"This is not to say it doesn't matter -- it does matter. Journals have a right to demand unpublished material from their writers. It's just to say that there's not much that is novel, or meaningful, in demonstrating that something can be published in two places at once."
publishing at two places means the work isn't new, thereby damaging the journal's reputation and prestige and therefore damaging its readership
the art itself is not damaged, but gains more readers
the editor is damaged only if the editor cares about success, respect, and 'being an awesome editor of an awesome journal' and 'having ten thousand hits a month, awesome'
therefore the editor who cares only about the art will not mention 'first serial rights' in its submission policy
i just used logic
please look at the logic
just pretend dave eggers wrote that
"But my real point was going to be that when this does happen, it happens because editors and writers make that choice, based on their honest and informed dealings with one another, not because they have been tricked or lied to."
i'm not choosing anything
i'm looking at the facts and the facts, with the assumption that pain and suffering is bad and that abstractions and focus on the 'self' cause more pain and suffering, are telling me what to do
i still express doubt though
what about animals? what about if it would be better if all humans were destroyed? what about a lot of things
i never do not express doubt
you never express doubt
that is one difference between us
"In other words, try getting the same piece published in five different places with the willing consent of all five editors. Hey, David Sedaris can do it, why not you? Believe me, THEN you'll know that you've really written something."
yes, wouldn't i be awesome then?
i might even be 'great'
that is exactly all that i care about, isn't it?
to be so awesome and great
i would feel so rewarded and be a great artist
"Anyway, I've written this because your actions, and the ruckus they've caused, are interesting. They raise engaging questions about how literary journals operate, what consitutes a good literary project, how much talent you really have, etc. These are all interesting questions."
what questions?
all you've done with your comment is restate the submission policy of all literary magazines, used the phrase 'difficult barriers,' used the words 'great' 'good' and 'decent' without defining them, and told me that the rules of society exist because they are 'GOOD,' and lectured me on how i am not a great artist because a great artist challenges conventions but only conventions that are wrong, though all conventions exist, you say, since they are proven to be 'GOOD'
"I was engaged enough to think about them, and write out this response. It also seemed that by posting all of this on your blog, you invited exactly this kind of response. So I figure I had license from you to write this."
yes, thank you for this comment
this comment was what i saw on the literary magazines' web sites under their submission policies, and then thought about and discussed on this site
thank you for stating it in more words, with more abstractions, and with the phrase 'difficult barriers'
"But it also happens that what you are doing doesn't stand up as a work of art. It is, instead, a way of cheating around the limitations that, if you were to honestly navigate them, would make your art that much better and more meaningful in the long run."
why do i feel insane right now?
"Sincerely,"
i believe that
sincerity that doesn't include 'self-doubt' is fascist, hierarchical, and information-excluding
it means you seriously believe you are god, the universe has no mysteries, and everything is already known about existence, the universe, life, art, death, the individual vs. society, consciousness, morals, ethics, etc., the topics discussed, with no answers or conclusions, in probably all the literature you admire and praise
while reading s carman's post i felt a lull in my ability to think and reason. I began to feel like i was living in an earthly paradise, that everyone in the world was nice and considerate, that cliches were soothing and why would I ever want to question all the goodness brought on by convention and that that bastard Tao was disturbing me (us) from a great good slumbering sleep.
Mr. Cicero:
When it comes to THE GAME, can I play? I'd like to be the sporty racecar or the top hat, if you please.
My friend, you are somewhat naive to dwell upon the history of literature. All of the boldfaced names you drop have nothing on today's world and the literary environment. You're not going to find the answers in the battle plans of the past. All of those you name-drop were innovators. If you, yourself, wish to innovate, cover your gods with a crisp white sheet, my dear Quilty.
The most genius bit about your posting was the following:
"That's funny you write in all cliches, then suddenly when a cliche is anti-your being you are like that is a cliche."
But I doubt you truly realize what is so beautiful about it since you happen to be a victim of that greatest cliche: the anti-cliche cliche
Dropping the kids off at the pool,
Johnny Toilet
If you don't think journals deserve prestige, then don't send to them.
If you don't agree with the rules of something, then don't take part in that something.
Magazines have rules, whether or not you think they're apt or out-dated - that's not your problem and it's not your business.
You have the right to not send to that magazine or you have the right to start your own magazine with its own rules.
i can't comment here anymore
just leave your address here so i can go to your house so that we can fight in hand-to-hand combat until someone dies
that is the only way
facts don't work, logic doesn't work, only death matches will work, i think
If you don't think journals deserve prestige, then don't send to them.
If you don't agree with the rules of something, then don't take part in that something.
Magazines have rules, whether or not you think they're apt or out-dated - that's not your problem and it's not your business.
You have the right to not send to that magazine or you have the right to start your own magazine with its own rules.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
You know I always thought Whitney Pastorek was kind of cool. I also always thought that Tao Lin was introverted and awkward and kind of an uninviting prick. Back then of course I was trying to suck some dick and get in on the little movement he seems to be building with Bear Parade etc... I've seen a different side of him by reading "The Sky Is Blue And White..." and for the record I still think Pboz rocks, but I think it's weird how some websites are just content to have the same damn design for years and years. Like, sublte upgrades/improvements are okay. Well I'm ranting about stuff no one cares about.
i like the "bunny-rabbit world of lower-case letters"
if you google
the cute factor new york times
you will read
"new studies suggest that cute images
stimulate the same pleasure centers of the brain aroused by sex,
a good meal or psychoactive drugs
like cocaine"
Pindeldyboz has since folded. Tao Lin's career appears to be "alive and well."
Post a Comment
<< Home